See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267576414

Vehicle Thermal Management: A Model-Based Approach

Conference Paper · October 2004

DOI: 10.1115/ICEF2004-0975

CITATIONS READS

7 449

2 authors:

Roberto Cipollone Carlo Villante

Università degli Studi dell'Aquila Università degli Studi dell'Aquila
146 PUBLICATIONS   713 CITATIONS    63 PUBLICATIONS   256 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

CO2 capture and sequestration View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Carlo Villante on 05 March 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


ASME Internal Combustion Engine Division 2004 Fall Technical Conference
VEHICLE THERMAL MANAGEMENT: A MODEL-BASED APPROACH
Roberto Cipollone and Carlo Villante
Dept. of Energy -University of L’Aquila - ITALY
ABSTRACT
Cooling system design has a crucial role in defining engine
performance, operational limits and thermal comfort. Many
further improvements with respect to the actual situation can be
obtained through a more accurate control of an-board thermal
needs. To this new interest the definition of new technical
specifications must follow. The technical literature, however,
seems not fully satisfying this need, not focusing on the
influence of these technical specifications on system design,
reliability and costs.
In this paper the authors present a contribution in this
direction, showing the capabilities of an active intelligent
management of the engine cooling system. This can be
obtained through different control strategies, strongly
diversified for their cost-performance ratio. The potentiality of
a model-based controller has been also investigated and
compared with the correspondent closed-loop controller.
INTRODUCTION
Both environmental and energetic considerations are
nowadays changing the perspective in cooling system design.
Many are, in fact, the opportunities which can be caught by a
more intelligent engine thermal management (Melzer, et al.,
1999; Kanefski, et al., 1999; Ng, et al., 2000, Valaskai, and
Jouannet, 2000; Forrest, and Bhatti, 2002):
• engine warm-up period may be limited, enhancing the
efficiency of the catalytic converter and limiting emissions;
• lubricant temperature may be optimized, increasing engine
mechanical efficiency and limiting energy losses;
• mean metal temperature may be increased, so determining an
increase in the mechanical and thermal efficiency of the
engine;
• the quality of cabin conditioning may be improved;
• coolant temperature fluctuations during time can be limited
producing a more stable behavior of the cooling system;
• the temperature difference between the fluid entering and
leaving the engine may be reduced increasing engine
resistance to thermal fatigue and reducing thermal
distortions;
• a separated engine head and block cooling can be obtained,
lowering mean head temperature and increasing that of the
ICEF04:
October 24-27, 2004 – Long Beach, CA, USA
ICEF2004-975
block, increasing engine performances (compression ratio,
boost pressure, etc.);
• a down-sizing of many components (radiators, heat
exchangers, etc.) can be proposed in order to achieve cost
reductions;
• cooling system layout may be simplified.
To reach these goals a traditional thermostat is no longer
sufficient and more actuation variables must be included and
controlled by means of an electronic device (Srun, 1999, Da
Silva, et al., 2000).
The definition of new technical specifications in this three
frames has implications on different aspects connected with
circuit layout, component choice, system cost and engine
performances, specially in terms of environmental impact and
noise. Engine manufacturers often choose less innovative
solutions based on the traditional system (enhanced on peculiar
aspects). On the other end, technical literature usually proposes
very appealing and innovative systems which are certainly
superior in terms of vehicle thermal management but are often
too expensive for the manufacturers.
To give an engineering approach to the problem, the
technical specifications for the cooling system can be divided in
three subgroups which respectively regard: the metal parts; the
lubricant; cabin comfort.
The first two aspects make reference to traditionally
foreseen expectations (engine power and maximum torque, fuel
consumption, emissions, noise, etc.), while the third is strictly
connected to vehicle comfort (and consequently to its market
success).
This makes it necessary to introduce a sort of
standardization on the measurement of cooling system
performances to better permit the comparison of different
solutions and afterwards the choice of the desired system in
terms of a better performance-cost ratio.
In this paper the authors firstly describe in some detail the
novel technical specification to be obtained by the cooling
system and then propose a set of standard vehicle missions to
be used for system performance comparison.
1 Copyright © #### by ASME

SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS
On engine metal parts
• Maximum temperature must be limited to preserve materials
and, in spark ignition engines, to avoid knocking phenomena
due to the presence of hot points inside the cylinder: the
thermal inertia of the metal parts and the response time of the
cooling system play a key role to delay engine heating in
critical conditions.
• Temperature gradients must also be limited because they may
determine dangerous distortions during engine exercise,
causing mechanical stresses and imperfect coupling of the
various moving parts: a suitably designed distribution of
metal masses and coolant paths inside engine head and block
is crucial at this regard.
• Temperature oscillations during time must be limited to
increase engine resistance to thermal fatigue. It’s convenient
to distinguish between high frequency (in-cycle) and low
frequency (cycle-by-cycle, due to load and speed transients)
fluctuations. High frequency temperature fluctuations are
limited to a very small part of the engine walls facing the
burnt gases (usually referred as “penetration thickness”).
Literature showed that at most 2-3 millimeters of the walls
experience high frequency fluctuations: the phenomenon is
dominated by turbulence intensity inside the cylinder, and by
the thermal conductivity of the metal parts. Lower frequency
fluctuations, on the other end, are strongly dependent on the
efficiency of the cooling system and the response time of the
cooling system plays a fundamental role.
• The warm-up time must be limited to reduce engine
emissions (which are high until the catalytic converter has
not reached its operating temperature), and to enhance engine
thermal efficiency lowering fuel consumption. This
specification calls for a low inertia of the metal parts and for
low or null coolant flow rates in warm-up conditions: it’s
important to notice that these requests are partially in contrast
with the formers: a low metal inertia, in fact, may lead to too
high temperatures during high charge and low speed transient
conditions. For this reason, engine head and block are usually
designed for normal operation, leaving the satisfaction of
warm-up specifications on charge of the cooling system
controller.
On the lubricant
• Maximum lubricant temperature must be limited, as well as
temperature fluctuations during speed and charge engine
transients, to grant stable lubricant properties. A low
response time of the cooling system is required and high
coolant flow rates at the oil cooler must be assured in most
critical situations.
• Lubricant warm-up time must be short to limit the extension
of insufficiently lubricated operating conditions, enhancing
engine mechanical efficiency as well as the life of most of the
metal components life. Low or null coolant and lubricant
flow rates are therefore needed at the oil cooler during warm-
up phases.
Cabin comfort
• Temperature oscillations inside the cabin must be low to
assure passenger comfort. Stable air and coolant flow rates
are therefore needed during engine transients. Air and coolant
flow rates may anyway be changed to follow correspondent
variations in the power request by passenger demand: this, on
its turn, may change as a consequence of variations in the
temperature desired at cabin, or in the outside temperature;
vehicle speed also plays its role, varying the convective heat
transfer between the vehicle and the environment. A low
response time of the cooling system is required to limit cabin
temperature oscillations: this may be certainly reduced by
increasing fan speed. Fan noise, however, also plays its role
in the definition of passenger comfort and must be, therefore,
taken into account.
• Cabin warm-up (in winter) or cool-down (during summer)
period must be also limited. During winter the power request
would increase engine warm-up time. The two specifications
may be therefore be in contrast.
• Other specifications have to be imposed in terms of the air
humidity inside the cabin, but are not the object of this paper.
These technical specifications are firstly taken into account
in the design of fluid (coolant and lubricant) paths inside the
engine head and block, which should guarantee the slightest
temperature gradients inside the metal parts, together with the
limitation of metal masses and lubricant content to shorten
warm-up phases.
After this first design activity, the technical specifications
regarding the metal parts and the lubricants are translated in
terms of correspondent specifications to be imposed on the
coolant temperature. These latter specifications are the
objectives to be reached by a choice and correct design of the
remaining components of the cooling system (radiator, cabin
conditioner, electric or mechanical pump, thermostat or
proportional valves, …), and of the system control device.
TEST MISSIONS
Normal practice and economy reasons suggest to attempt
the obtainment of the technical specifications by means of two
set-points to be matched by system controller: the first on
coolant temperature; the second one on cabin temperature. A
more accurate control would be possible aiming at a direct
measurement of the metal temperature in some critical point in
engine head: however many aspects connected with system
wirings and with its maintenance, reliability and cost make this
opportunity still difficult to be applied (unless on high
performances and cost vehicles).
All this considered, at least five different vehicle missions
should be performed to sufficiently define the performance of a
cooling system and of its control device. These five missions
are proposed to put in evidence the performances of various
control schemes, different both in engine thermal behavior and
in cabin interior comfort. Making only reference to a typical
EuroIV test driving cycle some differences in system
performances could, in fact, remain hidden.
M1. Typical driving cycle
The EuroIV test driving cycle (known as NEUDC) is
normally used as representative of a standard succession of
transient operating conditions. The objective of the controller in
this condition is the limitation of coolant and cabin temperature
oscillations around predefined set points under stabilized
2 Copyright © 2004 by ASME
transient conditions. The amplitude of these oscillations in the
coolant and in the cabin temperatures (respectively ∆Tcool,M1 and
∆Tcab,M1) may be used as performance parameters.
In fact, if the oscillations of coolant temperature around an
imposed set-point are maintained low, benefic effects will be
obtained in terms of thermal fatigue of the metal parts (coolant
temperature variations generate correspondent fluctuations in
metal temperature). Moreover the limitation of temperature
oscillations normally permits to raise the set-point enhancing
both engine thermal and mechanical efficiency (coolant
properties are much more stable), and saving energy.
Cabin temperature fluctuations around the set point (imposed
by vehicle user), on the other end, are a good index of the cabin
interior comfort. In this work we will not cope with further
specifications regarding the humidity control inside the cabin.
M2. Warm-up transient
The vehicle should run steadily at a medium charge steady
condition starting from cold engine conditions. The aim of the
controller is the limitation of coolant and cabin warm-up times
(∆tcool,M2 and ∆tcab,M2): those can be defined as the reaching
times of a given percentage of the set-point values.
This times, in fact, can be chosen as representative of the
engine capacity to reach easily an hot operative condition. A
