4710 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 58, NO.

9, NOVEMBER 2009

Robust Monitoring of an Electric Vehicle With

Structured and Unstructured Uncertainties
Mohand Arab Djeziri, Rochdi Merzouki, and Belkacem Ould Bouamama

Abstract—This paper deals with a robust fault-detection and complex and uncertain systems. A motor fault diagnosis ap-
isolation (FDI) technique, which is applied to the traction system of proach using a signal-based theory is developed in [11] by using
an electric vehicle, in the presence of structured and unstructured a wavelet principle, whereas in [5], the frequency spectrum is
uncertainties. Due to the structural and multidomain properties of
the bond graph, the generation of a nonlinear model and residuals used to distinguish the fault signal from disturbances. FDI using
for the studied system with adaptive thresholds is synthesized. observer and parity space approaches are developed in [7]–[10]
The parameters and structured uncertainties are identified by for several complex systems with different specifications.
using a least-square algorithm. A super-twisting observer is used An electric traction system is considered as a mechatronic
to estimate both unstructured uncertainties and unknown inputs. system where several types of energy are involved, such as
Cosimulation with real experimental data shows the robustness of
the residuals to the considered uncertainties and their sensitivity electrical, mechanical, and thermal. To model this kind of
to the faults. system, one needs a unified tool such as the bond graph (BG)
[10] to represent the involved multiple-energy domains. Fur-
Index Terms—Analytical redundancy relations (ARRs), bond
graph (BG), electric vehicle, fault detection and isolation (FDI), thermore, structural properties (observability, monitorability,
linear fractional transformations (LFTs), structured and unstruc- etc.) of the BG can help generate fault indicators and fault
tured uncertainties. detection algorithms [1], [2]. The BG tool is also used for the
modeling and diagnosis of uncertain systems, where in [17], a
I. I NTRODUCTION model of uncertain linear systems is developed using two ap-
proaches. The first method consider the parameter uncertainty

N OWADAYS, electric vehicles are considered to be sus-

tainable systems, which release almost no pollutant gases
and less disturbing noises when they are operated. Due to
as a BG element, whereas the second method considers the
linear fractional transformation (LFT) form, which represents
the multiplicative uncertainty on the parameter. In [3] and [4],
the properties of control and monitoring of electric motors, a BG model based on robust fault diagnosis is developed by
the electric vehicles are often used for applications related to considering the residual sensitivity analysis.
intelligent transport. In the following work, multidomain modeling of traction
During the last decade, many contributions on the field of actuators for an electric vehicle is presented. Structured and
fault detection and isolation (FDI) applied to road vehicles have unstructured uncertainties are taken into account in the mod-
been developed: One can cite [15], where a qualitative model- eling step to generate analytical redundancy relations (ARRs)
based approach for fault diagnosis is proposed. It consists of and adaptive thresholds. The innovative interest of the used
developing a machine learning technology to detect and isolate approach can be summarized in three points.
multiple classes of faults in an electric drive. The proposed FDI
approach is robust when the faults are perfectly known, and 1) Modeling. The BG tool allows the design of the mul-
the main advantage is that the list of faults can progressively tidomain model in the LFT form, even on nonlinear
be improved after new fault identification. In [16], a diagnosis systems, whereas a state model of nonlinear systems is
system for the air-intake system of a turbo-charged engine is often difficult to synthesize. The global model can be
designed by a systematic way, where different sensor faults and designed in a modular manner by connecting different
leakages are considered. This so-called multimodel approach subsystems. Moreover, the LFT model can easily be im-
requires developing a model for almost faulty situations. The proved by adding uncertain BG elements. Compared with
latter approach becomes difficult to implement in the case of the classical LFT state model, the LFT BG representation
allows explicitly showing the location of the uncertain
Manuscript received November 1, 2008; revised February 25, 2009 and
part.
June 5, 2009. First published June 26, 2009; current version published 2) Diagnosis. Due to the graphical aspect of the BG, ro-
November 11, 2009. This work was supported in part by the regional project bust ARRs and adaptive thresholds can systematically be
Campus International sur la Sécurité et l’Intermodalité des Transports (CISIT)
and in part by the Centre National de Recherche Scientifique. The review of
generated.
this paper was coordinated by Prof. M. E. Benbouzid. 3) Integration. In relation to the cited properties, a diag-
The authors are with the Laboratoire d’Automatique, Génie Informatique et nosis algorithm is implemented using an oriented object
Signal, UMR-CNRS 8146, Ecole Polytechnique Universitaire de Lille, 59651
Villeneuve d’Ascq, France.
approach.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. This paper is organized as follows: Section II deals with the
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TVT.2009.2026281 traction system modeling and monitorability analysis, whereas
0018-9545/$26.00 © 2009 IEEE
DJEZIRI et al.: MONITORING OF ELECTRIC VEHICLE WITH STRUCTURED AND UNSTRUCTURED UNCERTAINTIES 4711

TABLE I
NOMENCLATURES

Fig. 1. RobuCar’s electric vehicle.

the BG model in the LFT form for ARR generation is given

in Section III. The generation of robust ARRs is given in
Section IV; then, in Section V, the identification method of the
parameters and uncertainties is presented. Cosimulation with trical resistance R : Rj , inductance I : Lj , and electromotive
the Callas–Prosper software of the dynamic vehicle is given in force (EMF), which is linear to the angular velocity of the rotor
Section VI. with the EMF constant kej and modeled by the BG element
GY : kej . The gyrator element GY describes the power transfer
from the electrical domain to the mechanical domain.
II. D ETERMINIST BG M ODEL AND The mechanical part of the jth dc motor is characterized by
M ONITORABILITY A NALYSIS the efforts of inertia Jej · θ̈ej , viscous friction fej · θ̇ej of the
This section describes the model of the jth electromechanical transmitted torque Kj · (θej − Nj · θsj ), and the input motor
traction system with attached contact efforts from the studied torque Γj , which is a function of the current ij and the torque
RobuCar vehicle of Fig. 1. It is an overactuated electric vehicle constant kej . Nj is the constant of the gear transmission.
with four actuated traction wheels and two actuated steering The wheel system represents the load part of the jth electro-
systems and is composed of the following: 1) 12-V 60-Ah mechanical system, which is characterized by the efforts of the
sealed seal batteries; 2) a honeycomb chassis; 3) a front right inertia Jsj · θ̈sj , viscous friction fsj · θ̇sj , transmitted torque
wheel; 4) a front control cabinet; 5) a front steering electrical through the reducer part Nj · Kj · (θej − Nj · θsj ), and longi-
jack; 6) a front left wheel; 7) a rear left wheel; 8) a rear right tudinal effort contact ρ · Fxj , where ρ describes the constant
wheel; 9) a rear steering electrical jack; and 10) a rear control wheel radius. Then, the dynamic model of the jth electro-
cabinet. mechanical system is presented in
The list of the used symbols in the model is given in Table I. ⎧
⎪
⎪ Lj · (d/dt) · (ij ) = uj − Rj · ij − kej · θ̇ej
⎨  
Jej · θ̈ej = −fej · θ̇ej + Γj − Kj · θej − Nj · θsj
A. Electromechanical Traction System Model   (1)
⎪
⎩ Jsj · θ̈sj = −fsj · θ̇sj + Nj .Kj · θej − Nj · θsj
⎪
There are six electromechanical systems located on the − ρ · Fxj
RobuCar’s vehicle of Fig. 1, and they are used for the traction
and steering motions. They are constituted by three principal where θ̈sj , θ̈ej , θ̇sj , and θ̇ej are the accelerations and velocities
components: 1) the dc motor part, which is the combination of the jth reducer and motor parts, respectively, which are
of electrical and mechanical parts; 2) the gear system part; deduced by derivation of the measured positions θsj and θej .
and 3) the tire–road part. In this section, dynamic BG models Knowing that the introduction of uncertainties does not affect
of all of these components are graphically synthesized and the causality and the structural properties of the BG elements in
then expressed by differential equations. The electromechanical the LFT form [3], the monitorability analysis (i.e., ability to
traction system for the RobuCar’s vehicle is presented in Fig. 2, generate an ARR) is realized using the determinist BG model.
where electrical and mechanical domains are interacted. The monitorability analysis developed in [4] shows that, in the
The BG model of the jth electromechanical system of Robu- case of unknown initial conditions, the system should be proper,
Car in integral causality is given in Fig. 3, where j ∈ [1, 6]. The observable, and overconstrained to be able to generate an ARR.
nonlinearities are defined by the longitudinal contact efforts and These properties are recalled in the Appendix.
act on the tire–road area. Monitorability analysis shows that the electrical part of the dc
The electrical circuit of the electromechanical system (see motor is proper, observable, and overconstrained, because there
Fig. 3) is composed of the input voltage source Se : uj , elec- is no conflict of causality in this part of the model. The ARR can
4712 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 58, NO. 9, NOVEMBER 2009

Fig. 2. Decentralized electromechanical traction system.

Fig. 3. Determinist BG model of the system.

Fig. 4. Determinist BG model of the system in derivative causality with inverted sensors.

be generated from the considered junction 1. The mechanical perfectly known. In our case, the initial condition associated
part of the system is proper, observable, but underconstrained, with this element describes the position measurement, which is
because the effort in the C : 1/Kj element is unknown, and it available through the embedded optical encoders. Finally, the
explains the appearance of a causality conflict at the associated tire–road part is proper, observable, and overconstrained. Due
junction 0; thus, this element remains in integral causality. to this property analysis, three ARRs can be generated from the
This situation can be avoided when the initial conditions are uncertain BG model of Fig. 4.
DJEZIRI et al.: MONITORING OF ELECTRIC VEHICLE WITH STRUCTURED AND UNSTRUCTURED UNCERTAINTIES 4713

Fig. 5. LFT BG model of the system in derivative causality with inverted sensors.

III. LFT BG M ODEL OF THE T RACTION S YSTEM 3) The energy added to the system by an uncertainty de-
pends on the energy added by the nominal parameter.
The presented approach describes a general representation
4) The uncertain part is perfectly separated from the nomi-
of a system, including uncertainties, which is obtained by
nal part.
using the LFT form [17], [3]. The principle of the uncertainty
representation using LFT for BG modeling consists of building Now, the uncertain BG model of the jth electromechanical
the uncertain system, which is the combination of the increased system with contact efforts is shown in Fig. 5, where the
invariant system, whose parameters are perfectly defined, and source of efforts describing the uncertainties is modulated by
an uncertain part, which gathers various uncertainties. More the following expressions:
details on the modeling of BG elements in the LFT form ⎧ ∗ ∗
⎪ wRj = −δRj · zR zR = Rjn · ij
can be found in [17] and [3]. Unstructured uncertainties are ⎪
⎪ j j
⎪
⎪ ∗ ∗ di
considered as modulated sources of unknown effort or flow, ⎪
⎪ wLj = −δLj · zLj zLj = Ljn · dtj
⎪
⎪
which are assumed to be present in the system. In this paper, ⎪ ∗ ∗
⎪ wJej = −δJej · zJej zJej = Jenj · θ̈ej
⎪
⎪
the unstructured uncertainties are assumed to be present on the ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ wfej = −δfej · zf∗e zf∗e = fenj · θ̇ej
mechanical part of the dc motor and on the tire–road part, where ⎪
⎪  
⎪
⎪ ∗
j
∗
j

two modulated sources of efforts wun1j and wun2j , respectively, ⎪

⎪ w = −δ · z z = Kjn · θej − Nj · θsj
⎪
⎪
K j K j K j K j
are added to the BG model in the LFT form. The origin of these ⎨w ∗
zJ∗ s = Jsnj · θ̈sj
Jsj = −δJsj · zJs
uncertainties is the presence of a backlash phenomenon on the j j (2)
⎪
⎪ w = −δ · z ∗
z ∗
= fsnj · θ̇sj
reducer part, which causes a disturbing torque on the system. ⎪
⎪ f sj f sj f f
⎪
⎪
s j s j

The backlash phenomenon is strongly nonlinear and difficult to ⎪

⎪ wke1j = −δke1j · θ̇ej
⎪
⎪
model; thus, it is considered to be an unstructured uncertainty ⎪
⎪ wke = δke · ij
⎪
⎪
and will be estimated. ⎪
⎪
2j 2j
⎪
⎪ w = δ 1
·
ρ F xjn
For FDI analysis, the BG model should be given in deriv- ⎪
⎪
ρ 2 j
⎪
⎪
ative causality with inverted sensors (see Fig. 5) to avoid the ⎪
⎪ wρ1j = −δ ρ1 · θ̇sj
⎪
⎩ wun = Nj · wun .
unknown initial conditions for the ARR generation. When a 2j 1j

sensor is inverted (i.e., dualized), it becomes a signal source

(effort or flow). The latter is imposed on the considered junc-
IV. R OBUST ARR G ENERATION
tion; thus, the sensor is no longer optional, and it is the missing
lead to the conflicts of causality on the BG model. The procedure of ARR generation in the presence of
The main advantages of such model for robust diagnosis are structured and unstructured uncertainties is explained in the
summarized in four points. Appendix [3].
From the BG model of Fig. 5, the set of ARRs (3), shown
1) Introduction of uncertainties does not affect the causality below, is generated. The first is generated from junction 1
and the structural properties of the BG elements on the connected to the dualized sensor SSf : ij , whereas the second
nominal model. and the third are generated from the other junctions connected
2) There is a representation of structured and unstructured to the dualized sensors SSf : θ̇ej and SSf : θ̇sj , respectively.
uncertainties. Due to the properties of the LFT model, each ARR is separated
4714 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 58, NO. 9, NOVEMBER 2009

into two distinguished parts, as given in (4)–(6), shown below. model of the traction system is given in (1). This model can be
Thus written in the following linear parameter form:
⎧
⎪ ARR1j : uj − Ljn · (d/dt) · (ij ) − Rjn · ij Υ=Ψ·Θ (10)
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ − kej · θ̇ej − wke2j + wRj
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ with
⎪
⎪ + wLj + wun1j = 0
⎡ ⎤
⎪
⎪ 
⎪
⎪ · − Jenj · θ̈ej − fenj · θ̇ej uj
⎨ ARR : k i + w
Υ = ⎣ Uj ⎦
2j en j j k e1
j 
− wun2j − Knj · θej − Nj · θsj (3)
⎪
⎪ Fxj
⎪
⎪ + wJej + wfej + wKj = 0
⎪
⎪ ⎡ dij ⎤
⎪
⎪ ij θ̇ej 0 0 0 0 0
⎪
⎪ ARR3j : Nj · wun2j − Jsnj · θ̈sj − fsnj · θ̇sj dt
⎪
⎪   Ψ=⎣ 0 0 ⎦
⎪
⎪ + Nj · Knj · θej − Nj · θsj − ρn · Fxnj
0 0 θ̈ej θ̇ej Ξ1 0
⎪
⎩ 0 0 0 0 0 Nj · Ξ Ξ2 Ξ3
− ρn · wρ + wJsj + wfsj + wKj + wFxj = 0

r1j = uj − Lj · (d/dt) · (ij ) −  Rj · ij − kej · θ̇ej

with
        (4)
   
a1j = wRj + wLj + kej · wke2  + wun1  Ξ1 = θej − Nj · θsj Ξ2 = −ρ−1 · θ̈sj Ξ3 = −ρ−1 · θ̇sj
⎧ j j

⎪
⎪ r = kenj · ij − Jej · θ̈ej − fej · θ̇ej − wun2 fsj ]T .
⎨ 2j   j Θ = [ Lj Rj kej Jej fej Kj Jsj
 − Kj · θej − Nj · θsj   (5)
⎪  
⎩ a2j = wJe  + wfe  + wKj  + ken · wke 
⎪ For a linear configuration of (10), several methods for pa-
⎧ j j j 1j rameter identification, such as the recursive least-square and
⎪
⎪ r = Nj · wun2 − Jsj · θ̈sj − fsj · θ̇sj gradient methods [6], exist in the literature. In this paper, the
⎨ 3j j   normalized gradient algorithm of (11) is used, which is better
 + N j · K j · θej − Nj · θsj − ρ· Fxj (6)
⎪
⎪   in the case where the gain adaptation is not perfect, and the nor-
⎩ a3 = wJ  + wf  + wK  + wF  + ρn · |wρ | .
j sj sj j xj malization term ensures the convergence of the identification
algorithm, i.e.,
By replacing the residual rj and the uncertain part of (4)–(6)
in the ARR of (3), we obtain Λ · ΨTk · εk
Θ̂k = Θ̂k−1 + Te · (11)
  1 + Λ · ΨTk · εk
rj + wij = 0 ⇒ rj = − wij . (7)
where Θ̂k is the estimation of the parameters Θ at time k,
By using
the following
properties,
i.e., | wij |  |wij | whereas Θ̂k−1 is the parameter estimation at time k − 1, Te
and − |wij |  | wij |  |wij |, an upper threshold, is the sampling time, Λ is the adaptation gain vector, and
called aj , is generated such that εk = Υk − Υ̂k is the estimation error of the inputs at time k.
  The additive uncertainty on each parameter is considered as
rj  aj with aj = wi  . (8) the difference between the maximum value of the parameter
j
and its mean value. Thus, the additive uncertainties are re-
Structured and unstructured uncertainties can be constant or lated to their multiplicative values according to the following
variable, and their variation can be positive or negative with relations:
bounded values. Since the variation of the residual follows the
ΔR ΔR ΔI
variation of the uncertainties without a fault, it can vary in the δR = , δ R1 = , δI =
positive and negative directions, and a lower threshold, called Rn Rn + ΔR In
−aj , is generated. Thus, the generated thresholds constitute an ΔC ΔT ΔG
δC = , δT F = , δGY =
envelope of the residual in normal operation, i.e., Cn Tn Gn

−aj  rj  aj . (9) where ΔR, ΔI, and ΔC are the additive uncertainty values of
the BG elements R, I, and C, respectively. ΔT and ΔG are the
additive uncertainty values of T F and GY moduli, respectively.
V. I DENTIFICATION OF P ARAMETERS AND U NCERTAINTIES δR , δI , δC , δT F , and δGY are the multiplicative uncertainties
Structured and unstructured uncertainties are separately iden- of the BG elements. Rn , In , Cn , Tn , and Gn are the nominal
tified by two methods. This choice of identification gives rise values of the BG elements. δ1/R is the multiplicative uncer-
to an overevaluation of both structured and unstructured uncer- tainty value on the characteristic functions of the R element in
tainties. Consequently, the generated thresholds in the diagnosis conductance causality.
part will also be overevaluated to avoid false alarms. The uncertainty on the wheel radius is experimentally iden-
tified, where its nominal value ρn of the radius ρ is identified
without the presence of external load on the vehicle, and the
A. Structured Uncertainty Identification
tire is inflated at the maximum level of pressure (2 bar). The
The nominal values of parameters and uncertainties are iden- minimum value of the radius ρmin is identified with the limit
tified after raising the vehicle from the road. The determinist of external load (350 kg) on the vehicle. Then, the additive
DJEZIRI et al.: MONITORING OF ELECTRIC VEHICLE WITH STRUCTURED AND UNSTRUCTURED UNCERTAINTIES 4715

TABLE II The observer structure is synthesized as follows:

PARAMETER AND UNCERTAINTY VALUES
⎧  1 
⎪
⎪
⎪ ˙ 1 = x̂2 + λ1 · x1 −x̂1  2 · sign x1 −x̂1
x̂
⎪
⎪ e j e j j e j e j e j e j
⎪
⎪  1 
⎪
⎨ x̂˙ = x̂ +λ · x −x̂  2
1s j 2s j 1j  1s j 1sj  · sign x1sj −x̂1sj
⎪ 
⎪
⎪ ˙ 2 =−J−1 · fe · x̂2 +J−1 · Γj +α1 · sign x1 −x̂1
⎪
⎪ x̂ e e
⎪
e j e j e e

j j j j j j
⎪
⎪
⎩ x̂˙ =−J−1 · f · x̂ +α · sign x −x̂
2s j sj sj 2s j 2j 1s j 1s j .
(15)
The state observation error is given in the following system
of equations:
and multiplicative uncertainties Δρ and δρ are calculated as ⎧  1 
follows: ⎪
⎪  2
⎪
⎪ x̃˙ 1ej = x̃2ej − λ1j · x̃1ej  · sign x̃1ej
⎪
⎪
Δρ ⎪
⎪  1 
Δρ = ρn − ρmin , δρ = . (12) ⎪
⎪  2
ρn ⎪ ˙
⎨ x̃1sj = x̃2sj − λ1j · x̃1sj  · sign x̃1sj

The set of parameters and uncertainties of the jth system is ⎪ x̃˙ 2ej
⎪ = −Je−1 · fej · x̃2e j − J −1
ej · Cj − α1j · sign x̃1e j
⎪
⎪
j
given in Table II. ⎪
⎪ x̂˙ 2 = −Js−1 · fsj · x̂2sj + Js−1 · Nj · Cj − Js−1 · ρ · F xj
⎪
⎪
The tire–road system is an important and complex part of the ⎪ sj
⎪
j
 j j
⎪
⎩
overactuated electric vehicle due to the interaction of several − α2j · sign x̃1sj .
phenomena (i.e., mechanical, thermal, hydrodynamic, etc.). In (16)
this paper, only the longitudinal effort is considered according
to some specifications. In this case, finite-time convergence of the estimated states
1) The road is uniform and dry. to the real state values is obtained, and the convergence proof is
2) The vehicle is light (350 kg). given in [14].
3) The velocity motion is low and constant at steady state 2) Estimation of the Unknown Input and the Unstructured
(12 km/h). Uncertainty: Both the longitudinal impact effort F xj and
4) The vehicle trajectory is straight linear and longitudinal. the unstructured uncertainty of the disturbing backlash torque
Several mathematical and experimental models have been wun1j are considered as unknown inputs and are automatically
developed for estimation of tire–road unknown inputs, which estimated from the observer of (16). Finite-time convergence
describe the tire forces generated at conditions of braking, of x1ej , x1sj , x2ej , and x2sj allows writing of the following
driving, or cornering, such as in [19]. In this paper, a super- system of equations from (13) and (16):
twisting observer is used to simultaneously estimate un- ⎧ 
structured uncertainties and unknown inputs [14], where the ⎨ Je−1 · C j = −α1 j
· sign x̃1 e
 
j j
disturbing torque through the dead zone is considered as the
⎩ J −1 · ρ · F x = −α · sign x̃ − α · sign x̃ .
unstructured uncertainty, and the impact effort is considered as sj j 1 j 1 ej 2 j 1 sj

the unknown input. (17)

The value of the unstructured uncertainty wun1j is considered
B. Unstructured Uncertainty Identification as the maximum value of the disturbing torque. The minimum
1) State Reconstruction: Let us define the transmitted value F xjmin of the force F xj is identified without load on the
torque in the presence of the disturbing torque wun1 for each vehicle, and the tire is inflated at the maximum level of pressure
jth actuator as follows: (2 bar). The nominal value of the force F xjn is identified
  when the vehicle is loaded. Then, additive and multiplicative
Cj = wun1j + Kj · θej − Nj · θsj . (13) uncertainties ΔF xj and δF xj , respectively, are calculated as
follows:
By considering the presence of the disturbing torque wun1 ,
and by doing the following state variable replacement, i.e., ΔF xj
ΔF xj = F xjn − F xj min , δF x = . (18)
x1ej = θej , x1sj = θsj , x2ej = θ̇ej , and x2sj = θ̇sj , with j ∈ F xjn
[1, 6], the system of equations (1) can be written as follows:
⎧ ẋ = x To show the convergence of the observer, we applied a
⎪
⎪
1e j 2e j
control torque of Fig. 6 on the rear left traction system in contact
⎨ ẋ1s = x2s
j j with ground, where successively accelerated, uniform, and de-
⎪ ẋ2e = −Je−1 · fej · x2ej + Je−1 · Γj − Je−1 · Cj
⎪
⎩ j j j j celerated motions in bidirectional ways are simulated, allowing
ẋ2sj = −Jsj · fsj · x2sj + Jsj · Nj · Cj − Js−1
−1 −1
j
· ρ · F xj . the bidirectional representation of the canonical contact effort
(14) as a function of the velocity of Fig. 7.
4716 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 58, NO. 9, NOVEMBER 2009

Fig. 6. Applied control torque for the electromechanical system.

Fig. 8. Residuals and adaptive thresholds without a fault.

Fig. 7. Estimated effort force.

VI. C OSIMULATION R ESULTS

RobuCar’s technical characteristics are given in the list that Fig. 9. Residuals and adaptive thresholds with a fault in the electrical resis-
follows. tance R.

1) Dimensions:
a) Length: 1.836 m. with the studied traction actuator model. To show fault accuracy
b) Width: 1.306 m. detection and isolation with the presence of uncertainties and
c) Height: 0.616 m. the sensitivity to faults, the following scenario is proposed.
2) Weight:
a) About 350 kg, including batteries. 1) residual generation in normal operation;
b) Velocity: 18 km/h, equivalent to 5 m/s. 2) residual generation in the presence of a fault on the elec-
3) Batteries: trical resistance of the dc motor for the traction system;
a) 8× 12-V 60-Ah sealed lead batteries. 3) residual generation in the presence of a fault on the
b) Power supply: 24 V. mechanical part of the dc motor for the traction system;
4) Motors: 4) residual generation in the presence of the tire-puncture
a) 4 × 900 W, with a switched motor of 24 V. fault.
b) 2300 r/min primary, 230 r/min output.
Fig. 8 shows the residuals and adaptive thresholds under
c) Inductance L = 0.075 H.
normal operation for the rear left traction system. The residuals
d) Resistance R = 0.32 Ω.
are inside the thresholds because there is no fault on the system;
5) Instrumentation:
thus, no alarm is generated.
a) Six optical encoders < 1 mm, four for direction and
The profile of the first introduced fault is given in Fig. 9(a),
two for steering.
which describes the progressive variation of the electrical resis-
The results that will be presented are obtained after data tance R of the dc motor from its nominal value. The reaction
acquisition in normal operation. Then, these data are coupled of the residuals is shown in Fig. 9(b)–(d). The fault appears at
with a dynamic simulator (CALLAS) [20] to be cosimulated time t = 50 s and is detected at time t = 58 s by the residual r1
DJEZIRI et al.: MONITORING OF ELECTRIC VEHICLE WITH STRUCTURED AND UNSTRUCTURED UNCERTAINTIES 4717

Fig. 10. Vehicle trajectory in the presence of a fault in the electrical

resistance R. Fig. 12. Vehicle trajectory in the presence of an external fault (a tire puncture
or an obstacle on the wheel trajectory).

Fig. 11. Residuals and adaptive thresholds in the presence of an external fault Fig. 13. Residuals and adaptive thresholds in the presence of a fault in the
(a tire puncture or an obstacle on the wheel trajectory). mechanical part of the dc motor.

when the fault value reaches the value of 0.1 Ω. The residuals
after reaching the fault value of 0.08 N · m · s/rad. The residual
r2 and r3 are not sensitive to this fault, and they remain inside
r2 is sensitive to this fault at time t = 68 s with a fault value
the thresholds.
that is equal to 0.11 N · m · s/rad. Finally, the residual r3 is less
The vehicle trajectory in the presence of the first fault is given
sensitive to this fault; thus, it remains inside the thresholds. The
in Fig. 10, where the appearance of the fault causes a vehicle to
presence of this fault also causes a vehicle to deviate from the
deviate from the desired trajectory.
desired trajectory, as shown in Fig. 14.
The second fault represents an unknown external perturba-
tion on the tire, which can be explained by the tire puncture
or a static obstacle on the wheel trajectory. This fault causes a VII. C ONCLUSION
variation of the tire velocity at time t = 50 s [see Fig. 11(a)].
The reaction of the residuals is given in Fig. 11(b)–(d). The LFT modeling and robust fault diagnosis of a traction sys-
fault is detected at time t = 51 s by the residual r3 , whereas tem for an electric vehicle have been presented in this paper.
the residuals r1 and r2 are not sensitive to the introduced fault; The multidomain aspect of the BG tool was used to model
thus, they remain inside the thresholds. The presence of this the interaction of several physical phenomena. Causal and
fault causes a vehicle deviation from the desired trajectory, as structural properties of this graphical tool were used for ARR
shown in Fig. 12. and adaptive threshold generations. The uncertainties explicitly
The third fault is introduced at the level of the mechanical appeared on the BG model in the LFT form, and unstructured
part of the dc motor, and it represents a variation of the viscous parameters and the unknown input were estimated using a
friction parameter fe from its nominal value [see Fig. 13(a)]. nonlinear observer. Cosimulation with experiment data shows
The progressive fault is introduced at time t = 50 s, and it is the robustness of the residuals to structured and unstructured
detected at time t = 58 s by the residual r1 [see Fig. 11(b)] uncertainties, with sensitivity to the system faults.
4718 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 58, NO. 9, NOVEMBER 2009

which is used for the generation of adaptive thresholds

during normal operation.

R EFERENCES
[1] B. Ould Bouamama, K. Samantaray, M. Staroswiecki, and G. Dauphin-
Tanguy, “Derivation of constraint relations from bond graph models for
fault detection and isolation,” in Proc. ICBGM, 2003, vol. 35, pp. 04–09.
No. 2.
[2] G. Dauphin-Tanguy, A. Rahmani, and C. Sueur, “Bond graph aided design
of controlled systems,” Simul. Pract. Theory, vol. 7, no. 5/6, pp. 493–513,
Dec. 1999.
[3] M. A. Djeziri, “Diagnostic des Systèmes Incertains par l’Approche Bond
Graph,” Ph.D. dissertation, EC-Lille Polytech-Lille, Villeneuve-d’Ascq,
France, Dec. 2007. N0 d’ordre 63.
[4] M. A. Djeziri, R. Merzouki, B. Ould-Bouamama, and
G. Dauphin-Tanguy, “Robust fault diagnosis by using bond graph
approach,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron., vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 599–611,
Dec. 2007.
[5] B. Dubuisson, Automatique et Statistiques Pour le Diagnostic, vol. 1.
Paris, France: Hermès, 2001, p. 204.
Fig. 14. Vehicle trajectory in the presence of a fault in the mechanical part of [6] D. Landau, Identification des Systèmes’. Paris, France: Hermes, 1998.
the dc motor. [7] M. L Luschen, “Derivation and application of nonlinear analytical redun-
dancy techniques with applications to robotics,” Ph.D. dissertation, Rice
Univ., Houston, TX, 2001.
A PPENDIX [8] P. M. Frank, “Fault diagnosis in dynamic systems using analytical
and knowledge-based redundancy—A survey and some new results,”
A. Monitorability Analysis Automatica, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 459–474, May 1990.
[9] P. M. Frank and X. Ding, “Survey of robust residual generation and
Definition 1: A BG model is proper if and only if it does evaluation methods in observer-based fault detection systems,” J. Process
not contain dynamic elements in derivative causality when the Control, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 403–424, 1997.
model is in the preferred integral causality [18] and vice versa. [10] D. C. Karnopp, D. Margolis, and R. Rosenberg, Systems Dynamics:
A Unified Approach, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley, 1990.
Definition 2: A BG model is structurally observable if and [11] K. Kim and A. G. Parlos, “Induction motor fault diagnosis based on
only if two conditions are satisfied. neuropredictors and wavelet signal processing,” IEEE/ASME Trans.
Mechatron., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 201–219, Jun. 2002.
1) On the BG model in integral causality, there exists a [12] P. Mhaskar, C. McFall, A. Gani, P. D. Christofides, and J. F. Davis, “Iso-
causal path between all the dynamic elements I and C lation and handling of actuator faults in nonlinear systems,” Automatica,
and the detectors De or Df . vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 53–62, Jan. 2008.
[13] R. Merzouki, B. Ould-Bouamama, M. A. Djeziri, and M. Bouteldja,
2) All the dynamic elements I and C admit derivative cau- “Modelling and estimation for tire–road system using bond graph
sality when the BG model is in the preferred derivative approach,” Mechatron., vol. 17, no. 2/3, pp. 93–108, Mar./Apr. 2007.
causality. If some dynamic elements remain in integral [14] R. Merzouki and J. C. Cadiou, “Estimation of backlash phenomenon in the
electromechanical actuator,” Control Eng. Pract., vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 973–
causality, the dualization of the detectors De and Df 983, Aug. 2005.
must allow them to be put in derivative causality [18]. [15] Y. L. Murphey and M. Abul Masrur, “Model-based fault diagnosis in
electric drives using machine learning,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron.,
Definition 3: When the BG model is in derivative causality, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 290–303, Jun. 2006.
the system is considered overconstrained if and only if, after [16] M. Nyberg, “Model-based diagnosis of an automotive engine using sev-
eral types of fault models,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 10,
dualizing the sensors (effort and flow detectors De and Df no. 5, pp. 679–689, Sep. 2002.
become signal sources SSe and SSf ), the elements I and C [17] C. Siè Kam, “Les Bond Graphs pour la Modèlisation des Systèmes
can stay in derivative causality [4]. Linèaires Incertains,” Ph.D. dissertation, USTLille1-ECLille, Villeneuve-
d’Ascq, France, Dec. 2001. N0 d’ordre 3065.
For the monitoring step, the BG model of system 2 is [18] C. Sueur and G. Dauphin-Tanguy, “Structural controllability and observ-
presented in derivative causality with inverted sensors, as given ability of linear systems represented by bond graphs,” J. Franklin Inst.,
in Fig. 4, because some initial conditions are unknown. vol. 326, pp. 869–883, 1989.
[19] H. B. Pacejka, Tyre and Vehicle Dynamics. Amsterdam,
The Netherlands: Elsevier, 2006.
[20] Website of Dynamic Virtual Simulator CALLAS. [Online]. Available:
B. ARR Generation http://www.callasprosper.com
The procedure of ARR generation in the presence of struc-
tured and unstructured uncertainties is explained in three
steps [3].
1) The BG model should be written in the preferred deriva- Mohand Arab Djeziri received the automatic engi-
neer degree from the University of Tizi-Ouzou,
tive causality after dualization of the sensors. Tizi-Ouzou, Algeria, in 2003. He is currently work-
2) From junctions 0 and 1 of an overconstrained part, the ing toward the Ph.D. degree with the Ecole Poly-
ARR is deduced by expressing the energetic assessment technique Universitaire de Lille, Villeneuve d’Ascq,
France.
on the junction. His research field concerns robust diagnosis of
3) The obtained ARR consists of two perfectly separated complex systems applied for mechatronics and in-
parts: 1) a nominal part, called rj , which describes the dustrial processes. He is the author of several papers
in this field.
deterministic system part; and 2) the uncertain part aj ,
DJEZIRI et al.: MONITORING OF ELECTRIC VEHICLE WITH STRUCTURED AND UNSTRUCTURED UNCERTAINTIES 4719

Rochdi Merzouki received the electrical engineer Belkacem Ould Bouamama received the auto-
degree from the University of Batna, Batna, Algeria, matic engineer degree from the Institut National des
in 1996 and the Ph.D. degree in robotics and automa- Hydrocarbures et de la Chimie INHC Boumerdes,
tion from the University of Versailles, Versailles, Algeria, in 1982 and the Ph.D. degree from the
France, in 2002. Académie pétrole and gaz “Goubkine,” Moscow,
He is currently an Associate Professor with the Russia, in 2002.
Ecole Polytechnique Universitaire de Lille, Vil- He is a Full Professor with the Ecole Poly-
leneuve d’Ascq, France. His main research areas technique Universitaire de Lille, Villeneuve d’Ascq,
concern modeling, fault diagnosis, and fault-tolerant France. His main research areas concern integrated
control for mechatronics systems applied to robotics design for supervision of system engineering using
and transportation fields. bond graphs. Their application domains are mainly
nuclear, petrochemical, and mechatronic systems. He is the author of several
international publications in these domains and the coauthor of three books
about bond graph modeling and the fault detection and isolation area.