IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON TRANSPORTATION ELECTRIFICATION, VOL. 3, NO.
1, MARCH 2017
An Energy Management Strategy for a Concept
Battery/Ultracapacitor Electric Vehicle With
Improved Battery Life
Furkan Akar, Yakup Tavlasoglu, and Bulent Vural
Abstract— Using multi-input converters (MICs) in hybrid
energy storage systems (HESSs) presents several advantages, such
as low component count, control simplicity, and fully control of
source energies. The power levels of sources in these systems
need to be determined wisely by an energy management strategy
(EMS). This paper presents an EMS for a battery/ultracapacitor
(UC) HESS including a bidirectional MIC for electric vehicles
(EVs). Thanks to the fact that energy flow between battery and
UC is free in this MIC, the proposed EMS not only regulates the
state-of-charge of UC but also smooths the battery power profile
by using a fuzzy logic controller and a rate limiter. Therefore, it
results in a sustainable HESS with longer battery life. Through
a simulation study and an experimental setup including a
real EV, the performance of the proposed system is evaluated
comprehensively. Then, based on experimental results, battery
cycle-life improvement due to the battery/UC hybridization is
explored.
Index Terms— Battery, electric vehicles (EVs), energy
management strategy (EMS), hybrid energy storage
system (HESS), ultracapacitor (UC).
I. I NTRODUCTION
B ATTERY/ultracapacitor (UC) hybrid energy storage sys-
tems (HESSs) have been comprehensively studied in
electric vehicles (EVs), since this kind of hybridization can
meet the requirements of an EV, such as high energy/power
density, long battery life [1], [2]. In an HESS, power condition-
ing unit and energy management strategy (EMS) play a crucial
role. Among dc–dc converters used in HESSs, multi-input con-
verters (MICs) are prominent, because they are cost-effective,
easy to control, and capable of controlling the energies
of ESS fully [3], [4]. When it comes to EMSs for HESSs,
several works have been reported in the literature. The EMSs
studied in [5]–[7] present an effective but nonflexible solution
to energy management problem; this method basically applies
the defined control principles via given rules according to the
Manuscript received April 26, 2016; revised August 16, 2016 and
November 1, 2016; accepted November 22, 2016. Date of publication
December 12, 2016; date of current version March 3, 2017. This work was
supported by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey-
TUBITAK under Grant 113M088. (Corresponding author: Furkan Akar.)
F. Akar is with the Electrical and Electronics Engineering Department,
Faculty of Technology, Düzce University, Düzce 81620, Turkey (e-mail:
furkanakar@duzce.edu.tr).
Y. Tavlasoglu is with the Department of Electrical Engineering,
Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey, 34220, (e-mail:
y.tavlasoglu06@gmail.com).
B. Vural was with the Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul 34220, Turkey,
(e-mail: bvural@gmail.com).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TTE.2016.2638640
2332-7782 © 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
191
operation modes of the utilized converter. The EMSs given
in [8]–[10] target to protect batteries and fuel cells (FCs)
from sudden load changes based on the frequency decoupling
approach that separate high-frequency and low-frequency
components of power demand. In [11] and [12], model pre-
dictive control concept is utilized for battery/UC HESSs;
this concept has the ability to predict future events and act
according to these predictions; however, it needs an internal
model of the whole system. In [13], an EMS based on the
neural networks is reported for a battery/UC hybrid system;
this method also uses prior knowledge obtained from sim-
ulation results. In [14]–[16], offline optimization techniques
are utilized for EMS in hybrid systems; these methods are
very effective if the load profile is fully known; however,
they are not appropriate for real-time applications. In [17]–
[20], fuzzy logic controller (FLC)-based EMSs are proposed.
The FLC offers the advantage that it does not require any
mathematical model or a prior knowledge of the system.
As shown in [21] and [18], the FLC can be solely uti-
lized in an EMS or combined with other methods, such
as wavelet decomposition, and neural networks, as given
in [19] and [20].
