Next Article in Journal
Predictive Controller Design for a Three-Winding Inductive Power Transfer System
Previous Article in Journal
Wireless Power Transfer Technologies Applied to Electric Vehicles: A Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 14
Issue 6
10.3390/en14061548
energies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

An Innovative Methodology to Take into Account Traffic Information on WLTP Cycle for Hybrid Vehicles

by
Antonio Galvagno
,
Umberto Previti
,
Fabio Famoso
* and
Sebastian Brusca
Engineering Department, University of Messina, C. da Di Dio, 98166 Mesina, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2021, 14(6), 1548; https://doi.org/10.3390/en14061548
Submission received: 21 February 2021 / Revised: 4 March 2021 / Accepted: 8 March 2021 / Published: 11 March 2021
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The most efficient energy management strategies for hybrid vehicles are the “Optimization-Based Strategies”. These strategies require a preliminary knowledge of the driving cycle, which is not easy to predict. This paper aims to combine Worldwide Harmonized Light-Duty Vehicles Test Cycle (WLTC) low section short trips with real traffic levels for vehicle energy and fuel consumption prediction. Future research can focus on implementing a new strategy for Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV) energy optimization, taking into account WLTC and Google Maps traffic levels. First of all, eight characteristic parameters are extracted from real speed profiles, driven in urban road sections in the city of Messina at different traffic conditions, and WLTC short trips as well. The minimum distance algorithm is used to compare the parameters and assign the three traffic levels (heavy, average, and low traffic level) to the WLTC short trips. In this way, for each route assigned from Google maps, vehicle’s energy and fuel consumption are estimated using WLTC short trips remodulated with distances and traffic levels. Moreover, a vehicle numerical model was implemented and used to test the accuracy of fuel consumption and energy prediction for the proposed methodology. The results are promising since the average of the percentage errors’ absolute value between the experimental driving cycles and forecast ones is 3.89% for fuel consumption, increasing to 6.80% for energy.

1. Introduction

One of the most Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV) advantages is the possibility to optimize the use of energy storage during the trip using the Energy Management System (EMS). Zhou et al. [1] categorize EMSs in:
  • Rule-Based Strategies (RBSs): These strategies define a local optimization of the powertrain’s operating points. They use only the battery State of Charge (SOC) knowledge and the driver’s load signal [2] to manage the vehicle’s power. RBSs are easy to implement and require low computational cost, but energy management efficiency is modest. One example of RBS is presented by Bagwe et al. [3] and Wu et al. [4].
  • Optimization-Based Strategies (OBSs): These strategies define a global optimization of the powertrain’s operating points. They optimize energy management by considering the car’s whole Driving Cycle (DC), so the optimization depends on both internal and external parameters of the vehicle. The OBS’s energy management efficiency is higher than RBS; on the other hand, they require a high computational cost, a significant complexity, and the prediction of DC. One example of OBS is presented by Fang et al. [5] and Wu et al. [6].
The scientific community is proposing numerous techniques for predicting the driving cycle. Wang et al. [7] summarize the prediction techniques in three categories:
  • Statistic and Cluster Analysis based Recognition: this category collects the techniques that use the historical and current vehicle’s speed profile parameters to predict future conditions. The techniques differ for the number of the analyzed parameters (for example, sixty-two presented by Ericson et al. [8], eleven by Xi et al. [9], and three by Chen et al. [10]), for the length of the prediction time window, and for parameter’s analysis methods (Bayesian classifying algorithm, decision tree, fuzzy clustering analysis, neural network). Neural Network (NN) is the most common method according to Wang et al. [7], and it is used by Langari et al. [11], by Jeon et al. [12] and by Han et al. [13].
  • Markov Chain-Based Predictive Control: this category collects the techniques that use the current vehicle’s state to predict future conditions. All the techniques are based on the stochastic Markov chain prediction process but differ for the optimization algorithm. Some examples of optimization algorithms are the Pontryagin Minimum Principle (used by Liu et al. [14]), the Stochastic Dynamic Programming (used by Johannesson et al. [15] and by Lin et al [16]), Genetic Fuzzy Logic control (used by Chaofeng et al. [17]), and NN (used by Shen et al. [18]).
  • Global Positioning System (GPS) and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) based prediction: this category collects the techniques that use the historical and current vehicle’s parameter, GPS, and ITS data to forecast the DC.
Numerous researches belong to the third category. Zhang et al. [19] use prior knowledge of the car’s route altimetry profile (provided by GPS) to optimize the power split between energy sources in an HEV. Qiuming et al. [20] use ITS data to assign a speed profile to a specific road section. The speed profile depends on the traffic light distribution, the average speed of the vehicle’s flow-rate, and the historical traffic state data. He et al. [21] use a dataset similar to Qiuming et al. [20] assigning a driving cycle in a freeway road section. The main difference is the possibility to modify the speed profile according to the car’s GPS information. Zhang et al. [22] use data similar to He et al. [21], adding the near field vehicles’ GPS information. A NN makes up the DC and uses it to predict each vehicle’s energy expenditure for a ten-second length time window.
The third category also includes some articles that consider the Worldwide Harmonized Light-Duty Vehicles Test Cycle (WLTC). Hu et al. [23] develop an EMS optimization based on speed profile, traffic status, and road gradient knowledge. They assign to the WLTC a road grade profile and a traffic state according to a threshold velocity. It is possible to evaluate the EMS performance assuming that the vehicle under test will be in this condition. Yavasoglu et al. [24] trained a neural network to predict an electric vehicle’s actual residual autonomy. The autonomy estimation is based on GPS (itinerary, road gradient profile) and ITS (traffic) information. If GPS and ITS information are not available, the neural network predicts the remaining range based on 19 training set parameters extracted from the WLTC. The NN compares the training set and the car’s instantaneous parameters value to estimate the remaining autonomy.
Considering all the research, it is clear that the EMSs can forecast the vehicle’s energy expenditure and fuel consumption only if many data are available. It means the use of sensor-equipped cars and cities, which is not always easy to achieve.
This paper investigates the possibility to predict the amount of fuel and energy consumed by a vehicle using a limited number of parameters and sensors to achieve a simple, easily implemented, and cost-effective prediction. The starting point of the research was the assumption that vast majority of the population and new generation vehicle can easily access GPS software (such as Google Maps). Google Maps (Mountain View, CA, USA) can provide information about the route’s altitude, the distance to be driven, and the intensity of traffic. Its algorithm gives easy to read GPS and ITS data. The second assumption was that WLTC collects speed profiles made by worldwide drivers and performed in different traffic conditions, making it universal.
This paper aims to combine WLTC low section short trips with real traffic levels for vehicle energy and fuel consumption prediction.
The first step was to drive road sections in the city of Messina, recording the traffic information and speed profile provided by Google Maps (GM) and Trackaddict (HP Tuners, Buffalo Grove, IL, USA). Only a smartphone was needed to carry out the data collection campaign, which was, therefore, extremely economical. Three databases were created containing the speed profiles collected under the same traffic condition (red in GM for high traffic intensity, yellow in GM for medium traffic intensity, and green in GM for low traffic intensity). Each database was filtered to compare the experimental speed profiles with the WLTC’s short trips. Eight parameters were extracted from profiles of each database and from the individual short trips that make up the WLTC low section. Through the minimum distance calculation, parameters for each database were compared with short trips’ ones. The algorithm assigned the WLTC’s short trips the traffic level that best suits them. By substituting GM’s road sections with the WLTC’s short trips, respecting the traffic levels and distances, the DC used to forecast fuel and energy was obtained. A dynamic numerical model of a passenger car was created, using the potential of the AVL Cruise-M™ software (AVL, Graz, Austria), to evaluate the forecasting accuracy. The model setup and validation were based on literature data.
Simulations were conducted to evaluate the quality of the prediction method. The results highlight that the methodology forecasts fuel consumption and energy expenditure with acceptable errors, considering the small amount of information it requires. The GM algorithm and WLTC have worldwide nature so the study suits all cities without modifying or adding infrastructure.

