The sensitivity of energy management strategies (EMS) with respect to variations in drive cycle and system parameters is considered. The design of three strategies is presented: rule-based, stochastic dynamic programming (SDP), and model predictive control (MPC). Each strategy is applied to a series hydraulic hybrid powertrain and validated experimentally using a hardware-in-the-loop system. A full factorial design of experiments (DOE) is conducted to evaluate the performance of these controllers under different urban and highway drive cycles as well as with enforced modeling errors. Through this study, it is observed that each EMS design method represents a different level of tradeoff between optimality and robustness based on how much knowledge of the system is assumed. This tradeoff is quantified by analyzing the standard deviation of system specific fuel consumption (SSFC) and root mean square (RMS) tracking error over the different simulation cases. This insight can then be used to motivate the choice of which control strategy to use based on the application. For example, a city bus travels a repeated route and that knowledge can be leveraged in the EMS design to improve performance. Through this study, it is demonstrated that there is not one EMS design method which is best suited for all applications but rather the underlying assumptions of the system and drive cycle must be carefully considered so that the most appropriate design method is chosen.
Comparative Study of Energy Management Strategies for Hydraulic Hybrids
Contributed by the Dynamic Systems Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF DYNAMIC SYSTEMS, MEASUREMENT, AND CONTROL. Manuscript received December 17, 2012; final manuscript received September 5, 2014; published online November 7, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Nariman Sepehri.
- Views Icon Views
- Share Icon Share
- Search Site
Deppen, T. O., Alleyne, A. G., Meyer, J. J., and Stelson, K. A. (April 1, 2015). "Comparative Study of Energy Management Strategies for Hydraulic Hybrids." ASME. J. Dyn. Sys., Meas., Control. April 2015; 137(4): 041002. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4028525
Download citation file: