An Optimization Approach to Hybrid Electric Propulsion

System Design
D. Assanis, G. Delagrammatikas, R. Fellini, Z. Filipi, J. Liedtke, N. Michelena,
P. Papalambros, D. Reyes, D. Rosenbaum, A. Sales, M. Sasena
Automotive Research Center
College of Engineering
The University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48109-2125
ABSTRACT
Environmentally friendly ground vehicles with range and performance capabilities
surpassing those of conventional ones require a careful balance among competing goals for
fuel efficiency, performance, and emissions. One research activity at the Automotive
Research Center is to integrate hybrid electric vehicle simulations with high-fidelity engine
modules to increase the accuracy of predictions and to allow design studies in the concept
evaluation stage. This article describes a method4ology for integrating vehicle and engine
simulations. The feed-forward model of the engine simulation is modified to allow its
linking with the vehicle model, and an engine component scaling routine is added to
facilitate system sizing studies. A design optimization framework is then used to find the
best overall engine size, battery pack, and motor combination for minimum fuel
consumption within proposed US government performance criteria.
I. INTRODUCTION
Much of the present motivation for environmentally conscious vehicle designs derives from
government regulations and corporate recognition of public consciousness. The Partnership
for the Next Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) is a joint effort by US government and major
automotive manufacturers in the country. The automotive industry is recognizing that
widespread use of alternative powertrains will be inevitable at some point in the future. The
development and evaluation of new technologies for high-mileage, non-polluting vehicles is
expensive and time-consuming. Using rigorous physically-based computer simulations to
evaluate how such technologies may affect overall vehicle design is an attractive approach
for product development. Under the auspices of the PNGV several design requirements
have been agreed upon as vehicle design targets. Simulation models can be coupled with
mathematical optimization techniques to explore the design space under the PNGV
constraints. Mathematical optima discovered in this way can provide valuable guidance for
further system improvement (see, e.g., Papalambros and Wilde, 1991). The present article
describes the early stages of such an effort.
Conventional internal combustion (IC) engine-driven powertrains have several
disadvantages that negatively affect fuel economy and emissions. Specifically, IC engines
are typically be over-designed by roughly ten times to meet performance targets, such as
acceleration and starting gradeability (Moore, 1996). Oversizing the engine moves the
cruising operating point away from the optimal operation point (Gao et al., 1997).
Moreover, an engine cannot be optimized for all the speed and load ranges under which it
must operate (Moore, 1996). One viable solution to these problems is the use of a hybrid
electric powertrain that decouples the IC engine from peak requirements, thus reducing the
demands on the engine map.

A hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) is a vehicle that has at least two sources of propulsion or
energy conversion, one of them being electric. The most popular designs have an electric
motor, energy storage and/or peaking device, and a power controller in combination with
one or more of the following power units: diesel engine, spark-ignition engine, sterling
engine or fuel cell. Once the components have been chosen, they can be arranged according
to several configurations. These arrangements are classified as being either series or parallel,
as shown in Figure 1 for engine-based hybrids. In a series hybrid, the electric motor is the
only source that powers the wheels while the engine is used solely for battery recharging. A
parallel HEV allows the engine and the motor to drive the wheels simultaneously or
independently. In the latter configuration, the engine can also recharge the batteries
depending on the control strategy implemented. The design process requires a system
engineering approach, where the design of each component must be evaluated through the
components contribution to the overall system performance. The design process typically
starts with evaluation of trade-offs associated with component sizes for a targeted fuel
economy and performance. Successful optimization depends on the quality and flexibility
of the system simulation, as well as on an effective optimization algorithm.

ENGINE

Series
Hybrid

FUEL TANK

GENERATOR
BATTERIES

POWER
ELECTRONICS

MOTOR

Mechanical Connection
Electrical Connection
BATTERIES
FUEL TANK

POWER
ELECTRONICS

ENGINE

MOTOR/
GENERATOR

Parallel
Hybrid

Figure 1 Typical series and parallel hybrid powertrain configurations

Design optimization studies found in the open literature focus mostly on conventional
powertrains. Work on hybrid powertrains has been directed mainly to parametric studies to
assess component sizes and energy management strategies using a variety of models and
simulations. Moore (1996) uses a set of five linked spreadsheets to size powertrain
components based on continuous and peak demand for power and torque. He concludes
that component sizes are mostly determined by starting and cruising gradeability,
acceleration, and regenerative braking requirements. Cumulative energy throughputs over
torque and speed plots are suggested to match an electric motor to a given combination of

vehicle characteristics and driving cycle. Zoelch and Schroeder (1998) use dynamic
optimization to calculate optimal electric motor torque, engine torque, and CVT gear ratios
for a parallel HEV under a simple charge-neutral driving cycle. Bumby and Forster (1986)
employ a direct search technique to obtain a minimum energy path through the driving
cycle. The control variables are the torque split (between IC engine and electric motor) and
gear ratio. This process leads to the definition of an energy management control algorithm.
Parametric studies are then conducted to optimize component size and further improve
vehicle performance.
In this article we present a methodology for hybrid electric vehicle design that can be used
to study and optimize a variety of vehicle and powertrain configurations. Since practical
experience with such configurations is limited and hardware prototypes are expensive, the
methodology uses mathematical models and simulations to represent components and
subsystems considered in the preliminary design stage. Optimization algorithms are used to
drive design iterations in search of the best possible design according to specified design
criteria and constraints. A general overview of the optimization methodology in the context
of environmental design was given in Fellini et al. (1999). A detailed description of the
design framework used in the present study is given in Michelena et al. (1999). The vehicle
simulation program ADVISOR (Cuddy and Wipke, 1997; Senger, 1997), developed at the
U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), was selected as the hybrid-electric
system simulation model. ADVISOR allows easy reconfiguration of the vehicle and
integration of new component modules.
To enhance the predictive ability of the engine module, a high-fidelity turbocharged diesel
engine simulation code (TDES) originally developed by Assanis and Heywood (1986) is
integrated with the ADVISOR simulation model. The integrated ADVISOR+TDES
simulation is then coupled with optimization algorithms to create the desired system design
tool. This tool is used to study the effect of component sizing on fuel economy and
performance. In the early studies presented here the design variables are simply the diesel
engine displacement, battery pack capacity, and power rating of the motor. Design objective
and performance constraints are those set by the Partnership for the Next Generation of
Vehicles (PNGV). Engine scaling techniques based on TDES were developed to enhance
the flexibility and predictive ability of the HEV simulation. Hence, rather then relying on a
simple scaling of a baseline engine map, the conceptual engine itself is scaled first and then
simulated by TDES to generate a new look-up table. The actual implementation relies on a
distributed computing environment to speed up the generation of individual tables.
The outline of the article is as follows. First the engine and vehicle models used in the
simulation are described in some detail. This includes an overview of the HEV simulation
tool ADVISOR, an overview of the turbocharged diesel engine simulation TDES, a
description of the conversion of TDES to feed-backward simulation, the engine scaling
technique, and the integration of TDES and ADVISOR. Then the optimization methodology
and some results are presented, followed by concluding remarks.
II. ENGINE AND VEHICLE MODELS FOR HEV SYSTEM SIMULATION
A. HEV Simulation - ADVISOR
Various computer programs exist for the simulation of hybrid electric powertrains and
vehicles. Depending on the way they are configured, these simulations can be categorized as
either feed-backward or feed-forward. In the feed-backward configuration, the flow
of control begins with the torque required at the tire and ends at the driver pedal position
and, consequently, with the fuel supplied to the engine. The feed-forward configuration
closely resembles the real-life situation, where a driver acts on the pedal in order to get the

required torque to achieve a desired speed. That is, the flow of information starts with driver
demand and ends with torque delivered to the wheels. As a result, the simulation must iterate
on driver demand at each time step to achieve a torque at the wheels sufficient to meet the
demands of the cycle. Feed-forward is the traditional way of configuring engine
simulations, where engine output is predicted for a given fuel input and engine operating
speed.
Some of the better-known feed-backward software tools include SIMPLEV, CarSim,
HVEC, CSM HEV, V-Elph, and ADVISOR (Senger, 1997). The U.S. government under
the PNGV initiative has sponsored the development of the System Analysis Toolkit
(PNGVSAT), a comprehensive feed-forward hybrid electric system simulation developed
by USCAR, a consortium of three U.S. automotive manufacturers. In addition, each major
automotive company has its own specialized, proprietary modeling software.
ADVISOR is a MATLAB/Simulink-based, feed-backward simulation of hybrid electric
propulsion systems. A schematic of the top level of the SIMULINK model is shown in
Figure 2. ADVISOR allows quick analysis of the performance, emissions, and fuel
economy of conventional, electric, and hybrid vehicles. Most of the component models in
ADVISOR are empirical, relying on input/output relations for existing components derived
from data measured in the laboratory. The engine model, for example, appears in the form
of look-up tables, generated by collecting point-by-point data during steady-state tests.
Electric motor modules contain efficiency maps over a range of speeds and torques (both
positive and negative). Battery modules contain functional relationships for charge and
discharge efficiencies at various state of charge. Provisions are made to take into account
dynamics and the rotational inertia of drivetrain components, thus allowing estimation of
transient effects on the vehicle system.

Figure 2 MATLAB/Simulink block diagram of the HEV simulation ADVISOR

The block diagram in Figure 2 starts on the far left with data regarding the actual cycle
through which the vehicle is to be driven. The driving cycle data include the road grade and
the required vehicle speed at each discrete time step. Next, vehicle velocity is passed to a
load-calculating block that finds the total load on the vehicle based on inertial effects due to
acceleration, grade, and aerodynamic and rolling resistance. Then, the proceeding blocks
calculate the load and speed that the engine and motor must provide as output in order to
meet the cycle demands. The fuel used block calculates the amount of fuel needed for
specific engine speed/load points from a brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) map. A

two-dimensional linear interpolation scheme is used for look-up tables. Also, charge and
discharge energies to and from the batteries are accounted for in order to monitor the state
of charge and provide a correction for the total amount of fuel consumed during a test.
ADVISOR offers a selection of component modules that can be used to build a vehicle
system. These include a number of existing fuel converters, generators, motors,
transmissions, energy storage devices, controllers, and vehicle parameters. Having a fixed
list of components may cause some difficulties for the design engineer who desires to
evaluate the impact of using a different, non-existing component or wants to continuously
vary component sizes in search of an optimum combination. The developers of ADVISOR,
aware of this need, have included routines that allow variation of component size through
scaling of maps. Component look-up tables can be scaled linearly with respect to the
required size or capacity (e.g., rated power). If the sizes of these components are kept close
to their nominal values, the scaled experimental data can be used as a reasonably good
estimate. Unfortunately, powertrain components do not scale well outside a narrow range, as
many processes in the engine are non-linear in nature. For this reason, the engine block in
ADVISOR and linear scaling routines were replaced with the predictions of the diesel
engine simulation TDES. Hence, a procedure was developed to use a comprehensive
turbocharged diesel engine simulation to generate a new set of engine characteristics for
every change in engine size or design.
B. TDES Turbocharged Diesel Engine Simulation
TDES is a modified version of the turbocharged diesel engine simulation developed by
Assanis and Heywood (1986). The thermodynamic model combines quasi-steady flow
models of the compressor, turbine, manifolds, and intercooler with a zero-dimensional,
multi-cylinder diesel reciprocator model to enable simulation of the complete engine system.
A wastegate valve model (Filipi and Assanis, 1991) has been implemented since the present
work focuses on a high-speed passenger car type diesel engine system, which typically
includes a boost pressure control device. The parent code provides a great deal of flexibility
regarding engine size and auxiliary engine subsystems. This code has been validated for
engine systems ranging in size from a typical truck engine (Assanis and Heywood, 1986) to
a large locomotive engine (Poola et al., 1996).
The diesel four-stroke cycle is treated as a sequence of continuous processes: intake,
compression, combustion (including expansion), and exhaust. Quasi-steady, adiabatic, onedimensional flow equations are used to predict mass flows past the intake and exhaust
valves. Combustion is modeled as a uniformly distributed heat release process, using
Watsons correlation (Watson et al., 1980). Convective heat transfer in the combustion
chamber is modeled using a Nusselt number correlation based on turbulent flow in pipes
and the characteristic velocity concept (Assanis and Heywood, 1986) for evaluating
turbulent Reynolds number in the cylinder. The characteristic velocity and length scales
required by these correlations are obtained from an energy cascade zero-dimensional
turbulence model (Tennekes, 1972). Radiative heat transfer is added during combustion
(Assanis and Heywood, 1986). The combustion chamber surface temperatures of the piston,
cylinder head, and liner can be either specified or calculated from a specification of the wall
structure. A friction sub-model based on the Millingtons and Hartles correlation (1968) is
used to predict the engine friction losses and convert indicated to brake quantities.
The interaction between the master cylinder model and the other components is accounted
for in the manifolds modeled as separate control volumes. There is instantaneous mixing of
all mass flows that enter the intake manifold with the gases in the manifold. To complete the
system, a compressor is connected to the inlet side of the intake manifold and a turbine is
connected to the outlet side of the exhaust manifold. Turbomachinery performance is

defined by maps that interrelate efficiency, pressure ratio, mass flow rate and shaft speed for
each component. At a particular step in the cycle simulation, the tables are interpolated in a
two-dimensional fashion to calculate two unknown map variables (i.e., mass flow rate and
efficiency) from the two known variables (i.e., pressure ratio and rotor speed) provided as
solutions in a previous simulation step. The turbocharger turbine and compressor are on a
common shaft; hence, turbocharger dynamics are controlled by the balance of the turbine
and compressor torque, rotor inertia and damping. The wastegate valve is boost pressure
controlled as shown in Figure 3. Valve dynamics take into account the pressure and spring
force acting on the actuator diaphragm as well as pressure difference acting on the valve
head (Filipi and Assanis, 1991). Hence:
m&z& + bz& + Sz = ( pexman pback ) Av + ( pcontr patm ) Adfgm F preload

(1)

where z is the wastegate valve lift, m is the mass, b is damping constant, S is spring stiffness,
ps are pressures at locations defined by subscripts, Av is valve head diameter, Adfgm is
diaphragm diameter and Fprel is spring pre-load force. Once the boost pressure reaches a
high enough value and the valve opens, the flow is predicted using compressible flow
routines otherwise applied to engine valves.
Spring

Patm

Diaphragm

P BACK

PEXMAN

P control (boost)

TURBINE
INLET SIDE

Figure 3 Schematic of the wastegate valve

As a first step the input data file was configured for a baseline engine, the 1.9 L Volkswagen
TDI diesel (Neumann et al., 1992). This engine was among the limited group available in
the ADVISOR library of engines. The turbocharger manufacturer, AlliedSignal, supplied
turbine and compressor maps. Instead of using data from the literature, the authors were
able to obtain actual baseline engine test data from the Michigan Automotive Research
Company (MARCO). The data were then used for validation purposes of the engine
simulation. The predictions of the system parameters, i.e., manifold pressures and
temperatures, were validated firstan indication that the cycle simulation is using accurate
values of parameters having most impact on the process in the cylinder. The friction
correlation was then calibrated for correct conversion of indicated to brake quantities.
Results of the validation of engine performance are shown in Figure 4. The agreement is
very good throughout the range of operating speeds.

60
250

Power
50

200
40

Torque
150

30

Predicted

20

100

Measured
10

1000

2000

3000

4000

50

Engine Speed (RPM)

Figure 4 Comparison of predicted and measured VW 1.9L TDI engine performance

Calibration and validation was performed with the original TDES code that has a feedforward structure. As mentioned previously, this is the traditional way of configuring engine
simulations, where it is assumed that the user requires a prediction of engine output for a
given fuel input and engine operating speed. However, ADVISOR has a feed-backward
structure, where the main inputs are the driving conditions, i.e., vehicle speed as a function
of time. The vehicle simulation determines engine speed/torque histories necessary to
achieve these conditions. For every speed/torque point, the fuel mass supplied to the engine
is evaluated from a look-up table and the integrated value allows calculation of the fuel
consumption associated with the specific driving cycle. Therefore, TDES had to be modified
to act as a feed-backward simulation in order to enable its integration with ADVISOR.
C. Conversion to Feed-Backward Simulation
The integration of TDES and ADVISOR required developing two routines for automatic
generation of the data used by the system simulation. One routine produces maximum
torque values as a function of speed, and the other generates the map of fueling rate as a
function of speed and output torque. The speed range considered for maximum torque
calculations was from 1000 RPM to 4500 RPM.
The peak torque at each point is constrained by the amount of fuel that can be burned
without exceeding the smoke limit. It was estimated that the smoke limit of a modern highspeed DI engine corresponds to an overall fuel-air equivalence ratio of 0.7. A modified
Newton-Raphson technique was used to assess iteratively the amount of fuel needed to
achieve an overall equivalence ratio of 0.7. Once this is accomplished the output torque is
recorded as a maximum value within the smoke limit constraint. The automated routine then
starts the calculation for the next speed value and proceeds with the calculations until the
vector of peak torque values vs. speed is complete.
The second routine is then applied to generate a map of fueling rates in the complete engine
speed/torque range. For every speed the torque range is uniformly split into a number of
segments. Then, for every specific speed point, the modified Newton-Raphson technique is
used to vary the fuel input to TDES in an iterative loop until the desired torque value is

matched. Once the correct value of required torque is found, the fueling rate used at that
point is indexed with the respective speed and torque. A plot of a typical fueling rate map
generated for the 1.9 L diesel engine is shown in Figure 5. All data are stored in a file with
the format expected by the ADVISOR. This technique allows the user to generate data for
different engine designs.

Figure 5 Sample fuel table used by ADVISOR

D. Engine System Scaling Techniques
One of the objectives of this study was to replace the linear scaling of experimentally
obtained engine look-up tables with a high-fidelity simulation capable of predicting the
effects of engine geometry on processes in the cylinder and external engine components.
The fidelity of physical models built into TDES guaranties realistic accounting for nonlinear
effects, such as changes in heat losses due to cylinder size. The scaling methodology
considers engine geometry first, e.g., bore, stroke, connecting rod length, valve diameters,
and nominal valve lift. Any change in engine size will have a direct impact on mass and
enthalpy flows through the engine, so a technique for scaling the turbocharging system
components is also needed.
Variations of any of the geometric data independently of the others would inevitable lead to
engine designs that are not plausible, thereby creating design space discontinuity problems
for design optimization schemes. Instead, for a given engine configuration with a fixed
bore-to-stroke ratio, it is possible to derive relationships between any of the geometric
parameters and engine bore. These ratios are to be preserved when the bore is increased or
decreased, and this will depend on the desired engine size, i.e., power level. The scaled bore
size for the desired displacement is found using the following equation:
Bscaled = (

Bba seline 4 V 1/ 3
)
Sb a seline I

(2)

where I is the number of cylinders in the baseline engine, B is the bore, S is the stroke, and
V is the desired displacement corresponding to a specified power level. The scaled values of

other engine geometric parameters are then determined by multiplying the baseline values
with ratios with respect to bore. These values are inserted in the TDES input file for the
scaled engine. The manifolds are scaled such that their volumes change in direct proportion
to the change of engine displacement.
Scaling of the turbine and compressor implies creation of new maps representing machines
with flow characteristics matched to the scaled engine. As a starting point, it is assumed that
the percentage change in the nominal mass flow rate corresponds directly to the change in
engine displacement. Maps are then scaled using scaling laws that take into account increase
or decrease of the nominal mass flow rate and evaluate a new wheel diameter based on the
assumption that the rotor tip velocity will remain the same (Watson, 1982, Filipi et al.,
1998). Hence, the wheel diameter varies directly, while the wheel map speed varies inversely,
with the square of the mass flow ratio of the original and the scaled machine. The wastegate
valve geometric area and actuator diaphragm area are scaled linearly with the change in
engine displacement.
The scaling technique was implemented for engines between 1.0 and 1.9 liters. Baseline
data were those of the VW 1.9 L TDI diesel engine. The behavior of the turbocharging
system was very consistent. Intake manifold pressure increased gradually with engine speed
up to about 2000 RPM and remained at 1.821.85 bars after that point regardless of engine
size (see Figure 6 (a)). The exhaust manifold pressure given in Figure 6 (b) shows similar
trends; however, there are some differences in pressure levels after the wastegate valve
opens. The largest engine system has highest pressures ahead of the turbine, and the
difference between the largest and the smallest pressures is on the order of 5%. This is a
consequence of the inherent non-linearity of processes affecting overall pressure and
temperature difference across the engine. The effects of physical engine scaling vs. linear
scaling of engine output maps (standard in ADVISOR) are illustrated in Figures 7 and 8.
The top line in Figure 7 is the baseline 1.9 L engine torque as a function of speed, while the
other two lines represent predicted torques for the small, 1.0 L engine.

2.2

1.8
1.9 L
1.8 L
1.6

1.7 L
1.6 L
1.5 L
1.4 L

1.4

1.7 L

1.4 L

1.4

20 00

3000

1.3 L
1.2 L
1.1 L

1.2

1.0 L

1
1000

1.6 L
1.5 L

1.0 L
1

1.8 L

1.6

1.3 L
1.2 L
1.1 L

1.2

1.9 L

1.8

4 000

1 000

2000

3 000

Engine Speed (RPM)

Engine Speed (RPM)

(a)

(b)

Figure 6 Predicted (a) intake and (b) exhaust manifold pressures for
engines of varying size

40 00

Figure 7 Comparison of maximum torque using ADVISOR default scaling and TDES
code. (Solid line corresponds to the baseline 1.9 L engine.)

250

300

280

BSFC (gm/kW/hr)

BSFC (g/kW-h)

240
Al l Displacements
230

220

210

200

Displacement=1.9L
Displacement=1.5L
Displacement=1.0L

260

240

220

1000

2 000

3000

Engine Speed (RPM)

(a)

4000

200

1000

2000

3000

4000

Engine Speed (RPM)

(b)

Figure 8 Comparison of BSFC results obtained for engines of different sizes using (a)
ADVISOR default linear scaling and (b) TDES predictions for the engine composed of
scaled components.
The linear scaling of engine characteristics is clearly overestimating the engine performance
at low and medium speeds. Nonlinear scaling of a turbocharged engine ultimately affects
the engine fuel economya key characteristic for HEV applications. Figure 8 illustrates the
difference in brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) between a linearly scaled baseline
engine and the simulated physically scaled engine. Whereas the BSFC curves remains
virtually unchanged after linear scaling of the baseline, Figure 8 (a), the predicted BSFC
curves of engines having displacements 1.0, 1.5 and 1.9 liters show significant
discrepancies, Figure 8 (b). At speeds below 2000 RPM the specific fuel consumption
increases inversely proportional to engine size, primarily because of the adverse effects of
small size on relative heat and mechanical losses. BSFC curves cross each other at about
2000 RPM, whereas larger engines demonstrate increased relative fuel consumption at
speeds above 2000 RPM. This can be attributed to the negative effect of the increased
exhaust manifold pressure on pumping work and cycle efficiency, Figure 6 (b). It is
believed that such results will allow more realistic predictions of fuel economy when
vehicles having engines of different sizes are driven in varying road conditions.

E. Integrating TDES and ADVISOR: ADVISOR+TDES

ADVISOR is capable of scaling the engine, motor, and battery pack maps within a small
range (Cuddy and Wipke, 1997; Senger 1997). Alternatively, it has been shown above that
the high-fidelity turbocharged diesel engine simulation TDES can be modified for
simulating geometrically similar engines within a wide range of sizes. A next step in
preparing the vehicle simulation for optimization studies is to replace the built-in engine
look-up tables within ADVISOR with those produced by TDES. To accomplish this, TDES
was modified to produce the fuel consumption tables and maximum torque vs. RPM
vectors, which ADVISOR requires for calculating fuel economy and performance.
Graphical interpretation of the integration technique is given in Figure 9.
ATMOSPHERE

IN TERC OOLER

I
M

E
M

FUEL
SYSTEM

4CYL ENGINE
.
W

TURBOCHARGED
DIESEL ENGINE
SIMULATION
ADVISOR

Figure 9 Integration of ADVISOR with the engine system simulation TDES

In addition, TDES is now able to accept a desired engine displacement as input and
automatically scale all engine components. Consequently, after every change in engine size
or, generally speaking, in engine design, ADVISOR executes the modified TDES code to
generate a new engine look-up table on-line. This integrated version of the HEV simulation
is referred to as ADVISOR+TDES in this article. To illustrate the effect of the increased
fidelity of the new tool on engine characteristics, Figure 10 shows the relative difference
between fuel consumption maps created for the smallest engine, i.e., the 1.0 L engine. This
3-D surface was generated through direct comparison of maps of the same type as the one
given in Figure 4, one being calculated using a standard ADVISOR linear scaling routine
and the other generated by the TDES code.

Figure 10 Relative error between linearly scaled and TDES-generated 32.6 kW engine fuel
consumption maps
The error is in general increasing with the increase of engine speed and decrease of engine
load. At high speeds and very low loads the error is above 10%, while at medium speeds
and moderate loads the error is mostly below 5%. Since the medium speed/part load
conditions are predominant in standard driving cycles, the overall effect on vehicle fuel
consumption should correlate with the latter error value. Figure 11 shows contour plots of
fuel consumption with maximum torque curves overlaid. Operating points of the engine at
each time step of the urban driving schedule are shown on the plot of Figure 11(a). Similar
plot is given for the highway cycle on Figure 11(b). The plots show that indeed the engine
operates at mid-range speed and load conditions most of the time, in particular for the
highway cycle.

(a)

(b)

Figure 11 Operating points of the engine at each time step of the (a) urban and
(b) highway driving schedules
ADVISOR+TDES offers several benefits. First, it allows a designer to change an engine
module on-the-fly without the prohibitive costs and lengthy lead times necessary to

develop a prototype and produce the experimental data needed by ADVISOR. If an engine
is scaled within a wide range of sizes, the simulation output includes scaled dimensions of
major engine components that can be used to evaluate the feasibility of the new design or as
a starting point in the design of a prototype engine. It is also possible to add or remove
certain auxiliary systems, such as power turbines or superchargers, as well as to study
control issues, e.g., injection system or variable valve strategies. The following section
describes the design optimization methodology for HEVs developed around the
ADVISOR+TDES simulation.
III. OPTIMAL DESIGN OF HYBRID ELECTRIC PROPULSION SYSTEMS
A generic CORBA-based, object-oriented design framework was used in the present design
study of a parallel hybrid electric propulsion system. As described in Michelena et al.,
(1999), the framework supports distributed and heterogeneous computer resources, custom
and existing simulation codes, a variety of optimization algorithms, and easy
reconfigurability of the design problem.

Figure 12 Pre-optimality response surface study

A preliminary study was performed on a baseline design using ADVISOR and its default
scaling routine in order to gain some basic understanding of the effects of component sizing
on overall vehicle performance and fuel economy. The simulations essentially act as implicit
mathematical functions relating these quantities. The nature of such functions has a major
impact on the quality of the optimization results. The graphs of these functions, sometimes
referred to as response surfaces, are shown in Figure 12. The effects of fuel economy,

passing time, and distance covered under acceleration are depicted against motor and battery
power levels. These surfaces show basic tradeoffs of system responses and contribution of
various design variables. Since a priori knowledge of numerical noise inherent to the
simulation is not available, such a preliminary study allows us to determine proper finite
difference step sizes for gradient approximations needed by optimization algorithms. Figure
13 shows a zoom-in to a region of the fuel economy response surface depicting an average
level of numerical noise. This type of noise is most likely due to numerical round-off,
interpolation inaccuracy or discrete events within the system. The choice was made to use a
finite difference step of 0.2 kW to allow the gradient-based algorithms to sample the
functions better.
0-60 mph Time (s)
10.5

10

7.9
7.8

9.5

7.7
9
7.6
8.5
7.5
8
7.4
7.5

7.3

7
6.5
5

7.2

10

15

20

25

Motor Size (kW)

7.1
15

16

17

18

19

20

Motor Size (kW)

Figure 13 Numerical noise in ADVISOR performance metric

A. Optimization Methodology
1. Optimization Problem Formulation
PNGV passenger car performance constraints were used for the design models presented in
this article. The design problem was formulated as a component sizing problem. The design
variables include engine, motor, and battery rated power. Simple bounds were imposed on
these design variables based on engineering judgement, in order to adhere to packaging
limitations imposed by the size of the powertrain compartment.
Two design optimization problem formulations were chosen for the study. The first
formulation attempts to maximize fuel economy subject to performance constraints. The
optimization problem statement is shown in Table 1. A second problem formulation was
devised to minimize the 0 to 60 mph acceleration time while maintaining a relatively high
fuel economy and satisfying other performance constraints. The idea behind this
formulation is to design a high performance vehicle without substantial loss in fuel
economy. The optimization problem statement for the second formulation is shown in
Table 2.