2. Vehicle Mathematical Model and Validation

A dynamic numerical model was developed in the AVL Cruise-M™ environment to solve the vehicle’s longitudinal motion equation. Douglas et al [25] describe a 1.6 L four-cylinder spark-ignition engine (SI) engine, Front-Wheel Drive, with a five-speed manual gearbox vehicle. This paper refers to Douglas et al. [25] for the model implementation and validation of results. Table 1 summarizes the engine specifications and the vehicle data used in the simulations.
The model calculates the thrust that the engine must provide to perform the driving cycle and to overcome the resistance’s forces to motion, which are the aerodynamic drag, the rolling resistance, and the gradient loading.
Table 1 contains the data to calculate the inertia and the drag force. For the calculation of the tire rolling resistance coefficient, the method proposed by Cooper [26], expressed in Equation (1), was taken into account.
µ = 0.0085 + (0.018/p) + (1.59∙10−6/p)∙V2   If V < 165 km/h
µ = (0.018/p) + (2.91∙10−6/p)∙V2    If V > 165 km/h
where µ is the rolling resistance coefficient, p is the tire pressure expressed in bar and V is the vehicle velocity expressed in km/h. Douglas et al. [25] report the Engine Brake-specific fuel consumption (BSFC) map and the full load curve used to determine the vehicle’s performance. The driver, modeled as PI control, generates a load signal to request traction proportional to the full load torque curve, in relation to the actual engine speed. BSFC map and the maximum torque curve of the engine are shown in Figure 1. The BSFC map numerical values are extracted by using “WebPlotPigitizer” software (Pacifica, CA, USA) and Table A1 in Appendix A shows them.
The map presents the full load engine’s torque curve in Nm and the fuel consumption in g/kWh. Consumption was converted into g/s to implement it quickly in the AVL Cruise-M™ workspace, by the Equation (2).
ṁfuel = (BSFC∙NEng∙TEng)/(3.6 × 106)
where NEng is the engine’s speed, TEng is the engine’s torque, and BSFC represents the consumption at the operating point considered.
Figure 2 shows all the AVL Cruise-M™ library’s components that build up the model and their links.
Douglas et al. [25] present two experimental tests performed by the reference car. The first test measures the vehicle’s maximum acceleration performance in 0–100 km/h speed range. The second test measures the vehicle’s fuel consumption during the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC)test procedure execution. This study refers to these experimental data for numerical model validation.

2.1. Maximum Acceleration

The first simulation highlights the vehicle’s performance in the acceleration from a standing start to 100 km/h. Simulation evaluates the vehicle’s maximum speed too. The shifting strategy was set to perform the gear upshifting at 6700 rpm of engine speed, with a gear change duration of 0.5 s. The launching speed was set to be 1000 rpm as performed in the experimental test. For all simulation time, except during the gear change, the driver’s load signal was equal to 100%. The simulated results are very similar to the experiment presented in Douglas et al. [25]. The shift from 1st to 2nd gear occurring at 4.315 s for the simulated vehicle and 4.10 s for the real one (5.24% of percentage error), the upshift from 2nd to 3rd occurs at 10.395 s, 0.2 s delay compared to the experimental data (2.92% of percentage error). Percentage error decreases at the 100 km/h (2.58%) and at the maximum velocity’s evaluation (−1.01%). Figure 3 shows the correlation achieved between simulated and measured data. Table 2 collects the parameters considered for the validation of the model in this case.
From comparison with experimental data, it is possible to assert that the model describes the real vehicle with an acceptable error. Only between 0 s and 1.8 s the simulated results do not closely mimic that found in the experimental test, due probably to a different clutch release. The lack of data on clutch management makes it impossible to compare the model and the real car in the starting phases. Inertias, efficiencies, and resistance forces of the numerical model can adequately describe the real vehicle.

2.2. NEDC Test Procedure

Following the workflow presented by Douglas et al. [25], the NEDC test procedure was simulated to validate the vehicle’s fuel consumption and PI control setting. The procedure defines the gear-shifting strategy. The NEDC requires a cold start to describe the vehicle’s performance adequately. Still, the Engine BSFC map was available only for steady-state operating temperature, so differences were expected from experimental tests in the “cold” region of the NEDC. To overcome this problem, Douglas et al. [25] suggest applying the corrections described in Equation (3).
ṁfuel cold = 4∙ṁfuel hot   If 0 s < t < 80 s
ṁfuel cold = 1.4∙ṁfuel hot   If 80 s < t < 230 s
At 230 s, the engine coolant temperature is almost 85 °C, which is the engine’s average running temperature. Moreover, the fuel consumption lower limit was set to 0.156 g/s to emulate the car’s idle consumption. Figure 4 shows the correlation between measured and simulated fuel consumption, both instantaneous and in the accumulative form.
The fuel consumed at the end of the procedure is quite similar in both situations, with 711.00 g for the experimental data and 706.56 g for the simulation one. The percentage error is −0.62% that confirms the quality of the model. Simulated and experimental instantaneous fuel consumption are quite similar too, except for the first 230 s where the (3) is operating. Figure 5 shows the correlation between the NEDC velocity profile and vehicle velocity. PI control can manage the clutch, brake, and accelerator pedal properly.

3. Data Collection and Processing

The same datasets presented by Previti et al. [27] were used in this study. Data collection starts with traveling road sections within the city of Messina. During the routes’ execution, the TrackAddict application recorded the vehicle’s speed profile while Google Maps (GM) application showed the level of service of the trip. The measurement campaign allowed the creation of three experimental DCs databases driven in three traffic conditions: High Traffic level (red in GM), Medium Traffic level (orange in GM), and Low Traffic level (green in GM).
Because the final goal is the fuel and energy forecasting comparing, through the use of WLTC, it was necessary to filter the experimental datasets following the same procedure used during the standard cycle’s creation.
Tutuianu et al. [28] discuss the data filtration procedure, which consists of splitting the DCs in idling and short trips. Idle periods are the portions of the driving cycle where the speed is zero. Short trips are the portions contained between two idle periods and where the speed is non-zero, except in the first and last instants of time.
Authors continue applying elimination criteria to the short trips:
  • Elimination of short trips with a duration smaller than ten seconds.
  • Elimination of short trips with a maximum speed smaller than 1 m/s.
  • Elimination of short trips with acceleration higher than 4 m/s2 and smaller than −4.5 m/s2.
After the filtering process, the databases consist of 22 short trips for the Low Traffic level database, 25 short trips for the Medium Traffic level database, and 18 short trips for the High Traffic level database. The 65 short trips represent the speed profiles in different traffic conditions in the city center of Messina. The database containing idle periods was not considered further. This paper aims to create a DC that HEVs’ EMS can use to predict energy and fuel consumption. Since HEVs are equipped with start and stop systems, the power and fuel consumption during idle times are zero.
For each ST belonging to each database, the following quantities were calculated:
  • Duration.
  • Traveled distance.
  • Maximum speed.
  • Arithmetic mean of the speed.
  • Distance weighted average of speed.
  • Distance weighted average of positive acceleration.
  • Distance weighted average of negative acceleration.
  • Relative Positive Acceleration (RPA).
Equation (4) gives arithmetic mean of the speed for each short trip.
Vm = ∑ vi/nvi
Being vi the instantaneous velocity of short trip, expressed in m/s, and nvi the number of measurements. Equation (5) gives the distance-weighted average of speed.
Vw = ∑ vi·(di − di−1)/∑(di − di−1)
The subscript i represents the time instant and di the distance traveled at the correspondent time instant. Distance weighted average acceleration is given by Equation (6).
aw = ∑ ai·(di − di−1)/∑(di − di−1)
In which ai represents the acceleration at the given time instant and the term (di − di−1) is the partial distance; the equation was applied to both positive and negative accelerations. Equation (7) gives the value of RPA.
RPA = [∫(vi·ai+)∙dt]/x
With being ai+ the positive acceleration and x being the total trip distance.
The eight parameters were extracted from the five short trips of the low section of the WLTC too. Only the low section was considered because experimental speed profiles were only available for urban routes.
The parameters were processed using the method of minimum distances already applied by Brusca et al. [29], in order to assign each short trip of the WLTC to a corresponding traffic level. The procedure consists of calculating the geometrical centroid for each traffic level class considering the parameters as geometrical coordinates. In this way, each short trip of the WLTC, with its corresponding parameters, was assigned to the most appropriate class by considering the shortest Euclidean distance from its centroid.
The proposed method assigned the first and the third ST of WLTC as medium traffic level, the second one as low traffic level, and the fourth and the fifth as high traffic level.
Figure 6 shows the workflow followed, from raw data to the assignment of traffic levels to the WLTC low section.

