A Comparative Study of Supervisory Control

Strategies for a Series Hybrid Electric Vehicle

Jianping Gao,Fengchun Sun, Hongwen He
School of Mechanical & Vehicular Engineering
Beijing Institute of Technology,
Beijing, 100081 P.R.C.
emails: gaojp@egr.msu.edu,sunfch@bit.edu.cn,
hwhebit@bit.edu.cn
Guoming G. Zhu, Elias G. Strangas
College of Engineering
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI,48824, U.S.A
emails: zhug@egr.msu.edu, strangas@egr.msu.edu
Abstract: To develop an efficient real-time supervisory control
strategy for a series hybrid electric bus, three kinds of popular
strategies were compared in principle; backward simulations in
ADVISOR were conducted for these strategies. Comparative
simulation results shows that thermostat control strategy makes
the internal combustion engine operate at its most efficient
condition; power follower control strategy is helpful to reduce
the battery usage, hence, reduce the power loss associated with
charging and discharging and extend the battery life; and the
equivalent fuel consumption control strategy proposed in this
paper provides a total system optimization between the engine
and battery efficiencies, leading to the best fuel economy.
Keywords: Series Hybrid Electric Vehicle, Supervisory Control
Strategy., Equivalent Fuel Consumption, Comparative Study
I. INTRODUCTION
Increasing concerns about global climate change and ever-
increasing demands on fossil fuel capacity call for reduced
emissions and improved fuel economy. Hybrid Electric
Vehicles (HEVs) are being given more attention due to their
inherent advantages of improved fuel economy with reduced
harmful emissions and better performance compared to
conventional vehicles. Among three basic kinds of hybrid
electric vehicles, the Series Hybrid Electric Vehicle (SHEV)
can have predominance as an urban transportation tool due to
its outstanding transient performance and simple architecture.
Improvements in fuel economy and emissions of HEVs
strongly depend on their supervisory control strategy [1]. At
any moment, the supervisory control strategy needs to
determine the power distribution between primary energy
converter (an internal combustion engine) and renewable
electrical storage (battery) system, so that the power
requirement and other constraints are satisfied, as well as fuel
consumption and harmful emissions are minimized. To
achieve the above objectives, many kinds of supervisory
control strategies for SHEV have been proposed and
developed in the past. These control strategies can be classified
into mainly three groups: thermostat (on-off) control
strategy[2], power follower strategy ([3],[4],[5], and [6]), and
power split strategy ([7]and[8]), including equivalent fuel
consumption control strategy ([9]) and minimization of power
dissipation control strategy[10].
In this paper, a series hybrid electric transit bus has been
chosen for the hybrid configuration. The bus powertrain was
developed in cooperation of Michigan State University,
Kettering University and TransTeq. The project was partially
funded by the Michigan Economic Development Corporation.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we review
the series hybrid electric vehicle systems. Section III reviews
the thermostat and power follower control strategies and
proposes the equivalent fuel consumption control strategy. The
comparison simulation results of all three control strategies are
presented in Section IV. Section V adds some conclusions.
II. SERIES HYBRIDELECTRICVEHICLE SYSTEM
In this section, the architecture and system parameters of
our series hybrid electric bus were introduced. Component
models of the main powertrain power source (the engine-
generator set and the battery) were built based on the
characteristics of the selected components. The engine-
generator set model was constructed based upon the efficiency
map obtained from fuel economy experiments of the diesel
engine and the performance experiments of the generator,
while the battery model was built based on an internal
resistance model and calibrated using experimental data from
charging and discharging performance tests. The basic cost
function of the energy management problem for the SHEV
was proposed based on the architecture, parameters and model,
which make it possible to propose an efficient supervisory
control strategy for our series hybrid electric bus.
A. Basic structure and parameters
Engine Generat or
Power
Control
Batt ery
Pack
Motor
Supervisory
controler
Pb
Pr Pg
Main Power Source Electr ic Driving Uni t
SOC
Power
Command
Figure 1. Architecture of a Series Hybrid Electric Vehicle
Similar to many other series hybrid electric vehicles, our
series hybrid electric bus studied utilizes the combination of
two energy sources, fuel and electricity, shown in Figure 1.
This bus has two different power sources, the main power
source (the engine-generator set) provides main power by
converting the fuels chemical energy to mechanical energy
Funded by the Michigan Economic Development Corporation
978-1-4244-2487-0/09/$25.00 2009 IEEE
using an internal combustion engine and then to electric
energy using a generator, the assistant power source (the
battery pack) acts as an electric power equalizer to provide the
rest of required power (positive or negative) through its
charging and discharging processes.
When a hybrid bus is under driving condition, based on the
power command from the driver and State Of Charge (SOC)
of the battery, the supervisory controller needs to calculate
overall power requirement
r
P
and the power requirement
g
P of
the main power source (engine-generator set) based upon the
specific control strategy used. The engine controller will adjust
its operation condition to produce the requested electric
power
g
P
for the electric driving machine; and the battery
supplies the remaining electric power
b
P , that is
g r b
P P P =
.
The total electric power of
g
P and
b
P is supplied to the
electric motor to drive or brake the entire vehicle so that the
vehicle will reach the desired speed.
Tablelists the main technical parameters of our series
hybrid electric bus.
TABLE I. PARAMETERS OF THE SERIES HYBRID ELECTRIC BUS
Item Parameter Value
Vehicle Total Mass 16500 kg
Fuel
Converter
Type Diesel Engine
Rated Power 171kW
Generator
Type Brushless PM
Rated power 100kW
Peak Power 150kW
ESS
Type Lithium Battery Pack
Rated Voltage 360V
Rated Capacity 90 Ah
Voltage range 300~420V
MOT
Type Brushless PM
Peak Power 300kW
Maximum Torque 1300N.m
Speed Range 0-5000rpm
B. Model of the main components of SHEV
1) Engine-generator set model
The electric power generated by engine-generator set
g
P
can be described by the following equations:
LHV s s e e s s e s s
H m T P T T = = ) , ( ) , (
1
g bus s s g mech g
I U T P P = = ) , (
2
where
s
T and
s
are engine output torque and speed,
respectively; ) , (
s s e
T and ) , (
s s g
T are the efficiency maps of
engine and generator; m and
LHV
H
are the fuel mass flow rate
and the corresponding fuel low heating value (a known
constant),
LHV e
H m P =
,
s s mech
T P =
, and
g
P are power of fuel,
engine mechanical power, and generator output power
respectively; and finally
bus
U and
g
I are the electric bus voltage
and generator current. Define
) , (
s s
T C
to be fuel economy of
engine-generator set in g/kWh [1].
( )
LHV s s e s s
s s
H T T
m
T C

,
1
) , (

3
Then the total fuel flow
g
is defined below.
s s s s s s e e s s g
T T C T P T C = = ) , ( ) , ( ) , (
4
where both engine speed
s
and torque
s
T are belong to a
set defined below.
) ( 0
max s s
T T
5
) , min( ) , max(
max , max , min , min , g e s g e

6
where ) (
max s
T is maximum engine output torque as a
function of engine speed;
min , e
and
max , e
are the minimum
and maximum angular speeds of the engine; and
min , g

and
max , g

are the minimum and maximum angular speeds of the

generator.
For a given engine, within the operational space defined by
equations (5) and (6), the engine efficiency map ) , (
s s e
T can
be obtained from engine fuel economy mapping tests, Figure 2
shows the engine efficiency map used in this paper, and
) , (
s s
T C and g

can be obtained from equations (3) and (4).

1000
2000
3000
0
500
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Speed (rpm)
Torque (N.m)
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
Figure 2. Fuel consumption of the engine
2) Battery model
Figure 3. Equivalent circuit in Rint model of a battery package
Of all the subsystems, the battery may be the least
understood, especially for the SOC estimation since the battery
performance is the outcome of thermally dependent
electrochemical processes that are quite complicated. There are
many models available in ADVISOR, including RC model,
Internal resistance model (Rint model), fundamental lead acid
model and neural network model [11]. In this paper, the Rint
model was used in our SHEV model due to its simplicity and
effectiveness for lithium batteries.
The electrical model in the Rint model consists of a voltage
source (open-circuit voltage, or VOC) and a resistor (internal
resistor
b
R ), shown in Figure 3. Both parameters are functions
of the State Of Charge ( SOC ), temperature ( T ), and the
current flow direction (e.g. if the battery is charging or
discharging), shown as equations (7) and (8).
) , ( T SOC V V
OC
=
7

>
<
=
0 ) , (
0 ) , (
b dis
b ch
b
I for T SOC R
I for T SOC R
R
8
The
SOC
for Rint model can be estimated by performing
ampere-hour counting, including Coulomb efficiency losses
during battery charging, as shown in equation (9).
max
max
) (
Ah
Ah Ah
SOC
Coulomb used

=
9
where
Coulomb

is the coulomb efficiency of the battery

pack ,
max
Ah is the maximum capacity of the battery pack
(ampere-hour), and
used
Ah
is the used capacity of the battery
pack defined below

<
>
=
)
)
0
0
0
0
b
t
Coulomb b
b
t
b
used
I dt I
I dt I
Ah

10
where
b
I is the electric current provided by the battery.
Based on the equivalent circuit in Figure 4, we can also get the
following equations:
b b b OC b b b OC b bus b
R I I V I R I V I U P
2
) ( = = = 11
b
b b OC OC
b
R
P R V V
I
2
4
2

= 12
where
b
P
is the electric driving power provided by the
battery. Additionally, in order to protect the battery,
SOC
and
charge and discharge current have to be limited:
U L
SOC SOC SOC
13
max , min , b b b
I I I
14
where
U
SOC and
L
SOC are the predetermined upper and
lower bounds of SOC for the battery,
min , b
I and
max , b
I are the
predetermined maximum charge and minimal discharge
current for the battery.
3) Energy management problem for SHEV
Figure 4 shows the architecture of our SHEV and its
energy flow. The power balance equation is stated below in
equation (15)
b g r
P P P + =
15
s
T
s

m g
I
b
I
bus
U
m
I
d
T
d

bus
U
Figure 4. Energy flow in SHEV
The energy management problem (or the supervisory
control problem) can be considered as an optimal control
problem that minimizes the following cost function subject to
the constraint equation (15).
) , ( min
) , (
s s
s s
T
T J

=
16
where

is the minimization cost function and

is the
engine operational range defined by equations (5) and (6). Let

equal to
g
defined in equation (4), and the optimization
problem becomes to minimize the engine fuel consumption.
The cost function can also be used to minimize the harmful
emissions, wasted power, and the combination of fuel
consumption and harmful emissions.
III. CONTROL STRATEGIES FORSHEV
A. Thermostat control strategy

= < <

= < <

=
1 ) 1 (
1
0 ) 1 (
0
) (
k S and SOC SOC SOC
or SOC SOC
k S and SOC SOC SOC
or SOC SOC
k S
g U L
L
g U L
U
g 17
Thermostat Control Strategy (TCS) is also called on-off
control strategy. Under this strategy, the engine operates with
constant power at its highest efficiency point; and it turns on
and off based upon the SOC of the battery. Let ) (k S
g
be the
on-off state of the engine-generator set. 1 ) ( = k S
g
implies that
engine is on; and 0 ) ( = k S
g
means that engine is off. The TCS
control logic can be expressed as equation (17), and the
corresponding TCS control power distribution is described in
equation (18) and (19).

=
=
=
1 ) ( ) , ( ) , (
0 ) ( 0
) (
, , , ,
t S T T P
t S
t P
g s s g s s e
g
g


18

>

<
=
U r
U L g r
L
b
SOC t SOC k P
SOC t SOC SOC t P t P
SOC t SOC
t P
) ( ) (
) ( ) ( ) (
) ( 0
) (
19
where
) (t P
g
and
) (t P
b
are the power distributed by the
engine-generator set and the battery, respectively; and the
pair
, s
T
and

, s
are the engine-generator set operational
condition that provides the best fuel economy.
B. Power follower control strategy
Figure 5. Power follower control strategy
The basic idea of Power Follower Control Strategy (PFCS)
can be described as follows. Let the engine-generator set as the
main power source, and the supervisory control is to adjust the
output power of the engine-generator set to follow the
vehicles driving power requirement. The engine-generator set
is active at almost all the driving conditions except for these
conditions when low driving power is required and the
SOC
is
higher than
U
SOC . The state control logic of engine-generator
set is based upon these thresholds shown in Figure 5, and the
corresponding power output is determined by equation (20).

<
=

=
|
.
|

\
|

+
+
>
=
>
=
=
L
g
g
U L
g L U
ch r
U
g
g
U
g
g
SOC t SOC
S
P
SOC t SOC SOC
S
t SOC
SOC SOC
P P
SOC t SOC
S
P
SOC t SOC
S
t P
) (
and 1
) (
and 1
) (
2
) (
and 1
) (
and 0 0
) (
max ,
min ,
20
Note that the girded area of Figure 5 is the hysteresis used
to prevent high frequency on and off operations of the internal
combustion engine, where
max , b
P is the power hysteresis limit.
One important factor needs to be considered is dynamics of
engine-generator set. That is, the rate of engine-generator
power output is limited between
min
P
and
max
P
shown in
equation (21).
where
ch
P
is charge power magnitude;
min , g
P and
max , g
P are
minimal and maximum engine-generator electric power
output.
max min
) ( P t P P
g

21
min ,
t t
off g

22
In PFCS, the battery pack works as a power equalizer
through charging or discharging itself. Its control logic is
described below.

=
=
=
0 ) (
1 ) ( ) (
) (
g r
g g r
b
S t P
S t P t P
t P
23
C. Equivalent fuel consumption control strategy
The above two control strategies are derived from basic
rules. The main advantage is that exact model is not required
for supervisory control, and therefore, they are simple and
robust. However, they are not optimized for the best fuel
economy.
In order to optimize the power split between engine-
generator set and battery to achieve the best fuel economy
possible, an Equivalent Fuel Consumption Optimal Control
Strategy (EFCOCS) is proposed based on the SHEV model.
At any moment, the electric energy discharged from the
battery needs to be recharged back to the battery in the future.
This is equivalent to certain fuel consumption of the engine-
generator set (e.g., positive fuel consumption). On the other
hand, the energy charged to the battery at any moment will
also be discharged from the battery to drive the vehicle in the
future. This is equivalent to certain fuel saving for the engine-
generator set (e.g., negative fuel consumption).
Since the operation conditions of a series hybrid
powertrain in the future are unknown, we propose to use the
equivalent fuel consumption for battery charge and discharge
operations, see equation (24).

< =
> =
=
0
0
b b bus ch b ch
b b OC dis b dis
b
I I U C P C
I I V C P C

24
where
dis
C
and
ch
C
are equivalent fuel economy of battery
discharging and charging defined in equations (25) and (26),
and
1

,
1

,
2

,and
2

are weighting coefficients based on

actual hybrid powertrain system and its operational conditions.
For this model, they are defined in Table .
)
2
(
1 1
L U
dis
SOC SOC
SOC C
+
+ = 25
)
2
(
2 2
L U
ch
SOC SOC
SOC C
+
=
26
TABLE II. CHARGE AND DISCHARGE COEFFICIENTS
1

0.000030 0.000055 0.000050 0.000050

Now the total fuel consumption at a given moment can be
expressed as the sum of actual fuel consumption of the engine-
generator set and the equivalent fuel of the battery. This
provides a unified representation of the energy used from both
the fuel and battery. The proposed EFCOCS control strategy is
the solution of the minimization problem in equation (27).
[ ]

< +
>

+

=
+ = =


0 ) ( ) , (
0
2
) ( 4
) , (
min
) , ( ) , ( min ) , ( min min
2 2
) , (
) , ( ) , ( ) , (
b g s s r ch s s s s
b
b
g s s r b OC OC OC
dis
s s s s
T
s s b s s g
T
s s
T T
I T P C T T C
I
R
T P R V V V
C
T T C
T T T J
s s
s s s s s s

27
The basic control strategy of EFCOCS is very close to that
of PFCS. The only difference is that, under the condition that
1 =
g
S and
U L
SOC t SOC SOC ) ( , the power required to be
provided by the engine-generator set is based upon the
optimization result of equation (27), say
opt s opt s
T
_ _
, as shown
in equation (28).
Similarly, the power output rate and the off time of the
engine-generator set should also be limited. And the battery
supplies the rest of the power requirement which is the same as
equations (21) to (23) for PFCS case.

<
=

=

>
=
>
=
=
L
g
g
U L
g
opt s opt s
U
g
g
U
g
g
SOC t SOC
S
P
SOC t SOC SOC
S
T
SOC t SOC
S
P
SOC t SOC
S
t P
) (
and 1
) (
and 1
) (
and 1
) (
and 0 0
) (
max ,
_ _
min ,

28
wheel and
axle <wh>
vehicle <veh>
serieshybrid
control stategy
<cs>
power
bus<pb>
motor/
controller <mc>
generator/
controller <gc>
gearbox <gb>
fuel
converter
<fc> for series
final drive <fd>
energy
storage <ess>
electric acc
loads<acc>
drive cycle
<cyc>
Figure 6. Backward Simulation model of Series Hybrid Electric Bus
IV. SIMULATIONRESULTS
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
0
50
100
S
p
e
e
d

(
k
m
/
h
)
Time (s)
Figure 7. FTP driving cycle
Based on the architecture and design parameters of our
hybrid bus, a backward SHEV simulation model was built in
ADVISOR [12] shown in Figure 6. FTP (Federal Test
Procedure) was selected for fuel economy evaluation under
actual driving conditions, shown in Figure 7. Three
supervisory control strategies, TCS, PFCS, and the proposed
EFCOCS, were simulated and evaluated using this model.
A. Power split between the engine and the battery
Figure 8 shows the power distribution between engine-
generator set and the battery for the three different kinds of
supervisory control strategies evaluated in this simulation.
For TCS, the output power of the engine-generator set will
be either zero or a fixed value no matter what the overall
power requirement is. This results the batterys output power
fluctuating over a large range (shown in Figure 8 (a)).
PFCS adjusts the engine-generator set output power to
follow the power requirement. Therefore, the battery provides
the least output power (shown in Figure8 (b)).
While in the case of proposed EFCOCS, the overall power
requirement will be split into the engine-generator set and the
battery based upon the proposed solution of the optimization
problem, so the engine-generator set operated at a much small
but efficient region (shown in Figure 8 (c)).
The averaged charge and discharge powers of three
strategies are listed in Table , which indicates that the TCS
strategy is the highest and PFCS one is the lowest, while the
EFCOCS strategy is between TCS and PFCS.
300 350 400 450 500 550 600
-200
0
200
300 350 400 450 500 550 600
-200
0
200
300 350 400 450 500 550 600
-200
0
200
P
o
w
e
r

(
k
W
)
Time (s)
Pr
Pb
Pg
Pr
Pb
Pg
Pr
Pb
Pg
Pr
Pb
Pg
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)-with TCS, (b)-with PFCS, (c)-with EFCOCS
Figure 8. Comparison of engines operation points
TABLE III. AVERAGED CHARGE AND DISCHARGE POWER
TCS PFCS EFCOCS
Average Charge Power (kW) 68.60 64.01 56.13
Average Discharge Power (kW) 69.68 65.04 60.82
B. Output performance of engine
Fuel economy and emission performance of an internal
combustion engine mainly depend on their operation points.
This directly affects the fuel economy and harmful emissions
of the hybrid bus.
In TCS, shown in Figure 9 (a), the engine operates at its
highest efficiency condition whenever it is turned on except
for during the transient conditions. This provides the highest
engine efficiency possible but may not provide the best overall
system fuel economy and emission performance.
In PFCS, shown in Figure 9 (b), the engines output power
follows the desired power possible to minimize the battery
charging and discharging operation at high current. That is, the
battery power efficiency is optimized. Therefore, the engine
operates in a region over the engine efficiency map.
While in the EFCOCS, shown in Figure 9 (c), the
efficiency of the overall system (the engine and the battery) is
considered, leading the engine operates in a smaller region
over the engine efficient map than that of PFCS.
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
27.7
27.7
31.7
35.7
39.7
41.7
42.7
(c)
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
27.7
27.7
31.7
35.7
39.7
41.7
42.7
T
o
r
q
u
e

(
N
.
m
)
(b)
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
27.7
27.7 31.7
35.7
39.7
41.7
42.7
(a)
Speed (rpm)
(a)-with TCS, (b)-with PFCS, (c)-with EFCOCS
Figure 9. Power distribution comparison
C. Output performance of the battery pack
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
S
O
C
With TCS
With PFCS
With EFCOCS
Time (s)
Figure 10. Comparison of battery SOC
Under the assumption that the power requirement can be
satisfied, a good control strategy should enable the battery
pack to have the following characteristics:
Firstly, the SOC of the battery pack should be varying
close to the target SOC level. This leads not only to have high
efficient battery charge and discharge but also to make sure
that the battery always has enough electric energy to meet the
powertrain power requirement in the future.
Secondly, the output voltage of the battery (equal to the
bus voltage) should be close to the rated bus voltage with as
small fluctuation as possible. This helps to extend the battery
life as well as other electric components.
Finally, charging and discharging the battery with high
current shall be avoided due to low charge and discharge
efficiency and reduced battery life.
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
300
350
400
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
300
350
400
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
300
350
400
B
u
s

V
o
l
t
a
g
e

(
V
)
With TCS
With PFCS
With EFCOCS
(a)
(b)
(c)
Time (s)
Figure 11. Comparison of bus voltages
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
-500
0
500
1000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
-500
0
500
1000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
-500
0
500
1000
C
h
a
r
g
e
/
d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