In [22], a battery/UC HESS through a novel MIC topology
for EVs is proposed; in this paper, a rule-based EMS is utilized
to limit the battery power during propulsion and charge UC
during regenerative braking. Although this method is quite
effective, it has two serious drawbacks: it does not take state-
of-charge (SOC) of UC into account and it does not limit the
rate-of-change of battery power. Therefore, it is reasonable
to anticipate that battery/UC HESS may be nonoperational
because of too low SOCUC , UC may be overcharged, and
battery current may be too high during output power peaks.
In order to suppress associated problems of EMS given in [22],
this paper offers an FLC-based EMS for a battery/UC HESS
and tests it through a simulation study and an experimental
setup including a real EV. The offered EMS aims to regulate
SOCUC thanks to the developed FLC and reduce the battery
power peaks using a rate limiter. This paper also aims to
evaluate the effect of the battery/UC hybridization on the
battery cycle life based on experimental results.
II. A NALYSIS OF THE BATTERY /UC HESS
The MIC used in this paper is given in Fig. 1; readers
are referred to [22] for a detailed analysis. As can be seen
in Fig. 1, it is composed of four switches, namely, S1 , S2 , T0 ,
192 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON TRANSPORTATION ELECTRIFICATION, VOL. 3, NO. 1, MARCH 2017
Fig. 1. Proposed battery/UC HESS.
Fig. 2. Operation modes of the MIC.
and Q 0 , two power diodes, namely, D1 and D2 , two inductors,
namely, L 1 and L 2 , and an output capacitor denoted by Co .
This MIC has mainly three different operation modes as shown
in Fig. 2.
The first operation mode is called discharging mode. In this
mode, the output is fed by input sources according to the
states of S1 , S2 , and T0 . Power diodes D1 and D2 operate
in complementary manner with S1 and S2 , respectively. The
second operation mode is called regenerative mode; in this
mode, by controlling Q 0 , regenerative braking energy charges
ESSs depending on their voltage levels. Here, a switch denoted
by Q 1 is added to the battery output in order to control
its charging current. In regenerative mode, D1 and D2 are
always OFF, while the body diode of T0 carries the inductor
currents when Q 0 is OFF. The third operation mode is called
charging/discharging mode; this mode is initiated when the
power of one input exceeds the output power. In this case, the
redundant power is stored into the other input source. Here,
either S1 or S2 is controlled so as to adjust the associated
input current according to its reference value, while T0 switch
is controlled to regulate the dc bus. Associated equivalent
circuits for these modes are highlighted in Fig. 3 in which
active elements are highlighted.
Under the assumption that Q 1 is OFF thus only UC is
charged in regenerative mode, the relationship between input
source voltages and output voltage can be given for dis-
charging, regenerative, and charging/ discharging modes as
in (1)–(3), respectively
d S1 d S2
Vo = Vbat = VUC (1)
1 − dT 0 1 − dT 0
VUC
Vo = (2)
d Q0
d S1 1 power reference so as to smooth the battery power profile;
Vo = Vbat = VUC . (3)
1 − dT 0 1 − dT 0
Fig. 3. Equivalent circuits for operation modes.
In (1)–(3), the voltages of output, battery, and UC in the
steady state are denoted by V0 , Vbat , and VUC , respectively,
while d S1, d S2, dT 0 , and d Q0 are the duty cycles of S1 , S2 ,
T0 , and Q O , respectively.
