730

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 21, NO. 3, MAY 2006

Comprehensive Drive Train Efciency Analysis of Hybrid Electric and Fuel Cell Vehicles Based on Motor-Controller Efciency Modeling
Sheldon S. Williamson, Student Member, IEEE, Srdjan M. Lukic, Student Member, IEEE, and Ali Emadi, Senior Member, IEEE

AbstractFrom the point of view of overall hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) and fuel cell vehicle (FCV) drive train efciency, the research focus is mainly on the efciency analysis of the power train components, which prove to be an integral part of modern HEV and FCV drive trains. The critical portion of any HEV electrical system consists of a power electronic converter (inverter) and a suitable traction motor. Thus, the efciency analysis of the inverter/motor is of prime importance for the calculation of the overall efciency of the drive trains. This paper aims at modeling the efciencies of the traction motor/controller through efciency maps. Efciency maps are a convenient way to represent motor drive systems of large and complex systems, like that of a HEV. The paper uses the advanced vehicle simulator (ADVISOR) software for the simulations of a large-sized car, similar to a Chevy Lumina, over the urban dynamometer-driving schedule and highway fuel economy test drive cycles. Furthermore, the paper investigates the traction motor efciency maps and consequent overall drive train efciencies of commercially available Honda Insight and Toyota Prius HEVs. In all the case studies, the aim is to analyze the overall drive train efciency over the city and highway drive cycles based on the inverter/motor efciency maps. Index TermsElectric propulsion, hybrid electric vehicles (HEV), internal combustion engines (ICE), inverters, road vehicles, traction motors.

Fig. 1. Motor modeling concept based on efciency maps.

I. INTRODUCTION

MAJOR portion of current advanced vehicle research invloves the study of the overall efciency of their individual power trains. The improvement of overall energy efciency is one of the most important subjects for developing battery electric vehicle (BEV), hybrid electric vehicle (HEV), and fuel cell vehicle (FCV) technologies. It is a well-known fact that on average only about 1220% of the total fuel that is fed at the input of a conventional internal combustion engine (ICE) based vehicle is available at the wheels as useful work. This is because of the extremely low efciency of the ICE and the overall losses in the vehicular drive train components. Due to the low efciencies depicted by conventional ICE based drive trains, coupled with the need for improved fuel economies and lower vehicular tail-pipe emissions, the automotive industry is more recently considering HEVs as serious candidates for future transportation applications.

Manuscript received March 15, 2005; revised October 26, 2005. Recommended by Associate Editor J. Shen. The authors are with Electric Power and Power Electronics Center, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL 60616-3793 USA (e-mail: emadi@iit.edu). Digital Object Identier 10.1109/TPEL.2006.872388

Any advanced vehicle (HEV or FCV) design process normally starts with the assessment of the trade-offs associated with the drive train component sizes for specic values of fuel economy, drive train efciency, and overall performance. One of the most important components with regards to the design of HEV/FCV drive trains is the electric traction motor-controller unit. The overall drive train efciencies are vastly inuenced based on the resultant traction motor-controller efciency maps. Traction motors employed in HEV drive trains usually use efciency maps to describe total efciency with respect to particular speed/torque combinations [1], [2]. The operating efciency is the most commonly used parameter to evaluate traction motors that are used for advanced drive train propulsion applications, which eventually have a direct inuence on overall drive train efciencies. In automotive propulsion applications, the tendency is to use the traction motor over the entire torque/speed range. Hence, the motor must be designed for frequent start/stop, and high acceleration/deceleration rates (meaning high torque output for the entire speed range). Hence, the motor needs high torque density and efciency at all speeds. Also, the motor drive needs high controllability, steady state accuracy, and good transient performance [1][3]. Therefore, the performance characteristic of an automotive propulsion motor must be quite different from that of an industrial motor drive. The motor has to be studied at all possible torque/speed combinations within the motors operating envelope. Efciency maps are a convenient way to represent the motor drive subsystem of a large, complex system, like that of a vehicle. By using efciency maps, the motor is represented as a black box that provides a known output when certain input is applied [3]. This is depicted in Fig. 1 wherein the assumption is that the inputs are optimized so as to get the highest efciency at a specic torque and speed output.