Table 1 Optimization Problem Statement

Maximize:
f(xAD VISOR , xTD ES) = mpg
xAD VI SOR = {motor size, battery size}
xTD ES = {engine size}
Subject to:
0-60 time
40-60 (passing time)
maximum speed
0-85 time
5 second distance
maximum acceleration
cruising (55 mph) grade

< 12 seconds
< 5.3 seconds
> 85 mph
< 23.4 seconds
> 140 feet
> 0.5 gs
> 6.5%

Table 2 Alternative Problem Statement

Maximize:
f(xAD VISOR , xTD ES) = 0-60 mph time
xAD VI SOR = {motor size, battery size}
xTD ES = {engine size}
Subject to:
Fuel Economy
40-60 (passing time)
maximum speed
0-85 time
5 second distance
maximum acceleration
cruising (55 mph) grade

> 45 mpg
< 5.3 seconds
> 85 mph
< 23.4 seconds
> 140 feet
> 0.5 gs
> 6.5%

The driving schedule selected to evaluate the fuel economy of the hybrid propulsion system
was the SAE Cycle J1711. This cycle runs the vehicle through two urban and two highway
schedules starting at a high state of charge (SOC) of the storage device (i.e., the batteries).
This set of schedules is then repeated starting at a low SOC. The goal here is to account for
the energy being supplied by the batteries as measured by the overall change in SOC. A
linear interpolation is performed to estimate a charge-neutral fuel economy, namely, the
fuel consumption corresponding to a cycle with no variation in SOC. The two portions of
the driving cycle that were employed in this study are the Federal Urban Driving Schedule
(FUDS) and the Federal Highway Driving Schedule (FHDS), Figure 14. The SAE method
is one of the first attempts to estimate the equivalent fuel used to have a charge-neutral
end state. Other methods being explored are algorithms that iterate on the initial SOC, until
the final SOC is within some tolerance of the initial one.

Figure 14 SAE Driving Cycle J1711: (a) urban and (b) highway
2. Optimization Procedure
Figure 15 illustrates the optimization loop implemented using the design framework. The
schematic indicates the linking of the optimization routine that traverses the design space
and the HEV simulations that evaluate design objective and constraint functions at each new
design point generated by an optimization iteration.

YES

NO

FIND MAX
TORQUE
CURVE

TDES

ENGINE
CHANGE
?

MAP D
3500-4500
RPM

MAP A
0-1000 RPM

ADVISOR
MAP B
1250 2000
RPM

MAP C
2250-3250
RPM

COMPLETE MAP
AND MAX TORQUE

SQP
OPTIMIZATION
ROUTINE

ADVISOR + TDES

ADVISOR

Figure 15 Optimization loop showing distributed map generation

The standard gradient-based optimization algorithm sequential quadratic programming

(SQP) was selected as the search engine in the framework. At each iteration the SQP
algorithm generates a new point in the design space that improves the objective function
while also reducing any existing constraint violations. The iterations continue until the
search converges to a local optimum. The algorithm is efficient but it may converge to a
local rather than a global optimum. This deficiency of gradient-based algorithms is typically
addressed by performed multiple optimization runs starting from different starting points.
This multi-start process can identify several local minima and/or give a preponderance of
evidence for a global solution. Successful attempts at using other optimization algorithms
are described in Fellini (1998) and Sasena (1998). In this study we selected starting points
using a basic design of experiments (two-level full factorial) approach, namely, we started at
the eight design states corresponding to the upper and lower bounds of the design variables.
Two function evaluation schemes were implemented using either ADVISOR or
ADVISOR+TDES, as shown in Figure 15. Stand-alone ADVISOR was used to evaluate
functions at points that did not require regeneration of the engine map due to a change in
engine size. This is the case for estimating partial derivatives with respect to motor and
battery size. The ADVISOR default scaling scheme was not used. ADVISOR+TDES was
used for all other function evaluations that did require regeneration of the engine map. In
each case, the simulation was represented as a black box to the CORBA framework. The
framework was also used to distribute map generation onto four workstations for
concurrent numerical processing. Care was taken to avoid generating the same engine size
map more than once. Simple measures, such as distributed map generation and additional
logic to reuse maps, resulted in a four-fold decrease in runtime.
B. Optimization Results
1. Fuel economy as design objective
As mentioned already, eight starting points were used. The eight sets of values for the initial
component sizes are listed in Table 3. Since these combinations include all the extreme
possibilities, they allow the optimizer to start working towards the optimum from very
different directions. The runs were performed using ADVISOR default scaling techniques,
but using as the baseline the 1.9 L diesel engine map generated by TDES. For the baseline
motor component , a Westinghouse 75 kW AC induction motor with a maximum torque of
271 N-m was selected. As with the engine, a torque scale factor was used to vary the motor
size continuously. The battery modeled was the Electrosource Horizon advanced lead-acid
battery pack, model number 12N85. This battery provides a specific energy of 35 W-h/kg
and a specific power of 240 W/kg. To vary the battery pack size, the number of battery
modules was considered to be a continuous variable.
Table 3 Multi-start starting points
Run #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Motor (kW)
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

Engine (kW)
32.6
32.6
55.6
55.6
32.6
32.6
55.6
55.6

Battery (kW)
30.0
100.0
30.0
100.0
30.0
100.0
30.0
100.0

Table 4 Multi-start results for fuel economy optimization

Run #

Motor (kW)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

43.3
39.5
26.2
42.7
40.3
39.7
27.1
40.8

Battery
(kW)
54.8
47.8
32.1
54.8
52.0
52.6
34.2
51.9

Engine
(kW)
32.6
35.5
46.4
32.6
32.7
32.7
44.7
32.7

Fuel econ.
(mpg)