faster warming of the engine will result in lower emissions and
energy consumption. The choice of a steady operative
conditions makes the results of the tests with different cooling
system more comparable.
M3. Critical mission
The vehicle should run steadily at most critical charge
conditions for the cooling system (normally low vehicle speed
and high engine charge) starting from cold engine conditions.
The aim of the controller is the limitation of coolant
temperature below an acceptable value. The maximum
temperature reached by the coolant in this test (Tcool,max,M3) is a
good index of the response time of the cooling system.
In those transient conditions, in fact, coolant temperature
can go beyond its maximum steady value, due to the delays
introduced in the actuation of the control variables. In standard
thermostat-based systems, this phenomenon makes it necessary
to limit normal coolant temperature far below its possible
limits. Faster-response control systems may overcome this
problem, permitting the system to work much closer to its
limits (therefore enhancing thermal and mechanical efficiency).
M4. Easiest mission
The vehicle should run steadily less critical charge
conditions for the cooling system (high vehicle speed, low
engine charge) at low external temperature (high cabin
requirements) starting from hot engine conditions. The
objective of the controller in this mission is the limitation of
coolant and cabin temperature above an acceptable value. The
minimum coolant and cabin temperatures reached by coolant in
this test (Tcool,min,M4 and Tcab,min,M4) are performance indexes for
the cooling system.
In low charge conditions, in fact, the power release by the
engine can be lower than that required by cabin heating. If this
happens, engine is cooled back enhancing emissions and energy
consumption. Moreover, cabin temperature set point may not
be maintained and cabin will be cooled down up to a steady
value. Some systems, normally equipping only top-class
vehicles can assure cabin comfort in these conditions with an
additional electric air heater.
M5. Hot stop in front of a wall
The vehicle should stop with the engine off starting from
hot engine conditions. The radiator inlet at the air side should
be partially obstructed (simulating car stop in front of a wall).
The objective of the controller in this mission is the limitation
of coolant temperature below a maximum acceptable value.
The maximum temperature reached by the coolant in this test
(Tcool,max,M5) may be used as a performance index.
In most of the traditional cooling systems, in fact, when the
vehicle is stopped the energy stored in the metal parts is
transferred to a still coolant (coolant pump stops feeding the
circuits). In these conditions, even with the radiator fan on,
energy transfer may not be adequate since almost no fluid runs
through the radiator. Coolant may therefore vaporize, so that
very high temperatures are reached at the metal surfaces. The
problem is enhanced if the vehicle stops in front a wall, so
partially obstructing radiator air inlet.
Temperature overshoot may be avoided if the pump is kept
on by a delay in engine stop (kept in idle for some seconds), or,
in more advanced systems, by an electric engine equipping the
pump and controlled by the ECU.
POSSIBLE CONTROL LAYOUTS
The two most widely proposed innovations consist in the
electrical actuation of the coolant pump and in the adoption of
one or more electronically controlled proportional valves
replacing the thermostat. Whatever is the solution, the extended
number of degrees of freedom makes it necessary to deepen
dynamical behavior of the system, so being able to synthesize
an efficient controller (Srun, 1999, Da Silva, et al., 2000; Yoo,
et al., 2000; Cortona, and Onder, 2000; Wagner, et al., 2001;
Allen, and Lasecki, 2001; Ng, et al., 2002; Wagner, et al.,
2002).
Many are, however, the possible obtainable layouts,
obtained by the adoption of the various innovative components.
Here, five control layouts are proposed and described in
some detail. Those are here reported in order of complexity
(and cost) of the required additional components (having as
reference a traditional thermostat controller)
C1. Traditional controller
Coolant temperature is thermo-mechanically controlled by
the thermostat. Radiator fan must be activated to increase the
thermal efficiency of the radiator in particular conditions: low
coolant flow rate (idle engine) and air flow rate (vehicle
stopped). Cabin temperature is electronically controlled by a
valve intercepting the air flow through the cabin conditioner.
Many systems are now being developed by the manufacturers,
which include a mechanical clutch to activate the coolant
pump. When the pump is actuated its speed is proportional to
engine speed: the clutch may be used at engine start to shorten
the warm-up period.
Advantages:
• Cost, consolidated practice and reliability.
Drawbacks:
• Pump must be over-dimensioned to give high flow rates at
low speed;
3 Copyright © 2004 by ASME
• Radiator must be over-dimensioned to give high heat transfer
at low air flow rates;
• Thermostat must be passed through by high flow rates (high
inertia - response time);
• Need of an additional on-off valve or a pump clutch to
shorten warm-up;
• The low response time of the thermostat makes it hard to
satisfy mission M3, forcing the designer to lower the opening
temperature of the thermostat. As a result normal operative
temperature (e.g. during mission M1) are much lower than
those optimal for engine and lubricant working (lowering
overall vehicle efficiency and enhancing emissions).
C2. With one proportional valve
Thermostat is replaced by one proportional valve on the
radiator branch. The two set-points (coolant maximum
temperature and cabin interior temperature) are obtained by a
proper choice of the position of the two valves (one on the
coolant and the other on the air flow). An additional on-off
valve may be used to shorten engine warm-up period,
increasing the hydraulic resistance of the system and therefore
lowering coolant flow rates.
The cost of the proportional valve is much higher than that
of the thermostat. The increase in system cost is justified only
by a correspondent relevant increase in system performances.
Advantages:
• Efficient electronic control;
• Coolant temperature set-point may be varied continuously by
the ECU;
• Mean coolant temperature levels are significantly increased
due to the lower response time of the controller.
Drawbacks:
• Need of an additional on-off valve or a pump clutch to
shorten warm-up.
C3. With two proportional valve
Thermostat is replaced by one proportional valve on the
radiator branch. The air valve is replaced by another
proportional valve on the cabin conditioner branch. The two
set-points are obtained by a proper choice of the position of the
two valves. The two valves may be closed to shorten engine
warm-up period, increasing the hydraulic resistance of the
system and therefore lowering coolant flow rates. The by-pass
branch may be eliminated.
Advantages:
• Efficient electronic control;
• Coolant temperature set-point may be varied continuously by
the ECU;
• Space saved under-hood since the air valve is not included.
Drawbacks:
• Cost
• Energy losses during warm-up (pump continuously running);
• A non-standard cabin heat exchanger should be used since
those normally implied are not strongly dependent on coolant
flow rate. This means that coolant flow rate (and therefore
the position of a proportional valve) cannot be efficiently
used to control cabin temperature.
C4. On-off electric pump
Thermostat is replaced by one proportional valve on the
radiator branch. The two set-points (coolant maximum
temperature and cabin interior temperature) are obtained by a
proper choice of the position of the two valves (one on the
coolant and the other on the air flow). The mechanical pump is
substituted by an electric one, leading to a simpler control:
pump speed may be fixed at one or two predefined levels (so
that system behaviour doesn't depend on engine speed) to
simplify pump control electronics and limit additional costs.
Pump may be stopped during warm-up. The by-pass branch
may be eliminated.
Advantages:
• More efficient control (both the set-points may be varied;
without pump speed disturbances);
• Energy saving by pump optimization;
• Pump and radiator can be significantly reduced due to pump
speed increase (higher flow rates at the radiator, especially in
critical conditions at low engine speed)
• No clutch is needed to shorten warm-up
Drawbacks:
• Cost
• More space needed under-hood.
C5. Electric pump with speed control
Thermostat is replaced by one proportional valve on the
radiator branch. The mechanical pump is substituted by an
electric one. The air valve is eliminated since the control action
is performed by an additional pump speed controller. The by-
pass branch may be eliminated. The radiator fan may be
probably eliminated: when engine is idle and vehicle is
stopped, in fact, the efficiency of the radiator may be increased
by increasing pump speed (and consequently coolant flow rate).
Advantages:
• More efficient control (both the set-points may be varied;
without pump speed disturbances)
• Radiator fan elimination (cost and space saving, noise
reduction).
• No clutch, No by-pass branch, No air valve (space saving
under-hood)
Drawbacks:
• A non-standard cabin heat exchanger should be used since
those normally implied are not strongly dependent on coolant
flow rate. This means that coolant flow rate (and therefore
the position of a proportional valve) cannot be efficiently
used to control cabin temperature. If a standard cabin is used
an air valve should be included.
• Higher cost
CONTROL ORIENTED MODELING
To compare all the possible layouts it is necessary to set-up
an intense theoretical activity aimed to the derivation of a
complete control-oriented model of the overall system.
The model must be able flexible and fully modular in order
to take into account all the presented options and to compare
those in terms of their performance on the previously discussed
vehicle missions.
It is necessary to keep the models of the components
4 Copyright © 2004 by ASME
involved in the control action (thermostat, proportional valves,
speed controllers, air valves, …) substantially distinguished by
the models of those components involved in heat transfer
(engine, radiator, cabin heater, …).
The first set of models would be used, in fact, in the
synthesis of an overall model of the controller. On the other
end, the second set of models would be properly used to
represent the various possible system layouts, building what we
called a “virtual cooling system”.
The coupling of the “virtual engine cooling system” with
the controller model permits an off-line evaluation of the
efficiency of new control strategies, model-based too.
It is also necessary to keep distinguished the models of the
sensors and of the actuators, so avoiding confusions among the
intrinsic response-time of the cooling system and those
introduced by the controller (sensors and actuators).
THE VIRTUAL COOLING SYSTEM
The authors developed an integrated model of an engine
cooling system (Cipollone, et al., 2003; Cipollone, and
Villante, 2003) which is characterized by a complete
modularity, so permitting to simulate all the possible design
configurations The modeling approach was to keep physical
consistency as high as possible, in order to allow generality.
However, the simulation is complex and requires the utilization
of experimental data coming from conventional tests.
The description of the heat transfer dynamics between the
various fluids (air, gas, coolant, lubricant) and the metal parts
makes it necessary to define the properties of the components
form various different point of views: hydraulics, thermo-
dynamics an aerodynamics are therefore involved.
All the components must be modeled in a way which
makes it easy to interface them with the models of the control
devices (thermostat, proportional valves, sensors, actuators,
…).
The hydraulic and thermal behavior of the system are
usually inter-dependent since some components of the
controller modify the hydraulic layout (by the thermostat or
prop. valves) depending on coolant temperature.
Moreover, the aerodynamic behavior of the cabin heater is
also sometimes dependent on coolant temperature since the air
valve position may be modified by the controller.
An engine model is also needed to define its heat
production in the various operative conditions.
Model derivation
The derivation of the model in full detail is reported in
(Cipollone, et al., 2003): it is fully modular and it’s
characterized by various independent sub-models. Vehicle
mission is defined as a function of time in terms of vehicle
speed (V), gear (g) and load (Ch). It is also necessary to
describe the disturbance introduced within the system by the
user maneuvering cabin exchanger equipment (by means of cc01
and Dutycc variables, defining if the conditioner is on or off,
and the duty cycle of the fan).
V, g and Ch are the input values for the “Engine” sub-
model: this simulates engine behavior through an inverse quasi-
steady approach determining pump speed (Npump), thermal
power transmitted to the coolant (Pt) and the temperature and
flow rate of the exhaust gas which is re-circulated (Tegr and
megr).
cc01, Dutycc and V are the input values for the
“Aerodynamics” sub-model: this simulates the air-side
behavior of the cabin conditioner and of the radiator and
evaluates the air flow rates passing through those components
(mrad and mcac).
The remaining two sub-models (respectively regarding the
hydraulic and thermodynamic behavior of the components) are
described in more detail in the following. These two sub-
models, in fact, have been afterwards inverted in order to derive
the model-based controller.
The aerodynamic sub-models
Equations (1) describe the aero-dynamical behavior of the
radiator: it is convenient to proceed by steps, modeling firstly
the behavior of the radiator in two basic conditions (fan on and
vehicle stopped: State 1; fan off and vehicle in motion: State 2)
and afterwards representing the generic state of the radiator (fan
On and vehicle in motion) as a linear combination of its basic
states.
For as regards State 1, the model balances the pressure
drop defined by the characteristic curves of the fan (as a
function of air mass flow rate and fan duty cycle (Drad%), being
Arad, Brad and Crad functions of Drad%:) and that lost in the
radiator (evaluated by component characteristic curve) so
evaluating the air flow rate through the radiator.
For as regards State 2, a suitable experimental correlation
was used, giving air flow rate as a function of vehicle speed.
Lastly, an interference coefficient (αrad) was used, which
defines the interaction between the two basic behaviors: the
actual air flow rate through the radiator may be therefore
determined as a linear combination of those evaluated in the
two basic states. αrad has to be experimentally calibrated.
Fan ON - Stopped
∆p Rad = ARad (D Rad % ) ⋅ m Rad 2
+ ...
 Fan
... + B Rad (D Rad % ) ⋅ m Rad Fan + C Rad (D Rad % )

∆p Rad = k1Rad ⋅ m Rad Fan + k 2 Rad ⋅ m Rad Fan
2
Fan OFF - Vehicle in motion (1)
m RadV = c1 Rad ⋅ V 2 + c 2 Rad ⋅ V
Generic condition
m Rad = m Rad Fan + α ⋅ m RadV

α = 1 if the fan is OFF, < 1 elsewhere
Equations (2) describe the aero-dynamical behavior of the
cabin conditioner: the model used is analogue to that proposed
for the radiator in State 1: the air mass flow rate is calculated
balancing the pressure drop given by the fan (as a function of
its duty cycle) and that given by a pressure losses correlation
for the cabin conditioner. The air flow to the cabin conditioner
may be intercepted by a valve, whose opening degree is φAir
∆p Cac = ACac (DCac % )⋅ mCac2
+ ...

... + BCac (DCac % )⋅ mCac + C Cac (DCac % )
(2)

( )
∆p Cac = k1Cac ⋅ mCac + k 2Cac ⋅ mCac φ Air
2 2
5 Copyright © 2004 by ASME

The hydraulic sub-models
In the simulation of the hydraulic behavior of the system,
the hypothesis is made that each component has a quadratic
behavior for as regards the pressure losses at coolant side
(eq.3). The pump characteristic curves, on the other end, are
quadratic in the coolant volumetric flow rate for any given
pump speed (eq. 4). Pressure drop at valves is modeled as an
inverse quadratic function of their opening degree φ (eq. 5).
∆pi = K i ⋅ Qi2
∆pP = AP (N P ) ⋅ Q + BP (N P ) ⋅ Q + CP ( N P )
2
∆p = K ⋅ Q 2 φ 2
The quadratic approach for the pressure drops at each
component makes it possible to consider the complete cooling
circuit fed by the pump as an equivalent quadratic pressure
drop deriving from series and parallel connection of the various
branches. The mathematical rules describing those series and
parallel links are respectively reported in eq. 6 and 7.
∆p = K eq ⋅ Q 2 , ∆p = ∆p1 + ∆p2 , Q = Q1 = Q2
 (6)
 K eq = K1 + K 2
∆p = K eq ⋅ Q 2 , ∆p = ∆p1 = ∆p2 , Q = Q1 + Q2

(
 K eq = (K 1 ⋅ K 2 ) K 1 + K 2 + 2 K 1 ⋅ K 2 ) (7)
Considering such links, system layout can be represented
as “seen from the pump”: an equivalent circuit hydraulic
resistance can so be evaluated and matched with the pump
characteristic curves.
The thermodynamic sub-models
The energy conservation equation is applied to each node
where two or more fluid flows converge (eq. 8). The
temperature of the fluid coming out from the node (TOut) results
by a mean of the temperatures of the entering fluids (TIn1 and
TIn2) weighted by their volumetric flow rates (Q1 and Q2).
The model used for the radiator is reported in eq. (9). The
term [A’Rad(Q,mrad)/Q] substantially represents a dimensionless
heat transfer coefficient between coolant and external air: the
proposed approach matches the normal off-board experimental
characterization of the radiators. A similar approach is
proposed for the cabin conditioner and for the EGR exchanger,
which involve an heat transfer process between the coolant and
an air or burnt gas flow.
(
TOut = Q1 ⋅ TIn1 + Q2 ⋅ TIn2 ) (Q + Q )
1 2
QRad ⋅ (TIn − TOut ) = A Rad (QRad , mRad ) ⋅ (TIn − TAir )
'
 '
 A Rad (QRad , mRad ) QRad = k1rad (mrad ) ⋅ QRad k 2 rad (mrad )
The mass of the coolant store at the coolant tank introduces
an inertial effect, which substantially introduces a first order
dependency of the temperature of the exiting flow on that of the
entering flow coming back from the circuit.
Eq. (10) and (11) are relative to the mathematical model of
engine metal parts. Eq. (10) describes energy conservation,
considering their inertial properties (MMet⋅cMet): PGas is
calculated by the Engine sub-model through steady-state maps;
PCool is correlated to coolant flow rate and to its entering and
leaving temperatures, PAir is calculated by an overall heat
transfer coefficient (considering conductive and convective
phenomena) from the metal parts to the external air. TOut in eq.
(10) can be evaluated by eq. (11).
 PCool = Q ⋅ cCool ⋅ (TOut − TIn )
P = S ⋅ hMet Air ⋅ (TMet − T Air )
 Air Met Air
(3) (10)
(4) dTMet PGas − PAir − PCool
=
dt M Met ⋅ c Met
(5)
Q ⋅ cCool ⋅ (TOut − TIn ) = S Met Cool ⋅ hMet Cool ⋅ (TMet − T )
 (11)
T = (TIn + TOut ) 2
A similar model has also been tested for the radiator to describe
the thermal inertia of the metal parts, properly substituting eq. 8
with a dynamical equation like eq. 9. For the tested systems,
however, (see Cipollone, et al., 2003) the description of the
only metal inertia of the engine metal parts proved to be
sufficient to describe the overall behaviour of the system.
CONTROL SCHEMES
Each one of the non conventional electronic controllers can
be synthesized following one of the 3 following approaches:
Closed-loop
The system will be fully auto-adaptative. The quality of the
control action depends on the correct determination of the
proportional, derivative and integrative constants of the PID
controller: depending on the chosen control layout the actuation
variables may vary (proportional valve and air valve openings,
pump actuation and speed, etc.). The definition of the PID
constants should also consider possible control instability.
Open-loop (Model-based)
The system will not be auto-adaptative. Steady state errors
can be found if mathematical model used to set the control
action is not exactly reproducing the real system. These errors
are not visible off-line since the controller is tested on a virtual
cooling system.
Some parameters can be anyway varied in the virtual
system to perform a sensitivity analysis.
The actuated variables are set at each time instant to the
value they should have at the steady-state to guarantee the
obtainment of the set points.
(8) The model-Based approach should normally result in a
lower response time and cannot lead to system instability.
(9)
Mixed approach
The system should take the best from the two approaches: a
first tentative solution is given by a model-based controller
granting low response time.
The tentative solution is afterwards corrected by a closed-loop
controller to reach the needed precision and to gain an auto-
adaptative behavior.
6 Copyright © 2004 by ASME

