Paper WeAT3.6
Clemente, Maurizio (Eindhoven University of Technology), Salazar, Mauro (Eindhoven University of Technology), Hofman, Theo (Technische Universiteit Eindhoven)
Concurrent Powertrain Design for a Family of Electric Vehicles
Scheduled for presentation during the Regular Session "Onboard Energy Management in Electrified Powertrains " (WeAT3), Wednesday, August 31, 2022,
11:40−12:00, Ballroom
10th IFAC International Symposium on Advances in Automotive Control, August 28-31, 2022, Columbus, Ohio, USA
This information is tentative and subject to change. Compiled on April 24, 2024
|
|
Keywords Powertrain modeling and control, Vehicle architecture for XEV, Optimal design and control of XEV
Abstract
Electric vehicles still account for a small share of the total amount of cars on the road. One of the major issues preventing a larger uptake is their higher upfront cost compared to petrol cars. We aim to address this issue by investigating a module-based product-family approach to take full advantage of economy-of-scale strategies, reducing research, development, and production costs of electric vehicles. This paper instantiates a concurrent design optimization framework, whereby different vehicle types share multiple modular powertrain components, whose size is jointly optimized to minimize the overall operational costs instead of being individually tailored. In particular, we focus on sizing battery and electric motors for a family of vehicles equipped with in-wheel motors. First, we identify a convex model of the powertrain, capturing the impact of modules' sizing and multiplicity on the mechanical power demand and the energy consumption of the vehicles. Second, we frame the concurrent powertrain design and operation problem as a second-order conic program that can be efficiently solved with global optimality guarantees. Finally, we showcase our framework for a family of three different vehicles: a city car, a compact car, and an SUV. Our results show that concurrently optimizing shared components increases the operational costs by 3.2% compared to individually tailoring them to each vehicle, a value that could be largely overshadowed by the benefits stemming from using the same components for the entire product family.
|
|