Received: 7 February 2018
Revised: 22 June 2018
Accepted: 24 June 2018
DOI: 10.1002/er.4166
REVIEW PAPER
A review on energy allocation of fuel cell/battery/
ultracapacitor for hybrid electric vehicles
Venkata KoteswaraRao Kasimalla
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
National Institute of Technology,
Warangal, Warangal, India
Correspondence
Venkata KoteswaraRao Kasimalla,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
National Institute of Technology,
Warangal, Warangal 506004, India.
Email: kvkr79@gmail.com
Funding information
Centre of Excellence (CoE) under TEQIP‐
II, National Institute of Technology
Warangal
| Naga Srinivasulu G. | Venkateswarlu Velisala
Summary
Depletion of earth's petroleum resources, greenhouse gas emissions, and global
warming issues are caused by the conventional vehicles around the globe. In
recent years, automotive industries focus on emerging alternative energy
sources to mitigate the relying on fossil fuels so as to reduce global harmful
emissions. Researchers have focused on the different aspects of hybrid and
battery electric vehicles, such as energy management, regenerative braking
control, and architecture of power electronics. This paper emphasizes on
review of various energy management systems (EMSs) based on fuel cell hybrid
electric vehicles (FCHEV) in combination with two secondary energy storage
systems like batteries and ultracapacitors to provide high‐performance energy
storage system. The performance of the FC–battery–ultracapacitor with various
types of energy management schemes and experimental investigations is
reported in this paper. This paper provides various braking control schemes
to alleviate the hydrogen utilization of an FCHEV in connection with batteries
and ultracapacitors and furthermore gives thorough investigation of FCHEV
on their energy utilization, configuration, and EMSs developed by different
analysts. This study focuses on energy allocation schemes, experimental
approaches, recovery of regeneration, and EMS for next generation hybrid
electric vehicles.
KEYWORDS
battery, bidirectional converter, energy management, fuel cell, regeneration energy, ultracapacitor
1 | INTRODUCTION
Among existing hybrid powertrain structures, fuel cell
(FC) advanced technologies were considered as a possible
and preferable solution for automotive applications
because of its zero emissions with the use of sustainable
power source. Fuel cell hybrid vehicles (FCHVs) enables
better feasibility because of its high energy density and
provides better mileage when compared with battery‐
driven EV. In any case, energy components cannot help
a snappy response to the heap because of lower power
density contrasted with batteries. Accordingly, a hybrid
Int J Energy Res. 2018;1–21.
powertrain system made out of FC power device, battery,
and ultracapacitors is a promising answer to accomplish
both high energy density and high power density as of
late. Hybridization of FC with energy storage systems
(ESSs, batteries and ultracapacitors) is essential to reduce
the hydrogen consumption, FC size, and powertrain cost.
Paladini et al1 presented an optimal control strategy to
power a hybrid vehicle with both FC and battery to
reduce fuel consumption. Hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs)
including auxiliary power source, for example, battery
and ultracapacitor, intended to assist transient power
request, during uphill driving condition or acceleration.
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/er
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
1
2
Acceleration performance of HEV relies on both high
power density and high energy density storage devices.2
The energy sharing between battery and ultracapacitor
is connected to direct current (DC) bus voltage via bidirectional DC‐DC converter, which is used to control the
DC bus voltage and optimize the power distribution
among the main source and secondary source.
Xie et al3 developed a test station sourced by 1‐kW
PEMFC, Li‐ion battery pack of 2.8 kWh, and ultracapacitor
bank of 330 F/48.6 V. Experimental results concluded that
the FC is responsible for slow dynamic variation, and the
output of the battery pack and ultracapacitor is regulated
to meet fast dynamic variations. Hardware in the loop
composes of simulated system and hardware components
and acts as a powerful technique in testing of vehicle
energy control methodologies. Hybridization of FC combined with auxiliary energy storage devices like batteries
and ultracapacitors can offer FC reliability and improved
efficiency. Lithium‐ion batteries are preferred among the
existing rechargeable batteries because of its high energy
density and low cost. However, batteries are associated
with disadvantages such as low power density, reduced life
cycle, and more charging duration. Therefore, utilization
of a battery alone as an ESS in FC hybrid electric vehicle
(FCHEV) may not provide effective performance. To
enhance the performance of FCHEV, ultracapacitor is
integrated with batteries to alleviate the above said disadvantages.4 Ultracapacitors exhibit higher power densities
in comparison with batteries and feature higher energy
densities when compared with electrolytic capacitors
However, the energy densities of ultracapacitors are usually less than battery structures.5 Battery‐ultracapacitor
combination as ESS is recommended for vehicular applications as it inherits the features of high energy densities of
lithium‐ion batteries and high energy densities of
ultracapacitor.6
Incorporation of regenerative braking mechanism in
energy source hybridization is a key innovation in HEVs.
In general, the electric engine can be controlled to work
as a generator changing over the vehicle's kinetic energy
into power during regenerative braking.7 Regenerative
braking system can enhance the fuel economy and durability of FC system, which leads to the increased lifespan
of the FC system and decrease in hydrogen consumption.
The potential effects of regenerative braking system on
fuel economy of the vehicles can be exceptional. The rate
of the utilized energy during deceleration in the total
expended energy for three diverse driving cycles (ECE
in Europe, Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule
[UDDS] in USA, and 10–15 in Japan) can accomplish
60.1%, 43.3%, and 52.5% individually.8
The energy administration of HEV, which chooses the
power undertaking between the FC power device and
KASIMALLA
ET AL.
secondary energy buffer system, is an imperative strategy.
Lately, an assortment of control techniques for energy
management has been utilized to the HEV. The fundamental destinations of the energy governance methodology are to oversee control sharing between different
segments and to ensure the power sources execution.
The principle goal of energy management systems (EMSs)
is to enhance the execution bringing down the hydrogen
utilization all through the driving cycle. Energy administration procedures (EMSs) are calculations that choose at
each testing time the power fracture among the principle
control source and the ESSs. Remembering the true
objective to accomplish the power that alters between
the requested power and power source. Thounthong
et al9 proposed DC connect voltage control by directing
power converters however not concentrated on the system proficiency. Equivalent consumption minimization
strategy shows to be vigorous under an extensive variety
of working conditions. An EMS strategy is based on controlling the main voltage of hybrid vehicle by connecting
PI controllers in series to generate proper reference signal
energy source.10 Na et al11 applied a predictive control to
FCHV. Erdinc et al12 and Ferreira et al13 suggested an
EMS based on fuzzy logic control (FLC) to regulate the
demanded load by the hybrid vehicle.
Figure 1 depicts the configuration of hybrid
powertrain, which consists of main power source FC
and auxiliary power sources battery pack and
ultracapacitor bank. All these power sources are connected to DC bus via unidirectional and bidirectional
converters to achieve constant voltage and to get the
desired drive power requested by the motor.
The main objective of this paper is to emphasize the
state of the art of the multiple energy sources for
FCHEVs with respect to experimental approaches,
power conversion configurations, comparison of different energy sources, recovery of braking energy, and different energy management strategy benefits and
shortcomings. The specific aim of this review is to
address and assess the existing research to explore the
challenges and future scope for the FCHEV technology.
This review paper is organized as follows: Section 1
explained about available energy sources for FC hybrid
systems (FCHSs). Section 2 describes the overview of
energy sharing between main source and auxiliary
sources. Sections 3 and 4 represent experimental evolution so far in the FCHSs and structures of FC–battery–
ultracapacitor. Then Section 5 overviews the recovery of
braking energy stored in storage devices. Section 6 summarized the various energy management approaches
applied for FCHEVs. Finally, Sections 7 and 8 overview
the challenges and future scope associated with
FCHEVs followed by conclusions in Section 9.
KASIMALLA
FIGURE 1
ET AL.
3
Configuration of FC‐battery‐ultracapacitor [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
2 | ENERGY ALLOCATI ON OF F UE L
CELL/BATTE R Y /
U LT R A C A P A C ITO R
A parallel energy‐sharing control of FC, battery, and
ultracapacitor has been reported by Wong et al.14 Voltage
of ultracapacitor is controlled with respect to vehicle
speed to secure ample energy for vehicle speeding up
and also enough space for vehicle braking energy. A
novel hybrid powertrain composing of FC unit and Li‐
particle battery utilizing a snappy parallel structure with
a ultracapacitor bank was exhibited by Xie et al.3 In this
audit, a test station controlled by a 1‐kW FC power module control gadget system, Li‐particle battery pack of
2.8 kWh, and an ultracapacitor bank 330 F/48.6 V is
formed and based on the introducing of stay singular
module. Fuel cell framework is controlled to fulfill the
moderate dynamic variety, and the ultracapacitor pack
is regulated to meet quick unique load necessities. The
assessment of the auxiliary sources like batteries and
ultracapacitors in a FCHEV is investigated by Schaltz
et al.15 Furthermore, analyzed FC volume, mass, productivity, and battery constancy because of the rating of the
ESSs were introduced. The authors suggested that better
outcomes can be achieved by overrating the Li‐ion battery
pack storage device.
2.1 | Power conversion configurations
In the hybrid powertrain system, battery/ultracapacitor
and FC have been used as power sources. Among the
available power sources, the FC generates low grade DC
voltage, and it is converted as useful constant voltage by
double DC/DC converters. One power converter transfers
electrical power to the ancillary loads of the vehicle. Second converter sends power to inverter traction motor via
DC bus. The battery and ultracapacitor are connected to
the DC bus via bidirectional converters.
The inverter converts high voltage DC to useful
high voltage alternating current (AC) from the DC bus
generated by FC, battery, and ultracapacitor. Hybrid
powertrain arrangement used the regenerative braking
energy of the traction motor, which is a stored drive
battery. The battery assisted as power source during
the initial cold condition of FC and ultracapacitor
assists the power for transient load conditions. Different
types of power conversion configurations are shown in
Figure 2.16 The summary of these configurations is
included in Table 1.
The comparison between different energy sources
with time constant is depicted in Figure 3.22 Among all
the energy sources, FC and battery show useful high
energy content but with less power density. Batteries
show more discharge time, whereas ultracapacitors have
low energy density but deliver high power densities for
a short duration of time especially suitable for sudden
power demands. Various energy densities of energy carriers for the vehicle range of 500 km using present technology are shown in Figure 4.23 Moreover, for midsize
hybrid car applications, 220‐Wh capacity of ultracapacitor
pack is required with less weight compared with other
three energy sources.24 Comparison of different energy
sources for HEVs is shown in Table 2.25-28
Bauman et al4 concentrated a top to bottom and
itemized correlation of close ideal FC‐battery, FC‐
ultracapacitor, and FC‐battery‐ultracapacitor vehicles.
Quickening time, mileage, and cost were considered in
4
FIGURE 2
KASIMALLA
ET AL.
Power conversion configurations of FCHEV16 [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
the target work and detailed that the FC‐battery‐
ultracapacitor mix has higher efficiency and can expand
the battery lifetime because of less battery stress. Bauman
et al29 proposed a new architecture to cut down the fuel
consumption and to reduce the cost of the powertrain.
The proposed new topology only needs one high‐power
DC/DC unidirectional converter to step up the FC
voltage. It produces a higher performance path to maintain the battery cycle efficiency. The design confirmed
that the ultracapacitor can manage the variable power
demands, thus lowering battery use and enhancing
battery endurance.
In a report by Zhao et al30 using different hybridization configurations, energy storage technologies and
power split control strategies were modeled and evaluated. They reported that the fuel economy improvements
are greater using ultracapacitors than batteries.
Meanwhile for both energy storage technologies, the
improvement increases as the size of the energy storage
unit is increased. Meanwhile, Castaings et al31 explored
real‐time energy control procedures for a blend energy
buffering framework consists of a battery and
ultracapacitor for an electric vehicle. The minimization
of the battery current RMS esteem empowers to expand
the battery lifetime.
In a report, Hsieh et al32 developed a hybrid control
source with a DC supply structure for electric forklifts.
The power source includes an energy unit FC structure,
lithium‐ion batteries, and ultracapacitor modules. The
power yield might be isolated into power for raising and
power for moving. The main purpose of this hybrid
power source is to drop the wattage of the FC and to
reduce the overall system cost.
In the interim, Bunbna et al33 studied on the preferment of uniting ultracapacitors to a power module—battery hybrid travel transport tested on two driving cycles
(Manhattan Bus Cycle and UDDS). Simulations were
driven using our linear frequency modulated powertrain
test framework, which was made in MATLAB/Simulink
programming. Simulation outcomes demonstrate the
by adding of ultracapacitors can extraordinarily
enhances the execution of parameters, for example battery C‐rates. They contemplated that the coordination of
ultracapacitors into the ESS licenses the shrinking of
the battery pack that can decrease the cost and weight
and extends battery lifetime.
Kim et al34 presented the regenerative braking control
of a permanent magnet motor in a light FCHEV by using
prototype experimental test bed, and the results are
discussed. However, the DC bus voltage was limited to
KASIMALLA
TABLE 1
ET AL.
5
Summary of power conversion configurations of fuel cell hybrid electric vehicle
Configuration
Energy
Component
Controller
Description
Advantage
Author
C1
PEMFC/UC
PWM controller
FC is interfaced directly
with energy storage
system without power
converter and DC bus
connected with
inverter drive motor
Suitable for single stage
conversion
Azib et al17
C2
PEMFC/battery
Thermostat and
fuzzy logic
controllers
FC is coupled with
boost DC‐DC
converter.
Battery is directly coupled
with DC bus and the
electric motor
connected with inverter
Power split control on
fuel cell and energy
storage systems
Mallouh et al18
C3
PEMFC/battery/
ultracapacitor
PI controller
FC system directly
interfaced
with DC bus and
energy system
linked with DC‐DC
converter
Minimized the bidirectional
dc/dc converter loss by
maintaining soft
switching operation
during sudden load
conditions
Wang et al19
C4
PEMFC/battery
Fuzzy logic
controller
Both FC and storage
devices are interfaced
with DC‐DC
converters
Provides stable DC voltage
Kisacikoglu et al20
C5
PEMFC/battery/
ultracapacitor
Fuzzy logic
controller
FC is linked with boost
converter and energy
storage devices
interfaced with a
bidirectional converter
Integration of high power
and high energy storage
devices
Gao et al7
C6
PEMFC/battery/
ultracapacitor
Wavelet and
fuzzy logic
control
All the power sources
connected
via DC‐DC converters
Effective control of DC
bus voltage.
Ultracapacitor can regulate
the sudden power
demands and battery
to store braking energy
efficiently
Erdinc et al21
60 V for the regeneration during the braking operation.
On the other hand, Cao et al35 proposed a new battery/
ultracapacitor hybrid ESS (HESS) in which a smaller
DC‐DC converter used to regulate the voltage of the
ultracapacitor higher than the battery. The new topology
has the ability of utilizing the system configuration for
fast charging via ultracapacitor. They concluded that the
new topology is benefited in reducing the cost of the
design and increases the battery life. Feroldi et al36 also
reported approach for the determined electrical topology
and hybridization degree according to the drivability conditions. They concluded that the hybridization improves
the notable advancement in hydrogen economy from
the braking energy and integrating the batteries with
ultracapacitors can enhance the vehicle performance.
3 | EXPERIMENTAL EVOLUTION
Bo Long et al37 illustrated about power circuit structure of
the hybrid power supply system. They reported the energy
allocation between the battery and ultracapacitor. A practical DC‐DC converter is designed based on H‐infinity and
proportional integral derivative (PID) controllers. They
concluded that the average charging power for H‐infinity
is 10 and 9.5 kW for PID controller. Therefore H‐infinity
can achieve 5.3% more braking energy than conventional
PID controller. Bernard et al38 proposed an ongoing
control technique to decrease the hydrogen utilization by
utilizing proficient power sharing procedure between the
FC unit and ESS, and they approved the methodology with
a hardware‐in‐the‐loop (HiL) test bench based on 600‐W
6
KASIMALLA
FC system. They reported that the hydrogen consumption
is reduced by 3.5% for simulation and 4% in a test bench.
Odeim et al39 investigated an experimental FC/battery/
ultracapacitor hybrid system for power management and
optimization of fuel consumption, battery loading, and
acceleration performance. Two power control strategies
were used in this analysis, and an advantage feature like
charge exchange between battery and ultracapacitor is
avoided, and battery power demand is estimated based
on ultracapacitor state.
Amjadi et al40 proposed four‐quadrant SC Luo
converter control strategy based on traction motor power
flow and battery current variation. Both Voltage buck‐
boost capability and bidirectional power flow are attained
in a single circuit and are tested with experimental prototype. They reported the advantage of proposed strategy,
which enables the lower source current ripple, simpler
dynamics, and control. Thounthong et al41 conducted an
experiments on a test bench with a PEMFC: 500 W,
50 A; a battery bank: 68 Ah, 24 V; and an ultracapacitor
bank: 292 F, 30 V, 500 A. Hybrid energy was unbiased
by the DC bus voltage control. They used three voltage
ET AL.
control loops such as DC bus voltage controlled by
ultracapacitor bank, ultracapacitor voltage influenced by
battery bank, and battery voltage influenced by FC. They
presumed that the fast change of the FC and battery powers and after that lessening the FC and battery stresses.
Hongwen et al42 developed and verified the FLC methodology for a hybrid power framework utilized for crossover
vehicles. They uncovered a trial examination to affirm the
energy administration under the UDDS. The limit utilization of HESS can be brought down by 4.1% with FLC
methodology contrasted and run based control technique.
Meanwhile, Zandi et al43 presented an energy administration strategy, for example, electric hybrid power
control source (EHPS) in view of flatness control method
and FLC. Electric hybrid power control source is
consolidated with energy unit source as principle source
and two assistant sources a bank of ultracapacitors and
a bank of batteries. By hybridizing the two secondary
sources with the fundamental source, the span of the
EHPS can be minimized. An EHPS has been furnished
with ongoing framework control utilizing digital signal
processing and control engineering. The flatness control
FIGURE 3 Specific energy against
specific power of energy storage system22
[Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
FIGURE 4
Energy storage system weight and volumes for various energy carriers23
KASIMALLA
TABLE 2
ET AL.
7
Comparison of energy sources for fuel cell hybrid vehicles25-28
Power
Source
Fuel cell
Pros
Cons
Directly converts chemical energy into electrical
energy
Zero harmful emissions
Expensive to fabricate due to the high cost of
catalysts (platinum)
Lack of infrastructure to support the distribution
of hydrogen
Highly inflammable
Storage of hydrogen gas
More energy efficiency compared with IC engine
Compact and robust
Silent and smooth operation
Environmental friendly
Renewable energy
Higher part load efficiency
Only water vapor as bi‐product
Li‐ion battery
High specific energy
Self‐discharge is much lower than that of other
rechargeable batteries
Low maintenance
Cell voltage: 3.6 V nominal
Batteries cannot be charged or discharged at high
currents
Batteries have less cycle life
Low specific power
Requires protection circuit to maintain voltage and
current within safe limits.
Charge time: 10 to 60 min
Specific energy (Wh/kg): 120 to 240
Specific power (W/kg): 1000 to 3000
Cycle life: 5 to 10 years
Cost per kWh: $200‐1000 (large system)
Ultracapacitor
High specific power and low resistance enables high
load currents
Ultracapacitors can produce sudden burst of powers
with better performance and unlimited cycle life
Ultracapacitors can charged and discharged at high
currents
Cell voltage: 2.3‐2.75 V
Charge time: 1‐10 s
Specific energy (Wh/kg): 5 (typical)
Specific power (W/kg): up to 10 000
Cycle life: 10 to 15 years
Cost per kWh: $10 000
method is connected to deal with the energy between the
fundamental source and secondary source, and FLC is
connected for energy sharing among battery and
ultracapacitor. However, the study was limited to the
energy sharing between main and auxiliary sources only,
and the performance of state of charge (SOC) variation
for two auxiliary sources was not mentioned, and it is
observed that the maximum load was restricted to 780 W.
When integrating batteries and ultracapacitors to
hybrid system, its volume and system mass can be
decreased. In this regard, the high energy density of the
batteries and high power density of the ultracapacitors
are used as key energy storage devices for vehicle accelerating demands.44 Both battery and ultracapacitors are essential for hybrid powertrain systems; the battery exhibits low
power density and high energy density, while the
Low specific energy
Low cell voltage requires series connections with
voltage balancing
High cost per Watt
High self‐discharge, higher than most batteries
ultracapacitor exhibits vice versa. The energy is drawn
from the main source and auxiliary source supported into
DC transport voltage and into the inverter that can change
the voltage from DC to AC voltage and after that AC voltage prepared to move AC electric motor.45
Gauchia et al46 presented a FC‐battery‐ultracapacitor
multistorage energy system based on Energetic Macroscopic Representation of the multisource powertrain system. The tests were conducted on 1.2‐kW FC (Nexa
Ballard), 22‐ to 50‐V source with a 50‐A peak current.
The stack model is scaled to show 300 cells in series with
a voltage bound between 138 to 318 V. Hannan et al47
exhibited an energy regulation for light duty hybrid vehicles that composes of FC, battery, and ultracapacitor separately. Vehicle speed results were in contrast with that of
the battery power source only, multiple sources (FC‐
8
battery‐ultracapacitor) tested for ECE‐47 test drive cycle;
the powertrain showed 94% productivity contrasted and,
with battery power source, exhibited 84.9% proficiency,
whenever the vehicle tried in elevated driving condition.
Li et al49 developed a tramway hybrid configuration
with dual FC stacks along with batteries and
ultracapacitors and proposed a state machine control
strategy to integrate the power sources and reduced the
sudden power demands. The control strategy has
improved hydrogen consumption as well as power source
efficiency. Marzougui et al50 described an energy management algorithm for FCHEV using MATLAB/Simulink
and validated experimentally with real‐time controller
with digital signal processing and control engineering.
Zhou et al51 proposed an online energy management
based on optimized offline fuzzy logic controllers with
data fusion approach for three different types of road conditions. A probabilistic support vector machine online
controller results are compared with HiL tests.
Fathabadi52 proposed a novel FC/battery/ultracapacitor
hybrid power source for HEV. Experimental verifications
are made with prototype of FC/battery/ultracapacitor and
achieved 96% power efficiency at rated power. The proposed powertrain achieved better performance in terms
of maximum speed, acceleration, and cruising range of
the vehicle. Shin et al53 analyzed about the PEMFC and
ultracapacitor hybrid system and demonstrated about
the break‐even point of hybrid system to reduce the fuel
cost at extra cost of hybridization level.
In any case, the review was restricted to simulation
results only, and the energy‐restoring and ‐releasing
capacities of the battery and ultracapacitor were not obvious. Yu et al54 proposed an energy component battery‐
ultracapacitor control portion methodology, which was
done in Matlab/Simulink. Energy regulation was divided
by two blocks, FC‐battery, and battery‐ultracapacitor, and
the energy allocation schedule was done in Matlab/
Simulink programming. The range of battery SOC was
set between 40% and 90%, although that of ultracapacitor
was inside 25% to 100%. However, the present review was
centered around city and expressway level roads.
Subsequently, driving in uphill and downhill was not
considered.
Souleman et al55 reported on energy control for a FC‐
battery‐ultracapacitor HEV, and that contemplated five
particular control methodologies: (1) state machine design
methodology, (2) FLC‐rule based, (3) traditional proportional integral control technique, (4) frequency decoupling
and FLC, and (5) equivalent consumption minimization
strategy (ECMS). All these simulations were performed
by means of Matlab/Simulink utilizing the Sim Power
Systems tool box, and the simulations were additionally
tried progressively through Lab VIEW on NI‐PXI 8108 that
KASIMALLA
ET AL.
showed a DC transport voltage of 280 V. The exploration
for a 15‐kW FC‐battery‐ultracapacitor HEV created comes
about for every one of the methodologies, concentrating
on the hydrogen utilization and stress examination of
every system; in any case, there was no obvious review
on speed and load control profile.
Paladini et al5 reviewed on HEV sourced by an FC‐
battery‐ultracapacitor. In his review, a PEMFC, Ni‐MH
battery, and Maxwell ultracapacitor were picked to
accomplish a streamlined HEV. The energy control to
regulate the power flow between the FC system, battery,
or ultracapacitor was basically utilizing the ECoS code
and traction regulation approach that was simulated in
MATLAB/Simulink.
The energy control was tested for four driving schedules using Pareto front analysis, to be specific, the New
European Drive Cycle (NEDC), UDDS, Highway Fuel
Economy Test, and Japanese driving cycle (10–15). In
light of the outcomes, the framework was obviously ideal
on the NEDC and just 6.75‐g/km hydrogen fuel utilization. Be that as it may, the report concentrated more on
the correlation of the drive cycle tests and did not
expound on the EMS.
Meanwhile, Garcia et al56 have given an account of
five distinctive control methodologies for pinnacle control
HEVs and thoroughly outlined the control procedures for
FC‐battery‐ultracapacitor HEVs. These control strategies
include fuzzy logic, operation mode, course type,
equivalent fuel consumption minimization, and predictive technique individually. The regulation procedures
were inspected by differentiating their presentations on
a 400 kW assessed hybrid powertrain. They suggested
that ECMS control investigated the most reduced fuel
usage and the slightest troublesome control procedure.
The author gave an unequivocal commitment to an FC‐
battery‐ultracapacitor HEV. Regardless, this survey was
quite recently restrictive in real time application.
Jennifer et al57 investigated about the powertrain
topologies of FC, battery, and ultracapacitor using
MATLAB/Simulink. They conducted parametric study
to achieve optimal component sizing of power sources.
An FC of 40 kW, high power lithium ion battery of
nominal voltage 346.5 V, and ultracapacitor voltage of
400 V were used in this study. They suggested that the
highest fuel economy was achieved with FC‐battery‐
ultracapacitor combination that benefits the increase in
battery life due to less stress on battery.
The structure of PEMFC stack, battery pack, and
ultracapacitor bank is connected to DC bus via power
electronic interface that is shown in Figure 541 with
unidirectional converter and bidirectional (two‐quadrant)
converters for FC stack and energy storage devices
(battery and ultracapacitors), respectively.
KASIMALLA
FIGURE 5
ET AL.
Structure of fuel cell/battery/supercapacitor41 [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
4 | S T R U C T U R E S O F F U E L C E L L–
B A T T E R Y– U L T R A C A PA C I T O R
FC + B + UC drive structure of the hybrid vehicle is
shown in Figure 6.58 Moreover, ultracapacitor together
gives supplemental power for the transient driving conditions. The ultracapacitor parallelly interfaces the DC
transport by a bidirectional DC/DC converter. The benefits of this structure are that the ultracapacitor can give
the peak power control and recuperate braking energy,
so the weight of FC stack framework and battery are
diminished and furthermore extend the life of the battery.
The experimental evolution of FC‐battery‐ultracapacitor
system is depicted in Table. 4.
FIGURE 6
9
From Figure 7, during the motoring mode, it is
observed that the most of the transient power supplied
by the ultracapacitor bank during the motor acceleration
period. At steady speed conditions, all the three sources
assisted the motor power demand. During the cruising,
speed battery module assisted the motor with constant
current discharge.
5 | R E CO VER Y O F R E GEN E R A T IO N
EN ERG Y
Zhang et al59 reported on the braking energy control of a
FC hybrid electric bus. By coordinating regeneration
FC + B + UC drive structure of hybrid vehicle58 [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
10
KASIMALLA
ET AL.
Hybrid power source variation during motoring mode to a final speed of 800 rpm41 [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
FIGURE 7
braking system with pneumatic braking system leads to
recapture the braking energy and improve fuel economy
of a FCHB. They concluded that the hydrogen consumption was reduced by 16% and fuel economy was increased
by 9% in coordinated regeneration braking strategy, and
also hydrogen consumption was improved by 11.5% by
replacing Ni‐MH with Li‐ion battery in test results. However, they did not elaborate the SOC variation of the ESS.
Huang Liang et al60 reported an HESS, which composes
of battery and ultracapacitor. They proposed a power
KASIMALLA
ET AL.
splitting strategy based on frequency‐varying filter
method. They found in their prototype electric vehicle tests
most of the transient demand supplied by the
ultracapacitor, and 30% of the energy recouped by the
ultracapacitor in each driving cycle test. Anyhow, there is
no evidence on study of power and fuel economy
fulfillment.
Qian et al61 reported a simulation model for a FCHV.
They built the power control technique utilizing logic
threshold method by using hybrid power control unit.
The control system recuperates braking energy and
nourished to the battery. The top threshold value agreeable in NEDC driving cycle and at top and general threshold values were acceptable in highway cycle. Kim et al62
studied experimentally an FC‐battery hybrid system
equipped and tested with a generator alternative for
motor to recover braking energy. They conducted the
experiments using NEXA power module of 1.2‐kW FC
hybridized with 50 Ah Ni‐MH battery and reported a
regeneration efficiency improved using generator is
63.8% compared with the 24.2% efficiency of regenerative
braking using the motor.
Feroldi et al19 represented an approach for plan and
examination of FCHS. The entire study was performed
with detailed model of FCHS in Advanced Vehicle Simulator (ADVISOR) to determine the degree of hybridization according to driving conditions, investigation of
power flows, and the ideal hydrogen utilization. Hybridization allows the notable improvement in fuel economy
through recovered braking energy. They reported that
the recovered energy from braking was 6.8% for NEDC,
10.5% for UDDS, 10.2% for FTP, and 2.1% for HWFET
with respect to the percentage of hydrogen energy. Long
et al20 illustrated about power flow design of the hybrid
power supply system. They reported the energy allocation
between the battery and ultracapacitor. A practical DC‐
DC converter designed based on H‐infinity and PID controllers. They concluded that the moderate charging
power for H‐infinity was 10 kW and, for PID controller,
was 9.5 kW. Therefore, H‐infinity can achieve 5.3% more
braking energy than conventional PID controller. The
ultracapacitors have the ability of capture large currents
by its nature well suited for capturing of braking energy.
From Figure 8, during the regenerative mode, it is
observed that the energy is recovered by the ultracapacitor
and battery through bidirectional converters. During this
period, FC supplies the power for both energy storage
devices. When the ultracapacitor is full of charge, then
the FC provided energy to battery only.
Yanan et al63 reported braking energy recovery of an
electric vehicle designed in ADVISOR. The recovery efficiency was achieved around 60% by using rectifier filter,
changing frequency, rectifier output, and driving motor
11
generation and increases the driving mileage. Patil
et al64 described about multiple ultracapacitor banks that
will assist continuous storing of braking energy and
expend on to the load once fully charged. They controlled
by an NUC140 ARM CORTEX M0 PROCESSOR the
energy bank in each charging and discharging for efficient utilization of recovered braking energy.
The potential effects of regenerative braking system on
fuel economy of the hybrid vehicles can be exceptional.
The rate of the used energy during deceleration procedure
in the total expended energy for the three different driving
cycles (ECE in Europe, UDDS in USA, and 10–15 in
Japan) can accomplish 60.1%, 43.3%, and 52.5% individually.8 Chengqun et al65 presented a novel methodology
to increase regenerative braking energy efficiency for electric vehicle. The author proposed three types of braking
control strategies such as serial 1, serial 2, and parallel
control strategies for the road tests performed under city
conditions. Among the three control strategies, serial 2
control strategy gives better results.
6 | ENERGY MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM
The comparison of various energy management control
strategies for FC‐battery‐ultracapacitor hybrid systems is
illustrated in Table 3.48 Li et al58 applied an FLC to reduce
the fuel consumption of a hybrid powertrain with FC‐battery‐ultracapacitor combination developed in ADVISOR
software. The FLC for FC + B + UC has better execution
as far as mileage under every single driving cycle.
Castaings et al3 reported real‐time energy management
strategies to minimize the minimization of the battery current RMS esteem empowers to expand the battery lifetime.
They illustrated that the ‫‐ג‬control and filtering base control
strategies and concluded that the ‫‐ג‬control is better suited
for high ultracapacitor voltage ranges, whereas filtering
base control is favorable for low voltage ranges. Hongwen
et al42 proposed an energy regulation strategy for a hybrid
power system based on FLC, which composes of battery
and ultracapacitor used in electric vehicle was developed
and verified on HiL test bench. They concluded that the
FLC strategy can save 4.1% energy capacity of a hybrid system than the conventional rule‐based control strategy.
However, no evident on SOC variation of ESSs.
Liang et al60 proposed a power allocation technique
based on frequency‐varying filter method. They found in
their prototype electric vehicle tests, most of the transient
demand supplied by the ultracapacitor, and 30% of the
energy recouped by the ultracapacitor in each driving
cycle test. Schaltz et al66 proposed a power sharing
scheme for the main source and additional sources, to
12
KASIMALLA
ET AL.
Hybrid power source variation during regeneration mode from initial speed of 800 rpm to stop41 [Colour figure can be viewed
at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
FIGURE 8
reduce the power rating of the batteries. However, failed
to improve the power output efficiency and the control
strategy has the limitation to analyze the average positive
and negative needs.
The different control strategies used in HEVs is
shown in Figure 9,67 and the comparison of these strategies is included in Table 5. Odeim et al39 described the
genetic algorithm and Pareto front investigation to limit
the normal battery power and hydrogen utilization in a
multitarget work. By implementing these two analysis,
both hydrogen consumption and average battery power
were minimized. Erdinc et al21 proposed an EMS in light
of fuzzy logic and wavelet transform to manage power
sharing in a hybrid PEMFC‐battery‐ultracapacitor vehicular framework to increase fuel economy and lifetime of
FC system.
analyzed optimal
control strategy
with thermostatic
control strategy
Traction control
strategy using
simulation code
ECoS
Comparison fuzzy
logic in fuel
cell–battery and
fuel cell–battery–
ultracapacitor
Comparison of control
strategies like rule‐
based fuzzy logic
classical PI state
control machine,
Frequency
decoupling +
fuzzy logic, ECMS
Zhihong et al34
Vanessa et al36
Qi et al42
Souleman et al35
Operational control
Analyzed control
methodologies
ECMS, fuzzy
logic and predictive
control etc.
33
EMS/Control
Strategy
Garcia et al37
Hannan et al
Author
Matlab/Simulink
Simpower system.
Hardware: NIPXI8108
Matlab/Simulink:
ADVISOR (UDDS,
HWFET, US06,
ECE + EUDC
DRIVE CYCLES)
Matlab/Simulink:
(NEDC, UDDS,
HWFET, 1015
Drive cycles)
Matlab/Simulink:
(UDDS,US06
Drive cycles)
Matlab/Simulink:
Simpower system
Hardware (urban
railway)
Matlab/Simulink
(ECE‐47 test
Drive cycle)
Simulation/
Hardware
12.5 kW;
60 V
50 kW
48 V
48 kW
150 kW;
621 V
6 kW;
45 V
FC Stack
TABLE 3 Energy management system for fuel cell (FC)–battery–ultracapacitor48
40 ah;
12.8 V
25 ah
48 V
2 ah
1330 Wh
90 ah;
4.25 V
48 ah;
24 V
Battery
Pack
88 F;
48.6 V
2500 F
48 V;
45 ah
96 Wh
63 F;
125 V
40 F;
13.5 V
UC Pack
270 V
48 V
300 V
750 V
120
DC
Bus
Classical PI control gives less
H2 consumption (235 g)and
sate machine control gives
less battery stress (21.91)
FC + B + UC powertrain
achieved with 58.7 m in
5 s and reach 400 m in
16.9 s fuel consumption
0.87 kg (=3.3 gge) of H2
in urban driving condition
10–15 Japanese driving cycle
achieved less fuel
consumption with 37 g
Optimal control saves 46% of
Energy compared with
thermostatic control
ECMS gives lowest hydrogen
consumption of 3.82 kg
among all control strategies
Around 38% more acceleration
and 11.4% more effective in
gradeability condition
compared with BEV
Advantage
Energy storage stress analysis and
hydrogen consumption only
Limited to simulation
Simulation only, aimed at fuel
consumption and storage
utilization.
Simulation only, not focused
on gradeability performance
Generated power: 400 kW
but demand power: 500 kW
Limited to simulation only
and tested for short time
Remarks
KASIMALLA
ET AL.
13
H‐infinity and
PID controllers
Real‐time control
technique from
an ideal control
algorithm
DC bus voltage
regulation
Fuzzy logic control
and rule‐based
control
Flatness control
technique and
fuzzy logic control
Energetic macroscopic
representation (EMR)
Regenerative
braking control
Frequency varying
filter method
Bernard et al7
Phatiphat et al23
Hongwen He et al4
Majid Zandi et al29
Lucia Gauchia et al32
Junzhi Zhang et al38
Huang Xiao et al39
EMS/Control
Strategy
Bo Long et al20
Author
Hybrid Energy
Storage System
(HESS) electric
vehicle
prototype
HiL
HiL (NEDC)
dSPACE
HiL (UDDS)
HiL
HiL
Hybrid power
supply system
(HPSS), Electric
vehicle Rated
power:20 kW
Simulation/
Hardware
TABLE 4 Experimental evolution of fuel cell–battery–ultracapacitor
Motor Peak power:
2 kW × 2
80 kW
1.2 kW50 A
138‐318 V
42 Ah × 6
(Ni‐MH)
300 V
10 Ah (Ni‐MH)
Pb‐ acid: 24 V
30 Ah
—
300 W,
11.5A;
35 V
68 Ah; 24 V
Pb‐ acid: 18 Ah
Rated capacity:
245 Ah
Battery
Pack
500 W; 50 A
600 W
—
FC Stack
90 V 64 F module ×3
3000 F
300 V
291 F;
30 V
500 F
292 F; 30 V; 500 A
Peak current:
100 A
42 V
—
30% of the energy recouped by
the ultracapacitor in each
driving test
H2 consumption: 16% reduced
Fuel economy: 9% increased in
coordinated braking
H2 consumption: 11.5% improved
when Ni‐MH battery replaces
with Li‐ion battery
Higher recharge power was
enabled during braking.
The power distribution
depended on load power
SOC of UC and battery
FLC‐based control saved
4.1% capacity than
rule‐based control
Storage system absorbs excess
energy during regenerative
braking period.
Fuel consumption was reduced
by 4%
—
Advantage
H‐infinity can achieve 5.3%
more braking energy than
conventional PID controller
42
DC Bus
Rated voltage:350 V
Rated energy saving:
43 kJ
UC Pack
14
KASIMALLA
ET AL.
KASIMALLA
FIGURE 9
TABLE 5
ET AL.
15
Control strategies used in hybrid electric vehicles67
Comparison of energy management approaches for fuel cell hybrid vehicles
Energy Management
System
Advantages
Disadvantages
Reference
Fuzzy logic control
No dependency on overall mathematical
model, applied to more complex structures,
computational efficiency, robustness to
modeling uncertainties
Designer need skillful knowledge
about the problem
3,42,68-70
Thermostat (on/off)
control
Robustness, simple and easy to control.
Energy sources turn on and off depend
on the SOC of sources
It does not consider the powertrain
component efficiency directly
71,72
Equivalent consumption
minimization strategy
(ECMS)
Main purpose of ECMS is to minimize the fuel
consumption of system in real‐ time without
affecting the power load sharing and to
control the battery SOC
High computational load makes the
DP optimization prohibitive on
typical onboard microcontrollers
73-76
Neural networks
Provides sufficient and fast responses to
new information
Need some training procedure
77,78
Global optimization
approaches
It can give optimal solution
Not adopted to real‐time scenarios
and, low computational efficiency.
79
Local optimization
approaches
Applicable to real‐time applications
Does not evidence the optimum
solution, not computationally
efficient
Frequency decoupling
techniques
Suitable for real‐time environments, load
can be shared for individual hybrid
energy sources
Not incorporate the control of
multiobjectives
80
Linear controllers
(PI, etc)
Easy to implement in embedded systems
and realize with analog circuits
Not applicable for multiobjective
control of complex structures
76,81
1. Adaptive and robust
approaches
2. Pontryagin's principle
3. Particle swam
optimization
1. Suitable for uncertainty systems
2. Has not require any expertise
3. Applied to both scientific and
engineering use
1. Robust technique is static and
not applicable to measurement
and implementation variations.
2. Both techniques need an
elaborate mathematical
knowledge on system.
3. Trade‐off between fuel
consumption and fuel cell life.
4. Does not guarantee optimal
solution
70,82-84
85,86
16
Bernard et al87 proposed a real‐time control, charge‐
sustaining, strategy for FCHVs based on the Pontryagin
Minimum Principle. The control strategy is validated
experimentally using a HiL test bench. Paganelli et al88
exhibited a technique in view of a control system called
Equivalent Consumption Minimization Strategy. This
procedure shows to be robust under an extensive variety
of working conditions. Rodatz et al89 also executed a
real‐time control by utilizing the idea of comparable
hydrogen utilization, indicating practical results. In
the same way, fuel consumption minimization‐based
methodologies were also utilized by Garcia et al90 for
FC/battery/ultracapacitor combination for tramway in
simulation approach.
The advantages and disadvantages of various energy
management approaches for FCHVs is shown in Table 5.
Wang et al91 proposed a novel coestimator to evaluate the
model parameters and condition of‐charge all the while
to decrease the estimation exactness altogether. To diminish the meeting time, the recursive minimum square calculation and the disconnected recognizable proof strategy are
utilized to give starting esteems little deviation. Trials are
executed to investigate the heartiness, dependability, and
exactness of the proposed strategy.
Fletcher et al92 suggested a model to gauge the impact
of the EMS on the power module degradation. They recommended an ideal methodology for a low‐speed ground
vehicle utilizing stochastic dynamic programming. The
stochastic dynamic programming controller endeavors to
limit the aggregate running expense of the power device,
comprehensive of both fuel utilization and debasement,
each weighted by their individual expenses.
Ansarey et al93 Explored the model‐based ideal energy
administration of an FCHV outfitted with battery and
ultracapacitor by applying multidimensional dynamic
programming and achieved a most extreme decrease in
fuel utilization by including ultracapacitors. Fathabadi
et al52 proposed a novel FC/battery/ultracapacitor hybrid
power structure to be utilized as a part of the FCHEVs. A
model of FC/battery/UC built and checked tentatively
with 96.2% appraised control proficiency. They accomplished the greatest speed of 161 kmph and a acceleration
execution of 0 to 100 kmph in only 12.2 seconds.
Martinez et al94 exhibited the practical control structure
and energy administration systems in view of lively naturally visible portrayal to assess the execution of power
module testbed HEV. Reproduction comes about have
demonstrated that this methodology is well performing
and meets the necessities.
Song et al95 proposed a novel semidynamic HESS that
uses a converter with the most minimal rating among the
semidynamic HESS. The primary targets were to limit the
measurements of the battery‐SC framework to decrease
KASIMALLA
ET AL.
its cost and to limit a capacity loss of the batteries because
of its thermal runaway. Wei et al96 concentrated on the
coveted execution of the vehicle by lessening the original
battery pack by including ultracapacitors in the hybrid
system. The hybrid system was worked at a high voltage,
and it was associated with the inverter without DC/DC
converter to avoid the energy loss. Their outcomes recommended the batteries to give normal power while the
ultracapacitors help peak power requests.
Bassam et al76 proposed a proportional integral (PI)
strategy to improve the energy consumption, FC efficiency, and hydrogen consumption for a marine passenger vessel, which is modeled in MATLAB/Simulink
environment. The proposed PI strategy is compared with
the ECMS, original PI, and state‐based energy management strategies. The new proposed PI gives better results
compared with ECMS in case of energy consumption and
operational cost, but it has higher energy and operational
cost with state‐based energy and original PI strategies.
Bizon et al97 proposed four new control strategies for stationary and vehicle applications based on load following
and maximum efficiency point tracking in order to control fuel consumption rate and enhance the FC net power
availability. Results indicate that the 12% FC net power
increased by using maximum efficiency point tracking
control and load following control reduces battery size,
and it will operate in charge sustaining mode.
Allaoua et al98 presented a PEMFC and
ultracapacitor bank HEV. This study enables the prediction of hybrid power source dynamic behavior under
driving cycles. The hybrid powertrain simulated in
MATLAB/Simulink environment to know the feasibility
of energy management between two power sources.
Hames et al99 presented different control strategies to
increase vehicle energy efficiency using batteries and
ultracapacitors in order to reduce the slow dynamics of
FC. Peak power source, operating mode control, FLC,
and equivalent consumption minimization strategies
are used. Equivalent consumption minimization strategy
gives better results.
Karaki et al100 proposed an energy management using
forward dynamic programming to reduce hydrogen consumption and to increase battery life by controlling
charge sustained (CS) and charge deplete strategies of
vehicle. Payri et al101 proposed a new energy management to optimize power management for vehicle using
stochastic approach, which is used by upgrading ECMS
method to predict the future driving conditions using
existed vehicle driving data. Wilberforce et al102 explored
the current advances in FC electric hybrid vehicles. The
author described about latest designs of hybrid vehicles
in the market with technical specifications as well as
challenges faced by FCs.
KASIMALLA
ET AL.
7 | FCHEV CH ALLE N G E S
Fuel cell hybrid electric vehicle faces various challenges
such as economical, technical, and others that need to
be solved to make FCHEVs commercial and successful
contender with existed vehicles for consumers. PEMFCs
are well suited for vehicular applications. To minimize
the basic component system packaging needs, and the
specific power targets of PEMFC have been achieved,
but some additional developments are essential. The
predictable specific power for vehicle application is
8 kW/kg; however, the attainment until year 2016 has
reached 1.6 kW/kg only. The platinum is used as
catalyst in PEMFC, which is costly and noble material.
Fuel cell is expensive because of the high cost of catalyst
material.
Presently dealloyed PtNi/C catalysts increase power
density at lower system cost. Performance and longevity
are other aspects needed to be developed. Hence, FC
stack size and weight need to be reduced for commercialization of this technology. The future challenges for FC
system are the hydrogen infrastructure, robustness,
reliability, and performance.
Energy storage system occupied a major role of the
power source of FCHEV. The performance of the ESS is
essential in FCHEV, which depends on the hybrid system
design and energy storage used. The demand for ESS of
FCHEV is an integration of both high energy and high
power density devices to manage the cold start issues
and the transient load demands. Thus, the designing a
perfect ESS is a major problem for FCHEV automakers.
At present, Li‐ion battery packs and ultracapacitors banks
are implemented individually or coupled for FCHEV ESS,
and the recycling technology of these devices needs to be
developed. Present research labs developed graphene‐
based ultracapacitors with high energy densities such as
50 Wh/kg. Flywheel is another probable storage device
that needs to be explored in future. Higher capital expenditure, higher consumable cost, big size, weight, performance, and robustness are the main technical
challenges for FCHEV ESS. However, lifetime testing of
ESS in field and commercial production facility are still
need to develop in future.
High temperature resistant and low priced permanent
magnet motors can increase the robustness, speed range,
and performance of the hybrid powertrain. Thus, the
future focuses on developing compact motors with wide
range, peak torque, and increased lifetime. Other challenges such as hydrogen production and infrastructure,
on board hydrogen production, and storage are also still
needed to be addressed. Other hydrogen generation
technologies could also change the hydrogen cost
assumptions such as biologically produced hydrogen,
17
direct solar to hydrogen, hydrogen production from base
load nuclear, or smoothing of renewables.
8 | F UT U R E SCO P E
Fossil fuel reserve is diminishing gradually day by day.
Fuel cell hybrid electric vehicles can play a noteworthy
role in the future hybrid vehicle market to competent the
conventional ICE vehicles. Researchers have to focus cost
estimation analysis to predict the cost of FCHEV in near
future. Potential energy management techniques, methodologies can enhance the FCHEV performance. Connected
Autonomous Shared Electric is an emerging mobility of
the future technology that needs to adopt for FCHEVs.
9 | C ON C L U S I ON S
From the literature, it was observed that the energy distribution between FC, battery, and ultracapacitor via bidirectional DC‐DC converter, which is used to control the
voltage of DC bus and optimize the power distribution
among the base power and auxiliary power sources. Fuel
cell, battery, and ultracapacitor were considered in the
present study to meet the transient power request of a
hybrid vehicle and to increase the acceleration and
gradeability performance. By pairing of ultracapacitors
into the ESS allows the minimizing of the size of the battery pack that can reduce the cost and weight and
increases battery lifetime. By pairing the high power density of ultracapacitors with high energy density of batteries leads to reduce in FC stack size and total cost of
hybrid powertrain. The dual energy storage can assist
the FC for different driving conditions. The power sharing between the three power sources should be properly
analyzed and unified in order to arrange a stable hybrid
powertrain. Regenerative braking system is an essential
method to recover the braking energy during urban and
downhill driving conditions in order to reduce hydrogen
consumption and to enhance the durability of a FC. It
has been discussed that the hybridization improves the
fuel economy and vehicle performance.
Various studies have been discussed on the
experimental EMS for FCHEV. However, most of the
approaches were limited to flat roads of urban and highway driving conditions. In particular, some studies
conducted only via simulation and require sufficient
research involving real‐time application for gradeability
road conditions and acceleration performance of the FC
hybrid powertrain. Especially, maintaining the FC at constant power output near its peak efficiency to reduce the
hydrogen consumption. Further, focusing requires on
constant FC strategy that allows on/off operation and
18
charge depleting (CD) strategies to ensure optimum
power management.
The principle point of the energy management is the
dispersion of the power stream in the powertrain framework. Energy execution is a vital factor in driving efficiency. Equivalent fuel consumption that need not
require earlier proficiency of the driving conditions for
hybrid structures in real‐time approach. This approach
depends on limiting the prompt aggregate utilization of
the principle power source and the equivalent fuel consumption of the restorable battery framework.
9.1 | Observations from literature review
• New hydrogen production technologies and low cost
catalyst materials can lead to lower hybrid powertrain
cost. Moreover, advanced power converter configurations need to be implemented to enhance the FC
power as well as regenerative power efficiency.
• Hybridization improves the notable advancement in
hydrogen economy.
• Integrating the batteries with ultracapacitor can effectively store braking energy result in enhanced vehicle
performance.
• Life span of main energy system (battery) can be
increased by coupling of ultracapacitor bank to the
hybrid system.
• Ultracapacitors have the ability to capture large currents by its nature and are well suited for capturing
of braking energy. Thus reducing stress on battery
pack by at least a factor of two.
• Among the all energy management approaches,
ECMS has given better results to reduce fuel
consumption
• By pairing the high power density of ultracapacitors to
hybrid powertrain system along with high energy density of batteries leads to reduce in FC stack size and
total cost of hybrid powertrain.
• By downsizing the FC stack power and incorporating
sufficient energy storage power to compensate the
FC power can lead to reduce the overall powertrain
cost.
• Cost prediction analysis with reducing technology
prices and introduction of newer technologies need
to be performed more frequently for accurate cost
estimations.
A C K N O WL E D G E M E N T
This work was supported by the Centre of Excellence
(CoE) under TEQIP‐II, National Institute of Technology
Warangal.
KASIMALLA
ET AL.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
ORCID
Venkata KoteswaraRao Kasimalla
0002-0929-6835
http://orcid.org/0000-
RE FER EN CES
1. Paladini V, Donateo T, de Risi A, Laforgia D. Control strategy
optimization of a fuel‐cell electric vehicle. J Fuel Cell Sci
Technol. 2008;5:12‐19.
2. Livint G, Horga V, Ratoi M, Albu M. Control of Hybrid Electrical Vehicles. Electric Vehicles Modeling and Simulation.
Croatia: In Tech; 2011.
3. Xie C, Xu X, Bujlo P, Shen D, Zhao H, Quan S. Fuel cell and
lithium iron phosphate battery hybrid powertrain with an
ultracapacitor bank using direct parallel structure. J Power
Sources. 2015;279:487‐494.
4. Bauman J, Kazerani M. A comparative study of fuel‐cell–
battery, fuel‐cell–ultracapacitor, and fuel‐cell–battery–
ultracapacitor vehicles. IEEE Trans Vehicul Technol. march
2008;57(2).
5. Paladini V, Donateo T, Risi AD, Laforgia D. Super‐capacitors
fuel‐cell hybrid electric vehicle optimization and control
strategy development. Energ Conver Manage. 2007;48(11):
3001‐3008.
6. Zhao H, Burke A. Effects of different powertrain configurations
and control strategies on fuel economy of fuel cell vehicles. In:
25th World Batter Hybrid Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium
Exhibit; 2010:1‐9.
7. Gao D, Jin Z, Lu Q. Energy management strategy based on
fuzzy logic for a fuel cell hybrid bus. J Power Sources.
2008;185:311‐317.
8. Sovran G, Blaser D. Quantifying the potential impacts of regenerative braking on a vehicle's tractive‐fuel consumption for the
U.S., European, and Japanese driving schedules. SAE Technical Paper 2006‐01‐0664; 2006.
9. Thounthong P, Rael S, Davat B. Control strategy of fuel cell/
supercapacitors hybrid power sources for electric vehicle. J
Power Sources. 2006;158:806‐814.
10. Thounthong P, Raël S, Davat B. Energy management of fuel
cell/battery/supercapacitor hybrid power source for vehicle
applications. J Power Sources. 2009;193(1):376‐385.
11. Na W, Park T, Kim T, Kwak S. Light fuel‐cell hybrid electric
vehicles based on predictive controllers. IEEE Trans Vehicul
Technol. 2011;60:89‐97.
12. Erdinc O, Vural B, Uzunoglu M. A wavelet‐fuzzy logic
based energy management strategy for a fuel cell/battery/
ultra‐capacitor hybrid vehicular power system. J Power Sources.
2009;194:369‐380.
13. Ferreira AA, Pomilio JA, Spiazzi G, Silva L. Energy management fuzzy logic supervisory for electric vehicle power
supplies system. IEEE Trans Power Electron. 2008;23:107‐115.
KASIMALLA
ET AL.
19
14. JennHwa Wong, N.R.N. Idris, Makbul Anwari, Taufik Taufik.
A parallel energy‐sharing control for fuel cell‐battery‐
ultracapacitor hybrid vehicle. In: Energy Conversion Congress
and Exposition (ECCE); 2011 IEEE.
31. Castaings A, Lhomme W, Trigui R, Bouscayrol A. Comparison
of energy management strategies of a battery/supercapacitors
system for electric vehicle under real‐time constraints. Appl
Energy. 2016;163:190‐200.
15. E. Schaltz, A. Khaligh, and P. O. Rasmussen. Investigation of
battery/ultracapacitor energy storage rating for a fuel cell
hybrid electric vehicle. In: IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion
Conference (VPPC);September 3‐5, 2008, Harbin, China.
32. Hsieh C‐Y, Nguyen X‐V, Weng F‐B, Kuo T‐W, Huang Z‐M,
Su A. Design and performance evaluation of a PEM fuel cell–
lithium battery–supercapacitor hybrid power source for electric
forklifts. Int J Electrochem Sci. 2016;11:10449‐10461.
16. Tazelaar E, Veenhuizen B, Jagerman J, Faassen T. Energy
management strategies for fuel cell hybrid vehicles; an overview. In: Proceedings of electric vehicle symposium and
exhibition (EVS27), 2013 World Barcelona, Spain: IEEE;
2013. p. 1–12.
33. Bubna P, Advani SG, Prasad AK. Integration of batteries with
ultracapacitors for a fuel cell hybrid transit bus. J Power
Sources. 2012;199:360‐366.
17. Azib T, Bethoux O, Remy G, Marchand C, Berthelot E. An
innovative control strategy of a single converter for hybrid fuel
cell/supercapacitor power source. Ind Electron, IEEE Trans.
2010;57:4024‐4031.
18. Mallouh MA, Surgenor B, Dash P, McInnes L. Performance
evaluation and tuning of a fuzzy control strategy for a fuel cell
hybrid electric auto rickshaw. In: Proceedings of American
Control Conference; 2012 IEEE Fairmont, Canada. p. 1321–6.
19. Wang L, Wang Z, Li H. Optimized energy storage system
design for a fuel cell vehicle using a novel phase shift and duty
cycle control. In: Proceedings of IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition, 2009 ECCE; 2009. p. 1432–8.
20. Kisacikoglu M, Uzunoglu M, Alam M. Load sharing using
fuzzy logic control in a fuel cell/ultracapacitor hybrid vehicle.
Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2009;34:1497‐1507.
21. Erdinc O, Vural B, Uzunoglu M. A wavelet‐fuzzy logic based
energy management strategy for a fuel cell/battery/ultra‐capacitor hybrid vehicular power system. J Power Sources.
2009;194:369‐380.
22. Das HS, Tan CW, Yatim AHM. Fuel cell hybrid electric vehicles: A review on power conditioning units and topologies.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2017;76:268‐291.
23. Eberle U, Rittmar von Helmolt. Fuel cell electric vehicles, battery electric vehicles, and their impact on energy storage
technologies, ISBN 978‐0‐444‐53565‐8. An Overview.
24. https://steps.ucdavis.edu/wp‐content/uploads/2017/12/BURKE‐
STEPSDec2017supercapbat.pdf, 2018.
25. https://greengarageblog.org/11‐big‐advantages‐and‐disadvantages‐of‐hydrogen‐fuel‐cells, 2018.
26. http://berc.berkeley.edu/storage‐wars‐batteries‐vs‐supercapacitors,
2018.
27. http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/whats_the_role_of_
the_supercapacitor, 2018
28. http://www.radio‐electronics.com/info/power‐management/battery‐technology/lithium‐ion‐battery‐advantages‐disadvantages.
php, 2018
29. J. Bauman and M. Kazerani,; An improved powertrain topology for fuel cell‐battery‐ultracapacitor vehicles. In: IEEE 2008.
30. Hengbing Zhao and Andrew Burke; Effects of different
powertrain configurations and control strategies on fuel economy of fuel cell vehicles. In: EVS‐25 Shenzhen, China, Nov.
5‐9, 2010.
34. Kim T. Regenerative braking control of a light fuel cell hybrid
electric vehicle. Electric Power Compon Syst. 2011;39:446‐460.
35. Jian Cao and Ali Emadi. A new battery/ultra‐capacitor hybrid
energy storage system for electric, hybrid and plug‐in hybrid
electric vehicles. In: 2009 IEEE.
36. Feroldi D, Serra M, Riera J. Design and analysis of fuel‐cell
hybrid systems oriented to automotive applications. In: IEEE
Transactions on Vehicular Technology; 2009.
37. Long B, Lim ST, Bai ZF, Ryu JH, Chong KT. Energy management and control of electric vehicles, using hybrid power
source in regenerative braking operation. Energies.
2014;7:4300‐4315.
38. Bernard J, Delprat S, Guerra TM, Buchi FN. Fuel efficient
power management strategy for fuel cell hybrid powertrains.
Control Eng Practice. 2010;18:408‐417.
39. Odeim F, Roes J, Heinzel A. Power management optimization
of an experimental fuel cell/battery/supercapacitor hybrid system. Energies. 2015;8:6302‐6327.
40. Zahra Amjadi, Student Member, IEEE, and Sheldon S.
Williamson, Member, IEEE. Prototype design and controller
implementation for a battery‐ultracapacitor hybrid electric
vehicle energy storage system. In: IEEE Trans Smart Grid, 3,
1, 2012.
41. Thounthonga P, Raël S, Davat B. Energy management of fuel
cell/battery/supercapacitor hybrid power source for vehicle
applications. J Power Sources. 2009;193:376‐385.
42. He H, Xiong R, Zhao K, Liu Z. Energy management strategy
research on a hybrid power system by hardware‐in‐loop experiments. Appl Energy. 2013;112:1311‐1317.
43. Majid Zandi, Alireza Payman, Jean‐Philippe Martin, Serge
Pierfederici, Bernard Davat, Member, IEEE, and Farid
Meibody‐Tabar. Energy management of a fuel cell/
supercapacitor/battery power source for electric vehicular
applications. In: IEEE Trans Vehicul Technol, 60, 2, 2011.
44. R. M. Schupbach, J. C. Balda, M. Zolot, and B. Kramer, “Design
methodology of a combined battery‐ultracapacitor energy storage unit for vehicle power management,” in Proc. Power
Electronic Specialist Conference, PESC, June 2003.
45. Hannan MA, Azidin FA, Mohamed A. Hybrid electric vehicles
and their challenges: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev.
2014;29:135‐150.
46. Lucia Gauchia, Alain Bouscayrol, Javier Sanz, Rochdi Trigui,
Philippe Barrade. Fuel cell, battery and supercapacitor hybrid
system for electric vehicle: modeling and control via energetic
20
KASIMALLA
macroscopic representation. In: Vehicle Power and Propulsion
Conference; Sep 2011.
47. Hannan MA, Azidin FA, Mohamed A. Multi‐sources model
and control algorithm of an energy management system for
light electric vehicles. Energ Conver Manage. 2012;62:123‐130.
48. Sulaiman N, Hannan MA, Mohamad A, Majlan EH, wan Daud
WR. A review on energy management system for fuel cell
hybrid electric vehicle: issues and challenges. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev. 2015;52:802‐814.
49. Li Q, Yang H, Han Y, Li M, Chen W. A state machine strategy
based on droop control for an energy management system of
PEMFC‐battery‐supercapacitor hybrid tramway. Int J Hydrogen
Energy. 2016;41:16148‐16159.
50. Marzougui H, Amari M, Kadri A, Bacha F. Science Direct
Energy management of fuel cell / battery / ultracapacitor in
electrical hybrid vehicle. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2016;2:1‐13.
51. Zhou D, Al‐Durra A, Gao F, Ravey A, Matraji I, Godoy Simoes
M. Online energy management strategy of fuel cell hybrid electric vehicles based on data fusion approach. J Power Sources.
2017;366:278‐291.
52. Fathabadi H. Novel fuel cell/battery/supercapacitor hybrid
power source for fuel cell hybrid electric vehicles. Energy.
2017;143:467‐477.
53. Shin D, Lee K, Chang N. Fuel economy analysis of fuel cell and
supercapacitor hybrid systems. Int J Hydrogen Energy.
2016;41:1381‐1390.
ET AL.
62. Kim SH, Jung Kwon O, Hyon D, et al. Regenerative braking for
fuel cell hybrid system with additional generator. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2013.
63. Yanan G. Research on electric vehicle regenerative braking system and energy recovery. Int J Hybrid Info Technol. 2016;9(1).
64. Patil SM, Prabaharan SRS. Embedded control scheme of stand‐
alone regenerative braking system using supercapacitors. Ind J
Sci Technol. 2015;8(19).
65. Qiu C, Wang G. New evaluation methodology of regenerative
braking contribution to energy efficiency improvement of electric vehicles. Energ Conver Manage. 2016;119:389‐398.
66. Schaltz E, Khaligh A, Rasmussen PO. Influence of battery/
ultracapacitor energy‐storage sizing on battery lifetime in a fuel
cell hybrid electric vehicle. IEEE Trans Vehicul Technol.
2009;58:3882‐3891.
67. Tie SF, Tan CW. A review of energy sources and energy management system in electric vehicles. Renew Sustain Energy Rev.
2013;20:82‐102.
68. Song Z, Hofmann H, Li J, Hou J, Han X, Ouyang M. Energy
management strategies comparison for electric vehicles with
hybrid energy storage system. Appl Energy. 2014;134:321‐331.
69. Ahmadi S, Bathaee SMT, Hosseinpour AH. Improving fuel
economy and performance of a fuel‐cell hybrid electric vehicle
(fuel‐cell, battery, and ultra‐capacitor) using optimized energy
management strategy. Energ Conver Manage. 2018;160:74‐84.
54. Yu Z, Zinger D, Bose A. An innovative optimal power allocation strategy for fuel cell, battery and supercapacitor hybrid
electric vehicle. J Power Sources. 2011;196:2351‐2359.
70. Herrera V, Milo A, Gaztañaga H, Etxeberria‐Otadui I,
Villarreal I, Camblong H. Adaptive energy management strategy and optimal sizing applied on a battery‐supercapacitor
based tramway. Appl Energy. 2016;169:831‐845.
55. Souleman MN, Dessaint L‐A, Al‐Haddad K. A comparative
study of energy management schemes for a fuel–cell hybrid
emergency power system of more‐electric aircraft. IEEE Trans
Indus Electron. 2014;61(3):1320‐1334.
71. Yu Z, Zinger D, Bose A. An innovative optimal power allocation strategy for fuel cell, battery and supercapacitor hybrid
electric vehicle. J Power Sources. 2011;196:2351‐2359.
56. Garcia P, Torreglosa JP, Fernandez LM, Jurado F. Control
strategies for high power electric vehicles powered by hydrogen
fuel cell, battery and capacitor. Expert Syst Appl. 2013;
40:4791‐4804.
57. Bauman J, Kazerani M. A comparative study of fuel cell–battery, fuel cell–ultracapacitor, and 579 fuel cell–battery–
ultracapacitor vehicles. IEEE Trans Vehicul Technol. Mar.
2008;57(2):760‐769.
58. Li Q, Chen W, Li Y, Liu S, Huang J. Energy management strategy for fuel cell/battery/ultracapacitor hybrid vehicle based on
fuzzy logic. Electric Power Energy Syst. 2012;43:514‐525.
59. Zhang J, Lv C, Qiu M, Li Y, Sun D. Braking energy regeneration control of a fuel cell hybrid electric bus. Energ Conver
Manage. 2013;76:1117‐1124.
60. Huang Xiaoliang, Toshiyuki Hiramatsu, Hori Yoichi. Energy
management strategy based on frequency‐varying filter for
the battery supercapacitor hybrid system of electric vehicles.
EVS27 Barcelona, Spain, November 17‐20, 2013.
61. Ning Qian, Xuan Dong‐ji, Yan Hua, Zao Cheng‐pin1 and Kim
Young‐bae. Modeling and control strategy development for fuel
cell hybrid vehicle. In: Proceedings of the 2009 International
Workshop on Information Security and Application.
72. B.C. Chen, Y.Y. Wu, H.C. Tsai, Design and analysis of power
management strategy for range extended electric vehicle using
dynamic programming, Appl Energy 113 (2014) 1764–1774.
73. Hong Z, Li Q, Han Y, Shang W, Zhu Y, Chen W. An energy
management strategy based on dynamic power factor for fuel
cell/battery hybrid locomotive. Int J Hydrogen Energy.
2018;43:3261‐3272.
74. Zhang W, Li J, Xu L, Ouyang M. Optimization for a fuel cell/
battery/capacity tram with equivalent consumption minimization strategy. Energ Conver Manage. 2017;134:59‐69.
75. Garcia P, Torreglosa JP, Fernandez LM, Jurado F. Control
strategies for high‐power electric vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cell, battery and supercapacitor. Expert Syst Appl.
2013;40:4791‐4804.
76. Bassam AM, Phillips AB, Turnock SR, Wilson PA. An improved
energy management strategy for a hybrid fuel cell/battery passenger vessel. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2016;41:22453‐22464.
77. Sun F, Xiong R, He H. A systematic state‐of‐charge estimation
framework for multi‐cell battery pack in electric vehicles using
bias correction technique. Appl Energy. 2016;162:1399‐1409.
78. Ates Y, Erdinc O, Uzunoglu M, Vural B. Energy management
of an FC/UC hybrid vehicular power system using a combined
KASIMALLA
ET AL.
21
neural network‐wavelet transform based strategy. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2010;35:774‐783.
fuel cell lifetime in a hybrid vehicle. Int J Hydrogen Energy.
2016;41:21503‐21515.
79. Ettihir K, Boulon L, Agbossou K. Optimization‐based energy
management strategy for a fuel cell/battery hybrid power system. Appl Energy. 2016;163:142‐153.
93. Ansarey M, Shariat Panahi M, Ziarati H, Mahjoob M. Optimal
energy management in a dual‐storage fuel‐cell hybrid vehicle
using multi‐dimensional dynamic programming. J Power
Sources. 2014;250:359‐371.
80. Liu G, Zhanga J, Sun Y. High frequency decoupling strategy for
the PEM fuel cell hybrid system. Int J Hydrogen Energy.
2008;33(21):6253‐6261.
81. Odeim F, Roes J, Wülbeck L, Heinzel A. Power management
optimization of fuel cell/battery hybrid vehicles with experimental validation. J Power Sources. 2014;252:333‐343.
94. Javier Solano Martinez, Daniel Hissel, Senior Member, IEEE,
Marie‐Cecile Pera, and Michel Amiet. Practical control structure and energy management of a testbed hybrid electric
vehicle. IEEE Trans Vehicul Technol 2011; 60, 9, pp. 760–769.
82. Ettihir K, Higuita Cano M, Boulon L, Agbossou K. Design of an
adaptive EMS for fuel cell vehicles. Int J Hydrogen Energy.
2017;42:1481‐1489.
95. Song Z, Li J, Han X, Xu L, Lu L, Ouyang M. Heath Hofmann
multi‐objective optimization of a semi‐active battery/
supercapacitor energy storage system for electric vehicles. Appl
Energy. 2014;135:212‐224.
83. Lin W, Zheng C. Energy management of a fuel cell /
ultracapacitor hybrid power system using an adaptive optimal‐control method. J Power Sources. 2011;196:3280‐3289.
96. M. Wei, M. Marei, M. Salama, S. Lambert, Designing energy
storage systems for hybrid electric vehicles, 2nd International
Conference, 2005; Kaninaskis, Alberta.
84. Jung H, Wang H, Hu T. Control design for robust tracking and
smooth transition in power systems with battery/supercapacitor
hybrid energy storage devices. J Power Sources.
2014;267:566‐575.
97. Bizon N, Radut M, Oproescu M. Energy control strategies for
the fuel cell hybrid power source under unknown load profile.
Energy. 2015;86:31‐41.
85. C.H. Zheng, G.Q. Xu, Y.I. Park, W.S. Lim, S.W. Cha,
Prolonging fuel cell stack lifetime based on Pontryagin's Minimum Principle in fuel cell hybrid vehicles and its economic
influence evaluation, J Power Sources 248 (2014) 533–544.
86. Hegazy O, Van Mierlo J, Lataire P. Design optimization and
optimal power control of fuel cell hybrid electric vehicles based
on swarm intelligence. Int Rev Electr Eng. 2011;6:1727‐1738.
87. Bernard J, Delprat S, Guerra TM, Buchi FN. Fuel efficient
power management strategy for fuel cell hybrid power‐trains.
Control Eng Practice. 2010;18:408‐417.
88. G. Paganelli, Y. Guezennec, G. Rizzoni, Optimizing control
strategy for hybrid fuel cell vehicle (2002) .p. 71–79.
89. Rodatz P, Garcia O, Guzzella L, et al. Fuel Cell Power for Transportation; 2003:77‐84.
90. Garcia P, Torreglosa JP, Fernández LM, Jurado F. Viability
study of a FC‐battery‐SC tramway controlled by equivalent
consumption minimization strategy. Int J Hydrogen Energy.
2012;37(11):9368‐9382.
91. Wang Y, Liu C, Pan R, Chen Z. Modeling and state‐of‐charge
prediction of lithium‐ion battery and ultracapacitor hybrids
with a co‐estimator. Energy. 2017;121:739‐750.
92. Fletcher T, Thring R, Watkinson M. An Energy Management
Strategy to concurrently optimise fuel consumption & PEM
98. Allaoua B, Asnoune K, Mebarki B. Energy management of
PEM fuel cell/ supercapacitor hybrid power sources for an electric vehicle. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2017;42:1‐9.
99. Hames Y, Kaya K, Baltacioglu E, Turksoy A. Analysis of the
control strategies for fuel saving in the hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2018;1‐12.
100. Karaki SH, Jabr R, Chedid R, Panik F. Optimal energy management of hybrid fuel cell electric vehicles 2015. SAE
Technical Paper: 2015‐01‐1359.
101. Payri F, Guardiola C, Pla B, Blanco‐Rodriguez D. A stochastic
method for the energy management in hybrid electric vehicles.
Control Eng Pract. 2014;29:257‐265.
102. Wilberforce T, El‐Hassan Z, Khatib FN, et al. Developments of
electric cars and fuel cell hydrogen electric cars. Int J Hydrogen
Energy. 2017;42:25695‐25734.
How to cite this article: Kasimalla VKR, G NS,
Velisala V. A review on energy allocation of fuel
cell/battery/ultracapacitor for hybrid electric
vehicles. Int J Energy Res. 2018;1–21. https://doi.
org/10.1002/er.4166