Mode transitions of multi-mode hybrid electric vehicles need careful coordination among the engine torque, motor torque, and clutch transmitted torque. However, the three torques have different actuation delays which make it difficult to ensure mode transition performance. A non-square internal model controller (IMC) is proposed in this paper for mode transition during which the input number is greater than the output number and each input has a different actuation delay. At first, the Moore-Penrose generalized inverse matrix is introduced to solve the inverse of the non-square matrix and make the IMC applicable. Secondly, the all-pole method is adopted to approximate the three delay models. Based on these specialized techniques, the tracking controller and anti-disturbance controller of the IMC are derived. Experiment results verify the effectiveness of the proposed controller.
ZhouWYangLCaiY, et al. Dynamic programming for new energy vehicles based on their work modes part I: electric vehicles and hybrid electric vehicles. J Power Sources2018; 406: 151–166.
2.
OnckenJSachdevaKWangH, et al. Integrated predictive powertrain control for a multi-mode plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron2021; 26: 1248–1259.
3.
PugiLPagliaiMNocentiniA, et al. Design of a hydraulic servo-actuation fed by a regenerative braking system. Appl Energy2017; 187: 96–115.
4.
ZhangBZhangJXuF, et al. Optimal control of power-split hybrid electric powertrains with minimization of energy consumption. Appl Energy2020; 266: 114873.
5.
PugiLMalvezziMPapiniS, et al. Design and preliminary validation of a tool for the simulation of train braking performance. J Mod Transp2013; 21: 247–257.
6.
AllottaBPugiLCollaV, et al. Design and optimization of a semi-active suspension system for railway applications. J Mod Transp2011; 19: 223–232.
7.
FuZSuPSongS, et al. Mode transition coordination control for PHEV based on cascade predictive method. IEEE Access2019; 7: 138403–138414.
8.
LiangCXuXWangF, et al. Coordinated control strategy for mode transition of DM-PHEV based on MLD. Nonlinear Dyn2021; 103: 809–832.
9.
GaoAFuZTaoF. Dynamic coordinated control based on sliding mode controller during mode switching with ICE starting for an HEV. IEEE Access2020; 8: 60428–60443.
10.
SongKHaoTXieH. Disturbance rejection control of air–fuel ratio with transport-delay in engines. Control Eng Pract2018; 79: 36–49.
11.
MaJZZhangSLuanM, et al. Experimental investigation on delay time phenomenon in rotating detonation engine. Aerosp Sci Technol2019; 88: 395–404.
12.
ZhangJWangSZhouP, et al. Novel prescribed performance-tangent barrier Lyapunov function for neural adaptive control of the chaotic PMSM system by backstepping. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst2020; 121: 105991.
13.
GöppertG. Adaptation of a wet clutch torque model in electrified drivelines. Forschung Ingenieurwesen2021; 85: 913–922.
14.
HongJGaoBLvL, et al. Engine speed control during gear shifting of AMT HEVs with identified Intake-to-Power delay. IFAC-PapersOnLine2016; 49: 793–799.
15.
LuoSGaoR. Chaos control of the permanent magnet synchronous motor with time-varying delay by using adaptive sliding mode control based on DSC. J Franklin Inst2018; 355: 4147–4163.
16.
ChengXChengCChenL. Task period selection for engagement control of automatic clutches. In: 2018 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium (IV), 2018, pp.910–915. New York: IEEE.
17.
ChenLXiGSunJ. Torque coordination control during mode transition for a series-parallel hybrid electric vehicle. IEEE Trans Vehicular Technol2012; 61: 2936–2949.
18.
WangSXiaBHeC, et al. Mode transition control for single-shaft parallel hybrid electric vehicle using model predictive control approach. Adv Mech Eng2018; 10: 2072046676.
19.
JingJLiuYWuJ, et al. Research on drivability control in P2.5 hybrid system. Energy Rep2021; 7: 1582–1593.
20.
KimHKimJLeeH. Mode transition control using disturbance compensation for a parallel hybrid electric vehicle. Proc IMechE, Part D: J Automobile Engineering2011; 225: 150–166.
21.
van BerkelKVeldpausFHofmanT, et al. Fast and smooth clutch engagement control for a mechanical hybrid powertrain. IEEE Trans Control Syst Technol2014; 22: 1241–1254.
22.
ZhaoZLeiDChenJ, et al. Optimal control of mode transition for four-wheel-drive hybrid electric vehicle with dry dual-clutch transmission. Mech Syst Signal Process2018; 105: 68–89.
23.
GaoJLouDZhangT. Optimized control of dynamical engine-start process in a hybrid electric vehicle. In: WCX SAE World Congress Experience, Detroit, MI, 2020. SAE International.
24.
WangZQLuanXLLiuF. Analytical scheme of centralized PI controller for non-square processes with time-delays. IFAC-PapersOnLine2015; 48: 501–506.
25.
LyuXLinZ. Design of PID control for planar uncertain nonlinear systems with input delay. Int J Robust Nonlinear Control2022; 32: 9407–9420.
26.
SadeghimehrRNikoofardAKhaki SedighA. Predictive-based sliding mode control for mitigating torsional vibration of drill string in the presence of input delay and external disturbance. J Vib Control2021; 27: 2432–2450.
27.
XingHPloegJNijmeijerH. Compensation of communication delays in a cooperative ACC system. IEEE Trans Vehicular Technol2020; 69: 1177–1189.
28.
JinQDuXJiangB. Novel centralized IMC-PID controller design for multivariable processes with multiple time delays. Ind Eng Chem Res2017; 56: 4431–4445.
29.
TranCDIbrahimRAsirvadamVS, et al. Internal model control for industrial wireless plant using WirelessHART hardware-in-the-loop simulator. ISA Trans2018; 75: 236–246.
30.
LiPZhuGZhangM. Linear active disturbance rejection control for servo motor systems with input delay via internal model control rules. IEEE Trans Ind Electron2021; 68: 1077–1086.
31.
DasariPRAlladiLSeshagiri RaoA, et al. Enhanced design of cascade control systems for unstable processes with time delay. J Process Control2016; 45: 43–54.
32.
PiziakROdellPL. Matrix theory: from generalized inverses to Jordan form. London: CRC Press LLC, 2007.
33.
Jian-ChangL. Modified two-degrees-of-freedom internal model control for non-square systems with multiple time delays. J Harbin Inst Technol2014; 21: 122–128.
34.
SaidiITouatiNDhahriA, et al. A comparative study on existing and new methods to design internal model controllers for non-square systems. Meas Control2019; 41: 3637–3650.
35.
Manjunatha PrasadKBapatRB. The generalized Moore-Penrose inverse. Linear Algebra Appl1992; 165: 59–69.
36.
ToutounianFSoleymaniF. An iterative method for computing the approximate inverse of a square matrix and the Moore–Penrose inverse of a non-square matrix. Appl Math Comput2013; 224: 671–680.
37.
NathUMDeyCMudiRK. Designing of internal model control proportional, integral, and derivative controller with second-order filtering for lag- and delay-dominating processes based on suitable dead time approximation. Asia-Pac J Chem Eng2019; 14.
38.
PengCChenL. Model reference adaptive control based on adjustable reference model during mode transition for hybrid electric vehicles. Mechatronics2022; 87: 102894.
39.
SimKOhSMNamkoongC, et al. Control strategy for clutch engagement during mode change of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. Int J Autom Technol2017; 18: 901–909.
40.
JinQDuXWangQ, et al. Analytical design 2 DOF IMC control based on inverted decoupling for non-square systems with time delay. Can J Chem Eng2016; 94: 1354–1367.
41.
ZhangWOuLHeX, et al. On the pole of non-square transfer function matrix Moore–Penrose pseudo-inverses. Int J Syst Sci2015; 46: 2560–2571.
42.
XuL. A proportional differential control method for a time-delay system using the Taylor expansion approximation. Appl Math Comput2014; 236: 391–399.
43.
MorariM. Robust process control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1989.
44.
DingZChenLMiaoD. Decoupling internal model control for the robust engagement of clutches. Mechatronics2021; 73: 102466.
45.
LiuFChenLLiD, et al. Improved clutch slip control for automated transmissions. Proc IMechE, Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science2018; 232: 3181–3199.
46.
YangCJiaoXLiL, et al. A robust H∞ control-based hierarchical mode transition control system for plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. Mech Syst Signal Process2018; 99: 326–344.