4. Simulations

Section 2 describes the numerical model used for the simulation. In the maximum acceleration validation procedure, the shifting strategy was defined by the experimental tests, while in the NEDC simulation the standard procedure provided the shift profile. A gear-change profile was not available for real driving cycles, so a shifting strategy had to be defined to conduct the simulations. The new strategy performs the gear upshifting at 3000 rpm of engine speed and the gear downshifting at 1250 rpm. The strategy allows obtaining a good range of operating points and efficiency, considering that the lowest BSFC values are between 2000 and 3000 rpm of engine speed [30]. The gear change duration remained 0.5 s, as well as the launching speed remained at 1000 rpm. The fuel consumption and energy demand were set to zero in the idling period, assuming that the car is equipped with a Start and Stop system, which is common in new-generation cars.
The forecasting method refers to Google Maps information: the distance to drive and the trip’s traffic status once defining the route’s starting and arrival point. The 65 short trips discussed in the previous chapter were reprocessed to replicate GM information and real drive condition. The STs were arranged randomly, using the MatLab (Mathworks, Natick, MA, USA) function “rand”, and organized into groups with ten ST. The arrangement led to the creation of six driving cycles consisting of 10 short trips and one driving cycle consisting of 5 short trips. Lastly, all the short trips, organized according to an increasing traffic level (from low to high traffic), formed the eighth driving cycle. For the eight driving cycles obtained, the distance covered and traffic level distribution were known in each time instant that is the information provided by Google Maps. The eight DCs were used to obtain the reference fuel and energy consumption value during the execution of road routes in Messina.
The knowledge of the distance to drive in different traffic conditions made it possible to construct the driving cycle to be used for fuel and energy prediction. It was sufficient to reiterate or to interrupt the WLTC short trips, respecting the assigned traffic status, until they cover the same distance as real ones.
By having the eight real driving cycles and the eight constructed ones, it was possible to calculate the real and predicted fuel consumption and energy expenditure. First, a simulation was conducted in which the driver performed the experimental cycles, evaluating the reference fuel and energy value. In the second simulation, the driver performed the driving profiles obtained from the repetition of the WLTC short trips and provided the predicted fuel and energy values. Table 3 shows the results of simulations. The first column contains the driving cycle reference number (one to eight), the second column contains the level of service distribution of each ST, and the third column shows the distance traveled in each DC. The fourth and the fifth columns contain the prediction of energy and fuel consumption accuracy, as percentage error, evaluated by Equations (8) and (9).
ε% energy = (energywltc-energyexp)/energyexp∙100
ε% fuel = (fuelwltc-fuelexp)/fuelexp∙100
The average of the absolute values of percentage errors is 3.89% for fuel consumption, increasing to 6.80% in the energy forecast. In cycle number 8, which covers approximately 34 km, the error in energy expenditure is relatively low (−2.36%) and the fuel consumption error is similar to the average. In cycle 4, where the traveled distance is around 2 km, the prediction percentage absolute error decrease and it is lower than the average (1.44% for energy, 3.07% for fuel). The results suggest that on trips where the distance traveled at low traffic levels is predominant, the proposed methodology tends to underestimate the real values (cycles 7 and 8), but the errors remain low. In trips where distances covered at high traffic intensity are predominant, the methodology tends to overestimate the value of energy and fuel consumed.
The results are even more relevant considering that the proposed methodology:
  • It only needs as input data the GM’s information; no other device or software is strictly necessary. This aspect makes the methodology extremely economical.
  • The algorithm regulating the traffic levels shown by GM is unique and valid in all city centers. This aspect makes the methodology universal.
  • The WLTC considers the driving styles of drivers worldwide so that the methodology can be extended to any car driver.
  • The prediction accuracy can increase by considering other input information, such as the traffic lights distribution or typical driver’s gear shifting style. The addition of this information requires the use of appropriate infrastructure and sensors, which runs counter to the purpose of the study.