For discharging and charging/discharging modes, equa-
tions given in (4)–(6) can be found. Note that for charg-
ing/discharging mode, d S2 becomes 1, since body diode of
S2 becomes ON to charge UC

1
i L1 (t) = [v bat (t)d S1 − v o (t)(1 − dT 0 )]dt (4)
L1 
1
i L2 (t) = [v UC (t)d S2 − v o (t)(1 − dT 0 )]dt (5)
L2 
1
v o (t) = [(i L1 (t) + i L2 (t))(1 − dT 0 ) + i o (t)]dt. (6)
Co
For regenerative mode, i L1(t) is zero, while i o (t), the output
current, is negative due to the regenerative braking. Associated
equations for this mode are given in

1
i L2 (t) = [v UC (t) − v o (t)d Q0 ]dt (7)
L2 
1
v o (t) = [i L2 (t)d Q0 + i o (t)]dt. (8)
Co
After completing the analysis of the converter, an appropri-
ate control strategy needs to be designed. This control strategy
should wisely realize the energy management in the proposed
battery/UC HESS. Since FL proposes the advantages of easy
implementation and independence of a full system model, an
FL-based EMS (FLEMS) is offered in this paper.
III. E NERGY M ANAGEMENT S TRATEGY
The FLEMS is shown in Fig. 4. As can be seen, FLEMS
first determines the operation mode by checking the output
voltage. If the output needs to be energized, the reference of
battery power is determined by an FLC by taking the output
voltage and SOCUC into account. Here, the FLC determines
the battery reference power so as to regulate SOCUC at a
reference value. This value should be determined in a way
that UC can supply the desired load demand and has enough
capacity to capture all the available braking energy. After
this step, a rate limiter restricts the slew rate of the battery
and finally a proportional–integral (PI) controller adjusts the
AKAR et al.: EMS FOR A CONCEPT BATTERY/UC EV WITH IMPROVED BATTERY LIFE
Fig. 4. FLEMS.
Fig. 5. Mode selection procedure.
battery current to achieve the desired battery power. In addi-
tion, the proposed control strategy chooses either discharging
or charging/discharging modes by comparing the battery and
output power levels: if the power of battery is lower than the
output power, the discharging mode is activated; otherwise, the
charging/discharging mode is activated. As explored in [22],
although increasing dT 0 expands the input voltage range of
the converter, it also decreases the efficiency by increasing
stresses on the switches. Therefore, dT 0 is set to a reasonable
value, i.e., 0.5 for discharging mode. Moreover, for regulating
the dc bus thus ultimately controlling the power of UC, d S2
and dT 0 are controlled by PI controllers in the discharging and
charging/discharging modes, respectively. On the other hand,
if an increase in the output voltage due to the existence of
regenerative braking energy is sensed, the charging mode is
activated. In the charging mode, another PI controller adjusts
d Q0 for dc bus regulation. The explained mode selection
procedure can be seen in Fig. 5 in which  is a defined voltage
level. For designing PI controllers, the small signal model
and design procedure presented in [23] are utilized in this
paper.
193
Fig. 6. FLC block in Fig. 4.
Fig. 7. Decision surface of FLC.
It can be seen in several studies such as [19] and [24],
the FLC having triangle membership functions performs well
despite of its easy implementation. Therefore, the input and
output membership functions in this paper are defined as
shown in Fig. 6. According to Fig. 6, the FLC has two
input membership functions: SOCUC (SOC of UC) and Po.
For SOCUC , three input membership functions are defined,
namely, Low (L), Medium (M), and High (H); while, for
Po , four input membership functions are defined, namely,
Very Low (VL), L, M, and H. In addition, Pbat ∗, the output
membership fuction, is represented by six output membership
functions, which are Very Very Low (VVL), VL, L, M, H,
Very High (V). Finally, according to the rule base given in
Fig. 6 and defined membership functions, the reference of
the battery power is calculated through the center-of-gravity
defuzzification technique. The decision surface in this paper is
shown in Fig. 7. From Fig. 7, it can be seen that the increment
in the SOCUC decreases the reference of battery power, and
vice versa, in order to regulate its SOC.
IV. S IMULATIONS AND R ESULTS
In this paper, an average model of the proposed converter
is built in MATLAB/Simulink environment based on (4)–(8).
In addition, battery and UC are modeled as in [23]. Here, a
Li-ion battery with 110-Ah nominal capacity and 100 V
nominal voltage and a UC with 63-F rated capacitance and
194
Fig. 8. Power demand according to UDDS.
125 V rated voltage are considered. Battery and UC are
modeled in the simulation through (9)–(11) and (12)–(14),
respectively
i bat (t) = i L1 (t)d S1
 t
1
v bat,oc (t) = v bat,oc (t0 ) − i bat (t)dt
Cbat t0
v bat (t) = v bat,oc (t) − Rs,bati bat (t)
i UC (t) = i L2 (t)d S2
v UC,oc (t) = v UC,oc (t0 )
 t
1 v UC,oc (t0 )
− i UC (t) +
CUC t0 R P,U C
v UC (t) = v UC,oc (t) − R S,U C i UC (t).
In (9)–(14), current values of battery, UC, L 1 , and L 2 are
represented by i bat , i UC , i L1 , and i i L 2 , respectively. In addition,
v bat and v UC are the terminal voltages of battery and UC, while
v bat,oc and v UC,oc are the open-circuit voltages of battery and
UC. Cbat denotes the equivalent capacity of battery and Rs,bat
the equivalent serial resistance (ESR) of battery, while CUC
denotes the normalized capacity of UC; in addition, R S,UC and
R P,UC are the ESR and parallel resistance of UC, respectively.
Urban dynamometer driving schedule (UDDS) is considered in
this simulation study. UDDS is developed by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency to measure fossil fueled
vehicles fuel consumptions and emissions; it reflects the city
traffic conditions including numerous stops and accelerations.
Power demand according to the UDDS is shown in Fig. 8 [25].
Here, two cases are considered. In the first case, initial
SOCUC is 0.95, while in the second case, initial SOCUC is
0.85. The aim of considering these two cases is to highlight
that proposed strategy is capable of regulating UC voltage.
Note that the base power in the decision surface of FLC is
60 kW in this paper, considering the maximum output power
according to UDDS given in Fig. 8, output voltage reference
is 144 V, and battery initial voltage is 110 V.
Fig. 9 shows the variations in UC power and UC average
powers in both the cases. From fluctuating UC power profiles,
one can deduce that UC manages to undertake sudden changes
occurring in the output power demand. Furthermore, the
average of UC power becomes 0.83 kW in the first case, while
it becomes −1.12 kW in the second case as shown in Fig. 9.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON TRANSPORTATION ELECTRIFICATION, VOL. 3, NO. 1, MARCH 2017
Fig. 9. Simulation results: power levels of UC.
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)

dt (13)
(14)
Fig. 10. Simulation results: power levels of battery.
This result clearly indicates that UC is generally discharged in
the first case, while generally charged in the second case; it is
an expected outcome according to the FLC rule base and initial
SOCUC values. Note that medium value of SOCUC is 0.89 in
the FLC. Furthermore, negative UC power shows the periods
when UC is charged by battery and regenerative braking.
Fig. 10 shows the battery power variations and their average
values in two cases. The first observation that can be obtained
from Fig. 10 is that battery power does not become negative,
since it is never charged. In addition to that, by comparing UC
and battery power levels, one can see that battery power profile
is considerably smoother as aimed. It can be noticed that the
average values of battery power are 4.75 and 7.09 kW in the
first case and the second case, respectively. Higher battery
power is observed in the second case compared with the first
case, since the designed FLC causes the battery also charges
the UC in the second case.
SOCUC variations in both the cases are shown in Fig. 11.
From Fig. 11, one can see that SOCUC has a decreasing trend
in the first case, whereas it has an increasing trend in the
second case; this points out that the UC is generally discharged
in the first case, while it is generally charged in the second
case by affirming the inferences from Figs. 9 and 10. Besides,
AKAR et al.: EMS FOR A CONCEPT BATTERY/UC EV WITH IMPROVED BATTERY LIFE
Fig. 11. Simulation results: SOC levels of UC.
Fig. 12. Photo of the prototype.