40-60 passing
time activity (s)

49.0
47.9
43.3
49.0
49.1
49.1
44.0
49.1

-0.0005
0
-0.0349
0
0
0
-0.0255
0

The results of this exploratory study are shown in Table 4. Note that the optimizer did
identify a configuration with a fuel economy close to or above 49 mpg in five of eight cases,
while the other three configurations converged to inferior local minima. Averaging the most
efficient combinations produces the following HEV specification:
Motor

~41 kW

Battery

~52 kW

Engine

~33 kW

Fuel Economy

~49 mpg

The 40 60 mph passing time constraint was always activesee the corresponding column
in Table 4meaning that this design requirement is critical to the location of the optimum.
The optimizer found the smallest possible engine that allows the vehicle to meet the passing
time requirement eaxctly. The electric motor and battery are sized such that they can assist
the engine with enough power during acceleration. Other local minima (runs #2, #3, and #7)
have smaller electrical components and larger engines; hence, the performance criteria are
still satisfied but fuel economy is inferior, roughly in proportion to the increase in engine
size.
Next, the optimization iterations were repeated using the ADVISOR+TDES tool. This
combination was expected to provide more accuracy due to the higher fidelity of the engine
performance predictor, but at the expense of longer computational time. Since the first study
with ADVISOR clearly indicated where to expect the optimum, the calculation did not
require multiple starts. In addition, the starting point was chosen near the previously found
optimum, thereby allowing the code to converge more quickly. The optimum configuration
as determined by the ADVISOR+TDES integrated tool was:
Motor
Battery
Engine
Fuel Economy

42.1 kW
53.5 kW
32.6 kW
48.5 mpg

Comparison between results obtained with the two tools shows small differences. In fact,
predicted fuel economy varies by only one percent, while maximum variation in component
size is three percent (for the battery). Apparently, the improvement in accuracy hardly
justifies the increased computational cost of ADVISOR+TDES. However, part of the
reason for this result is the fact that the optimum configuration includes the smallest engine,

thus the relative impact of engine characteristics on vehicle performance is small. Also,
examination of the engine operating points most frequently visited during the SAE driving
cycle (Figure 11) reveals that the engine operates mostly at medium speed and medium to
light load. Fuel consumption of the small engine predicted by two different scaling methods
varies little for these conditions, hence the small effect on the vehicle fuel economy.
2. Acceleration time as design objective
Finding the optimum for an initial problem statement and a set of design specifications is
usually a first step in a comprehensive optimization study. Alternative problem statements
may be explored, and new optimization runs can be executed with different sets of design
specificationsreferred to as parametric studies. Such additional studies provide the design
engineer and the management with insights into alternatives that may be more attractive from
a production or marketability point of view, factors not included in performance models
explicitly.
The solution obtained in the previous subsection indicated a combination of a small engine
with relatively large electrical components as the best one for fuel economy. An alternative
problem statement was studied whereby the 0-60 mph time was minimized. The other
performance constraints were left in the problem statement; however, an additional 45 mpg
fuel economy constraint was imposed. This study was intended to show how changing the
design goal has a direct impact on the component sizes found.
As with the first study, ADVISOR default scaling routine was used first in a multi-start
optimization scheme. The same eight points were used as the starting locations, and the
resulting solutions are shown in Table 5 below. Once again, several solutions were in the
same general area, while the remaining ones were clearly worse. The best solutions have a 060 time of 7.9 seconds, but other starting points yielded results of only 10.3 seconds. This
reinforces the need for multi-start techniques when using algorithms such as SQP.
Table 5 Multi-start result for acceleration time optimization
Run #

Motor (kW)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

34.3
70.4
74.2
72.2
36.6
100.0
92.2
99.5

Battery
(kW)
41.1
91.3
99.5
100.0
46.2
100.0
51.8
33.8

Engine
(kW)
40.6
36.5
35.7
35.8
41.5
32.7
32.7
98.5

0-60 mph
time (s)

45 mpg
activity

10.1
7.9
7.9
7.9
10.0
7.9
10.1
7.9

-0.6576
-0.0001
-0.0366
-0.0024
0
-0.9468
-0.8535
-0.5996

Note that the optimal designs are quite different from those obtained for fuel economy
optimization. The active constraint is now the fuel economy constraint of 45 mpg. Note that
the 0-60 constraint in the first problem statement was an upper bound of 12 seconds and
was not active. The engines have been sized somewhat larger, which results in worse fuel
economy but better performance. It can also be seen that the optimal configurations have
battery packs very near the upper bound and correspondingly large motors in order to
maximize performance. Averaging the best combinations produces the following HEV
specification:

Motor
Battery
Engine
0 60 mph time

~72 kW
~99 kW
~36 kW
~7.9 sec

It is interesting to have the multi-start results for comparison since the best designs require
electric components too large to be practical. This is not true of some of the other local
optima. A designer may be willing to give up some performance in order to use smaller
motor/battery combinations. For example, the solution from the first multi-start point
yielded a design with only a 34.4 and 41.1 kW rating for the motor and battery, respectively,
while keeping the engine at 40.6 kW. This design predicts a 0-60 time of 10.1 seconds and
a fuel economy of 45.7 mpg. These numbers may be much more appealing to the designer,
although optimization algorithms will identify solutions that are mathematically best within
the specified problem statement.
As with the first formulation, the best solution was chosen as a starting point for a single
run of the ADVISOR+TDES problem. The solution converged relatively quickly to the
following point:
Motor
Battery
Engine
0 60 mph time