C
u
r
r
e
n
t

(
A
)
With PFCS
With EFCCS
With TCS
With EFCOCS
With PFCS
(a)
(b)
(c)
Time (s)
Figure 12. Comparison of bus current
From Figures 10 to 12, it is easy to see that in the first case
(TCS), the fluctuations of the SOC, battery output voltage and
current are the highest among the three control strategies. For
the PFCS case, the fluctuations are the smallest since the
engine-generator set output power follows the desired power
very well. The fluctuations in the last case (EFCOCS) are
between the other two strategies, and are very close to the
second one (PFCS).
TABLE IV. COMPARISON BETWEEN SIMULATION RESULTS
Control Strategy TCS PFCS EFCOCS
Initial SOC 0.6 0.6 0.6
Final SOC 0.7069 0.6184 0.6596
Fuel consumption after SOC
correction (L/100 km)
50.3 49.0 45.5
% Improvement to TCS 2.58 9.54
D. Fuel economy performance
Simulation results for fuel economy are listed in Table
It can be seen that among the three strategies TCS results the
highest fuel consumption. The fuel economy of this hybrid bus
can be improved 2.58% if PFCS is used, and EFCOCS brings
the best fuel economy improvement up to 9.54%.
V. CONCLUSIONS
Thermostat, power follower and power split control
strategies are the most popular real-time supervisory control
strategies for series hybrid electric vehicle. The equivalent fuel
consumption control strategy, is proposed in this paper.
Evaluation simulations of a backward series hybrid bus model
using ADVISOR were conducted for all three control
strategies. Results show that the thermostat control strategy
provides the best efficiency for the engine-generator set with
the worst overall system efficiency. Power follower control
strategy provides sustainable SOC with stable bus voltage.
This improves the fuel economy and the durability of the
battery and other electrical components. While the proposed
equivalent fuel consumption control strategy leads a
reasonable power distribution between the engine-generator set
and battery pack, leading the best overall fuel economy, the
improvement over TCS is 9.54%. Our future research shall
emphasize on the real-time implementation of the equivalent
fuel consumption control strategy to our hybrid electric bus.
REFERENCES
[1] P. Pisu and G. Rizzoni, A Comparative Study of Supervisory Control
Strategies for Hybrid Electric Vehicle, IEEE Transactions on Control
System Technology, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp 506-518, MAY 2007.
[2] N. Jalil, N. A. Kheir, and M. Salman, A rule-based energy
management strategy for a series hybrid vehicle, Proceedings of the
American Control Conference, pp 689-693, 1997.
[3] S. Barsali, C. Miulli, and A. Possenti, A Control Strategy to Minimize
Fuel Consumption of Series Hybrid Electric Vehicles, IEEE
Transactions on energy conversion, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp 187-195, MAR
2004.
[4] A. Konev and L. Lezhnev, and I. Kolmanovsky, Control Strategy
Optimization for a Series Hybrid Vehicle, SAE Paper 2006-01-0663.
[5] Z. Wang, W. Li, and Y. Xu, A Novel Power Control Strategy of Series
Hybrid Electric Vehicle, International Conference on Intelligent
Robots and Systems, Oct. 2007.
[6] H. He, J. Gao, and Y. Zhang, Fuel Cell Output Power-oriented Control
for a Fuel Cell Hybrid Electric Vehicle, Proceeding of American
Control Conference, 2008.
[7] S. Delprat, T. M. Guerra, and J. Rimaux. Control Strategies for Hybrid
Vehicles: Synthesis & Evaluation, Proceeding of Vehicle Technology
Conference, Vol. 5, No.58, pp3246-3250, 6-9 Oct. 2003.
[8] L. V. Prez and E. A. Pilotta, Optimal power split in a hybrid electric
vehicle using direct transcription of an optimal control problem,
Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, In Press, Corrected
Proof, Available online 24 March, 2007.
[9] G. Paganelli, S. Delprat, T. M. Guerra, J. Rimaux, and J. J. Santin.
Equivalent Consumption Minimization Strategy for a parallel Hybrid
Powertrains, Proceeding of Vehicular Technology Conference,
pp2076-2081, Vol 4, 2002.
[10] A. Kleimaier and D. Schrder, An approach for the online optimized
control of a hybrid powertrain. Proceedings of the 7th International
Workshop on Advanced Motion Control, pp215-220, 2002.
[11] V. H. Johnson, Battery performance models in ADVISOR. Journal of
power sources, Vol. 110 issue2, 22, pp321-329 August, 2002.
[12] T. Markel, A. Brooker, T. Hendricks, V. Johnson, K. Kelly, B. Kramer,
M. OKeefe, S. Sprik, and K. Wipke, ADVISOR: a systems analysis
tool for advanced vehicle modeling. Journal of Power Sources pp255
266, 110, 2002.