TABLE I
S PECIFICATIONS OF THE P ROTOTYPE
oscillations in SOCUC show charging and discharging instants;
rising and reducing SOC exhibit charging and discharging of
UC, respectively. It is worth to note that even though UC needs
to be charged in the second case, sometimes it is discharged
as well to smooth battery power profile due to the rate limiter
utilized in the proposed strategy.
V. E XPERIMENTS AND BATTERY C YCLE -L IFE
I MPROVEMENT
A. Experimental Setup
A prototype having maximum 3-kW output power is
designed and built as shown in Fig. 12. In this prototype,
the voltage and current values are measured by transducers,
and isolated gate drivers are utilized in order to provide
195
TABLE II
S PECIFICATIONS OF THE E LECTRA
Fig. 13. Photo of the Electra.
isolation between the power and control levels; then the analog
data related to these values is transmitted to the controller,
TMS320F28335, via coaxial cables for the protection of the
signals from electromagnetic interference. In addition, copper
bars are used here for constructing current paths. This kind of
design not only provides a reliable and robust control of the
converter but also protects the microcontroller from possible
threats. Table I gives the specifications of the prototype.
In order to evaluate the performance of the prototype and
FLEMS, an EV, Electra, which is designed and developed by
Alternative Energy Systems Club at Yildiz Technical Univer-
sity, is used in this paper. Some specifications and a photo of
Electra are given in Table II and Fig. 13, respectively.
The motor driver in the EV has 0–160 V input voltage range.
In this paper, the reference of the output voltage is chosen
as 75 V. For inputs of the converter, a 70 V/1.4-kWh Li-ion
battery group and a 165-F/48 V UC are used in this setup as
given in Table II.
B. Experimental Results
First of all, a rule-based control strategy proposed in [23] is
applied to the experimental setup. According to this strategy,
which is called basic control (BC) strategy in this paper,
battery handles all the output power if it is lower than a
specified maximum value, while UC provides power during
accelerations and high output power instants, and stores regen-
erative braking energy. In other words, the BC strategy realizes
only discharging and regenerative operation modes. Details of
this strategy can be found in [23]. Figs. 13–15 show the BC
strategy experimental results.
Fig. 14(a) shows the speed and distance of the EV during
the test lasting 100 s. From here, it can be seen that the
196
Fig. 14. Experimental results of BC strategy. (a) Distance and speed.
(b) Output voltage and current.
Fig. 15. Experimental results of BC strategy: battery voltage and current.
Fig. 16. Experimental results of BC strategy: SOC and current of UC.
maximum speed is about 25 km/h, while the distance is about
250 m. According to Fig. 14(b), the output voltage, V0 , is
well regulated at its reference level as the output current, I0 ,
changes dynamically.
Fig. 15 shows the battery voltage and current during the
BC strategy test. In Fig. 15, sharp changes in the battery
current can be seen, since BC strategy does not limit the rate-
of-change in the battery power reference although this kind
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON TRANSPORTATION ELECTRIFICATION, VOL. 3, NO. 1, MARCH 2017
Fig. 17. Experimental results of FLEMS. (a) GPS image of the route. (b)
Speed and distance.
of battery current profile is not observed in the laboratory
setup subjected to ECE-15 driving cycle in [23]. Based on this
observation, it can be asserted that utilizing a rate limiter can
offer a solution to this problem considering real word driving
conditions.
Fig. 16 shows the variations in SOC and current of UC
during BC strategy test. From Fig. 16, it can be clearly seen
that SOC of UC tends to decrease even though UC is charged
by regenerative braking energy. This observation reveals that
disregarded SOC of UC would result in low UC voltage and
eventually a nonoperational battery/UC HESS. Additionally,
in order to compensate the load demand, the current profile
of UC contains rapid changes because of the battery current
profile given in Fig. 15.
In the FLEMS, according to the SOCUC and output power,
the reference of battery power is determined by an FLC to
keep the SOCUC at a certain level; then, it is smoothed through
a rate limiter as shown in Fig. 4. Figs. 17–22 show the test
results of the proposed EMS. In this test, initial voltage of bat-
tery and initial SOCUC are about 72 V and 0.89, respectively.
Moreover, the rising and falling slew rates in the rate limiter
given in Fig. 4 are 100 and 1000 W/s, respectively, which are
determined based on several preliminary experiments. Note
that the falling slew rate is here higher when compared with
the rising slew rate in order to avoid unnecessary discharging
of battery while storing regenerative braking energy.
In Fig. 17(a), the image of the route retrieved from GPS
during the test is shown. The speed and distance variations
are shown in Fig. 17(b); here, one can see that the peak speed
is about 25 km/h, while the total distance that the EV travels
is about 450 m.
AKAR et al.: EMS FOR A CONCEPT BATTERY/UC EV WITH IMPROVED BATTERY LIFE 197

Fig. 20. Experimental results of FLEMS: mode transitions.

Fig. 18. Experimental results of FLEMS: output voltage and current.

Fig. 19. Experimental results of FLEMS: power variations. Fig. 21. Experimental results of FLEMS: battery voltage and current.

In Fig. 18, the output voltage and current variations are

demonstrated; here, the output voltage regulation is achieved
successfully despite of the output current variations depending
on the acceleration and deceleration of the concept EV. This
observation clearly indicates that the proposed control strategy
can realize the operation mode transitions properly.
Fig. 19 shows the variations in the resultant output power
level and source power levels. As can be seen, the maxi-
mum output powers during the propulsion and regenerative
braking are about 1500 and 900 W, respectively. First, the
UC discharges just after the regenerative braking, then battery
power becomes dominant over UC power; moreover, the UC
is charged by regenerative braking energy. On the other hand,
thanks to the rate limiter utilized in the controller strategy; Fig. 22. Experimental results of FLEMS: UC voltage and current.
the battery power is here greatly smoothed. Furthermore, in
Fig. 19, three operation modes, namely, discharging mode,
regenerative mode, and charging/discharging mode can be current profile is moderate thanks to the proposed control strat-
observed; these modes are shown in Fig. 20. egy. Recall that the foremost target of the proposed strategy is
The voltage and current of the battery are given in to regulate the SOCUC at a reference value; according to the
Fig. 21. According to Fig. 21, the difference between the initial FL rule base given in Table I and decision surface shown in
and final values of the battery voltage is small on account of Fig. 6, it is expected that the SOCUC is kept at approximately
the high energy density of the battery. Additionally, the battery 0.89.
198 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON TRANSPORTATION ELECTRIFICATION, VOL. 3, NO. 1, MARCH 2017

From Fig. 22, which shows the SOC and current of UC, TABLE III
one can notice that the SOCUC is successfully regulated around O PTIMAL B VALUES
0.89 by the FLEMS. Thus, by comparing Figs. 16 and 22, one
can easily see the necessity of taking SOCUC into account.
Furthermore, according to Fig. 22, the UC current exhibits
more oscillation compared with the battery current. Overall,
the proposed strategy does not just smooth the battery power
profile but also maintains the SOCUC at a specified value.

C. Battery Cycle-Life Improvement

In the literature, there are several methods that effort to
calculate the capacity fade of the Li-ion batteries by using
different methods, such as Lyapunov [26], Kalman filter [27],
and neural networks [28]. However, these methods are quite
complex thus require great effort. Wang et al. [29] propose
a practical method for estimating the cycle life of a LiFeP04
battery; this method is developed based on a large experimen-
tal data set; therefore, it has the potential of estimating the
capacity loss accurately. This semiempirical method aims to
Fig. 23. Capacity retentions according to the model (lines) and experiments
represent the capacity loss function as given in (dots).