5. Conclusions

The results are promising since the average of the absolute values of percentage errors between the experimental driving cycles and forecast ones is 3.89% for fuel consumption, increasing to 6.80% for energy. The smallest percentage error in energy assessment, in absolute value, is presented in cycle number four (1.44%); for fuel assessment in cycle number five (0.32%). Cycle 5 also presented the highest percentage error in energy assessment (10.39%), while cycle 2 shows the worst fuel assessment (9.33%). The results highlight that the method can predict the considered quantities with an acceptable error (−2.36% relative percentage error for energy, −4.11% relative percentage error for fuel) in long drive city trips. The technique is easy and cheap to implement in a vehicle’s EMS. The input data are universal, so they can be extended to all cities and lend themselves to the use of additional data to improve prediction accuracy. The results show a reasonable accuracy of fuel consumption and energy expenditure prediction related to the methodology detail and complexity. This study can be the basis for further studies. The possibility of predicting the energy expenditure and fuel consumption of a vehicle allows the development of energy management systems for HEVs which may:
-
Manage the energy reserve to allow full electric travel to drive in Limited Traffic Zone (ZTL) or local air pollution minimization.
-
Increase the life cycle of energy reserves (usually batteries) by reducing maintenance costs and disposal problems.
-
Optimize the efficiency of powertrain use by reducing fuel consumption and pollutant emissions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.G. and S.B.; methodology, A.G., S.B., F.F., and U.P.; software, U.P.; writing—original draft preparation, A.G., S.B., F.F., and U.P.; writing—review and editing, A.G., S.B., F.F., and U.P.; supervision, A.G. and S.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to AVL Italia for providing the simulation suites, including AVL Cruise-M. They are pleased to collaborate with the company and to be able to exchange information and expertise.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1 collects the numerical values of BSFC map used to evaluate fuel consumption.
Table
Table A1. BSFC map numerical values function of engine speed and engine torque.
Table A1. BSFC map numerical values function of engine speed and engine torque.
Speed (Rpm)Torque (Nm)BSFC (g/kWh)Speed (Rpm)Torque (Nm)BSFC (g/kWh)Speed (Rpm)Torque (Nm)BSFC (g/kWh)
849.014.36003048.747.13203503.085.0265
971.213.86003170.947.33203620.886.1265
1093.413.96003293.147.63203735.292.4265
1215.613.86003415.348.03203859.694.8265
1337.813.66003537.548.73203981.895.9265
1460.013.46003659.749.93204104.196.9265
1582.213.46003781.951.63204226.397.6265
1704.513.26003904.152.13204348.598.3265
1826.713.26004026.351.73204477.698.5265
1948.813.46004148.552.23204599.098.5265
2071.113.66004270.752.53204715.196.3265
2193.313.86004392.953.03204837.395.6265
2315.514.06004498.453.53204953.997.3265
2437.714.46004992.855.23205075.599.7265
2559.914.16005115.055.93205199.4102.4265
2682.114.06005237.256.53205217.2139.4265
2804.314.06005359.457.13205235.7117.9265
2926.514.26005481.658.03205266.8133.8265
3048.714.26005603.858.63205288.3125.9265
3170.914.56005726.058.93205326.1105.9265
3293.114.56005848.259.53205354.5113.0265
3415.314.46005970.460.13205411.2109.3265
3546.114.16006092.660.93202756.781.0265
3659.714.66006198.863.13202628.980.6265
3781.914.96006219.668.93201660.0103.2260
3904.115.26006250.974.73201665.698.5260
4026.315.46006293.879.93201697.0107.4260
4148.515.66006348.185.23201710.093.3260
4270.715.56006448.189.13201745.2110.3260
4392.915.56006570.391.33201760.090.6260
4509.515.66006692.592.83201789.6112.5260
4637.315.66006814.793.53201854.488.5260
4759.515.86006936.991.33201865.5116.7260
4881.716.06007003.689.13201915.5119.1260
5003.916.16004645.654.03201922.288.2260
5126.116.46004809.954.43202476.585.7260
5248.316.7600871.361.93002559.985.8260
5370.516.9600993.558.43002632.186.0260
5492.717.26001115.757.03002698.786.3260
5614.917.26001237.956.43002770.986.7260
5737.117.76001360.156.03002843.186.9260
5859.317.96001482.355.63002913.187.7260
5981.518.36001604.554.93002970.988.0260
6103.718.76001726.754.23003046.488.5260
6225.918.86001848.953.63003109.888.9260
6348.119.16001971.153.13003176.489.0260
6431.419.06002093.352.93003232.089.1260
6631.420.96002215.552.73003387.589.8260
6814.720.56002337.752.73003456.090.3260
6964.720.06002459.952.93003520.891.4260
860.119.35002582.153.13003604.193.8260
982.319.15002704.353.73003687.597.4260
1104.518.35002826.554.33003726.399.5260
1226.718.05002948.754.93003820.8102.0260
1349.018.25003070.955.53003865.2101.9260
1471.218.65003193.156.13003954.1101.1260
1593.418.65003315.356.53004019.6101.4260
1715.618.75003437.557.23004141.8103.4260
1837.818.75003559.758.53004210.7104.7260
1960.018.65003681.960.03004270.7105.8260
2082.218.65003804.162.03004326.2107.1260
2204.418.55003926.362.13004410.7108.3260
2326.618.55004031.862.13004426.2121.8260
2453.418.25004504.064.53004431.8128.4260
2571.018.75004626.264.73004454.0131.8260
2693.218.55004748.464.73004476.2109.5260
2815.418.25004870.664.73004476.2134.8260
2937.618.35004992.865.13004492.9118.3260
3059.818.35005115.066.13004498.4138.8260
3182.019.05005237.267.63004520.6141.4260
3304.219.55005359.469.23004542.9145.1260
3426.420.05005481.670.73004559.5115.7260
3548.620.25005603.871.93004559.5147.7260
3670.820.35005726.072.83004592.9109.4260