SIMULATED LAYUOTS
C1. Traditional controller
The thermostat has been modeled using an non-
dimensional approach by the definition of two variables (T%
and xTh %) which correlate the state of the thermostat
(temperature TTh and needle position xTh) with opening start and
end conditions (TTh start and TTh end):
Some thermostats also include, at the by-pass branch outlet
an additional pressure-dependent valve which lets the coolant
flow towards the by-pass only if the pressure drop through the
thermostat is over a certain activation level. This additional
valve can normally be modeled by a further pressure-dependent
opening degree φPr to multiply the φbypass value evaluated by
eq.14. Moreover, the dynamical behaviour of the valve is
usually not negligible and can be taken into account by a first
order model:

( )(
T% = TTh − TThStart TThEnd − TThStart )  P% = (∆PPr − ∆PPr Start ) (∆PPr End − ∆PPr Start )

( )(
 xTh % = xTh − xThStart xThEnd − xThStart ) (12) 
( )(
 x Pr % = x Pr − x PrStart x PrEnd − x PrStart )
x Pr % = APr P%5 + B Pr P%4 + C Pr P%3 + D Pr P%2 + E Pr P%
x% is expressed as a function of T% by a fifth order (16)
dx Pr % x Pr % x Pr %
polynomial experimental correlation: + =
dt τ Pr τ Pr
xTh % = ATh T + BTh T + C Th T + DTh T + ETh T% φ Pr = (1 − e ) (1 − e )
5 4 3 2 − k Pr ⋅ x Pr % − k Pr
% % % % (13)

Anyway the thermostat normally shows a strongly where P% and xPr % are two non dimensional variables
unsteady behavior due to an hysteresis cycle to which the wax introduced to correlate the state of the valve (pressure ∆PPr and
is subjected. Quasi-steady opening and closure tests for the needle position xPr) with opening start and end conditions (∆PPr
thermostat, in fact, show that two different laws (both of eq. 13
start and ∆PPr end):
type) are followed depending whether temperature is raising or
decreasing. In addition to this, needle movement has its
mechanical inertia due to its mass and to the spring preloads, as
C2. With one proportional valve
well as to wax inertial effects. The controller must be able to evaluate the values of the
To describe the overall behavior of the component, two opening degrees of the proportional valve on the radiator
distinct opening laws were used depending on the sign of
temperature variations and a first order model was introduce to branch (φrad) and of that on the air flow to the air conditioner
describe valve dynamics. (φAir) basing on the imposed values for the two set points: the
coolant temperature leaving the engine (Tcool) and the
temperature desired inside the cabin (Tcab).
 ATh '
T%5 + BTh '
T%4 + C Th
'
T%3 + DTh
'
T%2 + ETh
'
T% ,
 Here the synthesis of a feed-forward controller is briefly
if dT reported, which is based on the inversion of some parts of the
%
≥0
 dt mathematical model of the cooling system.
xTh % =  For as regards the identification of φrad two separate steps
 ATh T% + BTh T% + C Th T% + DTh T% + ETh T% ,
'' 5 '' 4 '' 3 '' 2 ''

 (14) must be followed: firstly, the coolant flow rate needed at the
 dT%
if <0 radiator is calculated basing on thermal considerations;
 dt secondly, φrad is evaluated basing on hydraulic considerations
dxTh % xTh % xTh % Some assumptions were made to permit the inversion of
+ = the thermal model of the cooling system:
dt τ Th τ Th
• the system has to be considered at its steady state;
• the power dissipated by the engine towards the environment
This complex dynamical behavior normally results in high (PAir) is negligible with respect to that dissipated through the
response times of the C1 controller. This makes it necessary to coolant.
decrease the opening temperature of the thermostat Under these assumptions, the thermal power dissipated by
(anticipating the coolant flow towards the radiator) not to the radiator must be equal to PGas+PEGR-PCab: PGas and PEGR are
experience to high coolant temperature during severe engine evaluated by the ECU by look-up tables; PCab is instead
transients (like M3 mission). This decreases mean engine calculated by ECU maps basing on external temperature and on
operating temperatures, so lowering thermal and mechanical cabin interior requirements.
efficiency. Rearranging eq.10, the mass flow rate at the radiator which
Once needle position is known, the opening degrees of the allows for the required thermal exchange is calculated as:
three thermostat outlets can be normally expressed as
exponential functions of x%: 1
 Ptot  k 2 rad (mrad )
( )(
φ Rad = 1 − e − kOpened ⋅ xTh % 1 − e − k Opened

) Qrad = 
 ccool ⋅ ρ cool ⋅ k1rad (mrad ) ⋅ (TCool − TExt )
(17)

((k
φ bypass = 1 − e Closed Th %
⋅x −1)
)(
1 − e − kClosed ) (15)
 φrad must be now evaluated, being known Qrad. The
φ cab = 1 hydraulic model of the system (eq. 4-8) has therefore been

7 Copyright © 2004 by ASME

inverted: the procedure to be used during the inversion depends
on the peculiar geometry of the considered layout. Any system
however can be inverted properly considering the parallel and
series branches and applying eq. 4 to 8 to evaluate the needed
opening degree for the proportional valve.
Once φrad is known, eq. 4-8 are used to evaluate the
coolant flow rate at the cabin conditioner which is used in the
evaluation of φAir.
Also for the identification of φAir a two step procedure must
be followed: the air flow rate needed at cabin conditioner is
calculated basing on thermal considerations (inverting eq.9-12);
afterwards, φAir is evaluated basing on aerodynamic
considerations (inverting eq.3).

SIMULATION RESULTS
Model validation required a great amount of experimental
data regarding not only vehicle mission (in terms of actual
vehicle speed, gear and load condition) and some out variable
(temperature and flow rates at various point of the system), but
especially the experimental calibration of all the components of
the cooling system (EGR and cabin conditioning heat
exchangers, radiator, thermostat, pipes and connections, etc.).
All of them had to be tested separately and subjected to
experimental campaigns aimed to the definition of suitable
parameters and experimental correlations to be mathematically
represented.
The validation of the integrated model has been carried out
basing on the data relative to a driving test on the road which
was realized on a dedicated and properly instrumented vehicle
Fig.1
(a Citroen C3 1.4L TDI). This validation activity is fully
described in (Cipollone et al, 2003).

Further model validation

A dedicated experimental activity was carried out to newly
validate the hydraulic behavior of the system in the traditional
C1 layout.
Measured values for the coolant temperature at the engine
outlet and for the engine speed has been used as inputs for the
model of the hydraulic behavior of the system, and are reported
in Figure 1.
The two horizontal lines define the operational limits of the
thermostat (respectively the temperature values at which it
starts and ends its opening movement towards radiator branch
(contemporaneously determining a closure of the by-pass
branch).
Upper part of Figure 2 reports the evaluated pressure drop
at the by-pass orifice: the two horizontal lines define the
operational limits of the pressure dependent valve (opening
start and end conditions).
These data, in combination with those plotted in the upper
part of Figure 1, determine the opening ratios of the orifices
towards the radiator and the by-pass (lower part of Figure 2.
Those latter values completely define the pressure drops of all
the branches of the system and permit the evaluation of any
possible flow rate or pressure drop.

Fig.2

8 Copyright © 2004 by ASME

 Measurements were taken for radiator and cabin
conditioner flow rates, as well as for radiator and cabin
conditioner inlet pressure drops. A comparison between the
measured values and the correspondent model evaluations is
reported in Figures 3 and 4. The agreement is quite satisfactory,
especially considering the difficulty of the on-board
measurements and the complexity of the model: all the major
trends are correctly predicted. The time constants of the two
valves proved therefore to be equal to the imposed values of 30
and 15 seconds, respectively for the temperature and the
pressure dependent orifices (τTh and τPr). As a final conclusion,
it can be observed that the hypotheses made to represent the
behaviour of the thermostat appear quite congruent, as well as
the physical consistency of the model.

Simulation and comparison of some control layouts

The behavior of a vehicle equipped by a C1 and C2
cooling system have been simulated. The C2 controller has
been simulated for all three possible control schemes: closed-
loop (C2A), feed-forward (C2B), and mixed (C2C).
Here only the results relative to a M1 mission (EURO4 test
driving cycle) are reported since no substantial differences
between the systems are found in the other missions.
The only insertion of a proportional valve in place of the
thermostat, in fact, cannot cope for example with the
performance of the system during warm-up. It is anyway
expected to substantially influence the mean operating
temperature of the engine during normal unsteady functioning
Fig.3 (like that represented by the EURO4 test cycle of M1 mission).
Figure 5 reports the comparison of the performances of the
four simulated layouts in terms of the two controlled variables:
respectively coolant temperature and cabin interior temperature.
The reported oscillations are those evaluated in stabilized
transient conditions, simulating subsequent M1 missions.
The results are plotted as a percentage of the optimal
desired values: 95 °C coolant temperature; 20 °C cabin
temperature. External temperature is 5 °C. The optimal coolant
temperature was chosen to optimize engine thermal and
mechanical efficiency.
Table 1 reports the evaluated values for the mean square
root error around the desired set-points (σ) of the four
simulated layouts both for coolant and for cabin temperature
values.
The first thing which is noteworthy to be underlined is that
the C1 controller maintains mean coolant temperature much
below the optimal value. This is due to the anticipated opening
of the thermostat, which has to start opening at 80°C not to
reach to loose coolant temperature control under more severe
transients (due to its high response time).
On the other end, Figure 5 clearly demonstrates that all the
C2 controllers succeed in taking coolant temperature up to the
desired value and to maintain it very near to the optimal value.
Table 1 highlights that the best performance is that of the
C2C system, as expected. This kind of controller in fact is able
to join the advantages of the feed-forward and closed-loop
controller obtaining a low response time and a limited steady-
state error.

Fig.4

9 Copyright © 2004 by ASME

 fuel consumption;
• maximum lubricant temperature must be limited, as well as
its temperature fluctuations stabilize lubricant properties;
• lubricant warm-up time must be shortened to limit the
extension of insufficiently lubricated conditions;
• temperature oscillations inside the cabin must be lowered to
assure passenger comfort.
• cabin warm-up (in winter) or cool-down (during summer)
period must be also limited.
• cabin air humidity has also to be controlled.

These specifications are reachable with new control

schemes which could produce a substantial increase in vehicle
overall performance. Nevertheless an engineering approach to
the matter should also permit to take into account further costs
which have to be balanced by correspondent performance
increments.
Here a layout including an electronically controlled
proportional valve in substitution of the thermostat is proposed.
The proportional valve intercepts the coolant directed towards
the radiator. Both closed-loop and feed-forward (model-based)
control strategies were tested. A mixed actuation was also
Cabin temperature proposed where a model-based action is corrected by a closed-
103 loop controller.
The feed-forward controller was derived making use of a
physically consistent model which was previously developed
% of the optimal value

102
by the same authors. The model was inverted to derive a
model-based controller.
101 The three control schemes (closed-loop, model-based and
mixed) were tested off-board and compared with a traditional
100 “thermostat-based” controller.
As expected, the traditional controller proved no to be able
to take coolant temperature up to the optimal value (chosen in
99 order to optimise engine thermal and mechanical efficiency)
due to the anticipated opening of the thermostat (usually
98 required for safety reasons).
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 The proposed electronic controllers, instead, succeed in
Time [s] taking coolant temperature up to the desired value and to
Fig.5 maintain it very near to the optimal value. The best
performance is that of the system equipped by the mixed
C1 C2A C2B C2C closed-loop & feed-forward controller, so justifying a model-
based approach.
σTcool [K] 12.1 3.7 3.3 3.1
σTcabin [K] 0.28 0.20 0.17 0.19
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Table 1 This work has been funded by Cluster 20 – Piano
tecnologie eco-compatibili – MURST”, by the Progetto di
CONCLUSIONS ricerca di interesse nazionale 1999-2002 – MURST: “Procedure
Traditional cooling systems (which make use of a teorico sperimentale per lo sviluppo di sistemi innovativi di
thermostat, eventually electrically assisted) are not capable to iniezione nei MCI”, and by MARK-IV Systèmes Moteurs -
match the new specifications that are nowadays required in France.
terms of the thermal state of the engine, as well as of cabin
comfort: REFERENCES
• maximum temperature of the engine metal parts must be Alzer, F., Hesse, U., Rocklagge, G., Schmitt, M. 1999,
limited to preserve materials and to avoid knocking Thermo-management, SAE paper 1999-01-0238.
phenomena; Kanefski, P., Nelson, V., Ranger, M. 1999, A Systems
• temperature gradients must also be limited inside metal parts Engineering Approach to Engine Cooling Design, SAE paper
not to determine distortions during engine exercise; 1999-01-3780.
• temperature oscillations during time must be limited to Ng, E. Y., Johnson, P. W., Watkins, S., Grant L. 2000,
increase engine resistance to thermal fatigue; Wind-tunnel tests of vehicle cooling system performance at
• metal parts warm-up time must be limited to reduce engine high blockage, SAE paper 2000-01-0351.
emissions and to enhance engine thermal efficiency lowering Valaszkai, L., Jouannet, B. 2000, Cooling system

10 Copyright © 2004 by ASME

optimization for Euro4 – EPA/02 heavy duty trucks, SAE paper
2000-01-0964.
Forrest, W. O., Bhatti, M. S. 2002, Energy efficient
automotive air conditioning system, SAE paper 2002-01-0229.
Srun, N. A. 1999, A simple engine cooling system
simulation model, SAE paper 1999-01-0237.
Da Silva, K., Lebrun, M., Samuel, S. 2000, Modeling and
simulation of a cooling system using multi-port approach, SAE
paper 2000-01-0292.
Yoo, I. K., Simpson, K., Bell, M., Majikowski, S. 2000, An
engine coolant temperature model and application for cooling
system diagnosis, SAE paper 2000-01-0939.
Cortona, E., Onder, C. H. 2000, Engine thermal
management with electric cooling pump, SAE paper 2000-01-
0965.
Wagner, J. R., Marotta, E. E., Paridis, I. 2001, Thermal
modeling of engine components for temperature predictions
and fluid flow regulation, SAE paper 2001-01-1014.
Allen, D. J., Lasecki, M. P. 2001, Thermal management
evolution and controlled coolant flow, SAE paper 2001-01-
1732.
View publication stats
Cortona, E., Onder, C. H., Guzzella, L., 2002, Model based
temperature control for improved fuel economy of SI engines,
IFAC paper.
Ng, E. Y., Watkins S., Johnson, P., Mole, L. 2002, Use of a
pressure-based technique for evaluating the aerodynamics of
vehicle cooling systems, SAE paper 2002-01-0712.
Wagner, J. R., Ghone, M. C., Dawson, D. W., Marotta, E.
E. 2002, Coolant flow control strategies for automotive thermal
management systems, SAE paper 2002-01-0713.
Cipollone, R., Villante, C., Komurian, R., Peuch, J. 2003,
A system approach to mathematical modeling of cooling system
dynamics, 4th Int. Conf. On control and Diagnostics in
Automotive Applications (CDAuto03) – Genova – ITALY, July
2003.
Cipollone, R., Villante, C. 2003, A system approach to
mathematical modeling of cooling system dynamics, Int. Conf.
“Transport Means 2003” – Kaunas – LITUANIA, October
2003.
11 Copyright © 2004 by ASME