© 2018 JETIR September 2018, Volume 5, Issue 9 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
JETIR1809709 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 418
Impact of Hybridization on Hydrogen Consumption
of Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle
1Aditi Swarnkar, 2Jai Kumar Maherchandani 1Research Scholar, 2Assistant Professor
1Department of Electrical Engineering, 1College of Technology and Engineering, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Engineering, Udaipur, India
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract : This paper presents the impact of hybridization on the hydrogen consumption of fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV) by
comparing the fuel cell/battery (FC/BATT) and fuel cell/battery/supercapacitor (FC/BATT/SC) configurations in terms of
hydrogen consumption and overall fuel consumption. The frequency splitting operational state control strategy (FSOSCS) is used
for the energy management of both the configurations. Simulation is carried out in MATLAB/Simulink environment using
standard ECE-15 driving cycle. The results indicate that there is significant reduction in hydrogen consumption for FC/BATT/SC
in comparison to the FC/BATT configuration and also the overall fuel consumption is reduced for FC/BATT/SC configuration.
IndexTerms – Driving cycle, fuel cell electric vehicle, hydrogen consumption. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I. INTRODUCTION
In the modern world, the transportation sector accounts for the maximum energy consumption from the fossil fuel among all
other different energy sources. This is due to the fact that continues growing population has led to the increase in the number of
conventional internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles resulting in the drastic change in the climatic conditions such as increase
in the CO2 emissions thereby resulting in the global warming. In this favor the worldwide Kyoto protocol (1997) and Paris
agreement (2015) was executed to reduce the level of greenhouse gas emissions [1, 2]. Thus both government and automakers are
concerned to improve the transportation scenario [3]. Moreover the continuous depletion of fossil fuels and resulting environment
pollution has called an urgent need to explore the alternative source of energy. The fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV) is one of the
most favorable and emerging vehicular technology which is comparable to the ICE in terms of performance, better efficiency and
zero greenhouse gas emission [4, 5, 6].
The fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) are gaining a tremendous attention in the vehicular transportation. In this regard, the
automakers like Honda have made a wide-scale commercialization of fuel cell electric vehicle a reality in countries like California
[7, 8]. The proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) is the most desirable type of fuel cell for electric vehicle applications
[9].The efficiency of fuel cell electric vehicle is high because of direct conversion of the chemical energy of hydrogen and oxygen
into the electrical energy without any combustion. The by-products produced due to this electrochemical reaction are clean i.e.
water and heat with no greenhouse gas emission [3]. Moreover the energy density of fuel cell is also high thus provides continues
supply of power for the longer duration.
However in order to become comparable with ICE, the efficiency and the zero greenhouse emission are not only the
comparison criteria. The power density and the dynamic response also plays major role in deciding an alternative source of
energy. Because of poor power density of fuel cell, FCEV lacks in these features. The slow electrochemical reaction occurring in
the fuel cell leading to the fuel cell starvation as a result of which fuel cell cannot withstand the sudden transients present in the
load. These transients greatly affect the catalyst present in the fuel cell thereby causing harm to health and lifetime of the fuel cell
[10, 11]. Moreover the fuel cell also cannot absorb the braking energy. Hybridization of fuel cell with battery or/and
supercapacitor as the secondary energy storage sources (ESSs) helps to effectively satisfy the sudden transient load demand with
improved dynamic response and also absorbs the braking energy. In such hybrid conditions fuel cell supplies steady state power
with reduced stress; battery having high energy density and supercapacitor having high power density operates when the sudden
load transients of the longer and shorter duration of time occurs respectively [12, 13]. The amount of power sharing between fuel
cell, battery and supercapacitor is controlled by the energy management strategy (EMS) [6, 11, 14-19].
The various hybrid combinations such as fuel cell/battery (FC/BATT), fuel cell/supercapacitor (FC/SC), and fuel
cell/battery/supercapacitor (FC/BATT/SC) have been studied by the various authors to define the behavior of the hybrid energy
sources (HESs) [5, 6, 20]. From these studies it is known that the key benefits of hybridization are reduced stress on the fuel cell,
increased lifetime of the fuel cell and battery, energy recovery through regenerative braking and hydrogen consumption reduction.
The reduction in the hydrogen consumption is vital for the widespread commercialization of FCEV. This is due to the fact that
though the hydrogen is abundant in nature, but not present in the usable form for the vehicular application. Moreover, the hydrogen
required for propulsion has many limitations such as cost of manufacturing, difficulty in generation and distribution of hydrogen as
a fuel. In addition to this the problem of on-board hydrogen storage is more complex [20, 21]. Hence the hybridization and the
selection of the best configuration play an important role in reducing the hydrogen consumption [5, 6, 11, 18, 22-25].
This paper focusses on the comparison between FC/BATT and FC/BATT/SC configuration in terms of the hydrogen
consumption and the overall fuel consumption to study the impact of hybridization on hydrogen consumption of FCEV. The
frequency splitting operational state control strategy (FSOSCS) is used for the energy management of both configurations. The
© 2018 JETIR September 2018, Volume 5, Issue 9 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
JETIR1809709 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 419
simulation is carried out in Matlab/Simulink environment for Standard ECE-15 driving cycle. The paper is organized as follows:
section 2 presents the system description and modeling of the various components of hybrid system; section 3 explains the energy
management and control strategy; section 4 describes the simulation result and finally the section 5 summarizes the conclusion of
the presented work.
II. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND MODELING
A. Description of Fuel cell/Battery and Fuel cell /Battery/Supercapacitor Configuration
The Fig. 1 shows the fuel cell/battery (FC/BATT) configuration in which the fuel cell is connected to the boost converter to
boost up the fuel cell voltage equal to the dc bus voltage. The battery is connected to the buck-boost converter to perform both
charging and discharging operation.
Fig. 1 Block diagram of FC/BATT configuration
In the FC/BATT/SC configuration, the fuel cell is connected to the boost converter, battery is connected to the buck-boost
converter and the supercapacitor is connected directly to the dc bus as shown in Fig. 2. It is noted that battery cannot be connected
directly to the dc bus so as to prevent the high current produced during charge and discharge cycle which greatly influence the
capacity of the battery. The supercapacitor is connected directly as it handles the transient load and allows the fast charging and
discharging operation, hence reducing the stress on the battery. Moreover, the supercapacitor is used frequently, thus the losses
related to the buck boost dc-dc converter is less [5, 22]. The supercapacitor also handles the sudden peak load demand which both
the fuel cell and battery cannot provide. In addition to this during braking supercapacitor absorbs the high charging current
quickly which otherwise the battery has to handle. Hence the fuel cell power is controlled by the boost converter and the battery
power is controlled by the buck-boost converter. The difference between the load power and sum of the power of the fuel cell and
battery is the amount of power delivered by the supercapacitor. Hence the supercapacitor power is controlled indirectly through
the battery buck-boost converter.
Fig. 2 Block diagram of FC/BATT/SC configuration.
B. Modeling of Fuel Cell
The fuel cell is modeled using MATLAB/Simulink. The following are the modeling equations [26]:
OC Nernst
E N E (1)
whereOC
E is the open circuit voltage of fuel cell, N is the number of cells in the stack, Nernst
E is the internal voltage of fuel
cell.
2 2
2
0.5
0ln
H O
Nernst
H O
P PRTE E
nF P
(2)
where0
E is the reference potential, 2
HP ,
2O
P and 2
H OP are the partial pressures of hydrogen, oxygen and steam respectively.
R denotes the gas constant, T is operating temperature (kelvin) and n is number of participating electrons, F is faraday constant.
The individual cell voltage cellV is calculated as shown below:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )cell OC cell act cell ohm cell conc cellV E V V V (3)
where ( )act cell
V is activation voltage drop,( )ohm cell
V is ohmic voltage drop, ( )conc cell
V is concentration voltage drop.
© 2018 JETIR September 2018, Volume 5, Issue 9 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
JETIR1809709 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 420
Hence overall output voltage of Fuel cell ( )FC
V is:
FC cell
V N V (4)
C. Modeling of Battery
To study the dynamic characteristics of Li-ion battery, a generic model of battery available in MATLAB/Simulink is used [27]. The discharging equation (i*>0) is given by:
0* expQ Q
Q it Q itBattE E K i K it A B it (5)
Similarly battery charging equation (i*<0) is expressed as:
whereBatt
E is nonlinear voltage (volts),0
E is constant voltage (volts), *i is filtered battery current (ampere), i is the
battery current (amperes), it is available battery charge (ampere-hours), A is the exponential region amplitude (volts), B is the
exponential region time constant inverse (Ah-1), *Q
Q itK i
is the polarization voltage, Q
Q itK
is the polarization resistance
(in ohms) and K is the polarization constant (in A.h-1).
D. Modeling of Supercapacitor
The generic model of supercapacitor is studied using MATLAB/Simulink Software. This model is based on the Stern model which combines both the Helmholtz and Gouy-Chapman model [17]. The capacitance of the supercapacitor or electrochemical double layer capacitors is given by:
1
1 1
H GC
CC C
(7)
0e i
H
N AC
d
(8)
2
0
sinh2 8
C C
GC
e e i
CFQ Q
N RT N A RT c
(9)
where H
C and GC
C are the Helmholtz and Gouy-Chapman capacitance (in farads), eN is the number of electrode layers, and
0 are the permittivity values (in farads per meter) of the electrolyte material and free space,
iA is the interfacial area between
electrodes and electrolyte (in square meters), d is the Helmholtz layer length (or molecular radius) (in meters), C
Q is the cell
electric charge (in coulomb), c is the molar concentration (in mol·m-3).
III. ENERGY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
Energy management strategy plays an important role in effectively deciding the power shared by different energy sources of a
hybrid configuration. The Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 show the control scheme of fuel cell, battery and supercapacitor for the FC/BATT and
FC/BATT/SC configuration respectively. The energy management is carried out with the help of frequency splitting operational
state control strategy (FSOSCS) for both FC/BATT and FC/BATT/SC configurations. DC bus regulation for both configurations
is also explained.
A. Frequency Splitting Operational State Control Strategy
The frequency splitting operational state control strategy (FSOSCS) is the hybrid control strategy which is the combination of
low pass filter and the operational state control strategy (OSCS). The low pass filter divides the load power into high and low
frequency component. Since the fuel cell has the dynamic limitation, it cannot handle the high frequency component of load
which are basically the transients present in the load. Thus the low frequency component of load power (PLLF) is send to the
OSCS for the control of fuel cell to produce steady state fuel cell reference power. The high frequency component is handled by
the battery in case of FC/BATT configuration and by both battery and supercapacitor in case of FC/BATT/SC configuration. Thus
it reduce the stress on fuel cell, as the fuel cell handles the steady state portion of load and the transient load demand is fulfilled
by energy storage sources (ESSs).
The frequency operational state control strategy (FSOSCS) determines the fuel cell reference power depending on the operating
conditions i.e. load power and battery state of charge (SOC) levels. The strategy used in the present work is the modification of
0.10* expQ Q
it Q Q itBattE E K i K it A B it (6)
© 2018 JETIR September 2018, Volume 5, Issue 9 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
JETIR1809709 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 421
those mentioned in [28, 29]. The FSOSCS includes certain constraints to avoid continuous changes in the fuel cell and battery
power which affects the system efficiency. The constraints are: minimum, optimum, and maximum fuel cell power values (Pfcmin,
Pfcopt, Pfcmax), the maximum battery charging power and maximum battery power values (Pbattchar, Pbattmax) and the minimum and
maximum battery SOC (SOCmin, SOCmax). Moreover the hysteresis control is used to avoid the continuous switching of states
when system operates at the boundary of the SOC levels [17].
Fig. 3 Control strategy of FC/BATT configuration.
Fig. 4 Control strategy of FC/BATT/SC configuration.
© 2018 JETIR September 2018, Volume 5, Issue 9 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
JETIR1809709 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 422
Thus the FSOSCS decide the corresponding states considering two operating conditions i.e. load power (PLLF) and battery SOC
levels based on which the fuel cell reference power (P*FC) is obtained as shown in Table 1. Both Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 show that fuel
cell reference power (P*FC) so obtained is divided by the fuel cell voltage to produce fuel cell current (I*fc). The rate limiter sets
the maximum and minimum limits on this current that fuel cell can generate. The fuel cell reference current (Ifcref) is sent to the
fuel cell converter control where this reference current is compared with the actual fuel cell current to produce the duty cycle for
the fuel cell converter which controls the fuel cell.
Table 1 Various Operating State in Frequency Splitting Operational State Control Strategy
Operating conditions States Fuel cell reference power
(P*FC)
Battery SOC levels Load Power
High
(SOC > 90%)
PLLF<PFCmin 1 PFCmin
PFCmin≤PLLF<PFCmax 2 PLLF
PLLF≥ PFCmax 3 PFCmax
Normal
(60%≤SOC≤85%)
PLLF<PFCmin 4 PFCmin
PFCmin≤PLLF<PFCopt 5 PFCopt
PFCopt≤PLLF<PFCmax 6 PLLF
PLoad≥ PFCmax 7 PFCmax
Low
(SOC<60%)
PLoad<PFCmin 8 PLLF+Pbattchar
PFCmin≤PLLF<PFCopt 9 max(PLLF+Pbattchar,PFCopt)
PFCopt≤PLLF<PFCmax 10 PLLF+Pbattchar
PLLF≥ PFCmax 11 PFCmax
B. DC bus regulation in FC/BATT Configuration
In FC/BATT configuration the dc bus is maintained constant at reference voltage (270V) through the battery control. The
battery control is done by the controlling the duty cycle of the buck-boost converter. Hence the dc bus regulation generates the
duty cycle of the buck-boost converter. The Fig. 3 shows the dc bus regulation in which the reference dc bus voltage is compared
with the actual dc bus voltage to generate the error signal which is sent to the PI regulator to produce both charging and
discharging battery reference currents. This battery reference current is sent to battery converter control where it is compared with
the actual battery current; the error signal so produced is send to the PI regulator to generate the duty cycle of the battery
converter.
C. DC bus regulation in FC/BATT/SC Configuration
In FC/BATT/SC configuration, the supercapacitor is connected directly to the dc bus. So, the variation in dc bus voltage is
directly proportional to the change in the supercapacitor voltage as shown in Fig. 4. Thus supercapacitor is responsible for
maintaining the dc bus voltage constant. Hence in order to limit the voltage fluctuation in the dc bus, the supercapacitor voltage
limit is maintained in the range (270 to 280V). However due to the direct connection of supercapacitor to the dc bus, it is
controlled indirectly by the battery converter. Thus control of duty cycle of buck boost converter will control the supercapacitor
and its voltage (or dc bus voltage) along with battery. The supercapacitor is free to operate that means during acceleration it
delivers the power to the load as long as the voltage of supercapacitor is above the reference voltage (270 V). However when the
voltage across the supercapacitor is below the reference value then it immediately absorbs the energy from the battery and gets
recharged above its limit. Moreover the battery delivers the power to the load when the transient are present for the longer
duration and also when the fuel cell cannot supplies the steady state power. Similarly during braking supercapacitor is charged
first above its reference voltage thus the dc bus voltage regulator provides the negative current (i.e. the discharging current) to the
battery converter control which generates the duty cycle of battery converter to charge the battery.
IV. RESULTS
The comparison of hydrogen consumption between FC/BATT and FC/BATT/SC configurations is carried using ECE-15
driving cycle of 195 seconds duration with the help of MATLAB/Simulink.
The Fig. 5 shows that the FC/BATT/SC configuration consumes less hydrogen as there are two auxiliary sources (battery and
supercapacitor) to support the fuel cell. Moreover the low pass filter used in the frequency splitting operational state control
strategy (FSOSCS) allows the fuel cell to operate at steady state power. The supercapacitor is used to handle the transient load.
Thus, the supercapacitor reduces stress on the fuel cell and also prolongs the life of the battery as it handles fast charging and
discharging current cycle during acceleration and deceleration. Since FSOSCS has the restriction on the maximum battery
charging and delivering power, when sudden transients are above this maximum power then fuel cell has to power the transient
load in case of FC/BATT configuration thereby increasing hydrogen consumption.
© 2018 JETIR September 2018, Volume 5, Issue 9 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
JETIR1809709 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 423
Fig. 5: Comparison of hydrogen consumption for FC/BATT and FC/BATT/SC configurations.
The comparative results of FC/BATT and FC/BATT/SC configuration are given in Table 2. The energy of the corresponding
hybrid energy sources (HESs) i.e. fuel cell, battery and supercapacitor is obtained by the integration of power of corresponding
HESs. Overall fuel consumption is calculated as given in reference [22].
Table 2 Comparative study between FC/BATT and FC/BATT/SC configuration.
Configurations FC/BATT FC/BATT/SC
Hydrogen consumption (g) 18.46 11.92
Energy of the HESs (kWs) 763.58 (FC)
143.60 (BATT)
652.64 (FC)
66.34 (BATT)
-34.014 (SC)
Per unit hydrogen consumption rate (g/kWs) 0.02417 0.01826
Equivalent hydrogen consumption (g) 3.4708 (BATT) 1.2339 (BATT)
Overall fuel consumption (g) 21.94 13.11
It is noted from the above table that for FC/BATT/SC configuration the supercapacitor energy is negative this means that the
equivalent fuel consumption is not calculated for the supercapacitor because it is actually the energy stored not delivered at the
end of the cycle. The Fig. 6 shows the comparison of overall fuel consumption of FC/BATT and FC/BATT/SC hybrid
configuration which reveals that FC/BATT/SC outscores the FC/BATT in terms of hydrogen consumption. It reveals that
FC/BATT/SC consumes 35.4% less hydrogen in comparison to the FC/BATT; which eventually extends the lifetime and
efficiency of the fuel cell and thereby reducing the overall running cost of fuel cell electric vehicle.
Fig. 6: Overall fuel consumption comparison between FC/BATT and FC/BATT/SC.
FC/BATT FC/BATT/SC
Hydrogen Consumption
(g)18.46 11.92
Equivalent Fuel
Consumption by ESS (g)3.476 1.2117
Total Fuel Consumption
(g)21.94 13.11
0
5
10
15
20
25
Hy
dro
gen
Co
nsu
mp
tio
n (
g)
© 2018 JETIR September 2018, Volume 5, Issue 9 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
JETIR1809709 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 424
V. CONCLUSION
The impact of hybridization on the hydrogen consumption of the fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV) is presented in this paper.
The study is carried out in MATLAB/Simulink environment using standard ECE-15 driving cycle. Frequency splitting
operational state control strategy (FSOSCS) is used for the energy management. The comparison between FC/BATT and
FC/BATT/SC for hydrogen consumption reveals that FC/BATT/SC configuration consumes 35.4% less hydrogen in comparison
to FC/BATT configuration and the reduction in overall fuel consumption is also achieved. Thus FC/BATT/SC configuration
significantly causes reduction in the hydrogen consumption of FCEV.
REFERENCES
[1] J. Kim and S. Kim, “Obstacles to the Success of Fuel-Cell Electric Vehicles: Are They Truly Impossible to Overcome?,” IEEE Electrification
Magazine, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 48-54, March 2018. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8303859/
[2] B. M. Reddy, P. Samuel and N. S. M., “Government Policies Help Promote Clean Transportation in India: Proton-Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells for
Vehicles,” IEEE Electrification Magazine, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 26-36, March 2018. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8303847/
[3] C. C. Chan, “The State of the Art of Electric, Hybrid, and Fuel Cell Vehicles,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 95, no. 4, pp. 704-718, April 2007.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4168013/
[4] M. Zandi, A. Payman, J. P. Martin, S. Pierfederici, B. Davat and F. Meibody-Tabar, “Energy Management of a Fuel Cell/Supercapacitor/Battery Power
Source for Electric Vehicular Applications,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 433-443, Feb. 2011.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5625923/
[5] J. Bauman and M. Kazerani, “A Comparative Study of Fuel-Cell–Battery, Fuel-Cell–Ultracapacitor, and Fuel-Cell–Battery–Ultracapacitor Vehicles,”
IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 760-769, March 2008. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4357341/
[6] P. Garcia, J. P. Torreglosa, L. M. Fernandez and F. Jurado, “Control strategies for high-power electric vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cell, battery
and supercapacitor,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 40, no. 12, pp. 4791-4804, Sept. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.02.028
[7] A. Martinez, “Update to "The Future Is Present in California: Delivering on the Promise of Fuel Cell-Powered Transportation" [Addendum],” IEEE
Electrification Magazine, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 108-108, Jun. 2018. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8303848/
[8] Martinez, “The Future Is Present in California: Delivering on the Promise of Fuel Cell-Powered Transportation,” IEEE Electrification Magazine, vol.
6, no. 1, pp. 37-47, Jun. 2018. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8369455/
[9] S. Mekhilef, R. Saidur and A. Safari, “Comparative study of different fuel cell technologies,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 16, no.
1, pp. 981-989, Jan. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.09.020
[10] P. Thounthong, B. Davat and S. Rael, “Drive friendly,” IEEE Power and Energy Magazine, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 69-76, Feb. 2008.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4412942/
[11] Geng, J. K. Mills and D. Sun, “Two-Stage Energy Management Control of Fuel Cell Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles Considering Fuel Cell
Longevity,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 498-508, Feb. 2012. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6087294/
[12] A. Khaligh and Z. Li, “Battery, Ultracapacitor, Fuel Cell, and Hybrid Energy Storage Systems for Electric, Hybrid Electric, Fuel Cell, and Plug-In
Hybrid Electric Vehicles: State of the Art,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 2806-2814, July 2010.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5446335/
[13] E. Schaltz, A. Khaligh and P. O. Rasmussen, “Influence of Battery/Ultracapacitor Energy-Storage Sizing on Battery Lifetime in a Fuel Cell Hybrid
Electric Vehicle,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 3882-3891, Oct. 2009.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5170012/
[14] P. Thounthong, S. Rael and B. Davat, “Energy management of fuel cell/battery/supercapacitor hybrid power source for vehicle applications,” Journal
of Power Sources, vol. 193, no. 1, pp. 376-385, Aug. 2009. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6847162/
[15] A. Tani, M. B. Camara and B. Dakyo, “Energy Management Based on Frequency Approach for Hybrid Electric Vehicle Applications: Fuel-
Cell/Lithium-Battery and Ultracapacitors,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 61, no. 8, pp. 3375-3386, Oct. 2012. .
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6227380/
[16] H. E. Fadil, F. Giri, J. M. Guerrero and A. Tahri, “Modeling and Nonlinear Control of a Fuel Cell/Supercapacitor Hybrid Energy Storage System for
Electric Vehicles,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 63, no. 7, pp. 3011-3018, Sept. 2014.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6814912/
[17] S. N. Motapon, L. A. Dessaint and K. Al-Haddad, “A Comparative Study of Energy Management Schemes for a Fuel-Cell Hybrid Emergency Power
System of More-Electric Aircraft,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 1320-1334, March 2014.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6494629/
[18] Z. Hong, Q. Li, Y. Han, W. Shang, Y. Zhu and W. Chen, “An energy management strategy based on dynamic power factor for fuel cell/battery hybrid
locomotive,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 3261-3272, Feb. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.12.117
[19] Bendjedia, N. Rizoug, M. Boukhnifer, F. Bouchafaa and M. Benbouzid, “Influence of secondary source technologies and energy management
strategies on Energy Storage System sizing for fuel cell electric vehicles,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 43, no. 25, pp. 11614-
11628, Jun. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.03.166
© 2018 JETIR September 2018, Volume 5, Issue 9 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
JETIR1809709 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 425
[20] P. Thounthong, V. Chunkag, P. Sethakul, B. Davat and M. Hinaje, “Comparative Study of Fuel-Cell Vehicle Hybridization with Battery or
Supercapacitor Storage Device,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 3892-3904, Oct. 2009.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5184856/
[21] N. Sulaiman, M. Hannan, A. Mohamed, E. Majlan and W. W. Daud, “A review on energy management system for fuel cell hybrid electric vehicle:
Issues and challenges,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 52, pp. 802-814, Dec. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.132
[22] B. Vural, S. Dusmez, M. Uzunoglu, E. Ugur and B. Akin, “Fuel Consumption Comparison of Different Battery/Ultracapacitor Hybridization
Topologies for Fuel-Cell Vehicles on a Test Bench,” IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 552-561,
Sept. 2014. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6701339/
[23] Q. Li, W. Chen, Y. Li, S. Liu and J. Huang, “Energy management strategy for fuel cell/battery/ultracapacitor hybrid vehicle based on fuzzy logic,”
International Journal of Electrical Power \& Energy Systems, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 514-525, Dec. 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2012.06.026
[24] J. Bernard, S. Delprat, F. N. Buchi and T. M. Guerra, “Fuel-Cell Hybrid Powertrain: Toward Minimization of Hydrogen Consumption,” IEEE
Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 58, no. 7, pp. 3168-3176, Sept. 2009. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4776430/
[25] H. Marzougui, M. Amari, A. Kadri, F. Bacha and J. Ghouili, “Energy management of fuel cell/battery/ultracapacitor in electrical hybrid vehicle,”
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 42, no. 13, pp. 8857-8869, March 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.09.190
[26] S. N. Motapon, O. Tremblay and L. A. Dessaint, “A generic fuel cell model for the simulation of fuel cell vehicles,” 2009 IEEE Vehicle Power and
Propulsion Conference, 2009, pp. 1722-1729. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5289692/
[27] O. Tremblay, L. A. Dessaint and A. I. Dekkiche, “A generic battery model for the dynamic simulation of hybrid electric vehicles,” 2007 IEEE Vehicle
Power and Propulsion Conference, 2007, pp. 284-289. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4544139/
[28] J. Han, J.-F. Charpentier and T. Tang, “An Energy Management System of a Fuel Cell/Battery Hybrid Boat,” Energies, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 2799-
2820, May 2014. http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/7/5/2799
[29] P. Garcia, L. M. Fernandez, C. A. Garcia and F. Jurado, “Energy Management System of Fuel-Cell-Battery Hybrid Tramway,” IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Electronics, vol. 57, no. 12, pp. 4013-4023, Dec. 2010. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5289980/