0885-8993/$20.00 2006 IEEE

WILLIAMSON et al.: DRIVE TRAIN EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS OF HYBRID ELECTRIC AND FUEL CELL VEHICLES

731

This paper aims at modeling the efciencies of the traction motor/controller through efciency maps. The advanced vehicle simulator (ADVISOR) software, developed by National Renewable Energy Laboratories (NREL), is used for the simulations of a large-sized car, similar to a Chevy Lumina, over the urban dynamometer-driving schedule (UDDS) and highway fuel economy test (HWFET) drive cycles. Furthermore, the paper will take a look at the traction motor efciency maps and consequent overall drive train efciencies of commercially available Honda Insight and Toyota Prius HEVs. Simulations for drive train efciency and resulting generation of motor efciency maps for a gasoline based hybrid FCV are also presented. In all the case studies, the aim is to analyze the overall drive train efciency over the city and highway drive cycles based on the inverter/motor efciency maps. II. AUTOMOTIVE PROPULSION MOTOR OPTIONS AND CORRESPONDING EFFICIENCY MAPS The recent trend in the automotive industry is to focus research efforts on induction motor (IM) drives and permanentmagnet (PM) motor drives, whereas those on direct current (dc) motor drives are dropping. In addition, research and development work on switched reluctance motor (SRM) drives are also promising. In order to be able to determine the efciency of a motor drive, it is essential to understand how each loss component changes with motor speed and eventually vehicle speed. While it is not possible to obtain a generalized map for specic machine types, the corresponding losses can be calculated (core, copper, or mechanical). These losses are common in certain regions of the torque/speed curve and present efciency maps that show this general trend. A. Permanent-Magnet Synchronous Machines (PMSM) Permanent-magnet synchronous machines (PMSMs) are the most popular motor technology for HEV applications. Both, the Toyota Prius and the Honda Insight HEVs are equipped with this motor. The reason for PMSM popularity in parallel HEVs is that a relatively low-power motor is sufcient to supply the drive train of a medium sized car, thus, not requiring large, expensive permanent magnets [4]. A PMSM is similar to a wound rotor synchronous motor, except that the excitation is provided by a permanent magnet instead of a eld winding [4], [5]. Hence, the output power is limited by the size of the permanent magnet. Similar to a wound rotor synchronous motor, the rotor is in synchronism with the rotating eld. The rotor speed can be controlled by the stator eld frequency. PMSMs have high efciency and power density, low noise, low maintenance, low torque pulsation, and are easy to control. Therefore, the PMSM is an attractive choice for automotive propulsion applications. However, the cost of the permanent magnet greatly affects the cost of the machine and, therefore, limits the size of the motor. In addition, PMSMs are not efcient at extended speed range due to the ux weakening that requires high -axis current [5]. PMSMs can be classied based on the conguration of the permanent magnet within the rotor, as surface mounted or interior mounted. The losses and, therefore, the efciency map

Fig. 2. Efciency map for a typical buried (interior mounted) PMSM.

Fig. 3. Efciency map for a typical surface mounted PMSM.

differ for these two congurations. Core losses increase with speed and increase at a faster rate for buried PM congurations [5]. However, copper losses are dominant at low speeds by a factor of 10 for both congurations. It must be pointed out, though, that at high speeds, core losses are predominant. Copper losses increase rapidly at very high speeds due to the -axis current needed for PM ux weakening. Buried PM machines produce lower copper losses at high speeds. Figs. 2 and 3 show typical torque-speed characteristics of interior PMSMs and surface mounted PMSMs. B. Switched Reluctance Machines (SRM) SRMs are structurally similar to stepper motors, except that the stator phase currents are switched based on rotor positions and that the machine is designed to operate efciently at high speeds. SRMs have certain advantages that make them ideal for propulsion applications: the machine has a large extended-speed constant power region; the machine is fault tolerant, rugged, and simple in construction; it is efcient at high speeds and can have a high power density [6]. Also, due to machine simplicity, SRMs can be cheap in mass production. On the other hand, some of the drawbacks of SRMs include, high acoustic noise, torque ripple, converter topology that requires discrete insulated gate bipolar transistor (IGBT) modules, and high electromagnetic interference (EMI) noise. Due to these problems that are still being researched, SRMs are currently not widely being used for BEV

732

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 21, NO. 3, MAY 2006

Fig. 4. Typical efciency map for a SRM.

