www.ietdl.

org

Published in IET Control Theory and Applications

Received on 2nd October 2007
Revised on 18th April 2008
doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2007.0367

ISSN 1751-8644

Nonlinear optimal and robust speed control

for a light-weighted all-electric vehicle
Q. Huang Z. Huang H. Zhou
School of Automation Engineering, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China (UESTC), Chengdu,
Sichuan 610054, People’s Republic of China
E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: Design of a nonlinear optimal and robust controller for a lightweight all-electric vehicle is presented. An
electric vehicle driven by a DC motor is modelled. A controller is designed with differential-geometric approach
and linear quadratic regulator techniques, to guarantee optimal performance. Then the uncertainties of the
system are considered. A nonlinear robust controller that can tolerate multi-parametric uncertainties is
designed. The model and controllers are implemented in Simulinkw environment and numerical simulations
are performed. To compare the performance of the controllers, two regular PID controllers are designed. The
performance of the designed controllers are compared with that of PID controllers and a driving cycle test is
performed to test the control performance and energy consumption. The controller designed here
demonstrates much better performance than that of regular PID controller under tests.

1 Introduction signal processor (DSP), it is possible to perform complex

control on the EV to achieve optimal performance [3].
People pay more attention to zero-polluting electric vehicles These capabilities can be utilised to enhance the
(EVs) with the development of environmental protection and performance and safety of individual vehicles as well as to
energy conservation consciousness. The development of EV/ operate vehicles in formations for specific purposes [4].
HEVs (hybrid electric vehicles) has taken on an accelerated Owing to the complex operation condition of EV,
pace [1]. Especially, the lightweight all-electric vehicle intelligent or fuzzy control is generally used to increase
becomes very popular in a lot of applications, including efficiency and deal with complex operation modes [5, 6].
patrolling and other short-range transportations. A lot of However, it is essential to establish a model-based control
advanced technologies are employed to extend driving for the EV system, and systematically study the
range and reduce cost, among which proper control is characteristics to achieve optimal and robust control.
proven to be able to improve the energy use and
performance [2]. Owing to the simplicity of DC motor Nonlinear control techniques are successfully used for
controlling and the fact that the power supply from the series wound DC motor speed control [7 – 9], but there is
battery is DC power, DC motor is popularly selected for no report for designing a controller for a series wound DC
the traction of electric vehicles. The added benefit of a DC motor driving EV as a whole. This paper will investigate
motor is that it can provide comparatively larger startup the performance of applying nonlinear control techniques,
torque. This paper discusses the optimal and robust control specifically, the differential-geometric approach, to the
of a lightweight all-electric vehicle, driven by DC motor. control of EV. The differential geometric approach for
nonlinear controller design is achieved by exact linearisation
Electric vehicles are really ‘energy-management’ machines. [10]. The model-based controller is very sensitive to the
It is essential to implement sophisticated control strategies to uncertainties in the parameters. Many parameters in the
make the energy consumption of the EV optimal as driving complex vehicle dynamics cannot be precisely modelled and
performance is satisfactory. As the development of the some parameters may vary because of the varying operation
high-computing capability microprocessor, such as digital conditions. For example, the resistance in the armature

IET Control Theory Appl., 2009, Vol. 3, Iss. 4, pp. 437 – 444 437
doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2007.0367 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009
www.ietdl.org

winding of a motor would change as the operation relationship

temperature varies. Hence, it is essential to consider the
uncertainties and design a robust controller to improve the r
performance. TL ¼ F  (2)
G

The rest of the paper is organised as follows. The model of where r is the tyre radius of the EV, G the gearing ratio and
the whole EV system will be presented Section 2, followed by TL the torque produced by the driving motor.
the design of a nonlinear controller in Section 3. The
discussion of the uncertainties of the vehicle system and the
nonlinear multi-parametric robust controller design are 2.2 Motor model
presented in Section 4. In Section 5, the designed
controllers is implemented in Simulinkw environment and As stated previously in the paper, the motor discussed is a
numerically simulated, and the performance of the designed DC motor. A DC motor can generally be modelled as
controllers in this paper is tested and compared with that
of regular PID controllers. A driving cycle test is adopted di
(La þ Lfield ) dt ¼ V  (Ra þ Rf )i  Laf i  v
to compare the overall performance. Section 6 concludes (3)
J ddtv ¼ Laf i 2  Bv  TL
the paper.

where i is the armature current (also field current), v the motor

2 System modelling angular speed, La , Ra , Lfield , Rf are the armature inductance,
The dynamics of an EV system consists of two parts: the armature resistance, field winding inductance and field
vehicle dynamics and dynamics of the motor system, as winding resistance respectively, V the input voltage, as the
shown in Fig. 1. Generally, in DC motor driving EV, the control input, Laf the mutual inductance between the
controller controls the supply voltage, for example, by a armature winding and the field winding, generally nonlinear
chopper. because of saturation, J the inertia of the motor, including the
gearing system and the tyres; B the viscous coefficient and TL
is representing the external torque, which is quantitatively the
2.1 Vehicle dynamics same as the one aforementioned.
In modelling of the vehicle dynamics, the major factors that
should be considered are road condition, aerodynamic drag,
hill climbing and acceleration, etc. After these factors are 2.3 Overall model and open-loop
considered, a vehicle dynamic model can be given as [1] response
Combing the two dynamic models, the overall dynamic
1 dv model of the EV system can be written as
F ¼ mrr mg þ rACd v2 þ mg sin f þ m (1)
2 dt
di
where m is the mass of the EV, g the gravity acceleration, v (La þ Lfield ) ¼ V  (Ra þ Rf )i  Laf i  v
the driving velocity of the vehicle, mrr the rolling resistance dt
coefficient, r the air density, A the frontal area of the r 2 dv r
vehicle, Cd the drag coefficient and f the hill climbing angle. (J þm ) ¼ Laf i 2  Bv  (mrr mg (4)
G 2 dt G
1
In (1), the first term corresponds to the rolling resistance þ rACd v2 þ mg sin f)
2
force; the second term corresponds to the aerodynamic drag
force; the third term corresponds to the hill climbing force
and the forth term corresponds to the acceleration force. With this model, the open-loop response of a lightweight all-
This resultant force F will produce a counteractive torque electric vehicle is studied. The models are integrated in
to the driving motor, which is governed by following Simulinkw environment, as shown in Fig. 2. The parameters
are measured on a lightweight all-electric vehicle and are
specified in Table 1. The top transfer function block is used
only for purpose of breaking the Simulinkw algebraic loop.
The simulation result is shown in Fig. 3. This corresponds to
the case of controlling the insulated gate bipolar transistor
(IGBT) directly to control EV, without any control strategies.
The top curve corresponds to the full power wide open
throttle (WOT) acceleration characteristics. It is shown that
the performance of controlling the IGBT directly (e.g. by
throttle) is not acceptable. Hence, proper controller should be
Figure 1 EV system model designed.

438 IET Control Theory Appl., 2009, Vol. 3, Iss. 4, pp. 437– 444
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009 doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2007.0367
 www.ietdl.org

Figure 2 Simulink implementation of the EV model

 
3 Nonlinear controller design 1
La þLfield
g(X ) ¼ , h(X ) ¼ x2
In this section, the nonlinear controller based on differential- 0
geometric theory will be designed. To proceed, first change
the model in (4) into the following format The Lie-derivatives are

X_ ¼ f (X ) þ g(X )u Lg L0f h(X ) ¼ Lg h(X ) ¼ 0

(5)
y ¼ h(X )
(
1 r
Lf h(X ) ¼ L x2  Bx2  (mrr mg
where J þ m(r 2 =G 2 ) af 1 G
    )
x i 1 r2 2
X ¼ 1 ¼ þ rACd 2 x2 þ mg sin f)
x2 v 2 G

2 3  
R þ Rf Laf Lg Lf h(X ) ¼ Lg (Lf h(X )) ¼ 2Laf x1 = J þ mr 2 =G 2
 a x1  x x  
6 La þ Lfield La þ Lfield 1 2 7
6 n 7  La þ Lfield
6 1 r 7
6
f (X ) ¼ 6 L x2  Bx2  (mrr mg 7
7
6 J þ m(r 2 =G 2 ) af 1 G 7 which is not zero when i = 0. Hence, the relative degree is
6 ) 7
4 1 r2 2 5
þ rACd 2 x2 þ mg sin f)
2 G

Table 1 Parameters of the electric vehicle system

Motor Vehicle
La þ Lf (mH) 6.008 m (kg) 800
Ra þ Rf (V) 0.12 A (m2) 1.8
3
B (N.M.s) 0.0002 r(kg/m ) 1.25
J (kg m2) 0.05 Cd 0.3
Laf (mH) 1.766 f (8) 0
V (V) 0  48 mrr 0.015
i (A) 78A (250 max) r (m) 0.25
vnom (r/min) 2800 (v ¼ 25 km/h) G 11
Figure 3 Open-loop response of the EV system

IET Control Theory Appl., 2009, Vol. 3, Iss. 4, pp. 437 – 444 439
doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2007.0367 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009
www.ietdl.org

two in the region where i = 0. where P is the solution of the Riccati equation

2Laf x1 AT P þ PA  PBR1 BT P þ Q ¼ 0 (12)

L2f h(X ) ¼
J þ m(r 2 :G 2 )
  where the matrices A and B are the coefficient matrices of the
R þ Rf Laf
  a x1  x1  x2 linearised system x_ ¼ Ax þ Bu.
La þ Lfield La þ Lfield
!
1 r2
þ B þ rACd 2 x2 4 Nonlinear robust controller
ðJ þ m(r 2 =G 2 )Þ2 G
( design
r Now, with the system uncertainties considered, the system
 Laf x21  Bx2  (mrr mg
G can be described as
)
1 r2 2 X_ ¼ f (X ) þ q(X , u(t)) þ g(X )u
þ rACd 2 x2 þ mg sin f) (13)
2 G y ¼ h(X )

By selecting the following state transformation f (X ), g(X ) and h(X ) are the same as in previous section.
q(X, u(t)) is used to include the model uncertainties, where
z1 ¼ x2  v0 ¼ v  v0 u(t) is the uncertainty vector. In the model described
(6) above, the rolling resistance coefficient and aerodynamic
z2 ¼ Lf h(X )
dragging coefficients cannot be precisely modelled. These
The new state model can be written as coefficients are always varying along the moving of the
vehicle (e.g. because of wind). Also, the resistance of the
z_ 1 ¼ v_  v_ 0 ¼ z2 windings is also varying because of the variation of
(7) temperature. Hence, q(X, u(t)) can be modelled as:
z_ 2 ¼ y
" i
#
DR
The control variable u should be q(X , u(t)) ¼
La þLfield
r=G 2 2 2
 J þm(r 2 =G 2 ) (mgDmrr þ r =G v DCad )

L2f h(X ) 1 (14)

u(X ) ¼  þ y (8)
Lg Lf h(X ) Lg Lf h(X )
where, DR, Dmrr and DCad are the uncertainties in winding
where y is given by some linear state feedback law, that is resistance, rolling resistance coefficient and aerodynamic
dragging coefficient respectively with DRm , Dmrr_m and
y ¼ k1 z1  k2 Lf h(X ) (9) DCad_m representing their maximum uncertainties.

It can be designed by some linear state feedback technique, By using the similar coordinate transformation, we have
for example, pole placement, according to the performance
specifications. In this paper, optimal control technique is z_ 1 ¼ v_  v_ 0 ¼ z2 þ Lq h(X )
(15)
used. Linear quadratic regulator (LQR) demonstrates z_ 2 ¼ L2f h(X ) þ Lg Lf h(X )u þ Lq Lf h(X )
excellent performance for designing linear optimal
controllers, hence is selected to achieve the design. In this where
case, the objective function is related to the state variables
and the feedback output r=G
Lq h(X ) ¼  (mgDmrr þ r 2 =G 2 x22 DCad )
ð1 J þ m(r 2 =G 2 )
1
J ¼ (ZT QZ þ V T RV)dt (10) 1 2x21
2 0 Lq Lf h(X ) ¼ DR
2 2
J þ m(r =G ) La þ Lfield
where Z ¼ [z1 z2]T is the new state variables and V the r=G(mgDmrr þ (r 2 =G 2 )x22 DCad )(rACd (r 2 =G 2 )x2  B)
control variable; R and Q are the weighting coefficient 
ðJ þ m(r 2 =G 2 )Þ2
matrices.
Hence, by using the recursive backstepping design method
The second term ensures that the energy used for the
with robust control system [11, 12], one can select a robust
control is minimal and the first term ensure that the
control Lyapunov function (RCLF) as
control objective (v 2 v0) is optimal. The solution is
1 1
K ¼ R1 BT P (11) V (z1 , z2 ) ¼ z21 þ (z2  z~ 2 )2 (16)
2 2

440 IET Control Theory Appl., 2009, Vol. 3, Iss. 4, pp. 437– 444
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009 doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2007.0367
 www.ietdl.org

where

r 3 =G 3
s1 (z1 ) ¼  (z þ 2v0 )DCad 2
J þ m(r 2 =G 2 ) 1 m

z~ 2 ¼ s1 z1

and then, the control law in (17) can robustly stabilise the EV
system with any parametric uncertainties
Figure 5 Configuration of the nonlinear optimal controller
z~  L2 h(X )
u ¼ 3 2f (17)
Lg Lf h(X ) The parameters of the single loop PID controller are:
Kp ¼ 100, KI ¼ 20, and Kd ¼ 0. And the parameters for
where the double loop PID controller are: Kp ¼ 0.1, KI ¼ 2, and
z~ 3 ¼ s2 (z2  s2 z1 ) (18) Kd ¼ 0 for internal PID controller and Kp ¼ 150, KI ¼ 20,
and Kd ¼ 1 for external controller. The nonlinear controller
T12  is configured as in Fig. 5.The feedback gain with LQR is
s2 ¼  1  T1  b6 DRm  {T1 3 þ 2a2 z1 þ 4a2 v0 DCad m calculated as K ¼ [1 1.7321].
2
 b6 DRm s1  1 þ [(a4 z21 þ (a3 þ 3a4 v0 )z1
Figs. 6 – 9 show the performance of single loop PID
þ (2a3 v0 þ 3a4 v20 ))DCad m controller, double loop PID controller, the nonlinear
optimal controller and nonlinear robust controller. The
þ a2 Dmrr m þ (a7 z1 þ a8 )DRm ]}2 =4 (19) simulation mainly describes the startup of the EV system
under those controllers and the reaction to a step change to
where the reference.
T1 ¼ (2a1 z1 þ2a1 v0 )DCad m þ 2,
a1 ¼ r 3 =G 3 = J þ mr 2 =G 2 , It is obvious that the performance of nonlinear controller is
2 much better than the regular PID controllers. The optimal
a2 ¼ mg rACd ðr=G Þ4 = J þ mr 2 =G 2 ,
 2 nonlinear controller can achieve control goals in a faster-
a3 ¼ Bðr=G Þ3 = J þ mr 2 =G 2 ,  responding and smoother manner. The nonlinear
2 2
a4 ¼ rACd ðr=G Þ6 = J þ mr 2
  =G ,  controllers (both nonlinear optimal and nonlinear robust)
2 2
a5 ¼ 2Laf = J þ mr =G = La þ Lf , a6 ¼ 2=(La þ Lf ), take much less time to complete the full power acceleration
3 3
a7 ¼ a5 2L1 rACd Gr 3 , a8 ¼ a5 L1 rACd Gr 3 v0 þ a5 LB . and stabilise when encountering a disturbance. The test
af af af
result in Fig. 10 demonstrated the excellent robust
performance of the designed controller. The test is
5 Numerical simulation and performed with the arbitrary combinations (i.e. uncertainty
in single parameter, two parameters and three parameters)
evaluation of the performance of +10% uncertainty in the aforementioned three
5.1 Numerical simulation uncertain parameters. Also, the robustness performance of
With the designed controllers, numerical simulation is
performed under Simulinkw environment. To compare the
performance, two regular PID controllers are designed.
One is single loop speed PI controller and the other is a
double loop PID controller, which is composed of an
external PID controller regulating speed and an internal PI
controller regulating current, as shown in Fig. 4.

Figure 4 Double-loop PID controller for EV system Figure 6 Performance of single-loop PID controller

IET Control Theory Appl., 2009, Vol. 3, Iss. 4, pp. 437 – 444 441
doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2007.0367 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009
www.ietdl.org

Figure 7 Performance of double-loop PID controller Figure 10 Robustness test of the nonlinear robust controller

Figure 8 Performance of nonlinear optimal controller

Figure 11 Robustness test of the nonlinear robust controller

Figure 9 Performance of nonlinear robust controller

(nominal system) Figure 12 The NEDC

442 IET Control Theory Appl., 2009, Vol. 3, Iss. 4, pp. 437– 444
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009 doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2007.0367
 www.ietdl.org

Figure 13 Results of NEDC test

the nonlinear robust controller for hill climbing is tested. For with differential-geometric approach, LQR and recursive
comparison purpose, the result is plotted in the same figure backstepping techniques.
with the performance of the double-loop PID controller
discussed in this paper, as shown in Fig. 11. To facilitate The performance of the designed controllers is tested and
the graphical representation, the sudden change in hill compared with regular PID controllers with numerical
climbing angle (0.1 rad) is applied on the nonlinear robust simulation under Simulinkw environment. It is shown that
controller system at t ¼ 20 s and on the double-loop PID the performance of the controllers designed in this paper is
controller at t ¼ 50 s. much better than that of regular PID controllers. The
driving cycle test results show that the nonlinear optimal
5.2 Driving cycle test and robust controller can achieve much better performance
without increasing much amp-hour consumption.
To systematically test the performance, the new european
driving cycle (NEDC) is used for testing the performance.
The NEDC is a driving cycle consisting of four repeated Future work should be focusing on the adaptive control of
ECE-15 driving cycles and an extra-urban driving cycle EV system to accommodate the various operation modes and
(EUDC) [1], as shown in Fig. 12. When it is applied in to include the regenerative braking and state of the battery
this paper, the maximum speed is scaled to 50 km/h. into the control system.

The test results are shown in Fig. 13. It is shown that the
nonlinear controller has much better tracking performance
than the PID controller (double loop one), especially in the 7 References
range of speed below designed nominal speed. And it does
not increase much amp-hour consumption (nonlinear [1] LARMINIE J., LOWRY J. : ‘Electric Vehicle Technology
optimal: 4.48 km/11.97AH; nonlinear robust: 4.825 km/ Explained’ (John Wiley & Sons, 2003), pp. 183 – 195
10.78 AH; PID: 4.49 km/10.67 AH).
[2] CHENG Y., VAN MIERLO J., VAN DEN BOSSCHE P., LATAIRE P.: ‘Energy
sources control and management in hybrid electric
vehicles’. Proc. 12th Int. Power Electronics and Motion
6 Conclusion and future work Control Conf., Portoroz, Slovenia, August 2006, pp. 524– 530
The nonlinear optimal and robust controllers for a practical
lightweight all-electric vehicle are designed in this paper. [3] LIU Q. , ZHONG Y., ZHOU Z.: ‘Research of drive control
The designed controller can be extended to be used for system in electric vehicle based on DSP’. Proc. 7th Int.
those comparatively low speed (25 km/h) compact EVs. Conf. Signal Processing (ICSP ’04), Beijing, China, August
The EV system is modelled and the controller is designed 2004, vol. 1, pp. 539– 542

IET Control Theory Appl., 2009, Vol. 3, Iss. 4, pp. 437 – 444 443
doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2007.0367 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009
www.ietdl.org

[4] LIN J., KANELLAKOPOULOS I.: ‘Nonlinear design of active [8] BURRIDGE M.J., QU Z.: ‘An improved nonlinear control
suspensions’. Proc. 34th IEEE Conf. Decision and Control, design for series DC motors’. Proc. American Control
New Orleans, USA, December 1995, pp. 1 – 3 Conf., New Mexico, USA, June 1997, vol. 3, pp. 1529 – 1533

[5] POORANI S., KUMAR K.U., RENGANARAYANAN S.: ‘Intelligent [9] CHIASSON J. : ‘Nonlinear differential-geometric
controller design for electric vehicle’. Proc. 57th IEEE techniques for control of a series DC motor’, IEEE Trans.
Semiannual Vehicular Technology Conf., Jeju, Korea, April Control Syst. Tech., 1994, 2, (1), pp. 35– 42
2003, vol. 4, pp. 2447 – 2450
[10] NIJMEIJER H., VAN DER SCHAFT A.J.: ‘Nonlinear dynamical
[6] KHATUN P., BINGHAM C.M., SCHOFIELD N., MELLOR P.H. : control systems’ (Springer, 1990)
‘Application of fuzzy control algorithms for
electric vehicle antilock braking/traction control [11] MARINO R., TOMEI P.: ‘Robust stabilization of feedback
systems’, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., 2003, 52, (5), linearizable time-varying uncertain nonlinear systems’,
pp. 1356 – 1364 Automatica, 1993, 29, (1), pp. 181 – 189

[7] MEHTA S., CHIASSON J.: ‘Nonlinear Control of a Series DC [12] FREEMAN R.A., KOKOTOVIC P.V.: ‘Robust nonlinear control
Motor: Theory and Experiment’, IEEE Trans. on Industrial design – state-space and lyapunov techniques’ (Birkhauser,
Electronics, 1998, 45, (1), pp. 134– 141 1996), pp. 107 – 117

444 IET Control Theory Appl., 2009, Vol. 3, Iss. 4, pp. 437– 444
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009 doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2007.0367