Control Engineering Practice 70 (2018) 50–62

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Control Engineering Practice

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conengprac

Modeling for drivability and drivability improving control of HEV

Christian Jauch a , Santhosh Tamilarasan b, *, Katherine Bovee b , Levent Güvenc b ,
Giorgio Rizzoni b
a
University of Stuttgart, Keplerstraße 7, 70174 Stuttgart, Germany
b
Center for Automotive Research, The Ohio State University, 930 Kinnear Road, Columbus, OH-43212, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: A hybrid electric vehicle has more than one energy source and switching between the two sources leads to
Drivetrain modeling significant drivability problem. Drivability is used to describe the comfort of driving a vehicle under a wide
HEV variety of operating conditions like tip-in, tip-out, and gear shifting. Vehicle drivability is one of the keystones
Drivability control of product quality and is refined aggressively to achieve product differentiation and market position. Specific
Drivability measures
aspects of drivability problems can be improved using modern control techniques. In this paper, a generic model
of the driveline of a plug-in hybrid vehicle is developed. Drivability evaluation indices have been developed and
were used for evaluating the drivability performance. Analysis and measurements of the actual components of this
vehicle followed by parameter identification based on experimental data are used to obtain a validated version
of the driveline model. A comparison of the driveline under consideration with changes in critical parameters
is presented to demonstrate the effect of these parameters on drivability. The paper then focuses on improving
the tip-in and tip-out drivability problem by proposing a control architecture consisting of an input shaping
feedforward control filter and a feedback controller around an inner disturbance observer loop. The proposed
controller is tested in both simulations and in experimental road tests and is shown to improve the drive quality
of the vehicle significantly.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The EcoCAR2 competition is a nationwide competition, in which
student teams redesign a Chevrolet Malibu to make it more economy
friendly in terms of emission and fuel consumption. Over three years,
the team first set their own targets, chooses its own design to meet
those targets and picked the corresponding components. It was also
the team’s duty to remove the old components from the car and install
the new components properly. Additionally, controls for different areas
were also designed by the team. The Ohio State University EcoCAR
competition team (Bovee et al., 2014) won the last competition with
its car. Still, there is some space for improvement in the drivability
of the car. Drivability can be defined as the response characteristic of
the vehicle to driver inputs under different driving conditions (Wei
& Rizzoni, 2004). To increase the consumer acceptance with respect
to drivability of the vehicle, the driver should feel as comfortable as
possible, which directly translates to a smooth response of the vehicle on
the driver’s inputs. Gear shifts, engine idling, braking, acceleration and
other driving conditions affect the drivability of a vehicle. This paper
is on improving the drivability during throttle tip-in and tip-out of a
hybrid electric vehicle by implementing a controller to smoothen the
acceleration response of the vehicle. A common method to smoothen
the acceleration response is to slowly ramp up the torque by using a
look-up table or a filter. With the usage of a feedback controller, a more
sophisticated approach is taken.
The OSU EcoCAR 2 vehicle, shown in Fig. 1, is a parallel hybrid
electric vehicle architecture featuring an electric machine (FEM, front
electric machine) and an internal combustion engine (ICE) in the front
powertrain and another electric machine (REM, rear electric machine)
in the rear powertrain. Additionally, the vehicle has an automated
manual transmission (AMT). With the chosen configuration, the vehicle
can operate in three different operation modes. The first mode is the
charge sustaining series mode, where the ICE is used to charge the
FEM and only the REM is providing torque to accelerate the vehicle
in electric rear wheel drive. The second mode is the charge depleting
mode, where the FEM and REM are both powering the vehicle in electric

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jauchchristian@googlemail.com (C. Jauch), tamilarasan.5@osu.edu (S. Tamilarasan), bovee.1@osu.edu (K. Bovee), guvenc.1@osu.edu (L. Güvenc),
rizzoni.1@osu.edu (G. Rizzoni).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conengprac.2017.09.014
Received 6 March 2017; Received in revised form 27 July 2017; Accepted 19 September 2017
0967-0661/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Jauch et al.
all wheel drive. In the charge sustaining parallel mode, the ICE and
both electric machines are connected to the wheels and, therefore, are
all influencing the drivability of the vehicle. More details about the
competition and the vehicle of the Ohio State University team can be
found in references (Bovee et al., 2013; Bovee et al., 2014; Bovee et al.,
2012).
Hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) like the OSU EcoCAR2 vehicle
can differ with the architecture of the powertrain. For example one
could distinguish between Series HEVs, Parallel HEVs or a combination
of both (Sabri, Danapalasingam, & Rahmat, 2016) or (Bayindir,
Gözüküçük, & Teke, 2011). Especially for the Series–Parallel HEVs, the
distribution of the energy is crucial. Therefore, a lot has been written
about the energy management system (also, see Sabri et al., 2016 for
a summary). The strategy used in the OSU EcoCAR2 is the equivalent
consumption minimization strategy (ECMS). ECMS uses optimal control
to minimize the consumed energy of the available power sources which
maximizes the range of the vehicle (Sciarretta & Guzzella, 2007;
Musardo et al., 2005; Sun, Sun, & He, 2017). In the case of the OSU
EcoCAR2, the power sources are the internal combustion engine and
the rear and front electric machines. For the OSU EcoCAR2 vehicle,
several models already exist. Bovee et al. already derived a model
of the vehicle which deals with the basic vehicle modeling including
fuel consumption and shifting strategy, while the model derived by
Hyde et al. deals with the design of the shock absorbers. None of
these available models are suitable for drivability issues. A dynamic
model of a conventional vehicle focusing on drivability can be derived
according to Eriksson & Nielsen, (2014) or Sun, Kolmanovsky, Cook, &
Buckland, (2005), which are presenting common techniques for deriving
a powertrain model. The presented model will be based on the technique
shown in Eriksson and Nielsen (2014). Of course, adjustments are
needed due to the structure of a hybrid powertrain compared to a non-
hybrid powertrain. Other approaches for hybrid electric vehicles are
discussed in Gao, Mi, and Emadi (2007), Awadallah, Tawadros, Walker,
& Zhang, (2017), Enang & Bannister, (2017). To derive a powertrain
model which focuses on drivability, the first step is to define drivability.
The Drivability of a vehicle is an important factor, that describes the
quality of the ride. Drivability is usually very subjective and depends on
the perception of the drivers. The evaluation is done by experienced
drivers by driving/observing the vehicle under different conditions
such as engine idling, take-off, acceleration, cruise, pedal tip-in/tip-out,
gear shifts transients and engine start/stop. During these conditions,
various behaviors such as jerks, vibrations, vehicle shuffle, hunting,
oscillations will be observed. This paper will focus on improving the
transient responses, namely pedal tip-in and tip-out behavior. There
are many literatures (Dorey & Holmes, 1999; List & Schoeggl, 1998;
Mo, Beaumount, & Powell, 1996) and measurement methodology that
are being formulated that tries to quantify the drivability parameters of
the vehicle, which are otherwise very subjective. Commercial packages
are available, which utilizes sophisticated neural network algorithm
that maps the experienced driver ratings of the vehicles under various
driving conditions, and quantifies the output (AVL List GmbH, 2010).
In this paper, the tip-in/tip-out behavior of the model will be evaluated
and the key parameters will be the amplitude of the acceleration and the
shape of the acceleration, as mentioned by Wei and Rizzoni (2004). The
delay and sag in the acceleration should be minimized and oscillations
need to be suppressed. Section 2 briefly recaptures the earlier work of
the authors which is relevant for the understanding of this paper.
The authors earlier work is a foundation of the presented pa-
per. Jauch, Bovee, Tamilarasan, Guvenc, and Rizzoni (2015) discusses
the derivation of the model in detail and first validation results. For sake
of completeness, the main steps are presented in this paper including
the derivation of the drivability metrics and the model. The controller
design is carried out in Jauch, Tamilarasan, Bovee, Güvenc, and Rizzoni
(2016) but again, the main steps are presented again. Based on the
model and the controller, more validation and controller test results are
presented in this paper, where the controller is tested on the real vehicle
instead of just in simulation.
51
Control Engineering Practice 70 (2018) 50–62
Fig. 1. Architecture of the OSU EcoCAR2 (figure from (Bovee et al., 2014)).
The objective of the presented work is to complement the previous
work of the authors in improving the drivability of the OSU EcoCAR
2 vehicle by creating a validated model and designing a feedback
controller. The paper complete earlier results by adding improved and
supplementary data. The validation data of the model is significantly
improved and completed and the designed controller in Jauch et al.
(2016) is backed up with more data taken from the actual vehicle. The
derived model will be limited to a fixed gear and mode. Switching is
not considered at this stage. Also, the controller design is not applicable
for the charge sustaining parallel mode. Designing a suitable controller
for the charge sustaining parallel mode as well as dealing with other
drivability phenomena’s like gear shift transitions need to be considered
in future work.
The organization of the rest of the paper is as follows. Drivability
measures are introduced in the second section. The driveline model
used in simulations and in controller design is presented in the third
section. Section 4 is a model validation study. The control architecture
proposed for improving the drivability of the EcoCAR 2 vehicle is given
in Section 5 along with simulation results and experimental results with
and without the proposed controller. The paper ends with conclusions
and recommendations for future work in the last section.
2. Drivability measures
As mentioned earlier, car manufacturers usually evaluate vehicle
drivability with subjective assessments and by having their experienced
test drivers fill out form sheets. These assessments are time and cost
intensive, limited in repeatability and not objective. In order to be
objective and repeatable, there are commercial softwares which are
expensive and is not easily accessible for academic researchers. Hence,
an in-depth view on drivability metrics was carried out as mentioned in
the prior work of the authors (Jauch et al., 2015)
The most critical signal to be utilized as a part of deciding drivability
is the acceleration signal of the vehicle. Four metrics are used as shown
in Fig. 2 in this work for a numerical assessment of drivability based on
acceleration response. The principal metric is the kick, which is defined
as the first negative direction amplitude of the acceleration oscillation
after the input is applied. The second metric is the jerk, which is char-
acterized as the initial five consecutive negative direction amplitudes
after the input is applied (AVL List GmbH, 2010). Sometimes, jerk is
also defined as the derivative of acceleration (Wei & Rizzoni, 2004),
yet previously mentioned definition is more important in drivability
examination as shown in Fig. 2.
Both parameters judge the smoothness of the acceleration after a
tip-in or tip-out. To have the ability to assess the speed of response of
the vehicle after the incorporation of drivability improving controller,
two more parameters are characterized. These are the initial bump
and the response time. The initial bump portrays the steepness of
the acceleration and is measured as the angle between the 𝑥-axis and
the initial acceleration after the input is applied. The response time
is the time delay between the application of the input and the first
recognizable acceleration increase, which is set to 0.5 m/s2 .
C. Jauch et al.
Fig. 2. Tip-In response from (Wei & Rizzoni, 2004).
3. Vehicle modeling
With the presented understanding of drivability and how it can be
measured, a mathematical model including the relevant phenomenon
is derived in this section. The modeling of the vehicle with respect to
drivability was already presented in Jauch et al. (2015). It uses the
modeling of a conventional vehicle as shown in Eriksson and Nielsen
(2014) as a baseline and adjusts the process to fit for a Hybrid Electric
Vehicle. First, the design of the EcoCAR2 is presented, afterward, the
mathematical model is derived by taking assumptions, analyzing the
structure of the vehicle and finally by deriving the equations.
3.1. EcoCAR2 design
The EcoCAR2 team of the Ohio State University decided to build a
Parallel–Series Plug-In Hybrid Electronic Vehicle. An 18.9 kWh lithium-
ion battery pack provides an all-electric range of 45 miles. The stock
internal combustion engine is replaced by a 1.8 L E85 engine (ICE) from
Honda. Coupled with a belt there is an 80 kW electrical machine in
the front powertrain (FEM), followed by a six speed automated manual
transmission (AMT). In the rear powertrain, there is the same electrical
machine (REM), connected to a single speed gearbox driving the rear
wheels. This configuration allows series mode, parallel mode and an all
electrical mode for charge depleting. A closer look at the car is given
in Bovee et al. (2012), Bovee et al., (2013, 2014).
3.2. Mathematical model
3.2.1. Assumptions
Due to the focus on tip-in and tip-out drivability only, the following
assumptions are made:
∙ The car stays in one operation mode
∙ The car does not shift gears
∙ The requested torques at the electrical engines is also the pro-
vided torque.
With these assumptions, clutches can be modeled as a rotating inertia
and a simple on/off switch with a constant value during one simulation
cycle. The assumption that the requested torque matches the provided
torque quite well was verified by the supplier.
52
Control Engineering Practice 70 (2018) 50–62
Fig. 3. Model structure: Simplified representation of the car.
3.2.2. Structure
Analog to Eriksson & Nielsen, (2014) and as presented in Jauch et
al. (2015), the model is a connection between spring–damper-systems
and rotating inertias. To model the hybrid vehicle, transmissions, and
switches to choose the current operating mode are added at the corre-
sponding places. The structure of the model is shown in Fig. 3. In the
front powertrain, a belt couples the FEM and ICE. Following the belt sits
the AMT. By disengaging the clutch 𝐶𝑙1 , the ICE can be disconnected
from the powertrain. Also, to set the car in charge sustaining series
mode, the whole front powertrain needs to be disconnected from the
wheels. This can be performed by actuating the clutch 𝐶𝑙2 directly in
front of the AMT. In the rear powertrain, the REM and the single-speed
gearbox are located. The front and the rear powertrains are treated
separately until they are connected to the vehicle body.
3.2.3. Model order reduction
The model presented above would contain eleven degrees of freedom
in charge sustaining parallel mode. To keep the derivation of the model
and later on the controller design as simple as possible, the order of the
model is reduced now rather than later. To reduce the order, adjacent
inertias close to the engines are combined and the attached springs
and dampers are removed. This approach is feasible due to the fact
that the shafts are already pretty stiff and a transmission increases the
stiffness by its factor squared. If a spring–damper system gets stiffer, the
frequency gets higher. The least stiff frequencies are close to the wheels
due to the lack of a transmission making the springs stiffer with respect
to the vehicle body. Also, the frequencies of interest are all below or
close to 10 Hz and therefore the dynamics close to the wheels are most
relevant. The spring connections at a parallel connection cannot be left
out because they are required to model the different operation modes
of the vehicle. Removing the shafts at the front electric machine, the
rear electric machine and the automated manual transmission results in
seven degrees of freedom in charge sustaining parallel mode as shown
in Fig. 4. It is notable that the transmissions are not removed from the
model but placed on the side of the wheels of the lumped inertias. For
the charge depleting mode, a model with a slightly decrease order is
available. Fig. 5 shows the structure of the model in charge depleting
mode containing six degrees of freedom. The charge sustaining Series
mode consists of only three degrees of freedom and is shown in Fig. 6.
3.2.4. Equations
To derive the equations of the model, the basic formula describing
the momentum of a spring–damper-system is applied. With respect to
Fig. 7, this yields
𝑇𝑘+1 = 𝑐𝑘+1 (𝜙𝑘+1 − 𝜙𝑘+2 ) + 𝑑𝑘+1 (𝜙̇ 𝑘+1 − 𝜙̇ 𝑘+2 ). (1)
Applying (1) at the inertias leads to
𝐽𝑘+2 𝜙̈ 𝑘+2 = −𝑇𝑘+1 + 𝑇𝑘+2 . (2)
C. Jauch et al. Control Engineering Practice 70 (2018) 50–62

Fig. 8. Vehicle body and the acting forces.

Deriving the equations containing transmissions is not hard and supplies

the missing set of equations to derive the mathematical model of the
Fig. 4. Model structure of the reduced model for the charge sustaining parallel mode. powertrain. Using Fig. 7 again yields

𝑇𝑘 = 𝑐𝑘 (𝜙𝑘 − 𝜙∗𝑘+1 ) + 𝑑𝑘 (𝜙̇ 𝑘 − 𝜙̇ ∗𝑘+1 )

𝑇𝑘∗ = 𝑖𝑘 𝑇𝑘
∗
𝜙𝑘+1 = 𝜙𝑘+1 𝑖𝑘
𝜙̇ ∗𝑘+1 = 𝜙̇ 𝑘+1 𝑖𝑘
𝐽𝑘 𝜙̈ 𝑘 = −𝑇𝑘−2 − 𝑇𝑘−1 + 𝑇𝑘
𝐽𝑘+1 𝜙̈ 𝑘+1 = −𝑇𝑘∗ + 𝑇𝑘+1 . (4)

This concludes the set of equations to describe the rotational torques.

However, the vehicle is moving in longitudinal direction, the torques
need to be converted into a translational force. This can be achieved by
utilizing the definition of a torque
𝑇Tires
𝐹Veh = . (5)
𝑟dyn

The forces at the vehicle are calculated with respect to Fig. 8

Fig. 5. Model structure of the reduced model for the charge depleting mode.
which includes aerodynamic drag forces, rolling resistance and grade
resistance on the vehicle in the longitudinal direction. Using (5) and the
forces shown in Fig. 8 yields
𝑇x,f + 𝑇x,r − 𝑇b,f − 𝑇b,r
𝑚veh 𝑎veh = − 𝐹res . (6)
𝑟dyn
𝑇x,f is the torque provided by the front electric machine and the internal
combustion engine at the front tires, while 𝑇x,r is the counterpart for
the rear powertrain where the torque is provided by the rear electric
machine. 𝑇b,f and 𝑇b,r are the brake torques at the front and rear wheels,
respectively. 𝐹res contains all considered resistive forces at the vehicle

Fig. 6. Model structure of the reduced model for the charge sustaining series mode. 𝐹res = 𝐹r,f + 𝐹r,r + 𝐹drag + 𝑚veh 𝑔 sin(𝜃). (7)

The model is then completed by adding friction forces to the power-

train as well as backlash the front and rear axle, which is modeled
after (Lagerberg & Egardt, 2007). The backlash represents a lumped
backlash for the front and rear powertrain, respectively.

3.2.5. State space representation

Fig. 7. Sketch showing a parallel connection and a transmission.
For controller design, a state space representation of the model is
desirable. The derivation of the state space is briefly shown in charge
sustaining parallel mode, but can be easily adapted to the other vehicle
modes. In order to get a state space representation, the parameters are
first linearized. Then, the state space is defined as

𝑥 = [𝜙1 𝜙2 … 𝜙7 𝜙̇ 1 𝜙̇ 2 … 𝜙̇ 7 ]. (8)

With (1) and (2), some equations of the model are already derived by ap- With that state and the linearized equations, the dynamic matrix 𝐴
results in
plying these equations to all series connections without a transmission. [ ]
Applying these to parallel connections is also possible, but changes them 0 1
𝐴= (9)
slightly. Again, with respect to Fig. 7, 𝐽𝑘 changes to 𝐴𝑐 𝐴𝑑

with 𝐴𝑐 containing the stiffness of the springs divided by the inertias

𝐽𝑘 𝜙̈ 𝑘 = −𝑇𝑘−2 − 𝑇𝑘−1 + 𝑇𝑘 . (3) and 𝐴𝑑 containing the damping coefficients divided by the inertias.

53
C. Jauch et al. Control Engineering Practice 70 (2018) 50–62

Table 1 5. Model validation

Stiffness and damping coefficients for selected parts.
Part Length Diameter Stiffness Damping With a mathematical model available and the parameters of the
l [m] d [m] c [Nm/rad] d [Nms/rad]
model identified, a validation with the OSU EcoCAR2 vehicle can be
Clutch shaft 0.11 0.02155 15 400 538
performed. The validation is done in every operating mode, the charge
FEM shaft 0.105 0.04 191 490 6684
sustaining series mode, the charge sustaining parallel mode and the
charge depleting mode. In every mode, a tip-in and a tip-out are
performed and the acceleration, as well as the velocity signals, are
The linearized forces at the vehicle body also need to be included
compared. To rate how well the model performed, the following metrics
for the corresponding states. The model input is 𝑇req , which is the are used.
overall requested torque from the driver. Therefore, the inputs in charge In section two, the acceleration signal is identified as the most
sustaining parallel mode can be described with a one-dimensional vector relevant signal for the drivability during tip-ins and tip-outs. Therefore,
which only nonzero elements are the acceleration of the model 𝑎sim needs to match the acceleration signal
𝑏(𝑡)1 of the experimental vehicle 𝑎meas as accurate as possible. To check this,
𝑏(8) =
𝐽𝐹 𝐸𝑀 the quadratic error is used
𝑏(𝑡)2 √
𝑡0
𝑏(12) = 1
𝐽𝐼𝐶𝐸 |𝑎|rms = (𝑎 − 𝑎sim )2 𝑑𝑡. (15)
𝑡sim − 𝑡0 ∫𝑡sim meas
𝑏(𝑡)3
𝑏(13) = (10)
𝐽𝑅𝐸𝑀 Also, to identify offsets in the acceleration signal, the mean relative error
of the velocity signal is compared with
𝑏(𝑡)𝑛 represents the torque split of 𝑇req which is handled by the ECMS,
𝑡0 |𝑣
compare with C. Musardo, (2005). In charge depleting mode, the matrix 1 meas − 𝑣sim |
|𝑣|rel = 𝑑𝑡. (16)
𝑏 has the size (12, 1) and the torque split can be described with the 𝑡sim − 𝑡0 ∫𝑡sim |𝑣meas
constant 𝑘 where one part of the power is supplied by one electric
The authors considered an |𝑎|rms below 0.5 m/s2 and a |𝑣|rel below 5% as
machine and the rest by the other electric machine. In charge Sustaining
a valid model. In the following, the vehicle settings and the experiments
Series mode there is no torque split and all of the requested torque need
executed for the validation are described and exemplary results are
to be supplied by the rear electric machine. For the output of the model,
presented.
the velocity of the vehicle, state 𝑥11 is used, leading to a matrix 𝐶 with
only one corresponding entry and a matrix 𝑑 where every entry is zero.
5.1. Charge sustaining series mode
This leads to the state space representation

𝑥̇ = 𝐴𝑥 + 𝑏𝑢 In charge sustaining series mode, the vehicle is only driven by the

𝑦 = 𝐶𝑥 + 𝑐𝑢.
Since the state space models purpose is controller design only, backlash,
friction forces and nonlinearities are ignored completely. If a state space
representation including these forces is desired, one can derive the
nonlinear state space representation including these forces utilizing the
standard representation
𝑥̇ = 𝐴𝑥 + 𝑏𝑢 + 𝑓 (𝑥, 𝑢)
𝑦 = 𝐶𝑥𝑑𝑢 + ℎ(𝑥, 𝑢).
4. Identification
The identification uses some parameters already available from the
supplier. These values are considered correct to a satisfying degree.
Parameters not supplied by the supplier are guessed based on their
geometric dimensions. The values known from the suppliers include
the gear ratio’s, the engine inertias, and the tire model coefficients.
To derive the stiffness of the tires, the magic formula from Pacejka &
Bakker, (1992) is used. To identify the remaining inertias, the formula
𝑚𝑟2
𝐽=
2
gives a good estimation of the inertias in the powertrain and requires to
measure the mass 𝑚 and the radius 𝑟 of the inertias. By measuring the
diameter 𝑑 and the length 𝑙 of the axles, a stiffness 𝑐 can be calculated
with
𝑑 4 𝜋𝐺
𝑐=
32𝑙
with 𝐺 being the shear modulus. Identifying the damping coefficients
𝑑 is done by using a linear mapping from Mathworks, (2014). Some
identified parameters are given in Table 1.
rear electric machine. The front electric machine is used to load the
(11)
battery with the energy produced by the internal combustion engine.
While all three engines are running, the front and rear electric machine
and the internal combustion engine, only the rear electric machine
is connected to the wheels due to the disengaged clutch at the front
powertrain. Therefore, only the rear powertrain is considered in the
model for this mode. In every experiment, the vehicle started from
a resting position and was accelerated with a tip in. Then, when the
vehicle was reaching a smoother state, a tip-out was performed by
(12) releasing the pedal as swiftly as possible.
The recordings of one of the experiments in charge sustaining series
mode are shown in Fig. 9. The above introduced metrics amount to
0.872% for |𝑣|rel and 0.216 m/s2 for |𝑎|rms . The relative deviation of
less than one percent with respect to velocity is for our purpose very
suitable, as well as the low root mean square of the acceleration. Also,
the data presented in Fig. 9 match quite well. The amplitude of the
oscillations after the tip-out is obviously too small, but due to the
matching frequency, this is not an issue for the purpose of the model.
The frequency is shown in Fig. 10 and matches very well for the very
slow frequencies, which can be expected. The most important frequency
occurs at about 10 Hz and both peaks are at almost the same frequency,
matching not perfectly but to a satisfying degree. The lack of amplitude
was already visible and briefly discussed in the time plot.
(13)
5.2. Charge depleting mode
In charge depleting mode, the same experiment is conducted. The
time plot is shown in Fig. 11 where good agreement between the vehicle
data and the model data can be observed. The interesting characteristics
of the vehicle are captured in the model, which is backed up by the
(14)
norms. |𝑣|rel is with 1.9157% smaller than two percent and |𝑎|rms is with
0.2232 m/s2 still very low. The acceleration signal matches to a satisfying
degree. The relevant response frequencies are matching between the
measured and simulated data well enough (see Fig. 12).

54
C. Jauch et al.
Fig. 9. Validation data for charge sustaining series mode showing the acceleration signal, velocity signal and the input torques.
Fig. 10. Validation data for charge sustaining series mode showing the frequency.
5.3. Charge sustaining parallel mode
Using the same experiment routine, the model is validated in charge
sustaining parallel mode. The time plot in Fig. 13 does not show any
major deviations and the metrics amount to 0.843% for |𝑣|rel and 0.381
m/s2 for |𝑎|rms , which are again quite good results. Taking a look at
the frequency plot in Fig. 14 also shows a good agreement between
the model and the recorded data. Additionally to the first frequency
at around 11 Hz, a second major frequency can be seen around 4 Hz.
In all modes, small deviations between the experiment and the model
with physically identified parameters can be recognized. However, in
all experiments conducted, the deviations are within an acceptable
tolerance and improving the parameters for one experiment worsens
them in another. Therefore, the deviations might occur from either
55
Control Engineering Practice 70 (2018) 50–62
phenomenon not considered in the model or too simplified modeling
of specific phenomena. As can be seen later in the paper, this is not an
issue for the controller design and is therefore acceptable.
5.4. Validation of controller design model
The validated model contains nonlinearities. For the controller
design process, a linearized model is preferred. At the end of the
vehicle modeling section, a linearized model was already derived. Now,
a nonlinear model validated with experimental vehicle data and a
linearized model based on the nonlinear model is available. To verify
that the linear model is acceptable as a baseline for the controller design
process, the nonlinear model and the linear model are compared. With
the driveline oscillation behavior, including frequency and damping,
being the most important factor in the controller design process the
focus is set to exactly this behavior in the comparison. The linearized
model is also called the control design model in the following. The
comparison is done by applying a step input. Fig. 15 shows the output
of the linear and the nonlinear model in charge depleting mode. With
the focus being on the frequency, amplitude, and damping, the linear
model fits the nonlinear model very well. The offset of the steady state is
due to the neglecting of the nonlinear resistive forces like air resistance
and rolling resistance. As can be seen in the figure, the validation model
is continually decreasing the acceleration while the controller design
model continues with the same acceleration. Also, the amplitude in
detail is not crucial for the controller and can be therefore accepted
as it is. With this knowledge, the assumption of using the linearized
model for the controller design process can be considered valid and the
controller design process is simplified significantly.
6. Drivability improving controller design and testing
6.1. Controller design
As proposed in Jauch et al. (2016), the controller architecture is
chosen to be an input shaping controller complemented by a feedback
controller and a disturbance observer (Aksun Güvenç, Güvenç, &
C. Jauch et al.
Fig. 11. Validation data for charge depleting mode showing the acceleration signal, velocity signal and the input torques.
Fig. 12. Validation data for charge depleting mode showing the frequency.
Karaman, 2009; L. Güvenç, 2017) inner loop used for model regulation
and disturbance rejection. The block diagram of the proposed controller
architecture is shown in Fig. 16. The benefit of an input shaping
controller is that the perfect, or shaped, input to the controlled system is
approximated by knowing the system dynamics and the desired output
of the system. The input shaping filter improves the bandwidth of
the overall system by using a preview of the known input. Of course,
the calculation of the perfect input based on the desired output of
the system only works perfectly in a perfect world and therefore,
a feedback controller and disturbance observer is added. The input
shaping is a feedforward controller and inverts the dynamics of the
system. Therefore, the input shaping controller is not robust with respect
to plant model uncertainty. To challenge these uncertainties, an inner
disturbance observer loop is proposed around the driveline dynamics
56
Control Engineering Practice 70 (2018) 50–62
modeled as 𝐺(𝑠). The closed loop is called the desired driveline dynamics
and denoted by 𝐺n (𝑠), which already rejects the external disturbances
𝐷(𝑠). The driver of the vehicle controls the speed of the vehicle with
the throttle pedal. The throttle pedal input 𝛼 is then converted into
a desired acceleration 𝑎d with a lookup table. Now, the necessary
inputs required by the feedforward controller are available and the
feedforward controller 𝐺ff (𝑠) is chosen as
𝑄(𝑠)
𝑢d = 𝐺ff (𝑠)𝑎d = 𝑎 . (17)
𝐺n (𝑠) d
To ensure causality of the transfer function, the filter 𝑄(𝑠) represents
a second order Bessel filter. The filter performed best with a cutoff
frequency of 69 Hz. The result of Eq. (17) is the shaped input 𝑎d , the de-
sired acceleration. The transfer function of the feedforward controller
is evaluated offline. Now, the inner feedback loop is considered. To
regulate the actual driveline dynamics 𝐺(𝑠) to the desired model 𝐺n (𝑠),
an inner disturbance observer loop is used. The transfer function 𝐺n (𝑠)
is obtained by applying the linearized state space model as described in
Section 3 to the equation
𝐺n (𝑠) = 𝐶(𝑠𝐼 − 𝐴)−1 𝐵 + 𝐷. (18)
Then, the disturbance observer is implemented according to Aksun
Güvenç & Güvenç, (2002), Aksun Güvenç et al., (2009). Its purpose
is to counter modeling errors and disturbances 𝐷(𝑠) occurring in the
bandwidth of the filter 𝑄(𝑠) and regulate the driveline dynamics 𝐺(𝑠)
to the desired dynamics 𝐺n (𝑠). The disturbance observer compensated
plant is denoted as 𝐺̃ n (𝑠) here and is given by
𝐺𝐺n (1 − 𝑄)𝐺n
𝑎meas = 𝑢 + 𝐷 (19)
(1 − 𝑄)𝐺n + 𝑄𝐺 in (1 − 𝑄)𝐺n + 𝑄𝐺
C. Jauch et al. Control Engineering Practice 70 (2018) 50–62

Fig. 13. Validation data for charge sustaining parallel mode showing the acceleration signal, velocity signal and the input torques.

where 𝐺̃ n is the disturbance observer compensated driveline dynamics.

Again, with 𝑄 becoming close to 1 within its bandwidth, 𝐺̃ n becomes
𝐺n and the transfer function in Eq. (21) becomes 1. The measured
acceleration will follow the desired acceleration with the proposed
controller. The feedback controller 𝐺̃ fb is chosen as a PD controller
here.
The disturbance observer output signal 𝑢comp is calculated as
𝑄(𝑠)
𝑢comp = 𝑄(𝑠)𝑢1 − 𝑎 . (22)
𝐺n (𝑠) meas

6.2. Performance of the controller in charge sustaining series mode

To challenge the performance of the controller, a step tip-in was

Fig. 14. Validation data for charge sustaining parallel mode showing the frequency.
with
𝐺𝐺n
𝐺̃ n ≡ (20)
(1 − 𝑄)𝐺n + 𝑄𝐺
where 𝐺̃ n is the regulated driveline dynamics. While in the bandwidth of
the filter 𝑄 becomes 1 and 𝐺̃ n becomes equal to the desired dynamics 𝐺n .
While in the bandwidth of the filter. Also, the second transfer function
in (19) is the disturbance rejection which results in zero when 𝑄 is 1
(perfect disturbance rejection). In the bandwidth, 𝑄 is getting close to
1 and good model regulation and disturbance rejection can be achieved
with the proposed controller. The transfer function of the overall system
from the desired acceleration to the measured acceleration is obtained
as
𝑎meas 𝐺̃ 𝑄 + 𝐺n 𝐺fb
= 𝑛 , (21)
𝑎des 𝐺n 1 + 𝐺̃ n 𝐺fb
applied as a simulation input. The results are presented and discussed
in this paragraph. The plots show the reference input and the controlled
and uncontrolled responses. for a better understanding of the perfor-
mance of the controller, the control signals and the torque inputs to the
driveline are also shown.
Fig. 17 shows the simulation results. The feedforward controller
performed the main control task whose output is labeled as 𝑢d , while the
contribution to the overall controlled input of the disturbance observer
𝑢comp and the PD controller 𝑢pd was smaller. The controlled acceleration
signal shown in blue contains significantly damped oscillations as
compared to the uncontrolled system which is shown in red. Using
the metrics introduced in Section 2, this observation can be confirmed.
The kick value decreased from 2.66 m/s2 to 0.5 m/s2 and the jerk
decreased from 4.58 m/s2 to 1.27 m/s2 . Both metrics show significant
improvement in the controlled model over the uncontrolled model. The
improvement in drivability comes with a cost in the other metrics. The
response time increases by 0.05 s in the simulation with the controlled
model, while the initial bump decreases by one degree to 88◦ . The
sacrifice in responsiveness is minor to the gain in drive quality with
the controller.
6.3. Performance of the controller in charge depleting mode
The torque split in charge depleting mode is split with a fixed ratio 𝑘,
making the necessary changes to the model quite easy. With 𝑇req being

57
C. Jauch et al.
Fig. 15. Comparison between validation model and controller design model.
Fig. 16. Block diagram of the controller architecture.
the requested torque, the input at the rear electric machine is 𝑘𝑇req and
the input at the front electric machine is (1 − 𝑘)𝑇req .
In Fig. 18, the same trend as in charge sustaining series mode can be
observed. Again, the feedforward controller is providing the biggest part
of the torque to the input, while the disturbance observer is responsible
for the steady state. The PD controller is only active at the time the input
is applied and provides the smallest part. Also, the metrics improved
significantly again. The kick is reduced from 1.072 m/s2 to 0.38 m/s2
and the jerk decreased from 4.3 m/s2 to 0.803 m/s2 by adding the
controller. This improvement of drive quality comes at a cost. The initial
bump decreased by a bit more than one degree from 89.1◦ to 87.8◦ in
the controlled system. The increase in the response time is bigger than
in charge sustaining series mode with 0.06 s. The oscillations in the
acceleration signal confirm the improvement in the metrics due to the
smoothing in the controlled system. The controller increases the drive
quality at a small cost. The gain in drive quality is superior to the loss
58
Control Engineering Practice 70 (2018) 50–62
in responsiveness and therefore, the performance of the controller is
improving the drivablity of the vehicle significantly.
7. Experimental results
Before the controller was implemented and tested in the vehicle,
tests to ensure basic functionality and real-time implementability of
the controller were conducted on a hardware-in-the-loop system. After
successful testing, the controller was implemented in the vehicle. The
implementation was done on a dSPACE microautobox and experimental
verification tests were conducted which results are presented in this
section. Both experiments contain a tip-in followed by a tip-out. The
testing was performed on a test track. The results for charge sustaining
series mode is shown in Fig. 19. The desired acceleration 𝑎des is shown in
red, while the actual response of the vehicle is shown in blue. Measuring
the jerk is not possible due to the noise of the measurement being greater
than the actual jerks. The kick can be measured to 0.27 m/s2 , which is
C. Jauch et al.
Fig. 17. Controller in charge sustaining series mode.
very good. The tip-out also shows very good results. Again, the gain
in drive quality comes with a cost in the responsiveness in the vehicle.
The response time is 0.159 s, while the initial bump decreases to 53.6◦ .
However, these results are still quite acceptable and the drive quality
improved significantly.
The same experiment was also conducted in charge depleting mode.
The results can be seen in Fig. 18, where again very good results can be
seen. Again, the kick and jerk vanish almost completely within the noise.
A kick of an amplitude with 0.18 m/s2 can be measured, but no jerk.
Again the response time is increased and therefore the responsiveness
of the vehicle decreased with a response time of 0.196 s. The initial
bump is 73.2◦ . The tip-out performs also very well. It seems plausible
that optimizations in the implementation of the controller could increase
the responsiveness of the vehicle with no loss in drive quality. Still, the
significant improvement of the drive quality by the controller is worth
more than the loss in responsiveness (see Fig. 20).
8. Conclusion and future work
First, metrics to measure drive quality were introduced. Then, the
paper presented a method to derive a model of a hybrid electric vehicle
powertrain with a complex architecture by utilizing knowledge from the
modeling of conventional vehicle powertrains. The proposed method
was executed at the Ohio State Teams EcoCAR 2. Validation showed
good agreement of the model and the vehicle with respect to the drive
quality. By linearizing the model and comparing the nonlinear and
the linear model, a simplified controller design model was derived.
With this model, a controller was designed. The controller architecture
featured an input shaping feedforward controller, a feedback out by
the feedforward controller in a perfect world. The feedback part of the
controller takes care of all the unperfect phenomena like model uncer-
tainties and external disturbances. The controller was then tested first
59
Control Engineering Practice 70 (2018) 50–62
in simulation, which showed good results. Before the implementation
on the vehicle was done, the controller was tested on an HIL. Road tests
with the controller also showed that the drive quality of the vehicle is
significantly improved by the controller. Although the responsiveness
of the controller and an inner disturbance observer loop. With the
inversion of the system transfer function, the desired output can be used
to calculate the perfect input for the vehicle, and the massive gain in
drive quality is worth the cost.
In conclusion, the derived model and the designed controller is work-
ing as intended. The drivability of the vehicle has improved significantly
with the implemented controller. Also, the drivability metrics have
proved themselves as very useful. With the drivability metrics in mind,
the derived model was sophisticated enough for the controller design.
Using the inverted transfer function for the feedback controller design
does not require a very exact model due to the additional feedback loops.
Therefore, the usage of physical measurements of the vehicle for the
parameter identification was sufficient and resulted in the presented
model. The ability to adapt the model to other HEVs or expand the
model to include other phenomena is also an advantage of the presented
methodology. Of course, the linearization of the model needs to be
checked after altering the model.
In the presented work, the drive quality only considered the tip-in
and tip-out in a fixed gear and mode. In a next step, the controller
needs to be designed and implemented in charge sustaining parallel
mode to improve the tip-ins and tip-outs in all available modes. Next,
the term drive quality contains more than tip-ins and tip-outs like gear
shifting, mode switching, and engine idling. In future work, the model
could be expanded to contain clutches and gear changes. Especially with
the introduction of clutch actuation, severe drive quality problems are
introduced (See Hwang, Yang, Choi, Kim, & Hwang, 2011; Szadkowski,
1991). The designed controller lacks the adaptability to charge sustain-
ing parallel mode due to the fact, that the torque split in that mode
C. Jauch et al. Control Engineering Practice 70 (2018) 50–62

Fig. 18. Controller in charge depleting mode.

Fig. 19. Experimental data in charge sustaining series mode.

60
C. Jauch et al. Control Engineering Practice 70 (2018) 50–62

Fig. 20. Experimental data in charge depleting mode.

∗ 𝑑1∗
is nontrivial. With some generalizations, i.e. assuming that the ICE is ⎡ 𝑑1 ⎤
⎢− 𝐽 𝑠 𝐽1𝑠
0 0 0 0 ⎥
always supplying a specific amount of the torque, a controller could ⎢ ∗1 ⎥
𝑑 −𝑑 ∗− 𝑑 ∗ 𝑑 ∗
be designed. However, the performance of the controller needs to be ⎢ 1 1 2 2 ⎥
⎢ 𝐽𝑠 𝑠 0 0 0 ⎥
reviewed carefully first. ⎢ 2 𝐽2 𝐽2𝑠 ⎥
⎢ 𝑑2∗ −𝑑2∗ − 𝑑3∗ 𝑑3∗ ⎥
Acknowledgment ⎢ 0 𝐽3𝑠 𝐽3𝑠 𝐽𝑠
0 0 ⎥
𝐴𝑑 = ⎢ 𝑑3∗ ∗3
−𝑑3 − 𝑑6∗ 𝑑6∗
⎥,
⎢ ⎥
This research did not receive any specific grant from the funding ⎢ 0 0 𝑠 0 ⎥
⎢ 𝐽 4
𝐽4𝑠 𝐽4𝑠 ⎥
agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors ⎢ 𝑑5∗ 𝑑5∗
⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 0 − ⎥
⎢ 𝐽6𝑠 𝐽6𝑠 ⎥
Appendix 𝑑6∗ 𝑑5∗ −𝑑5∗ − 𝑑6∗ ⎥
⎢
⎢ 0 0 0 ⎥
⎣ 𝐽7𝑠 𝐽7𝑠 𝐽7𝑠 ⎦
See Table 2. [
A.1. System matrices in charge depleting mode 𝑏𝑇 = 0 0 0 0 0 0 …
]
𝑘 1−𝑘
0 0 0 0 ,
𝐽1∗ 𝐽6∗
[ ]
0 1
𝐴= ,
𝐴𝑐 𝐴𝑑
∗ 𝑐1∗
⎡ 𝑐1 ⎤ ⎡ 𝑐3∗ −𝑐3∗ − 𝑐6∗ 𝑐6∗
⎢− 𝐽 𝑠 𝐽𝑠
0 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢0 0 0 …
𝐽4𝑠 𝐽4𝑠 𝐽4𝑠
⎢ ∗1 ∗1
−𝑐1 − 𝑐2∗ 𝑐2∗
⎥ 𝐶 =⎢
⎢ 𝑐1 ⎥ ⎢0 0 0 0 0 0 0…
⎢ 𝐽𝑠 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢0
⎢ 2 𝐽2𝑠 𝐽2𝑠 ⎥ ⎣ 0 0 1 0 0 0…
⎢ 𝑐2∗ −𝑐2∗ − 𝑐3∗ 𝑐3∗ ⎥ 𝑑3∗ −𝑑3∗ − 𝑑6∗ 𝑑6∗ ⎤
⎢ 0 𝐽3𝑠 𝐽3𝑠 𝐽3𝑠
0 0 ⎥ 0 0 0 ⎥
𝐴𝑐 = ⎢ ∗ −𝑐3∗ − 𝑐6∗ 𝑐6∗
⎥, 𝐽4𝑠 𝐽4𝑠 𝐽4𝑠 ⎥
⎢ 𝑐3 ⎥ 0 0 0 1 0 0 0⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ 𝐽4𝑠 𝐽4𝑠 𝐽4𝑠 ⎥ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0⎥⎦
⎢ 𝑐∗ 𝑐5∗ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 0 − 5𝑠 ⎥ 𝑑 =0.
⎢ 𝐽6 𝐽6𝑠 ⎥
⎢ 𝑐6∗ ∗
𝑐5 −𝑐5∗ − 𝑐6∗ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 ⎥
⎣ 𝐽7𝑠 𝐽7𝑠 𝐽7𝑠 ⎦