Fig. 5. Typical efciency map for an IM.

and HEV applications. A typical efciency map for a SRM is shown in Fig. 4. C. Induction Machines (IM) Traditionally, induction machines (IMs) have been used for propulsion applications. They are especially popular for EVs and series HEVs wherein a high power machine is necessary. Unlike PMSMs, they can be rated for high power levels and, unlike SRMs, their acoustic noise is comparatively lower. This technology is well known and the motors are readily available. In addition, they are relatively cheaper since they have been mass-produced for a long time. Also, they provide benets such as low maintenance and weight. Primarily, an IM operates either above or below its base speed. Points on the efciency map are based on the optimal balance of ux and torque-producing current to give the highest efciency. Highest efciency is observed at points at higher speed and lower torque than rated. This is because copper and core losses reduce at higher speeds. The trend reverses, and efciency decreases, as winding and friction losses increase at higher speeds. At low speeds, the efciency falls due to high rotor losses. Typical efciency map for an IM is shown in Fig. 5. A well-known advantage of HEVs is that the electric motor can capture energy through regenerative breaking. In conventional vehicles, this energy is dissipated as heat. This further improves the drive train efciency of the vehicle, as the tests conducted in this study will prove. III. VEHICLE SIMULATION SET-UP AND ADOPTED CONTROL STRATEGIES In this section, the load on the motor drive is simulated for different vehicle types that use propulsion motorsnamely, the gasoline based parallel HEV drive train and the hybrid FCV drive train. It is important to note that the proposed FCV technology also, similar to a pure EV, uses the electric motor as the only source of propulsion power [7][9]. The fuel cell is again used to replenish the batteries, as is the case in a series HEV. Therefore, the motor will have the same characteristics as that of the series HEV.

TABLE I BASE VEHICLE PARAMETERS

A. Typical Loads (Driving Schedules) and Base Vehicle Parameters All simulations were performed on the same vehicle chassis. As mentioned earlier, the chassis used is one of a typical large car, similar to Chevy Lumina. The vehicle and drive train parameters are dened below (Tables I and II). Simulations are performed over ve drive cycles each of the urban dynamometerdriving schedule (UDDS) and the highway fuel economy test (HWFET) dive cycles (Figs. 6 and 7). The UDDS driving pattern represents a typical city-driving schedule, while the latter HWFET model is a more demanding driving schedule, similar to highway driving. An ideal induction motor (100% efciency) is employed, to get an idea of what would be the best motor for the application. Simulations were performed in ADVISOR, developed by NREL. For HEVs, a control strategy can be devised to utilize the motor at its most efcient region. The ICE could provide the remaining torque [9], [10]. However, since the ICE is usually larger and more inefcient, the design tries to mitigate these losses. Conversely, the motor can be designed so that it is most efcient in the region where it is used the most given a certain driving pattern and control strategy [10][12]. Finally the

WILLIAMSON et al.: DRIVE TRAIN EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS OF HYBRID ELECTRIC AND FUEL CELL VEHICLES

733

TABLE II DRIVE TRAIN PARAMETERS

(CVT). Therefore, the operating points that dene the normal operation of the motor-controller can be easily established. B. Adopted Control Strategies for HEV and FCV Drive Train Simulations As mentioned earlier, the ADVISOR software (developed by NREL) was used for simulation purposes. Basically, ADVISOR uses a combined backward/forward modeling approach. This approach is distinctive based on the monitoring strategy of various drive train component performance limits in its backwardfacing ow of calculations [13]. At the same time, there exist few subtle additions of basic forward-facing ow of calculations as well, thus, making the modeling approach a hybrid backward/forward facing one. In this section, specic control strategies used for simulating parallel HEV and FCV power trains are explained in brief, which is important to note before conducting the actual drive train efciency tests based on motor-controller operational maps. 1) Parallel HEV Electric Assist Control Strategy: The parallel electric assist control strategy uses the motor for additional power when needed by the vehicle and maintains charge in the batteries. In this case, the electric traction motor can be used in a wide variety of ways. In one possible arrangement, the motor can be used for all driving torque below a certain minimum vehicle speed [13]. The motor could also be used for torque assist if the required torque is greater than the maximum torque produced by the engine at its operating speed. The motor could also be used to charge the batteries through the regenerative braking process. Furthermore, in case the engine runs inefciently at the required engine torque at a given speed, the engine will shut off and the motor will produce the required torque. When the battery state of charge (SOC) is low, the engine will provide excess torque, which will be used by the motor to charge the battery. Since transferring energy into and out of the battery involves critical losses, it is preferable to set the charging torque at a higher level than the engine off torque. This allows the overall efciency of charging and discharging the battery to be higher than it would be at a lower torque, where the engine efciency would be lower [13]. The energy management used in the parallel electric assist control strategy primarily determines the optimum combination of the torques from the engine and motor to produce the required torque while maintaining charge in the battery. 2) Series Thermostat Control Strategy for Hybrid FCV Simulations: The main purpose of the series thermostat control strategy for a FCV is to use the fuel cell system to generate electrical energy in an optimal manner. The primary operational characteristic is fairly straightforward, wherein the main aim is to maintain the specic charge in the battery while generating the required electrical energy [13]. Based on this fundamental strategy, the fuel cell system either turns on or off depending on whether the battery SOC reaches its lower limit or higher limit, respectively. Thus, such a control strategy facilitates a highly efcient operating characteristic for the fuel cell system. In the ADVISOR control block diagram, the battery SOC is the input to the block and the desired vehicle torque and speed are the outputs. The fuel cell system turns on if the SOC is below

Fig. 6. Urban dynamometer driving schedule (UDDS) drive cycle.

Fig. 7. Highway fuel economy test (HWFET) drive cycle.

coupling can be designed so that the motor operates at the optimal torque/speed combination for a given power demand. This can be accomplished with a continuously variable transmission

734

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 21, NO. 3, MAY 2006

Fig. 8. Schematic of a parallel HEV drive train conguration.

Fig. 9. Schematic of a hybrid fuel cell vehicular power train.

the lower limit and remains on until the SOC reaches the higher limit if its previous state was on [13]. Thereafter, upon reaching the higher battery SOC limit, the fuel cell system turns off. The fuel cell system thus operates at the most efcient performance levels as predetermined by the control strategy. C. Topological Descriptions of Parallel HEV and Hybrid FCV Drive Trains A hybrid vehicle with a parallel conguration has both the ICE and the traction motor mechanically connected to the transmission. A schematic gure of the parallel hybrid is shown in Fig. 8. The vehicle can be driven with the ICE, or the electric motor, or both at the same time and, therefore, it is possible to choose the combination freely to feed the required amount of torque at any given time. In parallel HEVs, there are many ways to congure the use of the ICE and the traction motor. The most widely used strategy is to use the motor alone at low speeds, since it is more efcient than the ICE, and then let the ICE work alone at higher speeds [14], [15]. When only the ICE is in use, the traction motor can function as a generator and charge the battery. A typical schematic of the power system of a hybrid fuel cell vehicle is shown in Fig. 9. A low voltage dc produced by the fuel cell is stepped using a boost converter to obtain the required voltage at the input of the three-phase dc/ac inverter [14]. The

inverter converts the dc to three phase variable voltage and variable frequency power to vary the speed and torque of the electric machine that propels the vehicle. The electric traction machine output is a mechanical output used to drive the wheels of the vehicle. The hybrid arrangement of Fig. 9 also shows a battery pack (for regenerative braking), which provides an input dc voltage to the dc/ac inverter during warm-up time of the fuel cell. Once the fuel cell starts providing the required power, the battery is disconnected and the system can completely run on the fuel cell and the dual power conversion circuitry. The battery system also provides voltage during transient conditions, thus, serving a dual purpose [14]. A suitable traction controller sends control signals to the fuel cell, dc/dc converter, and the dc/ac inverter based on the feedback speed and torque signals as well as driver commands. Therefore, the speed and torque of the traction motor is controlled. IV. DRIVE TRAIN EFFICIENCIES FOR HEVS AND HYBRID FCVS BASED ON TRACTION MOTOR-CONTROLLER EFFICIENCY MAPPING As mentioned earlier, all the results summarized in this section are based on the simulations performed on the large sized car, similar to a Chevy Lumina, the description of which was presented in the previous section. The vehicle under study was run through the city (UDDS) and highway (HWFET) driving

WILLIAMSON et al.: DRIVE TRAIN EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS OF HYBRID ELECTRIC AND FUEL CELL VEHICLES

735

Fig. 10. Fuel economy comparison for city and highway driving.

Fig. 12. ICE operating points with a parallel HEV drive train.

Fig. 13. Percentage drive train efciencies for city driving. Fig. 11. ICE operating points with a conventional drive train.

schedules. The results summarized in this section are for the simulations performed on both gasoline-based vehicles as well as the diesel-based vehicles. Upon running the simulation for ve city and highway driving schedules, the achieved fuel economies (miles per gallon, MPGgasoline equivalent) are shown in Fig. 10. It is interesting to note here that the hybrid FCV topology depicts fuel economies less than those depicted by HEVs. In fact as seen in Fig. 10, compared over the same driving pattern, the HEVs are more economical compared to the hybrid FCV [15]. It is important to note here that this is the simulation case when the HEV is not an optimized full hybrid car; it is a practical vehicle, which is economically feasible currently. If a higher hybridization factor (HF) is used, the difference in drive train efciencies will be even larger. The characteristic fuel economy advantage is achieved in HEVs is due to the fact that the ICE mostly runs at its optimal combination of speed and torque thereby resulting in a low fuel consumption and high efciency [16][18]. As an example of this fact, a comparative plot of the ICE operating points for a conventional power train and a parallel HEV are shown in Figs. 11 and 12, respectively. As is clear from Fig. 12, for the parallel HEV operation, the ICE operating points are more concentrated toward the max-

imum torque line, toward the upper segment of the plot thus indicating that its efciency is comparatively higher. Based on this theoretical background, the drive train (tank-to-wheels, TTW) efciencies were also obtained upon simulation for city and highway driving cycles. Again, the drive train efciencies of the vehicles show different values for city and highway driving schedules since, as mentioned earlier, the ICE works at higher efciency regions when the vehicle is run on a high-speed highway drive cycle. The efciencies for the gasoline HEV, diesel HEV, and gasoline hybrid FCV drive trains (for city driving) are shown in Fig. 13. As shown in Fig. 13, there exists a clear difference in efciencies between the gasoline HEV and the hybrid FCV. A much larger difference is obvious when considering efciencies of diesel HEVs, as is clear from Fig. 13. Furthermore, in case of the gasoline and diesel HEV topologies, the electric traction motor-controller efciencies are much higher than that of the hybrid FCV. This fact can be veried by observing the resulting traction motor-controller efciency maps (operating points for specic speed-torque prole) for the gasoline HEV, diesel HEV, and gasoline based FCV, shown in Figs. 1416, respectively. As is clear from Figs. 14 and 15 in case of the gasoline and diesel HEVs, respectively, the traction motor-controller operating points are mostly concentrated in the high efciency re-

736

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 21, NO. 3, MAY 2006

Fig. 14. Gasoline based parallel HEV traction motor-controller efciency map for city driving.

Fig. 16. Hybrid FCV traction motor-controller efciency map for city driving.

Fig. 15. Diesel based parallel HEV traction motor-controller efciency map for city driving.

gion as opposed to a much more scattered distribution of operating points in case of the hybrid FCV, as shown in Fig. 16 thus resulting in a lower overall drive train efciency. Based on the above operating maps, information with regards to the actual energy output from the traction motor-controller, while operating in the regenerative mode, was gathered. This data is a direct indication of the improvement in drive train efciency since, in this mode, the traction machine works as a generator thus recharging the battery system via the regenerative braking principle. Table III below summarizes the amount

of energy (in Millions of Joules) recovered from the motor-controller system and corresponding drive train efciencies under city driving conditions for the gasoline/diesel parallel HEV and hybrid FCV congurations. Thus, it is clear that higher energy recovery from the traction motor-controller during generation mode of operation directly corresponds to a higher drive train efciency, as is the case for the diesel parallel HEV. In addition to running the simulations for city schedules, the large-sized vehicle under test was run on the HWFET driving pattern as well, representing highway driving. The resulting overall drive train efciencies are summarized in Fig. 17. Again, there exists a difference of about 35% in efciencies between the gasoline HEV, diesel HEV, and the hybrid FCV. The generated efciency maps of the motor-controller unit depict the same trend as that of the city driving simulations. The motor-controller efciency maps for the gasoline HEV, diesel HEV, and hybrid FCV are shown in Figs. 1820, respectively. Again, as observed from Figs. 18 and 19, the basic HEV principle of operation allows the traction motor-controller unit to operate in the higher efciency regions in its speed-torque envelope, as opposed to comparatively low efciency operation plot for the motor-controller unit for the hybrid FCV, as depicted in Fig. 20. The direct inuence of this fact is reected on the overall drive train efciency. Therefore, due to the efcient motor-controller operation, HEV drive trains portray comparatively higher efciencies than a corresponding hybrid FCV, as was summarized earlier. V. DRIVE TRAIN EFFICIENCIES FOR PRACTICAL HEVS BASED ON TRACTION MOTOR-CONTROLLER EFFICIENCY MAPPING Based on the previous section, which presented a comparative point of view of the drive train efciencies of HEVs and FCVs based on traction motor-controller efciency maps, it is

WILLIAMSON et al.: DRIVE TRAIN EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS OF HYBRID ELECTRIC AND FUEL CELL VEHICLES

737

TABLE III RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOTOR-CONTROLLER REGENERATIVE ENERGY AND DRIVE TRAIN EFFICIENCY

Fig. 17. Percentage drive train efciencies for highway driving.

Fig. 19. Diesel based parallel HEV traction motor-controller efciency map for highway driving.

Fig. 18. Gasoline based parallel HEV traction motor-controller efciency map for highway driving.

interesting to note the same for commercially available vehicles. As is well known, the two most popular commercially available HEVs are the Toyota Prius and the Honda Insight. In this study, two drive trains similar to these two popular HEV drive train congurations were simulated over the same pair of drive cycles, namely, the UDDS city-driving pattern and the HWFET highway-driving pattern. The overall drive train efciencies compared to that of a representative hybrid FCV drive train under city driving conditions are summarized in Fig. 21.

Fig. 20. Hybrid FCV traction motor-controller efciency map for highway driving.

As observed from Fig. 21, there exists a difference of about 57% in the drive train efciencies of the commercially avail-

738

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 21, NO. 3, MAY 2006

Fig. 21. Percentage drive train efciencies for city driving.

Fig. 23. Toyota Prius HEV traction motor-controller efciency map for city driving.

Fig. 22. Honda Insight HEV traction motor-controller efciency map for city driving. Fig. 24. Percentage drive train efciencies for highway driving.

able Insight and Prius drive trains, compared to that of a representative gasoline hybrid FCV of similar capability. The corresponding efciency maps that are generated upon simulation for the motor-controller units of the Insight and Prius are as depicted in Figs. 22 and 23, respectively. The Insight traction motor outputs 10 kW at 3000 rpm and uses permanent magnet (PM) technology [19], [20]. The Insight motor control strategy avoids low efciency operating points (below 80%). The Prius also uses the motor-controller unit in an almost similar fashion as the Honda Insight. The propulsion motor outputs 33 kW in the 1,040 to 5,600 rpm range and it also uses PM technology. As seen in Figs. 22 and 23, the motor-controller unit of the Prius is slightly more efcient than that of the Insight. This is because of the fact that the Honda Insight uses a mildly hybridized HEV topology, whereas the Prius HEV topology is that of a full hybrid [19][22]. In other words, the hybridization factor (HF) of a Prius is much higher than that of an Insight. Furthermore, the main accessory load for the high-voltage (144 V) battery in case of the Insight is the integrated starter-alternator (ISA), whereas in the fully hybridized Prius, the high-voltage battery

system (300 V) supplies all other conventional 12 V accessory loads as well. Moreover, the traction motor in case of the Prius is rated at 33 kW (engine size 43 kW), which indicates a high HF. On the other hand, the traction motor size in case of the Insight is a mere 10 kW (engine size 50 kW), which suggests a low HF. Highway tests were also performed on the Insight and Prius traction motor-controllers, results of which are summarized in Figs. 2426. Again, as was the case for city driving conditions, the Prius and Insight HEV congurations show almost a 46% difference in overall drive train efciency, when compared to the hybrid FCV, as shown in Fig. 24. Furthermore, as was the case with the motor-controller efciencies in city driving conditions, the Prius motor-controller unit operates in the higher efciency region compared to that of the Insight (Figs. 25 and 26). Thus, this difference in motor-controller efciencies prove to be a critical factor, which reects directly on the ensuing overall drive train efciencies, as was observed in the corresponding simulations results.

WILLIAMSON et al.: DRIVE TRAIN EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS OF HYBRID ELECTRIC AND FUEL CELL VEHICLES

739

Fig. 25. Honda Insight HEV traction motor-controller efciency map for highway driving.

efciency analysis, based on combined motor-controller efciency models. As described earlier, efciency maps provide a fair idea about the torque/speed combinations at which a specic propulsion motor drive is most efcient. This allows for better design of advanced vehicular systems, such as HEVs and FCVs that make major use of electric traction motors for propulsion. Obviously, the efciency is not the only objective that an electric motor drive must fulll, but the method can allow for choosing the right kind of technology, in order to improve the system as a whole [21], [22]. Also, as seen in the study conducted here, the motor-controller efciency plots have a direct inuence on the ensuing overall drive train efciencies. Also presented in this paper, is a summary of the analysis of the overall drive train efciency values for HEV and FCV based topologies. It is critical to point out that the results summarized in this paper are based on the usage of an ideal (100% efcient) 75-kW induction traction motor-controller, in order to present a fair efciency comparison between HEV and FCV drive trains. As seen in the results presented in this paper, based on the simulations performed on a representative large-sized car, in terms of overall drive train efciency, the HEVs easily score over their FCV counterparts. In addition, based on the results summarized in this paper, the overall efciency of the FCV option looks much less promising than its promoters often portray it to be. As was seen through simulations, the difference in drive train efciencies between HEV and hybrid FCV topologies varies between 48%, which is quite signicant. Thus, it can be concluded that HEVs provide a much better alternative for present commercial automotive propulsion applications compared to FCVs. A worthwhile mention here would be to highlight the additional cost and fuel (hydrogen) storage issues related to FCVs, thus reducing their market penetration chances even more. Coupled with these major FCV technology drawbacks, with the ever-growing advancements in the area of automotive power electronics and traction motor drives, the motor-controller unit, which is the heart of the entire HEV concept, will enormously gain in efciency values than what they currently portray. Thus, slight improvements in HEV motor-controller efciencies would mean a gain in the overall drive train efciency, thus providing for ample research opportunities in the areas of automotive power electronics, motor drives, and electrical drive train efciency analysis, in general.

Fig. 26. Toyota Prius HEV traction motor-controller efciency map for highway driving.

REFERENCES
[1] C. C. Chan, An overview of electric vehicle technology, Proc. IEEE, vol. 81, no. 9, pp. 12021213, Sep. 1993. [2] A. Emadi, M. Ehsani, and J. M. Miller, Vehicular Electric Power Systems: Land, Sea, Air, and Space Vehicles. New York: Marcel-Dekker, Dec. 2003. [3] S. M. Lukic and A. Emadi, Modeling of electric machines for automotive applications using efciency maps, in Proc. IEEE Elect. Insul. Elect. Manufact. Coil Winding Conf., Indianapolis, IN, Sep. 2003, pp. 543550. [4] C. C. Chan, K. T. Chau, J. Z. Jiang, W. Xia, M. Zhu, and R. Zhang, Novel permanent magnet motor drives for electric vehicles, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 331339, Apr. 1996. [5] X. Longya, Y. L. Lurongi, Z. Li, and A. El-Antably, A new design concept of permanent magnet machine for ux weakening operation, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 373378, Mar. 1995.

VI. CONCLUSION An interesting future approach from the power electronics point of view would be to model the efciency of the inverter section of the motor-controller unit. Based on separate efciency modeling of the power electronic inverter and motor sections, an investigation of the overall drive train efciency can be conducted. This approach will be interesting to study and could prove to be much more accurate than the existing

740

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 21, NO. 3, MAY 2006

[6] K. M. Rahman and S. E. Schulz, High-performance fully digital switched reluctance motor contoller for vehicle propulsion, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 10621071, Jul. 2002. [7] F. An and D. Santini, Assessing tank-to-wheels efciencies of advanced technology vehicles, in Proc. SAE World Congress Exhibition, Detroit, MI, Mar. 2003. [8] F. Stodolsky, L. Gaines, C. L. Marshall, F. An, and J. J. Eberhardt, Total fuel cycle impacts of advanced vehicles, in Proc. SAE Int. Congress Expo., Detroit, MI, Mar. 1999. [9] J. Burns, T. Cors, B. Knight, and B. Thelen, Evaluating advanced automotive energy technologies: a multivariate mobility contribution metric, Int. J. Energy Technol. Policy, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 262271, Apr. 2004. [10] S. Imai, N. Takeda, and Y. Horii, Total efciency of a hybrid electric vehicle, in Proc. IEEE Power Conv. Conf., Nagaoka, Japan, Aug. 1997, pp. 947950. [11] F. Kreith, R. E. West, and B. E. Isler, Efciency of advanced ground transportation technologies, ASME J. Energy Resources Technol., vol. 124, pp. 173179, Sep. 2002. [12] F. A. Wyczalek, Driving schedules inuence electric and hybrid vehicle efciency, in Proc. SAE 34th Intersoc. Energy Conv. Eng. Conf., Vancouver, BC, Canada, Aug. 1999. [13] National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Advanced Vehicle Simulator (ADVISOR) Documentation see [Online]. Available: http://www.ctts. nrel.gov/analysis/advisor_doc [14] A. Emadi, K. Rajashekara, S. S. Williamson, and S. M. Lukic, Topological overview of hybrid electric and fuel cell vehicular power system architectures and congurations, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 763770, May 2005. [15] S. S. Williamson and A. Emadi, Comparative assessment of hybrid electric and fuel cell vehicles based on comprehensive well-to-wheels efciency analysis, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 856862, May 2005. [16] U. Bossel, Well-to-wheels studies, heating values, and the energy conservation principle, in Proc. Eur. Fuel Cell Forum, Lucerne, Switzerland, Oct. 2003. [17] M. Brekken and E. Durbin, An analysis of the true efciency of alternative vehicle power plants and alternative fuels, in Proc. SAE Int. Spring Fuels Lubricants Meeting Expo., Dearborn, MI, May 1998. [18] M. J. Atkins and C. R. Koch, A well-to-wheels comparison of several power train technologies, in Proc. SAE World Congr. Exh., Detroit, MI, Mar. 2003. [19] M. Douba, H. Ng, and R. Larson, Characterization and comparison of two hybrid electric vehicles (HEV)Honda Insight and Toyota Prius, in Proc. SAE World Congr. Exh., Detroit, MI, Mar. 2001. [20] B. Min, R. Matthews, M. Douba, H. Ng, and B. Larson, Direct measurement of power train component efciencies for a light-duty vehicle with a CVT operating over a driving cycle, in Proc. SAE Powertrain Fluid Syst. Conf. Exh., Pittsburgh, PA, Oct. 2003. [21] M. R. Cuddy and K. B. Wipke, Analysis of the fuel economy benet of drive train hybridization, in Proc. SAE Int. Congr. Expo., Detroit, MI, Feb. 1997. [22] E. D. Tate and S. P. Boyd, Finding ultimate limits of performance for hybrid electric vehicles, in Proc. SAE Future Transport. Technol. Conf. Expo., Costa Mesa, CA, Aug. 2000. Sheldon S. Williamson (S01) received the B.E. degree in electrical engineering from Bombay University, India, and the M.S. degree in electrical engineering from the Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, where he is currently pursuing Ph.D. degree in power electronics and motor drives. His research deals with the study and analysis of hybrid electric and fuel cell vehicular power systems.

Srdjan M. Lukic (S02) received the B.S. and M.S. degrees in electrical engineering from the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT), Chicago, in 2002 and 2004, respectively, where he is currently pursuing the Ph.D. degree. Since May 2002, he has been a Graduate Research Assistant with the Grainger Power Electronics and Motor Drives Laboratory, IIT. He is the President of the IIT Hybrid Electric Vehicle Team. His research interests include hybrid electric vehicles, automotive power electronics, and switched reluctance motor drives. Mr. Lukic is listed in Whos Who Among Students in American Universities and Colleges.

Ali Emadi (S98M00SM03) received the B.S. and M.S. degrees in electrical engineering (with highest distinction) from the Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran and the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from Texas A&M University, College Station. He is the Director of the Electric Power and Power Electronics Center (EPPEC), Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT), Chicago, where he has established research and teaching facilities as well as courses in power electronics, motor drives, and vehicular power systems. He is also the Founder, Director, and Chairman of the Board of the Industry/Multi-university Consortium on Advanced Automotive Systems (IMCAAS). He is the author/co-author of over 160 journal and conference papers as well as several books including Vehicular Electric Power Systems (New York: Marcel Dekker, 2003), Energy Efcient Electric Motors (New York: Marcel Dekker, 2004), Uninterruptible Power Supplies and Active Filters (Boca Raton, FL: CRC, 2004), and Modern Electric, Hybrid Electric, and Fuel Cell Vehicles (Boca Raton, FL: CRC, 2004). He is also the Editor of the Handbook of Automotive Power Electronics and Motor Drives (New York: Marcel Dekker, 2005). Dr. Emadi received the Eta Kappa Nu Outstanding Young Electrical Engineer of the Year Award in 2003 (for his outstanding contributions to hybrid electric vehicle conversion), the 2005 Richard M. Bass Outstanding Young Power Electronics Engineer Award from the IEEE Power Electronics Society, the Best Professor of the Year by the students at IIT in 2005, the Ralph R. Teetor Educational Award from the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) in 2005, the 2002 University Excellence in Teaching Award from IIT as well as the 2004 Sigma Xi/IIT Award for Excellence in University Research. He directed a team of students to design and build a novel motor drive, which won the First Place Overall Award of the 2003 IEEE/DOE/DOD International Future Energy Challenge for Motor Competition. He is an Associate Editor of the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, and the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS. He was the General Chair of the 2005 IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion and SAE Future Transportation Technology Joint Conference.