872 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 53, NO.

3, MAY 2004

Control of a Parallel Hybrid Powertrain:

Optimal Control
Sebastien Delprat, Jimmy Lauber, Thierry Marie Guerra, and J. Rimaux

Abstract—Control strategies for hybrid powertrains are algo- Fuel consumption required producing the
rithms that choose the power split between the engine and motor of torque at speed (gr/s).
a hybrid vehicle in order to minimize the fuel consumption and/or The same according to the decision vari-
emissions. The goal of this paper is to propose an efficient tool to
evaluate minimal fuel consumption that is achievable in simulation. ables and (gr/s).
Several approaches have been proposed, using heuristics (Delprat • Electric motor
et al. 1999) or dynamic programming (Brahma et al., 2000; Rimaux Speed (rpm).
et al., 1999). One drawback of these approaches is the huge amount Torque (Nm).
of time required to obtain solutions. The approach described here Maximum speed (rpm).
is based on optimal control theory (Lewis & Syrmos, 1995) and
avoids this drawback. Moreover, it can be easily applied to a large Minimum torque at speed (Nm).
family of parallel arrangements. Maximum torque at speed (Nm).
Power (including all losses) required pro-
Index Terms—Control strategy, hybrid vehicle, optimal control.
ducing the torque at speed
(W).
NOMENCLATURE The same written according to the decision
variables and (W).
Sample, .
Power (without battery losses) required
Sampling time.
producing the torque at speed
• Vehicle (W).
Wheel speed (rpm). The same written according to the decision
Torque at the wheel (Nm). variables and (W).
• Gearbox • Battery
Gear number. State of charge.
At a given sample, set of admissible gear Charge acceptance, i.e., battery efficiency.
number, i.e., with two gears: {{1}, {2}, {1, The same written according to the decision
2}}. variables and .
Reduction ratio for the th gear. Overall battery state of charge variation
Gearbox efficiency. over a speed cycle.
• Reduction gears
Reduction ratio.
Reduction gears efficiency. I. INTRODUCTION
• IC engine
Speed (rpm).
Torque at output shaft (Nm).
H YBRID vehicles use at least two energy sources for
their propelling; usually, an electric motor is associated
with an internal combustion (IC) engine. The motor provides
, Minimal and maximal speed (rpm). the ability to recover kinetic energy during braking phases,
whereas the engine ensures a range similar to a conventional
Maximal torque at speed (Nm). vehicle. In comparison with a conventional car, the goals are
to reduce emissions and fuel consumption in a significant way.
Manuscript received April 26, 2002; revised December 20, 2002, September To achieve these goals, several ways can be investigated in the
1, 2003, and November 20, 2003. This work is the result of a collaboration field of engineering. For example, reducing the vehicle weight,
between the Laboratoire d’Automatique, de Mécanique et d’Informatique In- improving the IC engine control, designing more efficient
dustrielles et Humaines, Valenciennes, France (LAMIH) and PSA Peugeot Cit-
roën, Vélizy Villacoublay Cedex, France, and has been supported by the Agence mechanical parts, and so on. Among all these possibilities, we
de l’Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l’énergie (ADEME) and the Fond Eu- will suppose that all the components (motor, IC engine, battery,
ropéen pour le DÉveloppement Régional (FEDER). car, etc.) to be fixed and we investigate how to manage the
S. Delprat, J. Lauber, and T. M. Guerra are with the Université de Valenci-
ennes et du Hainaut Cambrésis, Le Mont Houy Cedex 59300, France (e-mail: energy flows in the powertrain. In other words, an arrangement
delprat@univ-valenciennes.fr; lauber@univ-valenciennes.fr; guerra@univ-va- being chosen, what is the “best” control strategy?
lenciennes.fr). We can distinguish two classes of algorithms. The first con-
J. Rimaux is with PSA Peugeot Citroën, Vélizy Villacoublay Cedex 78943,
France (e-mail: Janette.Rimaux@mpsa.com). cerns a real-time control strategy that can be used to control a
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TVT.2004.827161 vehicle. Several algorithms have been proposed, some of which
0018-9545/04$20.00 © 2004 IEEE
DELPRAT et al.: CONTROL OF A PARALLEL HYBRID POWERTRAIN
use fuzzy logiccontrollers [3], [4] and others are based on an
energy-flow analysis [5], [6].
A second-class of algorithms deals with global optimization in
simulation. In this case, the vehicle speed is regulated to follow a
speed cycle using a torque at the wheel controller. A first objec-
tive is to compute the minimum fuel consumption that is achiev-
able with a given prototype on a given speed cycle. Several algo-
rithms have been proposed to solve this problem; for example,
simulated annealing [7] or algorithms based on dynamic pro-
gramming [8], [9]. These algorithms require a lot of computa-
tional time and a fine tuning of their parameters and their use is
then restricted to short speed cycles and single experiments. To
outperform these algorithms, another efficient approach based
on the optimal control theory is proposed. It allows very fast re-
sults to be obtained and can be used for another purpose. Ac-
cording to the fact that, for the model and the criterion taken into
account, optimal results are obtained and. thus, we have got the
lower bound of consumption for a given cycle. Therefore, this
algorithm is used to evaluate all the other kinds of control strate-
gies, especially those dedicated to real-time control.
The paper is organized as follows. In the first part, the dif-
ferent powertrain modeling used for simulation and the control
are presented. Parts two and three describe the optimal con-
trol theory applied to such arrangements via different battery
models. At last, some results for a prototype built at the LAMIH
are presented.
II. HYBRID VEHICLE MODELING
For this study, two levels of modeling are considered. The
first, called model 1, is used to simulate the vehicle over speed
cycles. It represents only the longitudinal behavior and is de-
signed for the energetic-consumption simulation. It includes the
following:
• dynamic behavior on the IC engine torque;
• model of the motor based on physical equations (magnetic
saturation, electric relations, etc.);
• full dynamic vehicle model (aerodynamics, nonlinear tires
friction, etc.);
• battery model based on the charge acceptance [11].
An important part of model 1 is the IC engine modeling. This
is done only for fuel consumption using classical maps and is
validated according to real data results.
Based on this first model, a simplified model, called model 2,
has been derived to allow a “nice” formulation of the optimiza-
tion problem and, moreover, a “nice” way to solve it. In this
simplified model, the IC engine dynamics are neglected and the
electric drive (motor + battery) model is based on maps.
The purpose of this paper is not the vehicle modeling, but
control law synthesis. So only model 2 is presented as this model
is used to derive the optimization algorithm. Model 1 is omitted
here (the reader can refer to [12] for explanations), but model 1
is used for the simulation results at the end of this paper.
A. Energetic-Consumption Modeling (Model 2)
The battery is considered as a dynamical system, with the
state of charge
(1)
873
represents the power required (including
battery losses) to produce the torque at speed . With
, the instantaneous fuel consumption of the IC
engine required to produce the torque at speed , the
total fuel consumption over samples is
(2)
and are represented by data maps over speed and
torque. The proposed methodology is generic in the sense that
it depends only on the data given by maps, i.e., it can be easily
used for other motors and engines.
B. Mechanical Constraints
The speeds and torques of both the engine and motor are lim-
ited by the following mechanical constraints.
• Constraints on speeds
(3)
(4)
• Constraints on torques
(5)
(6)
C. Mechanical Arrangement and Decision Variables
The presented algorithm has been developed for parallel
torque-addition arrangements; for example, the parallel single-
or double-shaft arrangement or small hybrid vehicles with an
alterno-starter. Extensions to some other arrangements (power
split and serial arrangement) are easy to do under some minor
changes.
Parallel Single-Shaft Arrangements: In the parallel single-
shaft arrangement Fig. 1(a), both the engine and motor use the
same shaft. If the motor is not powerful enough to propel the
vehicle alone (i.e., alterno-starter), it may be located between
the engine and the clutch. Another variation is to add a set of
reduction gears to ensure that both the engine and motor achieve
their maximal speed simultaneously between the motor and the
engine [Fig. 1(b)].
Two main relations describe the parallel single-shaft arrange-
ment shown in Fig. 1(b), as follows:
• speed relation
(7)
• torque relation
(8)
Remark: with , (7) and (8) provide relations for the ar-
rangement, shown in Fig. 1(a).
According to (7), the ratio between the engine and motor
speed is constant due to the single-shaft arrangement. This ar-
rangement is said to be “torque addition” because the torque at
874 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 53, NO. 3, MAY 2004

two decision variables: one torque (the IC engine torque

in the following) and the gear number . Moreover, a unique
expression for the energetic-consumption model and speed and
torque constraints can be obtained, regardless to the mechanical
arrangement. Thus, a unique optimization problem can be for-
mulated, as well as a unique algorithm for several arrangements.
The relationships between the decision variables and the dif-
ferent torques and speeds, (7) and (8) or (9) and (10), allow
writing the constraints (5) and (6) as

(11)
(a)
For a given gear number , and
define the interval of admissible values
for IC engine torque. Several cases may happen, as follows:
• : Desired torque
can be produced using both the engine and motor;
• : Desired torque
is equal to the maximal torque that can be produced
by the powertrain using the gear ;
• : Pure electric
mode—the IC engine speed is not high enough to close
the clutch or the torque demand is equal to the min-
imal torque that can be produced using gear ;
(b) • : Torque demand
is greater than the powertrain torque capability.
Fig. 1.(a) Parallel single-shaft arrangement. (b) Parallel single shaft with a
reductor. In the same way, the constraints on speed (3), (4) can be
written as

(12)

is the set of admissible gear numbers such that

1) speed constraints (3), (4) are verified for both the engine
and the motor;
2) required torque at the wheel can be produced by
the powertrain, i.e., .
At last, a formulation of the electric power and fuel consump-
tion with only the decision variables is obtained from (1), (2)

Fig. 2. Parallel double-shaft arrangement. (13)

the wheel is proportional to the sum of the engine and motor (14)
torques (8).
Parallel Double-Shaft Arrangement: In this arrangement
Considering that the IC engine produces the torque
(Fig. 2), the engine and motor have separated shafts. According
using the th gear, represents the power
to the mechanical arrangement, the following expressions are
required by the motor to ensure the driver desired torque at
obtained:
wheel for the wheel speed . In the same way,
(9) represents the instantaneous IC engine fuel con-
sumption required to produce the torque with the th
(10) gear. For example, for the parallel single-shaft arrangement
Clearly, being fixed by design, according to (9) the ratio be- [Fig. 1(b)]
tween the engine and motor speeds depends only on the chosen • IC engine torque limits and
gear number . are derived from (6) using (7) and (8) as

D. Toward a Generic Optimization Problem

Let us recall that the torque at the wheel and the vehicle
speed are known and given by a speed cycle. It is obvious
that the whole powertrain set point can be defined using only (15)
DELPRAT et al.: CONTROL OF A PARALLEL HYBRID POWERTRAIN 875

A new formulation of problem (19) is obtained by introducing

the dynamic system (13) and the constraint (22) into the crite-
rion with and Lagrangian parameters as
(16)

• Electric power consumption is obtained

from using (7) and (8)

(23)

(17) Optimality conditions are given by first- and second-order

derivatives
• Fuel consumption is obtained from
(24)
using (7)
(18) (25)

III. GLOBAL OPTIMIZATION

A. Problem Formulation (26)
The objective is to choose, at each sampling time, the optimal
pair of decision variables according to the mini-
mization of the total fuel consumption over the speed cycle

(19) (27)
(28)
Under mechanical constraints
(29)
(30)
(20)
This problem has an obvious solution corresponding to
, which is called pure electric mode. This
mode will, of course, lead to the battery discharge. To avoid this
case, a constraint on the battery state of charge is introduced
into the problem (19). For sake of convenience, the following (31)
constraint is considered:
According to (28), two cases may be considered, as follows:
Soc (21)
• First case:
With Soc, the desired electric energy consumption over
then
the speed cycle is called overall state of charge variation. If
Soc , we can consider that, globally speaking, the total
amount of energy for propelling the vehicle has been taken from • Second case: .
the irreversible source of energy (fuel). In this case, the fuel-con- Criterion (23) becomes
sumption results can be compared with those of conventional
vehicles.
Thus, the global optimization problem is Criterion (19), under
the mechanical constraints (20) and the state-of-charge con- (32)
straint (21).
and constraint (27)
B. Optimal Control
(33)
To apply the classical optimal control theory, the mechanical
constraint (11) is written as an equality constraint by introducing A way to solve (33) is to express
a parameter and as analytical expressions. Let
us recall that the fuel consumption and
(22)
the motor power consumption are given
with and by maps. For example, Fig. 3 represents the IC engine
. fuel consumption over speed and torque.
876 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 53, NO. 3, MAY 2004

Fig. 3. Fuel consumption over speed and torque.

represents the intersections between the planes The whole problem (19)–(21) is reduced to the choice of a
and the fuel-consumption unique value . For a given speed cycle at each sampling time
map . , the choice of the control depends only on the
The resulting curves are then approximated. A very convenient value of and, therefore, the final state of charge also
way is to choose as an approximation of and depends on . The value of that ensures
, a second-order piecewise model. It will provide , with and small enough, is obtained using a
a simple first-order piecewise linear model for the derivatives dichotic search that usually converges in less than ten iterations.
This point will be discussed further in the results’ part. In the
(34) following, this algorithm is referenced as Algorithm 1.

(35) IV. INTEGRATING A MORE ACCURATE BATTERY MODEL

The electric power consumption map has
with and the number of models. The ap-
been computed considering a nominal battery state of charge
proximation accuracy depends only on the number of models
(80% in our case) and so a mean efficiency. For short speed
, which is only limited by the number of data contained in the
cycles, this hypothesis seems to be reasonable. Nevertheless,
maps. Using (7) and (8) or (9) and (10) allows rewriting (35)
for long trips, nothing guarantees that the state of charge will
with the decision variables
not reach values far from its nominal value [10].
(36) To improve the algorithm, a more accurate battery model,
based on the charge acceptance [11], is considered for the con-
If is known, the set of solutions with respect to (31) trol law synthesis. This algorithm is referenced as Algorithm 2
can be obtained replacing (34) and (36) into (33). may be and (1) is replaced by
empty or may contain several values. A way to choose the best
value is to rewrite (32) as

(39)

if
(37)
if
At each sample time , the control value is obtained as (40)
represents the power required by the
(38) motor to produce the torque at the speed and is
DELPRAT et al.: CONTROL OF A PARALLEL HYBRID POWERTRAIN 877

given as a map over motor torque and speed. with and Lagrangian parameters. Optimality
is the battery charge acceptance, i.e., the battery efficiency, conditions are given by first- and second-order derivatives
and depends on the battery current sign and, therefore, on the
electric motor torque sign. Of course, the power considered for (48)
Algorithm 1 corresponds to
(49)

(50)
A. Problem Formulation
To obtain a formulation of the optimization problem with only (51)
the decision variables and , (39) and (40) are written (52)
as with
(53)
If , bounds must be considered. Let us note the
(41) corresponding set of solutions
(54)
if
(42) If after straightforward manipulations, (26) becomes
if
with
with and
such as if .
According to (8) or (10), . (55)
At last, we can formulate the optimization problem
Thus, . A nonrestrictive hypothesis is to
System:
consider that the state of charge dynamic is very slow according
(43) to the sampling period used (56). This allows us to simplify the
solution’s search, because the value of can be obtained at
Criterion: the sample time
(56)
(44)
Thus, with
Constraints:
Under the same hypothesis
(45)
Soc (46)

B. Optimal Control (57)

For the sake of convenience, Case 1 corresponds to
and Case 2 to .
• Case 1.
(58)
With , problems (43)–(46) are
similar to (19)–(21). Let us note , the set of so- As for Algorithm 1, the electric motor power consumption
lutions obtained with conditions (24)–(31). can be approximated using piecewise second-order models
• Case 2.
A new formulation of problem (43) is obtained by intro-
ducing the dynamic system (41) and the torque constraint
into the criterion (44) (59)
(60)

Let us recall (34)

(47) Remark: time is omitted when there is no ambiguity.

878 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 53, NO. 3, MAY 2004

Fig. 4. “Routier no. 1” speed cycle.

Introducing (34) and (60) in expression (58) leads to

(61)

(62)
with

Fig. 5. Prototype built at the LAMIH.

V. RESULTS

At last, a third-order polynomial expression is obtained and The vehicle speed set point can be provided by a speed cycle.
(62) is equivalent to For example, Fig. 4 represents the “Routier no. 1” speed cycle,
which will be used for the presented simulations. It corresponds
(63) to real speed data.
with
A. Prototype Build at the LAMIH
To be close to a real configuration, we have chosen the tested
and validated model of a prototype of parallel hybrid vehicle
built at the LAMIH [2] (Fig. 5). Of course, as previously stated,
the proposed algorithms are flexible enough to deal with dif-
ferent arrangements and/or components. The vehicle is a par-
allel single-shaft prototype with a 43-kW direct current (dc)
Using the classical Cardan’s method , the set of
motor powered by a 240-V 26 hA pure lead acid battery. The
solutions to (63) with respect to and (48)
IC engine is a 1.4l petrol engine with an automated clutch. The
is obtained. Thus, at each sampling time , the control value is gearbox has been especially designed to handle the maximal
chosen in torque of the engine and the motor simultaneously. It has two
gears that are close to the second and fifth gears of a conven-
(64) tional car. A reductor ensures the mechanical coupling between
the engine and the motor and its ratio is such that both the en-
At last, the whole problem has been reduced to the choice of a gine and motor reach their maximal speeds simultaneously.
unique parameter . The value of that ensures In every case (Algorithm 1 and Algorithm 2), the results are
, with and small enough, is obtained given by applying the controls to the complete model called
using a dichotic search that usually converges in a few iterations. model 1.
DELPRAT et al.: CONTROL OF A PARALLEL HYBRID POWERTRAIN
Fig. 6. x(N ) 0 x(0) over (0).
Fig. 7. Results for the Routier no. 1 speed cycle.
B. Algorithm 1
Fig. 6 represents, on the Routier no. 1 speed cycle,
. The different tests (speed cycles, mechanical ar-
rangements, components, etc.) made with these algorithms have
shown the same kind of “smooth” and quasimonotonic behavior
of ; thus, a dichotic search is quite efficient. Of
course, if it is not the case, functions with several minimums
and maximums and another research algorithm for must
be implemented.
For example, for Soc , the dichotic search converges
in nine iterations to the value , ensuring a
global state of charge variation of %, in less than 2 min.
The results for this case are presented in Fig. 7 and give a fuel
consumption of 6.9 l/100 km.
A crucial point when designing a real-time control strategy
is to choose between the optimization of the instantaneous
fuel-consumption minimization and the instantaneous effi-
ciency maximization. Clearly, the first choice will lead to low
IC engine torque values and the second to higher torque values.
There is no intuitive way to choose between both. The proposed
algorithm may provide an answer to this question.
879
For the Routier no. 1 speed cycle, Fig. 8 shows the IC engine
operating points in the ( , ) plane. The so-called “optimal
torque” correspondes to torques, maximizing the IC engine ef-
ficiency. Isoefficiency curves have also been represented. We
can notice that IC engine operating points are “often” chosen
in high efficiency area. However, due to the constraints that re-
duce the choice of the IC engine torque, some points remain in
the low-efficiency area. For example, during braking phases, the
motor torque constraint (6) leads to low IC engine torque values
and, therefore, to a low IC engine efficiency.
The IC engine operating points are often chosen as to be as
close as possible to the “optimal” torque curve. This trend is
confirmed by many experiments on different speed cycles and
different overall state of charge variations. For a more complete