75.1 kW
97.2 kW
34.2 kW
7.9 sec

Once again, the solution appears to be relatively close to the solution obtained using
ADVISOR default scaling rules.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
The results of early design optimization studies are usually the starting point for further
studies that may provide more insight on the complex relationships present in real
engineering systems. In the present study dominant relationships between vehicle
subsystems were determined and sensitivity studies were conducted offering a better
understanding of variable and parameter interactions. Further studies are currently under
way. These include optimization studies for determining subsystem local design variables,
such as geometric dimensions, and also for adding control strategy design, since the
controller is ultimately a key ingredient in systems that may operate under transient
conditions most of the time. Finally, several non-gradient global optimization algorithms are
being evaluated for use either as stand alone or in conjunction with SQP.
In the present study the primary goal of the integrated simulation tool was not to increase
the accuracy of the overall simulation. It was pointed out that the results of both simulations
vary only slightly. An important advantage of the coupled ADVISOR+TDES simulation is
that it allows easy alterations of the engine module. For instance, the same engine design
can be changed slightly (different valve timings, injection timing, type of fuel used, without a
turbocharger, and so on) and proceed with system evaluation and design studies without
expensive experimentation for collecting new calibration data.
An important design requirement that has been completely omitted here is emissions
constraints. Emission models are not available within ADVISOR. Researchers in the ARC
are currently validating an emissions submodel that has been implemented within TDES.
This will be include in future design studies.

Acknowledgements
This research is partially supported by the U.S. Army Automotive Research Center for
Modeling and Simulation of Ground Vehicles. This support is gratefully acknowledged. In
addition, the authors would like to thank M. Cuddy and K. Wipke of NREL for their
assistance with the ADVISOR model, and M. Salman and T. Weber of General Motors
Corporation for their advice on hybrid vehicle models.
REFERENCES
D. Assanis and J. Heywood, Development and Use of a Computer Simulation of the
Turbocompounded Diesel System for Engine Performance and Component Heat
Transfer Studies, SAE Paper 860329, 1986.
J. Bumby and I. Forster, Optimisation and Control of a Hybrid Electric Car, IEE
Proceedings, Part D: Control Theory and Applications, Vol. 134, No. 6,1986, pp.
373-387.
M. Cuddy and K. Wipke, Analysis of the Fuel Economy Benefit of Drivetrain
Hybridization, SAE Paper 970289, 1997.
R. Fellini, Derivative-Free and Global Search Optimization Algorithms in an ObjectOriented Design Framework, Master of Science Thesis, Department of Mechanical
Engineering and Applied Mechanics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 1998.
R. Fellini, N. Michelena, P. Papalambros, and M. Sasena, Optimal Design of Automotive
Hybrid Powertrain Systems, Proceedings of EcoDesign'99: First International
Symposium on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing,
Tokyo, Japan, February 1-3, 1999, pp. 400-405.
Z. Filipi and D. Assanis, "Quasi-Dimensional Computer Simulation of the Turbocharged SI
Engine and Its Use for 2 and 4 Valve Engine Matching Study", paper presented at the
1991 SAE International Congress & Exposition, SAE Paper 910075, SAE
Transactions, Journal of Engines, Sec. 3, Vol. 100, Detroit, 1991.
Z. Filipi, D. Assanis, D. Jung, G. Delagrammatikas, J. Liedtke, D. Reyes, D. Rosenbaum, A.
Sales, Enhancing Flexibility and Transient Capability of the Diesel Engine System
Simulation, 4th ARC Conference on Critical Technologies for Modeling and
Simulation
of
Ground
Vehicles,
Ann
Arbor,
May
19-20,
http://arc.engin.umich.edu/arc/conf98/filipi.pdf, 1998.
Y. Gao, K. Rahman, and M. Ehsani, Parametric Design of the Drive Train of an
Electrically Peaking Hybrid (ELPH) Vehicle, SAE Paper 970294, 1997.
B. W. Millington, E. R. Hartles, Frictional Losses in Diesel Engines, SAE Paper
680590, SAE Transactions, Vol. 77, 1968.
N. Michelena, C. Scheffer, R. Fellini, and P. Papalambros, A CORBA-Based Framework
for Distributed, Object-Oriented System Design, Journal of Mechanics of
Structures and Machines, this issue, 1999.
T. Moore, Tools and Strategies for Hybrid-Electric Drivesystem Optimization, SAE
Paper 961660, 1996.

M. M. KH. Neumann, M. Kuhlmeyer, J. Pohle, The New 1.9 L TDI Diesel Engine with
Low Fuel Consumption and Low Emission from Volkswagen and AUDI, Journal of
the Societe des Ingenieurs Automobile, SIA No. 92038, 1992, pp. 262-280.
P. Y. Papalambros, D. J. Wilde, Principles of Optimal Design, Cambridge University Press,
New York, 1991.
R. R. Poola, R. Sekar, D. N. Assanis, G. R. Cataldi, Study of Oxygen-Enriched
Combustion Air for Locomotive Diesel Engines, Proceedings of ASME-ICE Fall
Technical Conference, ICE-Vol. 27-4, Fairborn, OH, October 20-23, 1996.
M. Sasena, Optimization of Computer Simulations via Smoothing Splines and Kriging
Metamodels, Master of Science Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering and
Applied Mechanics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 1998.
C. Scheffer, A Software Framework for Optimal Systems Design, Master of Science
Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 1997.
R. Senger, Validation of ADVISOR as a Simulation Tool for a Series Hybrid Electric
Vehicle Using the Virginia Tech FutureCar Lumina, Master of Science Thesis,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, VA, 1997.
M. Tennekes, J. L. Lumley, A First Course in Turbulence, MIT Press, Cambridge,
Massachusets, 1972.
N. Watson, A. D. Pilley, M. Marzouk, A Combustion Correlation for Diesel Engine
Simulation, SAE Paper 800029, Warrendale, 1980.
N. Watson and M. S. Janota, Turbocharging the Internal Combustion Engine, John J.
Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, 1982.