Smart product design for automotive systems

doi:10.1007/s11465-019-0527-0

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 For example, carburetors have been replaced by fuel injection and air-fuel ratio control, leading to order of magnitude improvements in fuel economy and emissions.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 Author(s): 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:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fme/EN/10.1007/s11465-019-0527-0
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fme/EN/Y2019/V14/I1/102

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

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

[1]	Yongliang YUAN, Liye LV, Shuo WANG, Xueguan SONG. Multidisciplinary co-design optimization of structural and control parameters for bucket wheel reclaimer[J]. Front. Mech. Eng., 2020, 15(3): 406-416.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed