Research Papers: Design Automation

Analyzing Drive Cycles for Hybrid Electric Vehicle Simulation and Optimization

[+] Author and Article Information
Benjamin M. Geller

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Colorado State University,
Fort Collins, CO 80523
e-mail: BMGeller@gmail.com

Thomas H. Bradley

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Colorado State University,
Fort Collins, CO 80523

The UDDS is incorporated using the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) configuration which includes a complete UDDS (1375 s) followed by repeating the first 505 s of the UDDS.

An exception is made for the UDDS and FHDS only optimization (cycle set C = 2) where the EPA 55% UDDS and 45% FHDS fuel consumption weighting is applied instead of the equal weighting from Eq. (2).

Comparing Eqs. (9) and (10) shows that the transitional probability matrix shifts from [k1 and k] to [k and k+1], respectively as the method changes from creating the matrix based on observations to using the matrix to predict new cycles.

The UDDS is incorporated using the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) configuration which includes a complete UDDS (1375 s) followed by repeating the first 505 s of the UDDS.

Contributed by the Design Automation Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received April 8, 2014; final manuscript received January 4, 2015; published online February 16, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Matthew B. Parkinson.

J. Mech. Des 137(4), 041401 (Apr 01, 2015) (14 pages) Paper No: MD-14-1227; doi: 10.1115/1.4029583 History: Received April 08, 2014; Revised January 04, 2015; Online February 16, 2015

