IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 60, NO.

8, OCTOBER 2011

3557

A Novel ECMS and Combined Cost Map Approach

for High-Efficiency Series Hybrid Electric Vehicles
Volkan Sezer, Metin Gokasan, Member, IEEE, and Seta Bogosyan, Senior Member, IEEE

AbstractThe main aim in the control of a hybrid electric

vehicle (HEV) is to decrease the fuel consumption and emissions
without significant loss of driving performance. The performance
of the vehicle in terms of fuel economy and emissions is very much
dependent on the vehicles supervisory control strategy. In this
paper, the equivalent consumption minimization strategy (ECMS)
is developed with a novel approach for the charge sustaining of
the batteries to provide an overall improved optimization performance for series hybrid electric vehicles (SHEVs), considering the
efficiencies of the internal combustion engine (ICE), generator,
and battery. Another novelty is the development of a combined
map, which simultaneously facilitates the optimization of the fuel
consumption and multiple emission components, unlike most past
studies that have concentrated on one component at a time. After
the derivation of the cost map, the algorithm is divided into two
main parts. The first part optimizes the enginegenerator set
(GENSET), and the second part determines how much power is
needed from the GENSET according to the ECMS. The algorithm
is implemented using generic emission and fuel consumption maps
of an actual mid-sized series hybrid bus to reduce the desired
emissions. The hybrid electric vehicle in consideration is converted
from a conventional bus that is driven by an ICE. The performance
of the novel ECMS strategy is compared with the conventional
vehicle, as well as the SHEV version that is driven by an onoff
strategy. In addition to reduced fuel consumption, the results
of this paper demonstrate a significant reduction of 14.58% in
CO2 production with ECMS, whereas the onoff control strategy
achieves only 6.47% reduction over the conventional vehicle.
Index TermsBattery state of charge (SOC), emission,
enginegenerator set (GENSET), equivalent consumption minimization strategy (ECMS), fuel economy, internal combustion engine (ICE), optimization, series hybrid electric vehicles (SHEVs),
supervisory control.

I. I NTRODUCTION

YBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLES (HEVs), which are

more viable options than conventional vehicles in terms

Manuscript received August 2, 2010; revised February 28, 2011 and

July 1, 2011; accepted August 12, 2011. Date of publication September 1, 2011;
date of current version October 20, 2011. This work was supported in part by
the California Energy Commissions Energy Innovations Small Grant (EISG)
under Transportation Grant 55785/08-01T, in collaboration with the Scientific
and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TBITAK Evrena)-110E117.
The review of this paper was coordinated by Mr. D. Diallo.
V. Sezer is with the Mechatronics Education and Research Center,
Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul 34469, Turkey (e-mail:sezervolkan@
gmail.com).
M. Gokasan is with the Faculty of Electrical and Electronics Engineering,
Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul 34469, Turkey (e-mail: gokasan@
itu.edu.tr).
S. Bogosyan is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
the University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775 USA (e-mail:
s.bogosyan@uaf.edu).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TVT.2011.2166981

of fuel consumption (FC) and emissions, have become very

popular in recent years. Improvements in HEV fuel economy
with reduced emissions strongly depend on the supervisory
control strategies involved. A comparative study of some novel
control strategies can be found in [1]. A control algorithm that
appropriately manages the power distribution is a necessity for
reduced emissions and FC in HEVs. To this aim, a new type
of equivalent consumption minimization strategy (ECMS) is
designed in this paper for the series hybrid configuration.
Optimization algorithms in the literature are mostly designed
for parallel hybrid vehicles (PHEVS), and only a few algorithms exist for series hybrid electric vehicles (SHEVS). Some
of these control strategies for SHEVs are given in [2][4],
which adopt rule-based algorithms, dynamic programming,
and the optimal control theory. Dynamic programming and
global optimization algorithms are difficult to apply in real
time because of their heavy computation requirements. These
algorithms are generally used in offline simulations and in
finding the global optimum solution to compare the real-time
algorithm performance.
ECMS is very popular in parallel hybrid electric vehicles
(PHEV). Among the studies, we can cite [5][10]. These papers
use ECMS and its different versions such as maximizing overall
efficiency strategy (MOES) for PHEVs to reduce the emissions
or FC [5]. Optimization approaches are more commonly sought
for PHEVs mainly due to the operation principle of this configuration, which is based on a power split between the engine and
the battery. However, ECMS can significantly benefit SHEVs,
as demonstrated in [11] and [12], to optimize the power split
between the enginegenerator set and the battery to minimize
the cost function.
ECMS uses the concept of negative or positive potential
costs, depending on whether the electric power that is generated
by the enginegenerator set (GENSET) is more or less than
the requested mechanical power, and determines the optimum
amount of the electric power that should be produced by the
GENSET. Maintaining of the battery state of charge (SOC;
charge sustaining) is very important in HEVs. Previous studies
on ECMS [5][12] calculate the potential costs as a function
of the actual SOC to maintain the SOC around a rated value.
If the actual SOC is less than the rated SOC, the potential cost
is penalized, resulting in a possible charging mode. Conversely,
if the actual SOC is less than the rated value, the discharging
mode becomes a higher possibility. With this approach, the
charge can be sustained around its rated value; however, the
optimality is compromised to some extent.
The strategy that is used in the aforementioned studies is to
sustain the SOC of the battery by penalizing the battery charge

0018-9545/$26.00 2011 IEEE

3558

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 60, NO. 8, OCTOBER 2011

when the SOC is high and encouraging the battery charge

when the SOC is low. This approach means that, if the SOC
is very low, the battery is forced to be charged, and if the SOC
is very high, the battery is forced to be discharged, although
these behaviors are inefficient in terms of the cost function.
Therefore, SOC deviation is a factor of cost function in previous
studies. This paper uses ECMS for the SHEV configuration
and, to further improve the optimization performance, proposes
a new approach for the charge sustaining of the batteries.
One of the main contributions of this paper is to achieve
further minimization of emissions and FC by eliminating the
effect of SOC deviation from the cost function but by using
the actual SOC values as an optimization constraint. Hence,
in the proposed approach, the SOC deviation is not a penalty
function that forces the actual SOC to its rated value. In the
classical approach found in most previous literature, the SOC
deviation is a part of the penalty function; hence, when the
SOC is very high, it is very expensive to charge the battery, and
when the SOC is very low, it is very expensive to discharge the
battery. Because our main aim in this paper is the minimization
of FC and some selected emission components, intuitively, it
makes better sense not to include SOC deviation into the cost
function, but in this case, it is essential that SOC is taken into
account as an optimization constraint to avoid SOC draining
or overcharging. In this algorithm, as shown in Section IV
and in Fig. 8, the upper and lower limits are determined for
SOC, which is similar to the common approach in the onoff
strategies, as shown in [13][16]. However, in the proposed
approach, these upper/lower SOC limits are not used to start or
stop the GENSET but, instead, to determine the search space for
the optimized power of the GENSET (Pgenset ), as explained in
Section IV. When the SOC touches the upper or lower limit, the
algorithm will narrow down the search space for the Pgenset ,
as a result of which the battery will be forced to charge or
discharge. More specifically, when the lower limit is hit, the
search is conducted between the required power from te vehicle
driver (Preq ) and the highest limit of the GENSET power
(Pgenset ), and conversely, when the upper limit is reached, the
Pgenset is searched between the lowest limit of the GENSET
power (Pgenset ) and the required power Preq . These search
regions are given in Fig. 8. Once the rated SOC level has been
reached, the algorithm is relaxed for the search, yielding a more
flexible and efficient performance.
As another contribution of this paper and different from the
existing supervisory control studies in the literature [5][12],
which individually use multiple cost maps, a combined cost
map is derived from individual cost maps [CO2, CO, NOX,
total hydrocarbon (THC), and FC] for the minimization of
the desired components with less computational burden, and
yet with more of the targeted emission components and fuel
economy simultaneously taken into consideration. This approach also avoids the increase in certain components while
decreasing the targeted component. The combined cost map,
which contains the characteristics of several different cost
maps, is prepared before the minimization algorithm and is a
weighted combination of different cost maps, such as CO2,
CO, NOX, THC, and FC. Because the performance directly
depends on the weight coefficients, we can set the ratio of the

coefficients according to which components are desired to be

minimized.
Finally, this paper also provides an optimized control strategy
for the GENSET to determine the operating point in terms
of speed and torque. This calculation has not explicitly been
presented in previous ECMS studies.
This paper is organized as follows. After the introduction in
Section I, the combined cost map is derived using some normalization and weighting calculations. After the derivation of this
cost map, the GENSET is separately optimized. The derived
cost map and efficiency map of the electric motor are used for
GENSET optimization. After the optimization of the GENSET,
ECMS is developed with a new SOC-sustaining strategy as
the supervisory controller. ECMS determines how much power
should be requested from the optimized GENSET for cost minimization. Finally, a case study for ECMS is done at the end of
this paper using actual emission and FC map data. Comparisons
of this new algorithm are made with the onoff control [4]
and conventional mode of the vehicle at the end of this paper.
II. D ERIVATION OF C OST M AP
In this section, the derivation of a cost map for an internal
combustion engine (ICE) using the specific emission and FC
maps is given prior to the derivation of ECMS. The common
approach that is taken in previous studies is to derive cost
maps either for the FC or for the emission component. The
proposed new map structure in this paper is a combination
of emission components and FC for reduced computational
burden. However, because FC and emission maps have different
scales, the derivation of the cost map is done by normalizing
and weighting. The combined cost map can be viewed as
precomputation to reduce the real-time computation of several
table lookup operations.
The ICE cost function is the weighted combination of CO,
CO2, NOX, THC, and FC maps. The actual cost maps used are
illustrated in Fig. 1. All the maps are given in terms of grams
per kilowatt hour, and as shown in the figures, they all have
different characteristics. For example the [2000 r/min300 Nm]
operating point is optimum for the NOX map, whereas it is not
optimum for FC and CO production, as shown in Fig. 1.
The FC and emission maps have different scales and hence
should be normalized as
Cni (, T ) =

Ci (, T )
max [Ci (, T )]

(1)

where Ci (, T ) is the original cost map, and Cni (, T ) is the

normalized cost map (values are between 0 and 1).
After the derivation of the normalized the cost map, the
weighting process is done by the following equation:
Cf (, T ) =
where
l
ki
Cf (, T )

k1 Cn1 + k2 Cn2 + + kl Cnl

k1 + k2 + kl

(2)

number of maps that are used;

weight coefficient for the ith normalized cost
map;
final cost map, which is normalized and
weighted.

SEZER et al.: NOVEL ECMS AND COMBINED COST MAP APPROACH FOR HIGH-EFFICIENCY SERIES HEVS

Fig. 1.

3559

Cost map of the FC, CO, CO2, NOX, and THC components.

The ki coefficients depend on the components that are demanded to be minimized and the amount of this demand.
The formulation in (2) can be thought for our examples as
Cf (, T )
k1 CCO +k2 CCO2 +k3 CF C +k4 CN OX +k5 CT HC
=
. (3)
k1 +k2 +k3 +k4 +k5
Some different examples of weighted and normalized final
maps for different weight coefficients are illustrated in Fig. 2.
The figure on the left is created for both FC and CO2 reduction,
whereas the figure on the right is a more mixed map, in which
CO reduction is the main aim, and the FC, CO2, and THC
reduction follow CO, respectively.
III. C ONTROL S TRATEGY
The proposed control strategy is divided into the following
two main parts:
1) the determination of the operating point of the GENSET
in terms of speed and torque to produce the desired power,
using the efficiency map of the generator and the cost map
of the ICE;
2) the determination of how much power should be produced by the GENSET.

In the first stage, the operating points of the GENSET are

calculated in terms of speed and torque for each desired power
value, which will be discussed in Section III in further detail.
This calculation is done with the use of the previously derived
combined cost map and the generator efficiency map. These
operating points are saved in a map with their costs for further
use in the algorithm.
In the second stage, the optimization of the desired GENSET
electric power is performed using the map calculated in the
first stage. In this part, ECMS considers the effect of battery
efficiency and the potential costs of charging and discharging
the batteries. This approach splits the search space into two
parts: the first part increases the SOC, whereas the other part
decreases the SOC. Normally and whenever possible, the search
is performed in the whole operating space of the GENSET.
However, this space may be restricted to sustain the charge,
depending on the actual SOC. To this aim, the search area of
the optimization is dynamically divided into two parts. If the
battery SOC is between the upper and lower limits, the whole
area is used for the search, which means full optimization.
However, if the SOC has reached one of the limit values,
only one section of the whole area is used for search. This
case sustains the SOC between the predetermined limits with
a realistic optimization. Charging or discharging may result in

3560

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 60, NO. 8, OCTOBER 2011

Fig. 3.

GENSET optimization map inputs and outputs.

Fig. 4.

Generator efficiency map.

Fig. 5.

Generator torque boundaries.

Fig. 2. Normalized and weighted cost map for different weight coefficients.

a more efficient outcome under full optimization over a long

period of time due to some torque request of the driver or
other states of the vehicle. However, if the full optimization is
implemented without considering the upper and lower limits,
SOC sustaining would be impossible. This case is the main role
of using the upper and lower limits.
IV. GENSET O PTIMIZATION
ECMS calculates the amount of power that should be produced by the GENSET to meet the power demand of the
driver or the traction motor. The optimization strategy takes into
account whether any portion of the demanded power is met by
the batteries. If the GENSET power is lower than the drivers
power demand, the future replacement cost of this power is
calculated. Conversely, if some portion of the power could be
pumped into the batteries, i.e., if the GENSET power is higher
than the drivers power demand, the cost amount that will be
saved in the future is also calculated.
To realize this approach, the minimum cost operating points
of the ICE for each electric power output value of the GENSET
should be calculated.
A. GENSET Operating-Point Determination
The GENSET operating-point map given in Fig. 3 depicts the
required electric power from the GENSET (Pgenset ) as inputs

and the optimum operating torque (ToptICE ), speed (optICE ),

and cost as outputs.
For this optimization, all possible combinations of revolution
per minute and torque for each Pgenset value are calculated,
considering the efficiency map of the generator. Because the
torque value of the ICE is not the torque value for electric power generation, the ICE torque must be multiplied by
the generator efficiency, given in Fig. 4, to calculate how
much electric power (Pgenset ) needs to be produced. This
factor is the key of GENSET optimization. A search algorithm calculates the appropriate revolution per minutetorque
values (ToptICE , optICE ), which yields the minimum cost
for each Pgenset value. The cost value of this revolution per
minutetorque combination is also calculated and saved in the

SEZER et al.: NOVEL ECMS AND COMBINED COST MAP APPROACH FOR HIGH-EFFICIENCY SERIES HEVS

Fig. 6.

GENSET optimum operating points and corresponding cost values for (k1 = 0, k2 = 0.5, k3 = 0.5, k4 = 0, and k5 = 0).

Fig. 7.

GENSET optimum operating points and corresponding cost values for (k1 = 0.4, k2 = 0.2, k3 = 0.3, k4 = 0, and k5 = 0.1).

same table. During the search process, the maximum variation

of the torque and speed values between adjacent power values
is limited to track these operating points in real time, as shown
in Figs. 6 and 7.
A generic generator efficiency map is illustrated in Fig. 4.
The green dashed lines show the rated operating limits of the
generator. The rated operating limit indicates that it is not
recommended to operate the motor outside this limit for a long
time period. According to Fig. 4, the most efficient region
is around the [2500 r/min200 Nm] operating point, and the
maximum efficiency is 93% in this region.
We should be careful when searching for the GENSET
optimization. Searching should be done in the intersection area
of boundary torque values of the ICE and the generator. The
simulated ICE and generator torquespeed characteristics are
shown in Fig. 5. Note that the generator torque restricts the
search area.
The generator efficiency is considered when calculating the
generated GENSET electric power. Consequently, the operating
points on the graphics do not precisely occur on the minimum
cost value contours of the cost maps, as shown in Figs. 6 and 7.
The optimum GENSET operating points are also illustrated
in these diagrams, with the normalized cost values of these
operating points given in Figs. 6 and 7, respectively. The
generator torque restricts the operating points, as illustrated in
the following figures. Each operating point corresponds to the
output power of the GENSET between the minimum (10 kW)
and the maximum (104 kW) power values, with intervals of
500 W. There are no calculations performed beyond that
interval.
It is possible to use these different cost maps in the same
vehicle. The optimization results of these maps can be switched
online while the car moves based on the existing conditions.