61
C. Jauch et al. Control Engineering Practice 70 (2018) 50–62

Table 2 Bovee, K., Hyde, A., Midlam-Mohler, S., Rizzoni, G., Yard, M., Trippel, T., et al.
Nomenclature. (2012). Design of a parallel-series PHEV for the EcoCAR 2 competition. SAE Inter-
Symbol Description national Journal of Fuels and Lubricants, 5(3), 1317–1344. http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/
2012-01-1762. http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2012-01-1762, http://saefuel.
𝜙𝑘 Angular position at inertia 𝐽𝑘
saejournals.org/content/5/3/1317.abstract.
𝜙̇ 𝑘 Angular velocity at inertia 𝐽𝑘
Guezennec, Y., Staccia, B., Musardo, C., & Rizzoni, G. (2005). A-ECMS: An adaptive
𝜙̈ 𝑘 Angular acceleration at inertia 𝐽𝑘
algorithm for hybrid electric vehicle energy management. European Journal of Control,
𝑏(𝑡)𝑛 Torque split by ECMS in charge sustaining parallel mode
11(4–5), 509–524. http://dx.doi.org/10.3166/ejc.11.509-524. ISSN 0947-3580. http:
𝑐𝑘 Spring coefficient
//www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0947358005710487.
𝑑 Diameter
Dorey, R., & Holmes, C. (1999). Vehicle driveability – Its characterisation and measure-
𝑑𝑘 Damping coefficient
ment. SAE Technical Papers.
𝑖𝑘 Gear ratio
Enang, W., & Bannister, C. (2017). Modelling and control of hybrid electric vehicles (A
𝑘 Torque split by ECMS in charge depleting mode
comprehensive review). Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 74, 1210–1239.
𝑙 Length
Eriksson, L., & Nielsen, L. (2014). Modeling and control of engines and drivelines. John Wiley
𝑟 Radius
& Sons.
𝑟dyn Dynamic radius of the tire
Gao, D. W., Mi, C., & Emadi, A. (2007). Modeling and simulation of electric and hybrid
𝑚 Mass
vehicles. Proceedings of the IEEE, 95(4), 729–745.
𝐶𝑙𝑖 Clutch i
Hwang, H. S., Yang, D. H., Choi, H. K., Kim, H. S., & Hwang, S. H. (2011). Torque
𝐹veh Longitudinal force of vehicle
control of engine clutch to improve the driving quality of hybrid electric vehicles.
𝐺 Shear modulus
International Journal of Automotive Technology, 12(5), 763–768. http://dx.doi.org/10.
𝐽𝑘 Inertia
1007/s12239-011-0088-7. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12239-011-0088-7.
𝑇𝑘 Torque
Jauch, C., Bovee, K., Tamilarasan, S., Guvenc, L., & Rizzoni, G. (2015). Modeling of
𝑇req Requested torque from the driver
the OSU EcoCAR 2 vehicle for Drivability Analysis. In E-COSM’15 IFAC Workshop on
𝑇Tires Torque at the wheels
Engine and Powertrain Control, Simulation and Modeling .
𝑏 Input vector
Jauch, C., Tamilarasan, S., Bovee, K., Güvenc, L., & Rizzoni, G. (2016). Design and
𝑥 State vector
verification of drivability improving control for the ecocar 2 hybrid electric vehicle.
𝐴 Dynamic matrix of the state space representation
In 2016 American Control Conference (ACC) (pp. 631–636).
𝑏 Input vector of the space representation
Bilin, B., Emirler, M., Güvenç, L., & Güvenç, A. (2017). Control of mechatronic systems. IET.
𝐶 Output matrix of the state space representation
Lagerberg, A., & Egardt, B. (2007). Backlash estimation with application to automotive
𝑑 Feed-through vector of the state space representation
powertrains. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 15(3), 483–493. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1109/TCST.2007.894643. http://hem.hj.se/~laad/lagerberg_tcst_07.
pdf.
List, H., & Schoeggl, P. (1998). Objective evaluation of vehicle driveability. SAE Technical
References
Papers.
Mathworks (2014). Matlab 2014b documentation - mechanical shaft. http://www.
Aksun Güvenç, B., & Güvenç, L. (2002). Robust two degree-of-freedom add-on controller mathworks.com/help/physmod/sps/powersys/ref/mechanicalshaft.html.
design for automatic steering. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, Mo, C., Beaumount, A., & Powell, N. (1996). Active control of driveability. SAE Technical
(ISSN: 10636536) 10(1), 137–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/87.974347. http:// Papers.
ieeexplore.ieee.org/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=974347. Musardo, C., Rizzoni, G., Guezennec, Y., & Staccia, B. (2005). A-ECMS: An adaptive
Aksun Güvenç, B., Güvenç, L., & Karaman, S. (2009). Robust MIMO disturbance observer algorithm for hybrid electric vehicle energy management. European Journal of Control,
analysis and design with application to active car steering. International Journal of 11(4–5), 509–524.
Robust and Nonlinear Control, n/a–n/a. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rnc.1476. http: Pacejka, H. B., & Bakker, E. (1992). The magic formula Tyre model. Vehicle System
//doi.wiley.com/10.1002/rnc.1476. Dynamics, 21(sup001), 1–18.
AVL List GmbH (2010). AVL Drive Function Description. Sabri, M., Danapalasingam, K., & Rahmat, M. (2016). A review on hybrid electric vehicles
Awadallah, M., Tawadros, P., Walker, P., & Zhang, N. (2017). Dynamic modelling and architecture and energy management strategies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
simulation of a manual transmission based mild hybrid vehicle. Mechanism and Reviews, 53, 1433–1442.
Machine Theory, 112, 218–239. Sciarretta, A., & Guzzella, L. (2007). Control of hybrid electric vehicles. IEEE Control
Bayindir, K. Ç., Gözüküçük, M. A., & Teke, A. (2011). A comprehensive overview of Systems, 27 (2), 60–70.
hybrid electric vehicle: Powertrain configurations, powertrain control techniques and Sun, C., Sun, F., & He, H. (2017). Investigating adaptive-ECMS with velocity forecast
electronic control units. Energy Conversion and Management , 52(2), 1305–1313. ability for hybrid electric vehicles. Applied Energy, 185, 1644–1653.
Bovee, K., Gallo, E., Garcia, A., Hornak, M., Hyde, A., Matthew, O., et al. (2013). Sun, J., Kolmanovsky, I., Cook, J. A., & Buckland, J. H. (2005). Modeling and control
Fabrication of a parallel-series PHEV for the EcoCAR 2 competition. SAE Technical of automotive powertrain systems: a tutorial. In American Control Conference, 2005.
Paper. Proceedings of the 2005 (pp. 3271–3283). IEEE.
Bovee, K., Gallo, E., Garcia, A., Hornak, M., Hyde, A., Matthew, O., et al. (2014). Szadkowski, A.(1991). Shiftability and Shift Quality Issues in Clutch-Transmission Sys-
Refinement of a parallel-series PHEV for year 3 of the EcoCAR 2 competition. SAE tems, http://papers.sae.org/912697/.
Technical Paper. Wei, X., & Rizzoni, G. (2004). Objective metrics of fuel economy, performance and
driveability – A review. SAE Technical Paper, 2004(2004-01-1338), http://dx.doi.
org/10.4271/2004-01-1338.

62