3793.020.25005848.273.23004615.1114.0260
3915.220.25005910.582.73004676.2107.4260
4033.720.25005973.973.83004692.8115.4260
4159.621.05005948.277.83004704.0119.2260
4281.821.15006037.187.93004759.5122.7260
4404.021.55006153.789.63004765.1103.8260
4526.221.95006216.796.63004837.3101.7260
4648.422.05006230.7103.73004892.8101.3260
4770.622.15006242.6109.33004970.6121.4260
4892.822.35006267.6120.73005020.6117.1260
5015.022.05006259.2114.13005020.6103.8260
5137.222.65006289.5130.63005092.8115.7260
5259.422.55006281.5124.63005059.4104.6260
5377.322.05006325.9134.83005148.3114.7260
5503.822.5500965.788.92855170.5107.7260
5623.522.5500949.082.72855203.9108.4260
5748.223.3500976.876.62855215.0114.0260
5870.424.15001017.9102.82855259.4110.9260
5987.124.3500993.596.42854855.5122.2260
6153.726.75001023.170.12853304.289.8260
6457.025.85001107.366.32852044.986.5260
6570.325.85001109.0107.12852218.387.9260
6692.526.35001226.765.02852327.887.2260
6814.726.75001349.064.42851994.7121.3260
6936.927.35001461.364.42852050.4108.2255
7003.627.65001586.764.02852079.4104.4255
855.229.34001715.662.82852121.0110.7255
963.828.74001837.862.92852134.9102.0255
1118.128.54001964.162.82852187.7111.6255
1255.628.14002100.262.92852193.399.6255
1371.228.04002215.562.92852211.0122.0255
1493.428.24002337.762.92852251.6113.4255
1715.027.44002454.363.62852268.897.1255
1843.326.54002582.163.42852265.5121.1255
2026.627.84002702.163.62852296.9115.5255
2279.927.44002825.463.62852337.794.8255
2415.428.24002982.064.52852326.6118.8255
2529.328.14003108.464.52852398.893.6255
2659.827.84003222.064.92852465.493.8255
2865.427.84003326.465.42852515.493.8255
2982.028.24003474.566.12852987.694.5255
3116.729.04004001.873.52853048.795.0255
3226.429.04004126.374.22853120.995.4255
3348.629.34004292.974.72853187.596.2255
3470.829.44004415.174.72853254.296.8255
3593.029.94004534.875.02853320.897.6255
3698.630.34004659.575.22853384.298.8255
3798.530.74004765.875.52853454.2100.5255
4017.430.94004915.075.92853515.3102.6255
4124.030.94005031.176.62853585.6105.8255
4292.931.54005159.478.02853643.0109.4255
4410.731.04005276.179.62853698.6112.3255
4534.531.74005399.781.42853775.2114.4255
4687.332.34005556.682.82853843.0114.6255
4808.432.84005648.287.52853901.3113.5255
4926.133.64005708.2105.52853976.3112.0255
5048.334.14005720.492.72854054.1112.6255
5131.734.54005732.7112.12854131.8138.8255
5291.633.54005742.798.62854131.8113.7255
5392.733.94005762.1137.02854175.1141.8255
5514.934.04005770.4117.62854170.7138.2255
6048.238.04005805.6123.92854198.5114.5255
6152.637.14005809.3131.62854226.3143.7255
6488.837.64005803.8126.82854239.6128.6255
6687.639.74003787.871.92854268.5138.9255
6818.447.04003632.768.22854259.6115.4255
6935.747.64001223.6109.12854270.7132.8255
6333.837.94001037.993.82754274.4121.5255
860.139.33501041.686.12754298.5146.0255
1028.038.33501111.580.22754304.0135.4255
1146.837.83501082.3100.42754315.1138.6255
1271.237.33501171.2103.92754337.3119.0255
1393.436.93501226.777.72754309.6116.4255
1508.236.83501292.2106.52754381.8118.5255
1637.836.83501350.176.12754542.9121.0255
1760.036.53501413.4109.42754608.4120.8255
1882.236.53501471.274.02754604.0118.2255
2004.436.53501504.5111.32754637.3146.0255
2126.636.43501597.872.12754631.7143.3255
2248.836.23501715.670.92754642.9139.9255
2371.036.43501837.869.72754659.5120.6255
2493.236.53501960.069.12754681.7136.5255
2612.136.83502082.268.72754715.1133.2255
2737.636.83502204.468.82754726.2128.4255
2859.837.13502326.669.22754765.1125.9255
2976.537.53502448.869.62754781.7119.3255
3104.237.73502571.069.82754785.4115.5255
3226.438.13502697.970.12754809.5112.4255
3348.638.43502815.470.72754842.8124.4255
3467.538.73502937.671.12754865.0120.2255
3593.039.13503009.871.22754870.6111.3255
3715.239.93503493.074.12754909.5124.0255
3837.440.73503623.976.22754903.9115.9255
3960.741.43503737.479.72754937.2113.9255
4081.842.03503859.682.02754961.7140.7255
4204.042.63503980.682.82754965.0124.7255
4326.242.73504104.183.32755026.1138.9255
4450.743.03504226.383.42755026.1127.5255
4570.643.13504348.583.52755048.3130.6255
4692.843.13504470.783.72755053.9133.8255
4815.043.33504554.083.92755065.0137.0255
4937.243.43504726.285.12752515.4124.0250
5031.743.83504848.485.72752533.2119.7250
5517.746.53504970.686.32752571.0117.5250
5648.247.23505092.887.12753020.9107.8250
5770.447.83505215.088.02753098.7108.9250
5892.648.43505337.289.32753182.0110.1250
6014.848.93505454.991.42753256.0111.7250
6137.049.53505505.7117.02753276.4117.5250
6253.150.13505581.695.62753282.0114.4250
6342.654.43505570.5128.52753354.2121.1250
6437.060.53505564.9122.52753431.9123.2250
6559.261.33505564.9108.92753498.6124.9250
6681.461.83505587.1137.62753565.3126.1250
6792.563.23505592.7134.02753626.4127.8250
6923.064.73505609.4104.32753699.7129.4250
5165.844.53505648.2100.42753762.4130.3250
5311.845.23501439.799.02653859.6130.2250
849.052.03201460.092.82653909.6137.0250
971.249.93201498.9106.42653954.1128.2250
1093.448.53201545.687.62653973.0135.4250
1215.647.43201603.4111.22654037.4129.2250
1337.846.43201671.184.92654088.5133.6250
1460.045.63201715.6114.92654087.4130.8250
1582.245.13201797.883.12654772.5141.6250
1704.444.73201832.2118.02654806.2138.4250
1826.644.73201908.182.12654819.0143.4250
1948.944.73202048.880.92654846.1136.9250
2071.144.73202171.080.12654881.7139.8250
2193.344.73202293.280.02654881.7142.5250
2315.544.83202409.979.92652528.5127.3250
2437.745.13202521.080.02652656.3113.5250
2559.945.43203015.382.02652729.3111.3250
2682.145.73203137.582.92652802.3110.2250
2804.346.23203259.783.82652920.9108.7250
2926.546.73203381.985.02654746.0143.4250