System design tools including simulation and component optimization are an increasingly important component of the vehicle design process, placing more emphasis on early stages of design to reduce redesign and enable more robust design. This study focuses on the energy use and power management simulations used in vehicle design and optimization. Vehicle performance is most often evaluated in simulation, physical testing, and certification using drive cycle cases (also known as dynamometer schedules or drive schedules). In vehicle optimization studies, the information included in each drive cycle has been shown to influence the attributes of the optimized vehicle, and including more drive cycles in simulation optimizations has been shown to improve the robustness of the optimized design. This paper aims to quantitatively understand the effect of drive cycles on optimization in vehicle design and to specify drive cycles that can lead to robust vehicle design with minimal simulation. Two investigations are performed in service of this objective; investigation 1 tests how different combinations of drive cycles affect optimized vehicle performance and design variables (DV); investigation 2 evaluates the use of stochastic drive cycles for improving the robustness of vehicle designs without adding computational cost to the design and optimization process.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Fairley, R. E., and Thayer, R. H., 1997, “The Concept of Operations: The Bridge From Operational Requirements to Technical Specifications,” Ann. Software Eng., 3(1), pp. 417–432. [CrossRef]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006, “Final Technical Support Document: Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor Vehicle Revisions to Improve Calculation of Fuel Economy Estimates,” Report No. EPA420-R-06-017.
Simpson, A. G., 2005, “Parametric Modeling of Energy Consumption in Road Vehicles,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Queensland, Australia.
Lee, T., Baraket, Z., Gordon, T., and Filipi, Z., 2011, “Characterizing One-day Missions of PHEVs Based on Representative Synthetic Driving Cycles,” SAE Int. J. Engines, 4(1), pp. 1088–1101. [CrossRef]
Daley, J. J., 1998, “Development of a Heavy Duty Vehicle Chassis Dynamometer Test Route,” Master's thesis, West Virginia University, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Morgantown, WV.
An, F., Barth, M., and Scora, G., 1997, “Impacts of Diverse Driving Cycles on Electric and Hybrid Electric Vehicle Performance,” SAE Technical Paper No. 972646. [CrossRef]
Rizzoni, G., Guzzela, L., and Baumann, B. M., 1999, “Unified Modeling of Hybrid Electric Vehicle Drivetrains,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron., 4(3), pp. 246–257. [CrossRef]
Aceves, S. M., and Smith, J. R., 1997, “Hybrid and Conventional Hydrogen Engine Vehicles that Meet EZEV Emissions,” SAE Paper No. 970290. [CrossRef]
Amrheim, M., and Krein, P. T., 2005, “Dynamic Simulation for Analysis of Hybrid Electric Vehicle System and Subsystem Interactions, Including Power Electronics,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., 54(3), pp. 825–836. [CrossRef]
Barnitt, R. A., Brooker, A. D., and Ramroth, L., 2010, “Model-Based Analysis of Electric Drive Options for Medium-Duty Parcel Delivery Vehicles,” 25th World Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium & Exhibition, Nov. 5–9, Shenzhen, China.
Ganji, B., Kouzani, A. Z., and Trinh, H. M., 2010, “Drive Cycle Analysis of the Performance on Hybrid Electric Vehicles,” Life System Modeling and Intelligent Computing (Lecture Notes in Compute Science), Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Vol. 6328, pp. 434–444. [CrossRef]
Gelder, A. V., and Burke, A., 2008, “Plug-In Hybrid-Electric Vehicle Powertrain Design and Control Strategy Options and Simulation Results Using Lithium Batteries,” EET-2008, Geneva, Switzerland.
Butler, K. L., Ehsani, M., and Kamath, P., 1999, “A Matlab-Based Modeling and Simulation Package for Electric and Hybrid Electric Vehicle Design,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., 48(6), pp. 1770–1778. [CrossRef]
Cao, Q., Pagerit, S., Carlson, B., and Rousseau, A., 2007, “PHEV Hymotion Prius Model Validation and Control Improvements,” Electric Vehicle Symposium 23, Dec., Anaheim, CA.
Chen, L., Zhu, F., Zhang, M., Huo, Y., Yin, C., and Peng, H., 2011, “Design and Analysis of an Electric Variable Transmission for Series-Parallel Hybrid Electric Vehicle,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., 60(5), pp. 2354–2363. [CrossRef]
Cuddy, M., 1995, “A Comparison of Modeled and Measured Energy Use in Hybrid Electric Vehicles,” SAE International Congress and Exposition, No. 950256-4.
Delorme, A., Pagerit, S., Sharer, P., and Rousseau, A., 2009, “Cost Benefit Analysis of Advanced Powertrains From 2010 to 2045,” Electric Vehicle Symposium 24, May.
Demirdöven, N., and Deutch, J., 2004, “Hybrid Cars Now, Fuel Cell Cars Later,” Science, 305(5686), pp. 974–976. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Fellini, R., Michelena, N., Papalambros, P., and Sasena, M., 2000, Optimal Design of Automotive Hybrid Powertrain Systems, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Gao, D. W., Mi, C., and Emadi, A., 2007, “Modeling and Simulation of Electric and Hybrid Vehicles,” Proc. IEEE (Invited Paper), 95(4), pp. 729–745. [CrossRef]
Gao, D. W., 2005, “Performance Comparison of a Fuel Cell-Battery Hybrid Powertrain and a Fuel Cell-Ultracapacitor Hybrid Powertrain,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., 54(3), pp. 846–855. [CrossRef]
Golbuff, S., 2006, “Optimization of a Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle,” Masters thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.
Guezennec, Y., Choi, T., Paganelli, G., and Rizzoni, G., 2003, “Supervisory Control of Fuel Cell Vehicles and Its Link to Overall System Efficiency and Low-Level Control Requirements,” American Control Conference, Jun. 4–6, pp. 2055–2061. [CrossRef]
He, X., and Hodgson, J. W., 2002, “Modeling and Simulation for Hybrid Electric Vehicles-Part 1: Modeling,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., 3(4), pp. 235–243. [CrossRef]
Hofman, T., and van Druten, R., 2004, “Energy Analysis of Hybrid Vehicle Powertrains,” IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Husain, I., and Islam, M. S., 1999, “Design, Modeling and Simulation of an Electric Vehicle System,” SAE Technical Paper Series No. 1999-01-1149. [CrossRef]
Kellermeyer, W. F., 1998, “Development and validation of a Modular Hybrid Electric Vehicle Simulation Model,” Masters thesis, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.
Kelley, K. J., Zolot, M., Glinsky, G., and Hieronymus, A., 2001, “Test Results and Modeling the Honda Insight Using ADVISOR,” SAE Paper No. NREL/CP-540-31085. [CrossRef]
Koprubasi, K., 2008, “Modeling and Control of a Hybrid-Electric Vehicle for Driveability and Fuel Economy Improvements,” Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Moreno, J., Ortúzar, M. E., and Dixon, J. W., 2006, “Energy-Management System for a Hybrid Electric Vehicle, Using Ultracapacitors and Neural Networks,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., 53(2), pp. 614–623. [CrossRef]
Ning, Q., Xuan, D., Nan, Y., and Kim, Y., 2009, “Modeling and Simulation for Fuel Cell-Battery Hybrid Electric Vehicle,” International Conference on Computer Modeling and Simulation, Macau, Feb. 20–22, pp. 53–57. [CrossRef]
Powell, B. K., Bailey, K. E., and Cikanek, S. R., 1998, “Dynamic Modeling and Control of Hybrid Electric Vehicle Powertrain Systems,” IEEE Control Systems, 18(5), pp. 17–33. [CrossRef]
Rahman, Z., Butler, K. L., and Ehsani, M., 1999, “Designing Parallel Hybrid Electric Vehicle Using V-ELPH 2.01,” The American Control Conference, San Diego, CA, pp. 2693–2697.
Shiau, C. N., Kaushal, N., Hendrickson, C. T., Peterson, S. B., Whitacre, J. F., and Michalek, J. J., 2010, “Optimal Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Design and Allocations for Minimum Life Cycle Cost, Petroleum Consumption, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 132(9), p. 091013. [CrossRef]
Simpson, A. G., 2005, “Full-Cycle Assessment of Alternative Fuels for Light-Duty Road Vehicles in Australia,” Proceedings of World Energy Congress, University of Queensland, Australia.
Wei, X., 2004, “Modeling and Control of a Hybrid Electric Drivetrain for Optimum Fuel Economy, Performance and Driveability,” Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Wipke, K. B., and Cuddy, M. R., 1996, “Using an Advanced Vehicle Simulator (ADVISOR) to Guide Hybrid Vehicle Propulsion System Development,” Prepared for the NESEA Sustainable Transportation, Report No. NREL/TP-425-21615.
Wu, X., Cao, B., Li, X., Xu, J., and Ren, X., 2010, “Component Sizing Optimization of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles,” J. Appl. Energy, 88(3), pp. 799–804. [CrossRef]
Geller, B. M., 2010, “Increased Understanding of Vehicle Design through Modeling, Simulation, and Optimization,” Master's thesis, Colorado State University, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Fort Collins, CO.
Gao, W., and Porandala, S. K., 2005, “Design Optimization of a Parallel Hybrid Electric Powertrain,” Vehicle Power and Propulsion, IEEE Conference. [CrossRef]
Wipke, K., Markel, T., and Nelson, D., 2001, “Optimizing Energy Management Strategy and Degree of Hybridization for a Hydrogen Fuel Cell SUV,” Electric Vehicle Symposium 18, Berlin, Germany.
Decker, J. M., 2009, “Systems Engineering Optimization,” 7th Annual Conference on Systems Engineering Research (CSER).
Rousseau, A., Pagerit, S., and Gao, D., 2007, “Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Control Strategy Parameter Optimization,” Journal of Asian Electric Vehicles, 6(2), pp. 1125–1133. Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010, “Testing and Measuring Emissions: Dynamometer Driver's Aid,” www.epa.gov/nvfel/testing/dynamometer.htm
O'Keefe, M. P., Simpson, A., Kelley, K. J., and Pederson, D. S., 2007, “Duty Cycle Characterization and Evaluation Towards Heavy Hybrid Vehicle Applications,” SAE Technical Paper No. 2007-01-0302. [CrossRef]
Wallén, J., 2004, “Modeling of Components for Conventional Car and Hybrid Electric Vehicle in Modelica,” Master's thesis, Vehicular Systems, Department of Electrical Engineering at Linköpings Universitet, Linköping, Sweden.
Moura, S. J., Fathy, H. K., and Callaway, S. D., 2011, “A Stochastic Optimal Control Approach for Power Management in Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., 19(3), pp. 545–555. [CrossRef]
Tate, E. D., Grizzle, J. W., and Peng, H., 2008, “Shortest Path Stochastic Control for Hybrid Electric Vehicles,” Int. J. Robust and Nonlinear Control, 18(14), pp. 1409–1429. [CrossRef]
Geller, B. M., and Bradley, T. H., 2012, “Quantifying Uncertainty in Vehicle Simulation Studies,” SAE Technical Paper No. 2012-01-0506. [CrossRef]
Weisstein, E. W., “Markov Chain,” From MathWorld–A Wolfram, http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MarkovChain.html


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Frequency of drive cycle observations in simulation studies

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Acceleration and velocity ranges for six common drive cycles including complete-cycle averages. Lines represent bounding points while circles represent average data values for each cycle.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Pretransmission parallel HEV

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Simulation design optimization results showing optimized observations of FE (mpg) for different increasing cycle inclusions. Observations shown for designed FE over all included cycles based on the respective objective function and city/highway formulation per cycle sets.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

P-value of data set comparisons for FE between optimized design sets. All values based on C/H FE comparisons. The city/highway p-values compare each cycle set with the two-cycle set, “Progressive” p-values compare between adjacent cycle sets.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Radial plot of mean FE on each cycle, separated by the number of cycles included in the optimization run

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Optimized vehicle DV for each of the optimized cycle sets. Crosses represent mean values and range expresses +/−1 one standard deviation from the mean. Values are normalized to the searched design space range. P-values are relative to the two-cycle C/H optimized designs (e.g., comparison of cycle set 1&2, 2&3, 2&4, 2&5, 2&6).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Structural representation of transitional probability matrices

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Convergence criteria for Markov cycles. Normalized FE versus optimization iterations (a) and cycle characteristics versus cycle duration (seconds) (b).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Box plot of FE on each drive cycle for the six-cycle set and Markov optimizations. Median, 25th and 75th‰, data range, and outliers are represented.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Overlay of engine torque and battery SOC over the UDDS for vehicles optimized over one cycle, six cycles, and using Markov cycles

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Comparison of DV between Markov-cycle and six-cycle set optimized vehicles using box plots. Median, 25th and 75th‰, data range and outliers are represented.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Relative measured uncertainty in optimized designs for a variety of FE metrics compared among the six cycle sets and Markov-cycle optimized vehicles

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Comparison of optimized vehicle attributes



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In