analysis that allows deriving a real time control strategy, the
reader may refer to [14].
VI. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
To compare the performances of the two algorithms, in both
cases, the fuel consumption is plotted as a function of the overall
state charge variation (Fig. 9).
880
Fig. 8. Analysis of the IC engine efficiency.
Fig. 9. Comparison of results obtained using both algorithms.
Results of Algorithm 2 (Fig. 9) are slightly better (about 3%),
but more time consuming (between 5 to 10 times slower than
Algorithm 1). They confirm what was expected. For short speed
cycles, the state of charge variation is not large enough to create
significant differences between the algorithms. That means that
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 53, NO. 3, MAY 2004
Algorithm 1 is validated for simulation studies. For long speed
cycles, it may appear that cases in which significant differences in
the results occur, indicating a preference in the use of Algorithm 2.
At last, let us recall that both algorithms give an optimal so-
lution on the considered model and then give a lower bound of
DELPRAT et al.: CONTROL OF A PARALLEL HYBRID POWERTRAIN
fuel consumption in a short time. They are, of course, subop-
timal on model 1. However, they can be viewed as an “ideal”
case, i.e., the solution may be unrealistic for real driving. Thus,
their principal interest is to be the reference for the evaluation
of fuel-consumption results obtained with other methods. Every
other global method, i.e., in the sense of giving a global optimal
solution, may claim the same interest. The following methods
have been already tested.
• Simulated annealing has been applied to this optimization
problem [7]. Two main drawbacks can be noticed. The
first is the difficulty to tune its parameters and to make
them evolve with a change of model. The second is not to
guarantee a global optimal solution, even for model 2, in
a reasonable time.
• Dynamic programming has been applied to energy-man-
agement optimization for hybrid vehicles [8], [9]. The real
problem of this method is that it requires a lot of com-
putation to provide a solution. Keeping the same models
as those proposed in this paper, a unique overall state-of-
charge variation Soc computation takes about 1 day.
Finally, the proposed algorithm is also helpful for the following.
• Design of Powertrains: During its design, it is difficult to
evaluate the future powertrain efficiency. Either it can be
computed using components mean efficiency that are not
realistic under real driving conditions or it can be evaluated
using powertrain simulations over speed cycles. However,
in this case, the results are dependant on the chosen control
strategy. The proposed algorithm avoids this drawback,
providing the powertrain potential maximal efficiency
without having to design a control strategy. Moreover, it is
also possible to select the components of the powertrain ac-
cording to their influence on the global energetic efficiency.
• Evaluation of Real-Time Control Strategies: Evaluating
hybrid vehicle fuel consumption cannot be reduced to the
comparison of fuel consumption over a speed cycle with
a null overall state of charge variation. For a given speed
cycle, the fuel consumption can be expressed as a function
of the overall state of charge variation and the results of the
algorithm provides the minimum fuel-consumption curve.
Every real-time control strategy will generate a fuel-con-
sumption curve that can be compared to the minimum
curve [13].
REFERENCES
[1] F. L. Lewis and V. L. Syrmos, Optimal Control. New York: Wiley,
1995.
[2] G. Paganelli, J. J. Santin, T. M. Guerra, A. Noel, M. Delhom, E.
Combes, and J. E. Guy, “Conception and control of parallel hybrid car
powertrain,” in Proc. Electric Vehicle Symp. 16, Bruxelles, Belgium,
Oct. 1998, pp. 215–216.
[3] J. S. Won and R. Langari, “Fuzzy torque control for a parallel hybrid
vehicle,” in Proc. Int. Mech. Eng. Conf. Expo., 2001.
[4] M. Salman, N. J. Schouten, and N. A. Kheir, “Control strategies for par-
allel hybrid vehicle,” in Proc. Amer. Control Conf., Chicago, IL, June
2000.
[5] J. Seiler and D. Schröder, “Hybrid vehicle operating strategies,” in Proc.
Elect. Veh. Symp. 15, Bruxelles, Belgium, Oct. 1998.
[6] G. Paganelli, T. M. Guerra, S. Delprat, J. J. Santin, M. Delhom, and
E. Combes, “Simulation and assesment of power contol strategies for a
parallel hybrid car,” J. Autom. Eng., no. 214, pp. 705–718, 2000.
[7] S. Delprat, G. Paganelli, T. M. Guerra, J. J. Santin, M. Delhom, and E.
Combes, “Algorithmic optimization tool for the evaluation of HEV con-
trol strategies,” in Proc. Electric Vehicle Symp. 16, Beijing, China, 1999.
881
[8] A. Brahma, Y. Guezennec, and G. Rizzoni, “Optimal energy manage-
ment in series hybrid vehicles,” in Proc. Amer. Control Conf., Chicago,
IL, June 2000.
[9] S. Rimaux, M. Delhom, and E. Combes, “Hybrid vehicle powertrain:
modeling and control,” in Proc. Elect. Veh. Symp. 16, Beijing, China,
Oct. 1999.
[10] S. Delprat, T. M. Guerra, G. Paganelli, J. Lauber, and M. Delhom, “Con-
trol strategy optimization for an hybrid parallel powertrain,” in Proc.
Amer. Control Conf., Arlington, VA, June 2001, pp. 1315–1320.
[11] J. A. Magyar, M. A. Kepros, and R. F. Nelson, “Reference electrode
and gasing studies of lead/acid charge/discharge processes,” J. Power
Sources, vol. 31, pp. 93–106.
[12] G. Paganelli, “Conception et commande d’une chaîne de traction opti-
misée pour véhicule hybride parallèle thermique et électrique,” Ph.D.
dissertation, Laboratoire d’Automatique et de Mécanique Industrielles
et Humaines, Univ. Valenciennes, Valenciennes, France, 1999.
[13] S. Delprat, T. M. Guerra, and J. Rimaux, “Optimal control of a parallel
powertrain: From global optimization to real time control strategy,” in
Proc. Elect. Veh. Symp. 18, Berlin, Germany, 2001.
[14] , “Evaluation de stratégies de commande pour véhicules hybrides
parallèles,” in Proc. Conf. Int. Francophone d’Automatique, Nantes,
France, 2002.
Sebastien Delprat was born in Muret, France, in
1976. He received the Ph.D. degree in automatic
control from the University of Valenciennes et du
Hainaut-Cambrésis (UVHC), France, in 2001.
He is an Assistant Professor at UVHC. His main
research interests are hybrid vehicle control, vehicle
dynamics, and fuzzy control.
Dr. Delprat is a Member of the Fuzzy Systems
Research Group, Laboratoire d’Automatique,
de Mécanique et d’Informatique Industrielles et
Humaines and of the IEEE Vehicle Power and
Propulsion Committee.
Jimmy Lauber was born in Tours, France, in
1976. He received the Ph.D. degree in automatic
control from the University of Valenciennes et du
Hainaut-Cambrésis (UVHC), France, in 2003, where
he studied modeling and control of IC engines with
EGR.
He is a Temporary Assistant Professor at the
UVHC. His research interests include nonlinear
and fuzzy controls and their applications to the IC
engine.
Thierry Marie Guerra was born in Mulhouse,
France, in 1963. He received the Ph.D. degree in au-
tomatic control from the University of Valenciennes
et du Hainaut-Cambrésis (UVHC), France, in 1991
and the HDR degree in 1999
He is a Professor at the UVHC and heads the
Fuzzy Systems Research Group, Laboratoire
d’Automatique, de Mécanique et d’Informatique
Industrielles et Humaines (LAMIH UMR CNRS
8530). He is also Vice President of the GRAISyHM,
a research group in integrated automation and
man–machine systems that includes 220 researchers from ten laboratories of
the Région Nord Pas de Calais, France. His major research fields are nonlinear
control, fuzzy control, and optimal control and their applications to powertrain
systems (IC engines, electrical motors, hybrid vehicles, etc.).
Dr. Guerra is a Member of the IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion Committee
and the IFAC TC3.2 Cognition and Control.
J. Rimaux was an Assistant Professor in the Con-
trol Systems Department, University Simon Bolivar,
Caracas, Venezuela, from 1993 to 1998. Since 1999,
she has been with in the Division of Research, PSA
Peugeot Citroën, where she is involved with the hy-
brid vehicle project.