References

  1. Zhou, Y.; Ravey, A.; Péra, M. A survey on driving prediction techniques for predictive energy management of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. J. Power Sour. 2019, 412, 480–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Sciarretta, A.; Guzzella, L. Vehicle Propulsion Systems: Introduction to Modeling and Optimization, 3rd ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bagwe, R.M.; Byerly, A.; dos Santos, E.C., Jr.; Ben-Miled, Z. Adaptive Rule-Based Energy Management Strategy for a Parallel HEV. Energies 2019, 12, 4472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Wu, J.; Wei, Z.; Liu, K.; Quan, Z.; Li, Y. Battery-Involved Energy Management for Hybrid Electric Bus Based on Expert-Assistance Deep Deterministic Policy Gradient Algorithm. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2020, 69, 12786–12796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Fang, L.; Qin, S.; Xu, G.; Li, T.; Zhu, K. Simultaneous Optimization for Hybrid Electric Vehicle Parameters Based on Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithms. Energies 2011, 4, 532–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wu, J.; Wei, Z.; Li, W.; Wang, Y.; Li, Y.; Sauer, D. Battery Thermal- and Health-Constrained Energy Management for Hybrid Electric Bus based on Soft Actor-Critic DRL Algorithm. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wang, R.; Lukic, S.M. Review of Driving Conditions Prediction and Driving Style Recognition Based Control Algorithms for Hybrid Electric Vehicle. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference, Chicago, IL, USA, 6–9 September 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ericson, E. Independent Driving Pattern Factors and Their Influence on Fuel-Use and Exhaust Emission Factors. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2001, 6, 325–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Xi, H.; Ying, T.; Xingui, H. An intelligent multi-feature statistical approach for discrimination of driving conditions of hybrid electric vehicle. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, Atlanta, GA, USA, 14–19 June 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chen, Z.; Kiliaris, L.; Murphey, Y.L.; Masrur, A. Intelligent power management in SHEV based on roadway type and traffic congestion levels. In Proceedings of the Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference, Dearborn, MI, USA, 7–10 September 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Langari, R.; Won, J. Intelligent Energy Management Agent for a Parallel Hybrid Vehicle—Part I I: System Architecture and Design of the Driving Situation Identification Process. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2005, 54, 925–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Jeon, S.; Park, Y.; Lee, J. Multi-Mode Driving Control of a Parallel Hybrid Electric Vehicle Using Driving Pattern Recognition. J. Dyn. Sys. Meas. Control. 2002, 124, 141–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Han, L.; Jiao, X.; Zhang, Z. Recurrent Neural Network-Based Adaptive Energy Management Control Strategy of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles Considering Battery Aging. Energies 2020, 13, 202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Liu, H.; Wang, C.; Zhao, X.; Guo, C. An Adaptive-Equivalent Consumption Minimum Strategy for an Extended-Range Electric Bus Based on Target Driving Cycle Generation. Energies 2018, 11, 1805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Johannesson, L.; Asbogard, M.; Egardt, B. Assessing the Potential of Predictive Control for Hybrid Vehicle Powertrains Using Stochastic Dynamic Programming. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2007, 8, 71–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lin, C.; Peng, H.; Grizzle, J. Stochastic Control Strategy for Hybrid Electric Vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2004 American Control Conference, Boston, MA, USA, 30 June–2 July 2004; Volume 5, pp. 4710–4715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Chaofeng, P.; Wei, W.; Liao, C.; Long, C.; Limei, W. Driving range estimation for electric vehicles based on driving condition identification and forecast. AIP Adv. 2017, 7, 105206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Shen, P.; Zhao, Z.; Zhan, X.; Li, J.; Guo, Q. Optimal energy management strategy for a plug-in hybrid electric commercial vehicle based on velocity prediction. Energy 2018, 155, 838–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhang, C.; Vahidi, A.; Pisu, P.; Li, X.; Tennant, K. Role of Terrain Preview in Energy Management of Hybrid Electric Vehicles. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2010, 59, 1139–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Qiuming, G.; Yaoyu, L.; Zhong-Ren, P. Optimal power management of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2008, 57, 3393–3401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. He, H.; Guo, J.; Zhou, N.; Sun, C.; Peng, J. Freeway Driving Cycle Construction Based on Real-Time Traffic Information and Global Optimal Energy Management for Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles. Energies 2017, 10, 1796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Zhang, F.; Xi, J.; Langari, R. Real-Time Energy Management Strategy Based on Velocity Forecasts Using V2V and V2I Communications. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2017, 18, 416–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hu, J.; Jiang, X.; Jia, M.; Zheng, Y. Energy Management Strategy for the Hybrid Energy Storage System of Pure Electric Vehicle Considering Traffic Information. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Yavasoglu, Y.A.; Tetik, Y.; Gokce, K. Implementation of machine learning based real time range estimation method without destination knowledge for BEVs. Energy 2019, 172, 1179–1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Douglas, K.; Milovanovic, N.; Turner, J.; Blundell, D. Fuel Economy Improvement Using Combined CAI and Cylinder Deactivation (CDA)—An Initial Study; SAE Technical Paper; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2005; Volume 1, p. 0110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Cossalter, V. Motorcycle Dynamics, 2nd ed.; Lulu.com: Morrisville, NC, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  27. Previti, U.; Brusca, S.; Galvagno, A. Passenger Car Energy Demand Assessment: A New Approach Based on Road Traffic Data. In Proceedings of the 75th National ATI Congress—#7 Clean Energy for all (ATI 2020), E3S Web Conference, Rome, Italy, 15–16 September 2020; Volume 197, p. 05006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Tutuianu, M.; Bonnel, P.; Ciuffo, B.; Haniu, T.; Ichikawa, N.; Marotta, A.; Pavlovic, J.; Steven, H. Development of the World-wide harmonized Light duty Test Cycle (WLTC) and a possible pathway for its introduction in the European legislation. Trans. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2015, 40, 61–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Brusca, S.; Famoso, F.; Lanzafame, R.; Galvagno, A.; Mauro, S.; Messina, M. Wind farm power forecasting: New algorithms with simplified mathematical structure. AIP Conf. Proc. 2019, 2191, 020028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Oglieve, C.J.; Mohammadpour, M.; Rahnejat, H. Optimisation of the vehicle transmission and the gear-shifting strategy for the minimum fuel consumption and the minimum nitrogen oxide emissions. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part D 2017, 231, 883–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Energies 14 01548 g001 550
Figure 1. Engine’s full load torque and Brake-specific fuel consumption (BSFC).
Figure 1. Engine’s full load torque and Brake-specific fuel consumption (BSFC).
Energies 14 01548 g001
Energies 14 01548 g002 550
Figure 2. Vehicle’s plan model on the AVL Cruise-M™ workspace.
Figure 2. Vehicle’s plan model on the AVL Cruise-M™ workspace.
Energies 14 01548 g002
Energies 14 01548 g003 550
Figure 3. Maximum acceleration comparison between measured and simulated results.
Figure 3. Maximum acceleration comparison between measured and simulated results.
Energies 14 01548 g003
Energies 14 01548 g004 550
Figure 4. Fuel consumption in New European Driving Cycle (NEDC).
Figure 4. Fuel consumption in New European Driving Cycle (NEDC).
Energies 14 01548 g004
Energies 14 01548 g005 550
Figure 5. Speed profile and actual gear in simulation.
Figure 5. Speed profile and actual gear in simulation.
Energies 14 01548 g005
Energies 14 01548 g006 550
Figure 6. Data acquisition, filtering, and analysis process.
Figure 6. Data acquisition, filtering, and analysis process.
Energies 14 01548 g006
Table
Table 1. Vehicle and engine specifications.
Table 1. Vehicle and engine specifications.
Vehicle Data
Kerb mass + 75 kg driver1405kg
Wheelbase2.6m
Front and Rear track1.48m
DCofG to front axle0.95m
HCofG to ground0.58m
Frontal Area2.01m2
Drag Coeff0.325
Air Density1.205kg/m3
Wheel and tire front0.2978m
Tire drive efficiency0.95
Front and rear wheel inertia0.74kg∙m2
Gearbox Data
Gear 1 Ratio3.583
Gear 2 Ratio1.847
Gear 3 Ratio1.343
Gear 4 Ratio0.976
Gear 5 Ratio0.804
Final Drive Ratio4.052
Engine Data
CR10
Cylinders4
Bore 76mm
Stroke88mm
Swept volume1.5968dm3
Idle speed800rpm
Engine inertia0.1224kg∙m2
Fuel S.G.0.743
Calorific Value435,000kJ/kg
Table
Table 2. Results in maximum acceleration test.
Table 2. Results in maximum acceleration test.
ParameterSimulatedExperimentalAbs Error
1st–2nd 4.315 s4.100 s0.215 s
2nd–3rd 10.395 s10.1000.295 s
0–100 km/h11.695 s11.4000.295 s
Max velocity190.05 km/h192 km/h1.95 km/h
Table
Table 3. Results. Each square is a short trip with a traffic level: red for high, orange for medium, green for low.
Table 3. Results. Each square is a short trip with a traffic level: red for high, orange for medium, green for low.
DC NumberShort Trips and Traffic StateDistance (m)Energy tot. Error (%)Fuel tot. Error (%)
1 73879.274.42
2 43178.759.33
3 93138.934.38
4 17041.44−3.07
5 407710.39−0.32
6 401810.331.45
7 3241−3.00−3.85
8 (TOT) 34,057−2.36−4.11
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Galvagno, A.; Previti, U.; Famoso, F.; Brusca, S. An Innovative Methodology to Take into Account Traffic Information on WLTP Cycle for Hybrid Vehicles. Energies 2021, 14, 1548. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14061548

AMA Style

Galvagno A, Previti U, Famoso F, Brusca S. An Innovative Methodology to Take into Account Traffic Information on WLTP Cycle for Hybrid Vehicles. Energies. 2021; 14(6):1548. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14061548

Chicago/Turabian Style

Galvagno, Antonio, Umberto Previti, Fabio Famoso, and Sebastian Brusca. 2021. "An Innovative Methodology to Take into Account Traffic Information on WLTP Cycle for Hybrid Vehicles" Energies 14, no. 6: 1548. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14061548

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop