4.3 Article

Battery-lifetime-conscious energy management strategy based on SP-SDP for commuter plug-in hybrid electric vehicles

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/tee.22590

关键词

plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV); energy management; battery lifetime; fuel economy; shortest path stochastic dynamic programming (SP-SDP)

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61573304]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Hebei Province [F2017203210]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The energy management strategy used to split the energy flow among different energy resources of hybrid electric vehicles plays a critically important role in achieving fuel economy. Additionally, battery degradation and high production cost lead to the necessary consideration of the battery lifetime in the energy management strategy design for a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV). This paper investigates the PHEV energy management problem taking into consideration battery lifetime on how to distribute power between the engine and the electric equipment during the driving cycle to achieve the whole economy for a commuter PHEV. Shortest path stochastic dynamic programming (SP-SDP) is employed to address this energy management problem, which is formulated as a stochastic optimal control problem with the minimization of a weighted combination of the fuel and electricity consumption and the battery degradation rate for a stochastic process model with the statistic characteristics captured from the historical traffic speed profiles. The solution of this optimization problem, derived from a modified policy iteration algorithm, is a time-invariant, state-dependent power split strategy, which can be directly applied on the actual running vehicle. Simulation results carried on a PHEV Prius model in MATLAB/Simulink environment over some driving cycles are presented to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed energy management strategy. (c) 2017 Institute of Electrical Engineers of Japan. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据