Figure 1.
TMED system structure.
Figure 1.
TMED system structure.
Figure 2.
Engine–HSG construction combined with the belt system.
Figure 2.
Engine–HSG construction combined with the belt system.
Figure 3.
Speed command/load torque profile for vehicle launch of the TMED system.
Figure 3.
Speed command/load torque profile for vehicle launch of the TMED system.
Figure 4.
Simplified HSG system model.
Figure 4.
Simplified HSG system model.
Figure 5.
Friction characteristics according to engine rotational speed and engine oil temperature.
Figure 5.
Friction characteristics according to engine rotational speed and engine oil temperature.
Figure 6.
Estimated viscous friction coefficients according to the HSG speed.
Figure 6.
Estimated viscous friction coefficients according to the HSG speed.
Figure 7.
The HSG system control block diagram.
Figure 7.
The HSG system control block diagram.
Figure 8.
Block diagram of each controller. (a) PI controller, (b) IP controller, (c) 2-DOF controller, and (d) Proposed controller.
Figure 8.
Block diagram of each controller. (a) PI controller, (b) IP controller, (c) 2-DOF controller, and (d) Proposed controller.
Figure 9.
Speed response for each controller (frequency domain). (a) Speed response to speed command, (b) Speed response to load torque.
Figure 9.
Speed response for each controller (frequency domain). (a) Speed response to speed command, (b) Speed response to load torque.
Figure 10.
Simulation result when the speed command profile is applied (step: 2430 rpm, ramp: 3000 rpm/s, and load: −20 Nm). (a) PI controller, (b) IP controller, (c) 2-DOF controller, and (d) Proposed controller.
Figure 10.
Simulation result when the speed command profile is applied (step: 2430 rpm, ramp: 3000 rpm/s, and load: −20 Nm). (a) PI controller, (b) IP controller, (c) 2-DOF controller, and (d) Proposed controller.
Figure 11.
Speed/speed command response characteristic of each speed controller according to parameter variation (at 50%, 100%, and 250% variation of and ). (a) PI controller, (b) IP controller, (c) 2-DOF controller, and (d) Proposed controller.
Figure 11.
Speed/speed command response characteristic of each speed controller according to parameter variation (at 50%, 100%, and 250% variation of and ). (a) PI controller, (b) IP controller, (c) 2-DOF controller, and (d) Proposed controller.
Figure 12.
Speed/load torque response characteristics of each speed controller according to parameter variation (at 50%, 100%, and 250% variation of and ). (a) PI controller, (b) IP controller, (c) 2-DOF controller, (d) and Proposed controller.
Figure 12.
Speed/load torque response characteristics of each speed controller according to parameter variation (at 50%, 100%, and 250% variation of and ). (a) PI controller, (b) IP controller, (c) 2-DOF controller, (d) and Proposed controller.
Figure 13.
Speed control for step command (at 3000 rpm, parameters varied by 50%). (a) PI controller, (b) IP controller, (c) 2-DOF controller, and (d) Proposed controller.
Figure 13.
Speed control for step command (at 3000 rpm, parameters varied by 50%). (a) PI controller, (b) IP controller, (c) 2-DOF controller, and (d) Proposed controller.
Figure 14.
Speed control for step command (at 3000 rpm, parameters varied by 100%). (a) PI controller, (b) IP controller, (c) 2-DOF controller, and (d) proposed controller.
Figure 14.
Speed control for step command (at 3000 rpm, parameters varied by 100%). (a) PI controller, (b) IP controller, (c) 2-DOF controller, and (d) proposed controller.
Figure 15.
Speed control for step command (at 3000 rpm, parameters varied by 250%). (a) PI controller, (b) IP controller, (c) 2-DOF controller, and (d) Proposed controller.
Figure 15.
Speed control for step command (at 3000 rpm, parameters varied by 250%). (a) PI controller, (b) IP controller, (c) 2-DOF controller, and (d) Proposed controller.
Figure 16.
Speed control for ramp command (at 3000 rpm/s, parameters varied by 50%). (a) PI controller, (b) IP controller, (c) 2-DOF controller, and (d) Proposed controller.
Figure 16.
Speed control for ramp command (at 3000 rpm/s, parameters varied by 50%). (a) PI controller, (b) IP controller, (c) 2-DOF controller, and (d) Proposed controller.
Figure 17.
Speed control for ramp command (at 3000 rpm/s, parameters varied by 100%). (a) PI controller, (b) IP controller, (c) 2-DOF controller, and (d) Proposed controller.
Figure 17.
Speed control for ramp command (at 3000 rpm/s, parameters varied by 100%). (a) PI controller, (b) IP controller, (c) 2-DOF controller, and (d) Proposed controller.
Figure 18.
Speed control for ramp command (at 3000 rpm/s, parameters varied by 250%). (a) PI controller, (b) IP controller, (c) 2-DOF controller, (d) and Proposed controller.
Figure 18.
Speed control for ramp command (at 3000 rpm/s, parameters varied by 250%). (a) PI controller, (b) IP controller, (c) 2-DOF controller, (d) and Proposed controller.
Figure 19.
Speed control test result for engine clutch engagement during vehicle launching (at 30% APD, parameters varied by 50%). (a) PI controller, (b) IP controller, (c) 2-DOF controller, and (d) Proposed controller.
Figure 19.
Speed control test result for engine clutch engagement during vehicle launching (at 30% APD, parameters varied by 50%). (a) PI controller, (b) IP controller, (c) 2-DOF controller, and (d) Proposed controller.
Figure 20.
Speed control test result for engine clutch engagement during vehicle launching (at 30% APD, parameters varied by 100%). (a) PI controller, (b) IP controller, (c) 2-DOF controller, and (d) Proposed controller.
Figure 20.
Speed control test result for engine clutch engagement during vehicle launching (at 30% APD, parameters varied by 100%). (a) PI controller, (b) IP controller, (c) 2-DOF controller, and (d) Proposed controller.
Figure 21.
Speed control test result for engine clutch engagement during vehicle launching (@ 30% APD, parameters varied by 250%). (a) PI controller, (b) IP controller, (c) 2-DOF controller, and (d) Proposed controller.
Figure 21.
Speed control test result for engine clutch engagement during vehicle launching (@ 30% APD, parameters varied by 250%). (a) PI controller, (b) IP controller, (c) 2-DOF controller, and (d) Proposed controller.
Table 1.
Transfer function of each controller.
Table 1.
Transfer function of each controller.
Controller | PI | IP | 2-DOF | Proposed |
---|
| | | | |
| | | | |
Table 2.
Gain comparison between controllers ( = design value).
Table 2.
Gain comparison between controllers ( = design value).
Controller | PI | IP | 2-DOF | Proposed |
---|
| - | | | - |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| - | - | 0.5 | - |
| - | - | - | Multiple of |
Table 3.
Simulation controller gain (at = 18.85 rad/s).
Table 3.
Simulation controller gain (at = 18.85 rad/s).
Controller | PI | IP | 2 DOF | Proposed |
---|
| 0.622 | 1.933 | 1.933 | 0.622 |
| 2.345 | 28.307 | 28.307 | 49.536 |
| - | - | 0.5 | - |
| - | - | - | 2.603 |
Table 4.
Steady-state error for each controller ( = 3000 rpm/s).
Table 4.
Steady-state error for each controller ( = 3000 rpm/s).
Controller | PI | IP | 2-DOF | Proposed |
---|
Final value theorem of ramp command: | | | | |
Ramp command error (rpm) | Δ46.05 | Δ208.68 | Δ106.24 | 0 |
Table 5.
Comparison of control characteristics for each controller (rpm).
Table 5.
Comparison of control characteristics for each controller (rpm).
Controller | PI | IP | 2-DOF | Proposed |
---|
Speed overshoot | 160 | 75 | 101 | 0 |
Speed variation at load disturbance | 304 | 78 | 78 | 75 |
Steady-state error (At ramp command) | −6 | 209 | 107 | 1 |
Table 6.
Steady-state error by each controller [rpm] (at 3000 rpm/s ramp).
Table 6.
Steady-state error by each controller [rpm] (at 3000 rpm/s ramp).
Controller | Parameters Variation |
---|
50% | 100% | 250% |
---|
PI | 92.11 | 46.05 | 18.42 |
IP | 212.49 | 208.68 | 206.39 |
2 DOF | 110.06 | 106.24 | 103.95 |
Proposed | 0.00072 | 0 | −0.0043 |
Table 7.
Engine clutch engagement time comparison.
Table 7.
Engine clutch engagement time comparison.
| Parameters Variation | Control Method |
---|
PI | IP | 2-DOF | Proposed |
---|
Engagement Time (ms) | 50% | 859 | - | 609 | 588 |
Base | - | −29.1% | −31.5% |
100% | 689 | 948 | 648 | 599 |
Base | 37.6% | −6.0% | −13.1% |
250% | 679 | 1089 | 588 | 569 |
Base | 58.1% | −14.7% | −17.4% |