3561

For example, in a city with high air pollution, the emission

reduction cost map can be used, whereas in a cleaner environment, the FC cost map can be used. The switching can be done
through the use of Global Positioning System (GPS) signals,
which will provide information on the location of the vehicle.
This information may be combined with other sensor data to
determine the emission ratio of the air.
V. O PTIMIZATION OF THE R EQUESTED G ENSET P OWER
E QUIVALENT C ONSUMPTION M INIMIZATION S TRATEGY
The main aim of ECMS is to calculate the optimum power
that will be produced by the GENSET to meet the power
demand of the driver. Potential costs of the charge and discharge
power of battery system should be considered in this optimization. Previous studies calculate these potential costs as a
function of the actual SOC to maintain the charge sustaining, as
aforementioned. However, these potential costs are independent
of the actual SOC. Here, we have a more realistic solution for
both optimization and charge sustaining.
A. New Charge-Sustaining Method
Normally, the search for the optimal solution can be performed between the lower limit Pgenset min and the upper limit
Pgenset max of the GENSET. To maintain the charge sustaining,
the GENSET operation is divided into the following modes:
the SOC-increasing mode;
the SOC-decreasing mode;
the free operation mode.
Fig. 8 illustrates the usage of these three modes according to
a sample SOC pattern.

3562

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 60, NO. 8, OCTOBER 2011

Fig. 8. Sample SOC pattern with algorithm modes.

For the operation area of the battery system, the upper and
lower limits are determined for the SOC, i.e., (SOChl ) and
(SOCll ), respectively. The battery most efficiently operates
in between these limits. If the battery SOC touches the upper
limit (SOChl ), the SOC-decreasing operation is implemented
until the SOC attains the average value of SOChl and SOCll .
SOC decreasing is performed by searching the GENSET power
(Pgenset ) between the lowest limit of the GENSET power
(Pgenset ) and the required power from the vehicle driver
(Preq ). Similarly, if the SOC touches the lower limit (SOCll ),
the SOC-increasing operation is implemented until the SOC
again reaches the average value. SOC increasing is performed
by searching the GENSET power (Pgenset ) between the Preq
value and the highest limit of the GENSET power (Pgenset ).
After reaching the average SOC value, the free operation mode
becomes active. In this mode, the GENSET is free to charge or
discharge the batteries according to the optimization process.
This means that the whole operational area of the GENSET
can be used from its minimum Pgenset to maximum output
power Pgenset for optimization. The free operation mode can
be considered the combination of the SOC-increasing and SOCdecreasing modes. The flowchart of this new charge-sustaining
algorithm is illustrated in Fig. 9.
With this charge-sustaining strategy, the optimization area is
restricted only if the SOC reaches its limits, whereas the whole
optimization area is in use, as long as the SOC remains between
these limits in a driving cycle.
Each of the SOC-increasing and SOC-decreasing modes has
an instant and potential cost for the vehicle. Before explaining
the main two modes of the algorithm, the main equation that
summarizes the power flow between the battery, GENSET, and
traction motor is given by
Preq = Pgenset + Pbat

Fig. 9.

New SOC-sustaining algorithm.

GENSET should be lower than the required power. This condition is achieved by searching in the GENSET range between
the minimum power (Pgenset ) in the GENSET power range
and the required power (Preq ). Therefore, an additional battery
power will be used to supply the requested power from the
traction motor, which is shown in (2). For every operating point
of the GENSET, we have an instant cost Cost(PELgenset )
and a potential cost Costpot . The instant cost comes from the
operating point of the GENSET, and the potential cost comes
from the battery usage, which has to be regained in the future
operations. Equation (5) shows the potential cost calculation,
considering the battery efficiencies



Preq Pgenset
.
(5)
Costpot = Cost
bat bat+
Here, bat is the instant battery efficiency, and bat+ is the
average battery efficiency in charge condition.
The real cost (Costreal ) is the sum of the potential and
instant costs, i.e.,
Costreal = Cost(Pgenset ) + Costpot .

The operation point that minimizes the real cost is the

operation point of the GENSET (Pgenset ) during the SOCdecreasing mode. The 1-D optimization problem is formulated
as follows:
min

Pgenset [Pgenset ,Preq ]

(4)

(6)

Costreal .

(7)

where Preq is the required power for traction motor, Pgenset

is the output electric power of the GENSET, and Pbat is the
battery power.

The flowchart of the search algorithm of the GENSET for

SOC decreasing is illustrated in Fig. 10. The cost values are
taken from the map, which was illustrated in Fig. 3 during the
calculations. P is the search step of the algorithm.

B. SOC-Decreasing Mode Operation

C. SOC-Increasing Mode Optimization

When the SOC-decreasing mode is active according to the

actual SOC value, the electric power that is produced by the

When the battery SOC needs to be increased, the GENSET

should produce an electric power more than the driver demand

SEZER et al.: NOVEL ECMS AND COMBINED COST MAP APPROACH FOR HIGH-EFFICIENCY SERIES HEVS

3563

Fig. 11. SOC-increasing-mode searching algorithm.

Fig. 10. SOC-decreasing-mode searching algorithm.

power (Preq ). This is achieved by performing a search between

the required power (Preq ) and the maximum power (Pgenset )
in the GENSET power range, as a result of which some of the
electric power that is produced by the GENSET is stored in the
battery. This is also a result of (4). In this condition, again, there
is also an instant cost and a potential cost (Costpot ); however,
in this case, the potential cost comes from the stored power in
the battery, which will be used as traction power in the future.
We have
Costpot = Cost ((Pgenset Preq )bat bat )

(8)

where bat is the instant battery efficiency, and bat is the

average battery efficiency in discharge condition.
The real cost is the difference of the potential and instant
costs, i.e.,
Costreal = Cost(Preq ) Costpot .

(9)

The operation point that minimizes the real cost is the operation point of the GENSET during the SOC increasing mode.
The 1-D optimization problem is formulated as follows:
min

Pgenset [Preq ,Pgenset ]

Costreal .

(10)

The flowchart of the GENSET search algorithm for the SOCdecreasing mode is illustrated in Fig. 11. P is the search step
of the algorithm. The cost values are taken from the map, which
is illustrated in Fig. 3 during the calculations.
VI. C ASE S TUDY
This case study demonstrates the improved performance of
the novel ECMS algorithm over the performance of the onoff
strategy running on the same vehicle, as well as the conven-

Fig. 12. Longitudinal vehicle model.

tional strategy of the nonhybrid vehicle. The comparison is

performed using an actual mid-sized hybrid bus that is modeled
by single-track vehicle dynamics equations.
The basic description of the simulation model has been
demonstrated in Fig. 12. Basically, the longitudinal vehicle
model is described by the following equation:
m a = Fxf ront + Fxrear Raero Rxf ront
Rxrear mg sin()

(11)

where m is the vehicle mass, a is the acceleration along the

x-axis, Fxf ront and Fxrear are the longitudinal tire forces computed using the Pacejka tire model, Raero is the aerodynamic
drag force, Rxf ront and Rxrear are the rolling resistances, and
is the inclination of the road.
Critical vehicle parameters that are used for simulations are
illustrated in Table I.
Further information about modeling a hybrid vehicle can be
found in [17][19]. In this paper, the reduction of the CO2
emissions and FC is aimed as an example, resulting in (k1 =
0, k2 = 0.5, k3 = 0.5, k4 = 0, k5 = 0) in (3). The optimized

3564

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 60, NO. 8, OCTOBER 2011

TABLE I
V EHICLE PARAMETERS

Fig. 15.

Fig. 13. Simulink model snapshot for simulations.

Fig. 14. SHEV architecture.

GENSET operating points of this cost map are illustrated

in Fig. 11.
The ICE of the vehicle is the ISBe4 160B model of a
112-kW diesel engine from the Cummins Engine Company. Its
specific data, such as the torquespeed curve, emission, and
efficiency maps, are used for performance comparisons. The
permanent-magnet brushless dc (PMDC) electric motor and
generator are UQM PowerPhase 150. The simulated battery
pack is a KOKAM SLBP-60460330. Ninety-eight of these cells
are serially connected for the battery pack. The electric motor,
generator, and battery pack components are modeled using the
actual data provided by the manufacturers. A Simulink snapshot
of the simulation model is given in Fig. 13, whereas Fig. 14

KOKAM SLBP-60460330 battery efficiency map.

depicts the SHEV vehicle that is taken into account for the
simulations.
As aforementioned, we have three modes in ECMS. In the
free operation mode, which is illustrated in Fig. 8 as a free area,
both the SOC-increasing and SOC-decreasing optimizations are
performed. The minimum of Costopt+ and Costopt values is
selected to determine the operating point of ICE in terms of
revolution per minute and torque (ICE , TICE ). By means of
this, the whole operating area of the GENSET is scanned in the
free operation mode.
The accuracy of the ECMS optimization strongly depends on
the P step value. If it is not possible to do the calculations
in real time on the actual vehicle, these calculations can be
done offline, as was the case in this paper. One example of such
tables is illustrated as follows for CO2 reduction and FC (k1 =
0, k2 = 0.5, k3 = 0.5, k4 = 0, k5 = 0). These maps show the
Poptgenset and Poptgenset+ values and the corresponding cost
values Costopt and Costopt+ . These values are calculated for
each requested power value. The efficiency of the battery is a
function of battery SOC; therefore, the SOC is also represented
as an axis of the graphics. Battery current limitations are also
considered in the algorithm, and the battery current is held
between 150 and 350 A. The parameters bat+ and bat
can be added as an axis to the graphs, but this approach is
not critical, because adding these parameters to the table will
also increase the data amount. These average battery efficiency
values are taken as 0.97 in these calculations according to the
battery efficiency map illustrated in Fig. 15.
Fig. 16(a) and (c) show the optimum power request values
from the GENSET in the SOC-decreasing and SOC-increasing
regions. Fig. 16(b) and (d) illustrates the cost values of these
requested power values. Fig. 16(b) and (d) is combined in
Fig. 17 to illustrate the benefit of this new approach.
Inspecting Fig. 17, we can clearly see the benefit of this
new approach. In this figure, we see the normalized cost map
of the GENSET for both the charge and discharge conditions.
Although the charge and discharge costs are both sensitive to
the SOC change, they do not demonstrate similar sensitivity.
This condition is to be expected, because the search boundaries
for charging and discharging are different for every requested
power value. The figure illustrates that both charging and

SEZER et al.: NOVEL ECMS AND COMBINED COST MAP APPROACH FOR HIGH-EFFICIENCY SERIES HEVS

3565

Fig. 16. Optimum power request and corresponding cost values for SOC-increasing and SOC-decreasing regions. (a) Optimum power request from the GENSET
in the SOC-decreasing region. (b) Cost of Poptgenset in the SOC-decreasing region. (c) Optimum power request from the GENSET in the SOC-increasing region.
(d) Cost of Poptgenset+ in the SOC-increasing region.

Fig. 18. ECE inner city part (four times).

Fig. 17. Cost of Poptgenset and Poptgenset+ .

discharging can be efficient at different times. By using this new

SOC-sustaining technique, we have a free area, as illustrated in
Fig. 8, which means that the most appropriate of the charge and
discharge optimization processes can be selected here, whereas

in the classical approach, a penalty function is always taken

into account for charge sustaining, and this approach restricts
the operational freedom of the controller.
The comparisons are performed for the following three different control strategies to better analyze and highlight the
benefits of the new approach:
conventional vehicle (nonhybrid);
onoff strategy;
ECMS.

3566

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 60, NO. 8, OCTOBER 2011

Fig. 19. Simulation results for a conventional vehicle. (a) ICE operating points. (b) Production (in grams) and FC (in grams).

The drive cycle that was used in the simulations is the

combination of four ECE cycles, as illustrated in Fig. 18.
Because the algorithm is independent of the drive cycle, a
similar performance is expected for other cycles. The drive
cycle determines the speed versus time profile of the vehicle.
A driver model with a proportionalintegral (PI) controller is
also designed for the simulations.
A. Conventional Vehicle
The simulations were started with the ICE alone, which is
also known as the conventional strategy. This strategy involves
no optimization, and all of the required torque is provided by
the ICE, with the mechanical brakes used for negative torque
request.
The operating points of the ICE are shown in Fig. 19(a). It
is shown that operating points are scattered on the cost map
without any optimization. The corresponding CO2 production
and FC of the engine are given in Fig. 19(b). During four ECE
inner city cycles, 2514 g of CO2 is produced, and 769.5 g of
fuel is consumed, as illustrated in Fig. 19(b).
B. OnOff Strategy
Next, the tests are performed for the onoff strategy. This
approach is the commonly applied method in SHEVs. The
strategy is based on the operation of the ICE at a constant
operating point (revolution per minute and torque) until the
battery SOC reaches a predetermined upper limit. Then, the
engine stops until the SOC reaches a predetermined lower limit.
The flowchart of this basic operation is illustrated in Fig. 20.
The ICE operating point (Topt , opt ) is selected as
1950 r/min and 400 Nm, as illustrated by the red circle in
Fig. 21(a). This point is the optimum for the reduced CO2
production and FC (k1 = 0, k2 = 0.5, k3 = 0.5, k4 = 0, k5 =
0), as illustrated in Fig. 21(a).
The variation of the SOC is illustrated in Fig. 21(b). The
upper limit of the SOC is selected as 0.704, and the lower
limit is selected as 0.696. As expected, the SOC profile is set in
a triangular shape. The observed deviations from triangularity
are caused by regenerative braking and engine stop. Fig. 21(c)
depicts the CO2 production and FC during the cycle. During
the four ECE inner city cycles, 2324 g of CO2 is produced, and
689.1 g of fuel is consumed, as illustrated in Fig. 21(c).

Fig. 20.

Flowchart of the onoff mode.

C. ECMS With the Classical SOC-Sustaining Strategy

In this section, to provide a comparison benchmark for the
proposed strategy, ECMS is implemented with the classical
SOC-sustaining method. The SOC deviation is a factor of cost
function in the classical approach.
The operating points of ICE, SOC variation, CO2 production,
and FC graphics during the ECMS simulations for the classical
strategy are shown in Fig. 22.
Fig. 22(b) demonstrates the SOC variation. Here, the classical SOC-sustaining method is used without high and low limits
as illustrated in Fig. 8. The GENSET power is calculated with
the ECMS formulation that was given in the previous sections
and a penalty function that penalizes the SOC deviation from
its rated value. The rated value of the SOC is selected as 0.7.
Fig. 22(c) depicts the CO2 production and FC of the vehicle
during the cycle, respectively. During the four ECE inner city
cycles, 2230 g of CO2 is produced, and 679.6 g of fuel is
consumed, as illustrated in Fig. 22(c).
D. ECMS With the New SOC-Sustaining Strategy
Finally, ECMS with the new SOC-sustaining algorithm is
implemented to better evaluate the benefits of this new optimization approach. This approach does not consider SOC
deviation, as illustrated in Section IV.
The operating points of ICE, SOC variation, CO2 production,
and FC graphics during the ECMS simulations are shown
in Fig. 23.

SEZER et al.: NOVEL ECMS AND COMBINED COST MAP APPROACH FOR HIGH-EFFICIENCY SERIES HEVS

3567

Fig. 21. Simulation results for the onoff control. (a) ICE operating point. (b) SOC variation. (c) CO2 production (in grams) and FC (in grams).

Fig. 22. Simulation results for ECMS with the classical SOC-sustaining strategy. (a) ICE operating points. (b) SOC variation. (c) CO2 production (in grams)
and FC (in grams).

The operating points of the cost map for CO2 production and FC (k1 = 0, k2 = 0.5, k3 = 0.5, k4 = 0, k5 = 0)
were shown in Fig. 6. In Fig. 23(a), it is shown that
the operating points of the ICE are almost the same as

in Fig. 6. The differences between these two figures are

mainly due to the performed interpolation, because the
optimized map in Fig. 6 was calculated for a 500-W
grid.

3568

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 60, NO. 8, OCTOBER 2011

Fig. 23. Simulation results for ECMS with the new SOC-sustaining strategy. (a) ICE operating points. (b) SOC variation. (c) CO2 production (in grams)
and FC (in grams).
TABLE II
C OMPARISON OF THE CO2, CO, AND NOX P RODUCTION AND FC FOR THE C ONVENTIONAL , O N O FF , AND ECMS M ODES W ITH
THE C LASSICAL AND N EW SOC-S USTAINING M ETHOD IN THE ECE I NNER C ITY D RIVING C YCLE

Fig. 23(b) demonstrates the SOC variation. The upper limit

of the SOC is selected as 0.704, and the lower limit is again
selected as 0.696. The ECMS results for this case demonstrate
the tendency of the SOC to increase. Regenerative braking is
also effective on this SOC profile. For example, some SOC
values are higher than 0.704 due to regenerative braking near
the SOC value of 0.704. Fig. 23(c) shows the CO2 production
and FC of the vehicle during the cycle, respectively. During the
four ECE inner city cycles, 2184 g of CO2 is produced, and
659.5 g of fuel is consumed, as illustrated in Fig. 23(c).
E. Results
Table II demonstrates the CO2CONOXTHC production
and FC results for the conventional method, onoff strategy,

Fig. 24.

Japanese 1015-mode driving cycle.

SEZER et al.: NOVEL ECMS AND COMBINED COST MAP APPROACH FOR HIGH-EFFICIENCY SERIES HEVS

3569

TABLE III
C OMPARISON OF THE CO2, CO, AND NOX P RODUCTION AND FC FOR THE C ONVENTIONAL , O N O FF , AND ECMS M ODES W ITH
THE C LASSICAL AND N EW SOC-S USTAINING M ETHOD IN THE JAPANESE 1015-M ODE D RIVING C YCLE

and ECMS in units of gram per kilometer. The difference of

the initial and final SOC is also considered while calculating
the CO2 production and FC values of the onoff and ECMS
modes.
Because the main weighted components were the CO2 and
FC for the final cost map, a significant reduction in FC and
CO2 production is obtained with the novel ECMS strategy
compared with the onoff strategy. The THC and NOX production is not affected by our algorithm as much as the CO2
and FC rates. Moreover, the NOX production increased because of its different map characteristics compared with the
CO2 and FC cost maps; however, NOX and THC could also
be reduced along with the other emissions by changing the
weight coefficients in the derivation of the cost map. If NOX
and THC are also weighted along with other components,
their reduction ratio will increase, whereas the CO2 and FC
reduction ratios decrease. CO reduction is obtained near the
CO2 and FC reduction rates due to its similar cost map with
the CO2 and FC cost maps. Finally, ECMS with the new
SOC-sustaining method is generally better than the classical
SOC-sustaining method reductions. Only CO production appears to be better in the classical SOC-sustaining method,
but this case is not a concern, because our main aim was to
decrease CO2 and FC according to the cost map that we have
used.
To show that the algorithm is independent of the driving
cycle, simulations are performed with another drive cycle. The
1015-mode cycle, which is illustrated in Fig. 24, is currently
used in Japan for emission certification and fuel economy for
light-duty vehicles.
Table III demonstrates the CO2, CO, and NOX production
and FC for the conventional, onoff, and ECMS modes with
the classical and new SOC-sustaining methods in the Japanese
1015-mode driving cycle. Results are similar with Table II,
which demonstrates the same results in the ECE inner city
driving cycles. This case shows that our algorithm is independent of the driving cycle.
VII. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, new approaches have been developed for
the optimized operation of SHEVs in terms of improved fuel

economy and reduced emissions. The major contributions can

be listed as follows.
A novel cost map concept has been presented, which
allows for the simultaneous optimization of a wide range
of emission components (e.g., CO2, CO, NOX, THC, and
FC). This approach is different from the commonly used
multiple-cost-map approach, because it involves a single
cost map, which combines various cost maps related to the
desired performance.
GENSET operating-point determination, the calculation of
which has not explicitly been presented in previous ECMS
studies, has also been presented. The determination of the
torque and speed values for a better tracking performance
is also a novelty.
Finally, the ECMS performance was improved with a
novel SOC-sustaining approach, resulting in a wider
search space and, hence, an improved optimization performance in the reduction of emissions and FC.
Using actual data from a mid-sized bus, the developed algorithm was compared to the onoff strategy for the same
vehicle and a conventional vehicle. The results demonstrate
14.26% reduction in CO2 production and 15.38% reduction in
FC with ECMS, whereas the onoff controller achieves only
9.06% reduction in CO2 production and 11.09% reduction in
FC. This case is because ECMS considers the efficiency of the
electric path inside the potential cost. The onoff strategy, on
the other hand, does not care about how much current is drawn
while charging/discharging batteries. Hence, it is expected that
the advantage of the proposed ECMS will be even more evident
if less efficient batteries are used instead of Li-Ion batteries.
One future direction can be using more than one type of these
combined cost maps in the same vehicle and switching between
the optimization results according to the pollution conditions of
the road and environment. The THC and NOX reduction ratios
are not satisfactory as much as CO2 and FC due to the selection
of weight coefficients in a cost map. Different combinations of
these coefficients and their effects on all components reduction
ratio values can be analyzed in the future.
In this paper, the generator torque limits the search area of
the ICE, as illustrated in Fig. 10. Using generators with higher
torque capacity or using an appropriate gear ratio between the

3570

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 60, NO. 8, OCTOBER 2011

ICE and the generator will provide an opportunity to search the

whole area of the ICE map. This approach may also improve
the ECMS performance for future studies.
R EFERENCES
[1] P. Pisu and G. Rizzoni, A comparative study of supervisory control strategies for hybrid electric vehicles, IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol.,
vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 506518, May 2007.
[2] N. Jalil, N. A. Kheir, and M. Salman, A rule-based energy management strategy for a series hybrid vehicle, in Proc. Amer. Control Conf.,
Albuquerque, NM, Jun. 1997, pp. 689693.
[3] A. Brahma, Y. Guezennec, and G. Rizzoni, Optimal energy management in series hybrid electric vehicles, in Proc. Amer. Control Conf.,
Sep. 2000, vol. 1, pp. 6064.
[4] A. Kleimaier and D. Schrder, Optimization strategy for design and
control of a hybrid vehicle, in Proc. Int. Workshop Adv. Motion Control,
Nagoya, Japan, Mar./Apr. 311, 2000, pp. 459464.
[5] V. Sezer, I. M. C. Uygan, E. Ahu, L. Gven, T. Acarman, V. Kl,
and M. Yldrm, Maximizing overall efficiency strategy (MOES) for
power split control of a parallel hybrid electric vehicle, presented at the
Commercial Vehicle Engineering Congr. Exh., Chicago, IL, 2008, Paper
2008-01-2682.
[6] C. Musardo and B. Staccia, Energy management strategies for hybrid
electric vehicle, M.S. thesis, Politecnico Di Milano, Milano, Italy, 2003.
[7] G. Paganelli, S. Delptrat, T. M. Guerra, J. Rimaux, and J. J. Santin,
Equivalent consumption minimization strategy for parallel hybrid powertrains, in Proc. Veh. Technol. Conf., 2002, vol. 4, pp. 20762081.
[8] A. Sciarretta, M. Back, and L. Guzzella, Optimal control of parallel
hybrid electric vehicles, IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 12,
no. 3, pp. 352363, May 2004.
[9] G. Paganelli, M. Tateno, A. Brahma, G. Rizzoni, and Y. Guezennec,
Control development for a hybrid-electric sport-utility vehicle: Strategy,
implementation and field test results, in Proc. Amer. Control Conf., 2001,
pp. 50645069.
[10] G. Paganelli, T. M. Guerra, S. Delprat, J.-J. Santin, M. Delhom, and
E. Combes, Simulation and assessment of power control strategies for a
parallel hybrid car, J. Automobile Eng.: Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. IMechE,
vol. 214, no. 7, pp. 705717, Jan. 2000.
[11] J.-P. Gao, G.-M. G. Zhu, E. G. Strangas, and F.-C. Sun, Equivalent fuel
consumption optimal control of a series hybrid electric vehicle, in Proc.
Inst. Mech. Eng. D: J. Automobile Eng., Aug. 2009, vol. 223, no. 8,
pp. 10031018.
[12] P. Pisu and G. Rizzoni, Supervisory control strategy for series hybrid
electric vehicles with two energy storage systems, in Proc. IEEE Veh.
Power Propulsion Conf., 2005, p. 8.
[13] S. Bogosyan, M. Gokasan, and D. Goering, A novel model-based validation and estimation approach for hybrid serial electric vehicles, IEEE
Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 14851497, Jul. 2007.
[14] M. Gokasan, S. Bogosyan, and D. Goering, Sliding-mode-based powertrain control for efficiency improvement in HE-HMMWV, IEEE Trans.
Power Electron., vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 779790, May 2006.
[15] M. Gokasan, S. Bogosyan, and D. Goering, A diesel engine map model
based observer for HEVS, in Proc. IEEE VPPC, Chicago, IL, Sep. 79,
2005, pp. 550555.
[16] M. Gokasan, S. Bogosyan, E. Bargar, and D. Goering, Improved powertrain control for an HE-HMMWV, presented at the SAE World Congr.,
Detroit, MI, 2005, SAE Paper 2005-01-0931.
[17] K. Chen, A. Bouscayrol, A. Berthon, P. Delarue, D. Hissel, and R. Trigui,
Global modeling of different vehicles, IEEE Veh. Technol. Mag., vol. 4,
no. 2, pp. 8089, Jun. 2009.
[18] F. L. Mapelli, D. Tarsitano, and M. Mauri, Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle:
Modeling, prototype realization, and inverter losses reduction analysis,
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 598607, Feb. 2010.
[19] S. M. Dehghan, M. Mohamadian, A. H. Rajaei, and A. Yazdian, Full
modeling a series HEV based on BZS-NSI, in Proc. PEDSTC, Apr. 2011,
pp. 439444.

Volkan Sezer received the B.Sc. degree in electronics and telecommunications engineering from Yildiz
Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey, in 2005 and
the M.Sc. degree in mechatronics engineering from
Istanbul Technical University in 2008. He is currently working toward the Ph.D. degree in control
and automation engineering with the Faculty of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Istanbul Technical University.
Since 2009, he has been with the Mechatronics
Education and Research Center. His research interests include the control of hybrid electric vehicles, energy efficiency, the
design of solar cars, active safety in road vehicles, semiautonomous vehicles,
autonomous ground vehicles, trajectory planning, obstacle/collision avoidance,
and real-time programming.

Metin Gokasan (M09) received the B.Sc., M.Sc.,

and Ph.D. degrees in electrical and control engineering from Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul,
Turkey, in 1980, 1982, and 1990, respectively.
Between 2003 and 2006, he was a Visiting Scholar
with the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, where he
conducted research and worked on several projects
involving the control of hybrid electric vehicles and
sensorless control of induction motors. He is currently a Professor with the Faculty of Electrical and
Electronics Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, where he is also an acting Department Chair of Control Engineering. His
research interests are the control of electrical machinery, power electronics and
electrical drives, and the control of hybrid electric vehicles and mechatronics
systems. He has authored two books and over 80 journal and conference
publications
Dr. Gokasan is a member of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society (IES)
and the Technical Committee on Education in Engineering and Industrial
Technologies of the IEEE IES.

Seta Bogosyan (M92SM05) received the B.Sc.,

M.Sc., and Ph.D. degrees in electrical and control engineering from Istanbul Technical University,
Istanbul, Turkey, in 1981, 1983, and 1991, respectively. She conducted her Ph.D. research with the
Center for Robotics, University of California, Santa
Barbara.
Between 1987 and 1991, she was a Researcher
and Lecturer with the Center for Robotics, University
of California, Santa Barbara. For the last decade,
she has been an Associate Professor with Istanbul
Technical University. She is currently a Faculty Member with the Department of
Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. She is
the author or coauthor of more than 100 journal papers, conference proceedings,
and several book chapters. She is an Associate Editor for the International
Journal of Intelligent Automation and Soft Computing (Autosoft). Her research
interests include motion control, high-efficiency control of hybrid electric
vehicles, teleoperation/bilateral control systems, and applications of nonlinear
control/estimation techniques to electromechanical systems in general.
Dr. Bogosyan is an Associate Editor for the IEEE TRANSACTIONS
ON I NDUSTRIAL E LECTRONICS and the IEEE I NDUSTRIAL E LECTRONICS
SOCIETY MAGAZINE.