Please wait a minute...

Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering

Front. Mech. Eng.    2019, Vol. 14 Issue (1) : 102-112     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11465-019-0527-0
FEATURE ARTICLE |
Smart product design for automotive systems
A. Galip ULSOY()
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2125, USA
Download: PDF(418 KB)   HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Automobiles evolved from primarily mechanical to electro-mechanical, or mechatronic, vehicles. For example, carburetors have been replaced by fuel injection and air-fuel ratio control, leading to order of magnitude improvements in fuel economy and emissions. Mechatronic systems are pervasive in modern automobiles and represent a synergistic integration of mechanics, electronics and computer science. They are smart systems, whose design is more challenging than the separate design of their mechanical, electronic and computer/control components. In this review paper, two recent methods for the design of mechatronic components are summarized and their applications to problems in automotive control are highlighted. First, the combined design, or co-design, of a smart artifact and its controller is considered. It is shown that the combined design of an artifact and its controller can lead to improved performance compared to sequential design. The coupling between the artifact and controller design problems is quantified, and methods for co-design are presented. The control proxy function method, which provides ease of design as in the sequential approach and approximates the performance of the co-design approach, is highlighted with application to the design of a passive/active automotive suspension. Second, the design for component swapping modularity (CSM) of a distributed controller for a smart product is discussed. CSM is realized by employing distributed controllers residing in networked smart components, with bidirectional communication over the network. Approaches to CSM design are presented, as well as applications of the method to a variable-cam-timing engine, and to enable battery swapping in a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle.

Keywords mechatronics      automotive control      co-design      component swapping modularity      active suspensions      variable camshaft timing engine      plug-in hybrid electric vehicle     
Corresponding Authors: A. Galip ULSOY   
Online First Date: 09 October 2018    Issue Date: 30 November 2018
 Cite this article:   
A. Galip ULSOY. Smart product design for automotive systems[J]. Front. Mech. Eng., 2019, 14(1): 102-112.
 URL:  
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fme/EN/10.1007/s11465-019-0527-0
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fme/EN/Y2019/V14/I1/102
0
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
A. Galip ULSOY
Fig.1  A classification of the disciplines humanities, arts, sciences and engineering. Engineering is the discipline associated with creating physical artifacts
Fig.2  Solution methods for coupled systems
Fig.3  Pareto curves for the optimal performance of passive/active suspension comparing sequential, simultaneous (co-design) and CPF solutions
Fig.4  Bidirectional communication among smart components in a feedback control system
Fig.5  A VCT system
Fig.6  VCT engine with discrete MIMO centralized controller
Fig.7  Controller distribution to maximize VCT actuator modularity
Fig.8  Controller distribution to maximize EGO sensor modularity
Fig.9  The PHEV centralized supervisory controller (SC) for the engine and generator unit (EGU), battery (BAT), and electric motor (EM)
Fig.10  The PHEV distributed supervisory controller to achieve CSM with a vehicle supervisory controller (VSC) in the vehicle, and a battery supervisory controller (BSC) as part of the smart battery module
Battery parameter, Bs Same fuel economy as centralized controller? Battery SOC within 10% of centralized controller?
1.29×10?5 Yes Yes
1.71×10?5 Yes Yes
2.57×10?5 Yes Yes
5.14×10?5 Yes Yes
Tab.1  Performance comparison of distributed CSM control to centralized control
1 Board on Manufacturing and Engineering Design. Theoretical Foundations for Decision Making in Engineering Design. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2001
2 Tryggvason G, Apelian D. Shaping Our World: Engineering Education for the 21st Century. Hoboken: Wiley, 2012
3 National Academy of Engineering. Greatest Engineering Achievements of the 20th Century. Retrieved from 2018-08-01
4 National Academy of Engineering. Grand Challenges for Engineering. Retrieved from 2018-08-01
5 10 Emerging Technologies That Will Change the World. MIT Technology Review, 2003
6 Ulsoy A G, Peng H, Cakmakci M. Automotive Control Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012
7 Reyer J A, Fathy H K, Papalambros P Y, et al. Comparison of combined embodiment design and control optimization strategies using optimality conditions. In: Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference. Pittsburgh, 2001
8 Fathy H K, Papalambros P Y, Reyer J A, et al. On the coupling between the plant and controller optimization problems. In: Proceedings of the 2001 American Control Conference. Arlington, 2001
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACC.2001.946008
9 Fathy H K, Bortoff S A, Copeland G S, et al. Nested optimization of an elevator and its gain-scheduled LQG controller. In: Proceedings of ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Dynamic Systems and Control. New Orleans, 2002, 119–126
https://doi.org/10.1115/IMECE2002-39273
10 Fathy H K. Combined plant and control optimization: Theory strategy and applications. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2002
11 Fathy H K, Hrovat D, Papalambros P Y, et al. Nested plant/controller optimization and its application to combined passive/active automotive suspensions. In: Proceedings of the 2003 American Control Conference. Denver, 2003
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACC.2003.1244053
12 Fathy H K, Papalambros P Y, Ulsoy A G. Integrated plant, observer and controller optimization with application to combined passive/active automotive suspensions. In: Proceedings of ASME 2003 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Dynamic Systems and Control, Volumes 1 and 2. Washington, D.C., 2003
https://doi.org/10.1115/IMECE2003-42014
13 Alyaqout S F, Papalambros P Y, Ulsoy A G. Quantification and use of system coupling in decomposed design optimization problems. In: Proceedings of ASME 2005 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Computers and Information in Engineering. Orlando, 2005
https://doi.org/10.1115/IMECE2005-81364
14 Alyaqout S F, Papalambros P Y, Ulsoy A G. Combined robust design and robust control of an electric DC motor. In: Proceedings of ASME IMECE. Chicago, 2006
15 Alyaqout S F. A multi-system optimization approach to coupling in robust design and control. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2006
16 Alyaqout S F, Papalambros P Y, Ulsoy A G. Coupling in design and robust control optimization. In: Proceedings of 2007 European Control Conference (ECC). Kos, 2007
https://doi.org/10.23919/ECC.2007.7068864
17 Alyaqout S F, Papalambros P Y, Ulsoy A G. Combined design and robust control of vehicle active/passive suspension. In: Proceedings of 2007 European Control Conference (ECC). Kos, 2007
https://doi.org/10.23919/ECC.2007.7068867
18 Peters D L, Kurabayashi K, Papalambros P Y, et al. Co-design of a MEMS actuator and its controller using frequency constraints. In: Proceedings of ASME 2008 Dynamic Systems and Control Conference, Parts A and B. Ann Arbor, 2008
https://doi.org/10.1115/DSCC2008-2212
19 Ulsoy A G, Papalambros P Y, Peters D L. Optimal co-design of controlled systems and their controllers. In: Proceedings of NSF CMMI Grantees Conference. Honolulu, 2009
20 Peters D L, Papalambros P Y, Ulsoy A G. On measures of coupling between the artifact and controller optimal design problems. In: Proceedings of ASME 2009 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Volume 2: 29th Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Parts A and B. San Diego, 2009
21 Peters D L, Papalambros P Y, Ulsoy A G. Relationship between coupling and the controllability Grammian in co-design problems. In: Proceedings of the 2010 American Control Conference. Baltimore, 2010
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACC.2010.5531087
22 Peters D L, Papalambros P Y, Ulsoy A G. Sequential co-design of an artifact and its controller via control proxy functions. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 2010, 43(18): 125–130
https://doi.org/10.3182/20100913-3-US-2015.00041
23 Peters D L. Coupling and controllability in optimal design and control. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2010
24 Alyaqout S F, Papalambros P Y, Ulsoy A G. Combined robust design and robust control of an electric DC motor. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 2011, 16(3): 574–582
https://doi.org/10.1109/TMECH.2010.2047652
25 Alyaqout S F, Peters D L, Papalambros P Y, et al. Generalized coupling management in complex engineering systems optimization. Journal of Mechanical Design, 2011, 133(9): 091005
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4004541
26 Peters D L, Papalambros P Y, Ulsoy A G. Control proxy functions for sequential design and control optimization. Journal of Mechani-cal Design, 2011, 133(9): 091007
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4004792
27 Alyaqout S F, Papalambros P Y, Ulsoy A G. Combined design and robust control of a vehicle passive/active suspension. International Journal of Vehicle Design, 2012, 59(4): 315–330
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJVD.2012.048975
28 Patil R, Filipi Z, Fathy H K. Computationally efficient combined plant design and controller optimization using a coupling measure. Journal of Mechanical Design, 2012, 134(7): 071008
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4006828
29 Peters D L, Papalambros P Y, Ulsoy A G. Sequential co-design of an artifact and its controller via control proxy functions. Mechatronics, 2013, 23(4): 409–418
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechatronics.2013.03.003
30 Peters D L, Papalambros P Y, Ulsoy A G. Relationship between coupling and the controllability Gramian in co-design problems. Mechatronics, 2015, 29: 36–45
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechatronics.2015.05.002
31 Peters D L. A procedure for evaluating the applicability of a control proxy function to optimal co-design. Journal of Engineering Design, 2016, 27(8): 515–543
https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2016.1183162
32 Çakmakcı M, Ulsoy A G. Bi-directional communication among “smart” components in a networked control system. In: Proceedings of the 2005 American Control Conference. Portland, 2005
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACC.2005.1470027
33 Çakmakcı M, Ulsoy A G. Improving component swapping modularity using bi-directional communication in networked control systems. In: Proceedings of ISFA 2006 International Symposium on Flexible Automation. Osaka, 2006
34 Çakmakcı M, Ulsoy A G. Design of modular controllers for systems with smart networked components. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design/Production of Machines and Dies/Molds. Çeşme, 2007
35 Çakmakcı M, Ulsoy A G. Modular discrete optimal MIMO controller for a VCT engine. In: Proceedings of American Control Conference. St. Louis, 2009
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACC.2009.5160005
36 Li S, Çakmakcı M, Kolmanovsky I, et al. Throttle actuator swapping modularity design for idle speed control. In: Proceedings of American Control Conference. St. Louis, 2009
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACC.2009.5160009
37 Çakmakcı M, Ulsoy A G. Improving component swapping modularity using bi-directional communication in networked control systems. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 2009, 14(3): 307–316
https://doi.org/10.1109/TMECH.2008.2011898
38 Çakmakcı M, Ulsoy A G. Combined component swapping modularity for a VCT engine controller. In: Proceedings of ASME 2009 Dynamic Systems and Control Conference, Volume 2. Hollywood, 2009
https://doi.org/10.1115/DSCC2009-2510
39 Çakmakcı M. Mechatronic design for component-swapping modularity using bi-directional communications in networked control systems. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2009
40 Li S, Kolmanovsky I V, Ulsoy A G. Direct optimal distributed controller design for component swapping modularity with application to ISC. In: Proceedings of American Control Conference. Baltimore, 2010
41 Çakmakcı M, Ulsoy A G. Swappable distributed MIMO controller for a VCT engine. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 2011, 19(5): 1168–1177
https://doi.org/10.1109/TCST.2010.2080275
42 Li S, Kolmanovsky I V, Ulsoy A G. Battery swapping modularity design for HEVs using the augmented Lagrangian decomposition method. In: Proceedings of American Control Conference. San Francisco, 2011, 953–958
43 Li S, Kolmanovsky I V, Ulsoy A G. Distributed supervisory controller design for battery swapping modularity in plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 2012, 134(4): 041013
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4006214
44 Li S, Kolmanovsky I V, Ulsoy A G. Direct optimal design for component swapping modularity in control systems. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 2013, 18(1): 297–306
https://doi.org/10.1109/TMECH.2011.2174800
45 Li S. Distributed supervisory controller design for battery swapping modularity in plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2011
46 Ghaffari A, Ulsoy A G. Experimental verification of component swapping modularity for precision contouring. In: Proceedings of American Control Conference. Seattle, 2016
47 Ghaffari A, Ulsoy A G. Design of distributed controllers for component swapping modularity using linear matrix inequalities. In: Proceedings of IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics. Banff, 2016
48 Ulsoy A G. Design for ease of control and estimation. In: Proceedings of ASME Dynamic Systems and Control Conference. Minneapolis, 2016
49 Ghaffari A, Ulsoy A G. LMI-based design of distributed controllers to achieve component swapping modularity. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 2017, PP(99): 1–8
https://doi.org/10.1109/TCST.2017.2767021
50 Ghaffari A, Ulsoy A G. Component swapping modularity for distributed precision contouring. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 2017, 22(6): 2625–2632
https://doi.org/10.1109/TMECH.2017.2761739
51 Darwin C. On the Origin of Species. London: John Murray, 1859
52 Koren Y, Heisel U, Jovane F, et al. Reconfigurable manufacturing systems. CIRP Annals, 1999, 48(2): 527–540
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-8506(07)63232-6
53 Ulrich K, Tung K. Fundamentals of product modularity. In: Proceedings of the 1991 ASME Winter Annual Meeting, ASME DE-Vol. 39. Atlanta, 1991, 73–79
54 Butts K, Cook J, Davey C, et al. Automotive powertrain controller development using CACSD. In: Samad T, ed. Perspectives in Control: New Concepts and Applications. New York: Wiley-IEEE Press, 2001
https://doi.org/10.1109/9780470545485.ch15
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   0
  Discussed