Q = f (t, T, DoD, Crate ). (15)
In (15), t is the cycling time, T the temperature, DoD depth-
of-discharge, and Crate the current rate. In [27], it is shown
that the effect of the DoD on the capacity fade is insignificant.
Therefore, the capacity loss can be written as in
−E a
ln Q = ln B + + z ln Ah . (16)
RT
In (16), Q represents the percentage of the capacity loss,
B the preexponential factor, E a the activation energy, R the
gas constant (8.314 J mol−1 K −1 ), T the absolute temperature,
Ah the Ah-throughput, and z the power law factor. Ah is
the amount of charge delivered during cycling, which can be
calculated as shown in (17) by utilizing the cycle number, N,
the battery DoD, and the full battery capacity, C, in Ampere Fig. 24. Fitted curve to optimal lnB values.
hours
Ah = N · DoD · C. (17)
in Fig. 23, results obtained from the cycle-life model based
According to experimental findings reported in [29], the on (15)–(18) and Table III along with experiments realized
power law factor, z, is approximately 0.55, which interestingly in [29] are compared. Here, it can be seen that the estimated
aligns with the previous works that explore the square root of losses are consistent with the experimental data. In addition,
time dependence of capacity fade due to the solid electrolyte one can notice that increments in temperature and current rate
interface growth that results in active lithium consumption at accelerate the capacity loss.
the battery electrodes. In [29], it is also stated that increasing Wang et al. [29] do not propose a method to calculate
current rates decrease the activation energy. Based on test the B value for the current rates different from the ones
results, a mathematical relationship between the activation given in Table III. However, for nonuniform current profiles,
energy and current rate is obtained as given in associated B values should be known. Thus, as in [5], here, a
quadratic equation is fitted to the B points as shown in Fig. 24;
E a = 31700 − 370.3Crate . (18) the utilized quadratic equation and its parameters are given
Moreover, the optimal values of the preexponential factor, in (19) and (20), respectively
B, for the selected current rates are obtained from experiments ln B = p1(Crate )2 + p2 Crate + p3 (19)
in [27] as given in Table III.
p1 = 0.021922, p2 = −0.30507, p3 = 10.508. (20)
In order to test the developed cycle-life model, 2.2-Ah
LiFePO4 battery cell is considered in [29]. Fig. 23 gives In [5], a statistical method is proposed to estimate the
the percentage of the battery capacity losses versus battery capacity loss under realistic current profiles of EVs; in order
cycles under different current rates and cell temperatures; to illustrate this method, the battery current rate distributions,
AKAR et al.: EMS FOR A CONCEPT BATTERY/UC EV WITH IMPROVED BATTERY LIFE
Fig. 25. Current rate distributions and capacity retentions.
which are denoted by Crate (k) according to UDDS, are deter-
mined, and then the contributions of these current rates on the
capacity loss are computed by using
−E a (Crate (k))
ln Q(k) = ln B(Crate (k)) + + z ln Ah (k). (21)
RT
In (21), the absolute values of negative current rates are
used. In (21), Ah (k) is calculated as given in (22) by using
the relative frequency of the associated current rate, f i,Crate(k) ,
which can be computed by the formula given in (23), where
f Crate(k) is the absolute frequency of Crate (k) and n is the sum
of all frequencies
Ah (k) = f i,Crate (k) · N · DoD · C (22)
f Crate (k)
f i,Crate (k) = . (23)
n systems,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 296–307, Mar. 2012.
Finally, the total capacity loss during the driving cycle is
found by summing up the loss contributions of each current
rate as in
 [3] A. Khaligh, J. Cao, and Y. J. Lee, “A multiple-input DC–DC converter
Q loss = Q(k). (24)
k Mar. 2009.
In [5], the proposed cycle-life model is validated by bench-
marking the estimated capacity losses and experimental results
from different references. For example, it is reported that the
capacity retention of a LiFePO4 battery under a cell-scaled
UDDS after 600 cycles is 78.3% according to the cycle-life
model, while the measured value is 76.8% in [30]. In this
paper, a battery-only case is considered, and it is compared
with the battery/UC HESS in terms of battery cycle life.
In order to achieve this, the developed cycle-life model is
applied to FLEMS experimental results. In the battery-only
case, it is assumed that the battery is directly connected
to the motor driver thus it handles all the output power in
both the directions. In Fig. 25, the current rate distributions
and capacity retentions of the battery for the battery-only
case and battery/UC HESS are shown. According to Fig. 25,
negative current rate distributions are zero in the battery/UC
HESS, since only the UC is charged in this configuration.
In Fig. 25, it is assumed that the battery reaches its end-
of-life when the capacity degradation is 20% as in real
199
world applications [31]. Here, one can easily see that the
battery/UC hybridization extends the battery life substantially
in comparison with the battery-only case. The resultant life
extension is calculated as 54.68%. Note that battery temperate
is assumed to be constant at 25 °C in this analysis.
VI. C ONCLUSION
A FLEMS for a battery/UC HESS has been presented in this
paper. The HESS is composed of a bidirectional nonisolated
multi-input dc–dc converter, which can achieve power flow
between each input source and output port. An EMS has been
designed for controlling the SOC of UC while smoothing the
battery power profile. By applying this EMS, it is aimed to
ensure the practicability of the hybrid system and to decrease
the battery power peaks thus extending the battery cycle
life. After analyzing the proposed system, first of all, its
performance has been tested via a simulation study based on
the UDDS. Then, an experimental setup has been created by
utilizing a concept EV in order to compare the proposed EMS
and a rule-based control strategy and evaluate them on real
road conditions. Both simulation and experimental results have
shown that the developed EMS works as intended. Finally,
based on a battery cycle-life model and experimental results,
it has been shown that the battery life extension of about 55%
due to the battery/UC HESS can be achieved. It is clear that
these acquirements increase the life spans of the battery, and
ensures the feasibility of the hybrid system considering the
defined input voltage range of the converter.
R EFERENCES
[1] O. C. Onar and A. Khaligh, “A novel integrated magnetic structure
based DC/DC converter for hybrid battery/ultracapacitor energy storage
[2] 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 Trans. Veh. Technol.,
vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 2806–2814, Jul. 2010.
topology,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 862–868,
[4] S. Dusmez, X. Li, and B. Akin, “A new multiinput three-level DC/DC
converter,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 1230–1240,
Feb. 2016.
[5] J. Shen, S. Dusmez, and A. Khaligh, “Optimization of sizing and battery
cycle life in battery/ultracapacitor hybrid energy storage systems for
electric vehicle applications,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat., vol. 10, no. 4,
pp. 2112–2121, Nov. 2014.
[6] H. Zhou, T. Bhattacharya, D. Tran, T. S. T. Siew, and
A. M. Khambadkone, “Composite energy storage system involving
battery and ultracapacitor with dynamic energy management in
microgrid applications,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 26, no. 3,
pp. 923–930, Mar. 2011.
[7] J. Cao and A. Emadi, “A new battery/ultracapacitor hybrid energy
storage system for electric, hybrid, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles,”
IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 122–132, Jan. 2012.
[8] B. Hredzak, V. G. Agelidis, and G. D. Demetriades, “A low complexity
control system for a hybrid dc power source based on ultracapacitor–
lead–acid battery configuration,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 29,
no. 6, pp. 2882–2891, Jun. 2014.
[9] G. Liu, J. Zhang, and Y. Sun, “High frequency decoupling strategy for
the PEM fuel cell hybrid system,” Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, vol. 33,
no. 21, pp. 6253–6261, Nov. 2008.
[10] M. Uzunoglu and M. S. Alam, “Modeling and analysis of an FC/UC
hybrid vehicular power system using a novel-wavelet-based load sharing
algorithm,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 263–272,
Mar. 2008.
200 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON TRANSPORTATION ELECTRIFICATION, VOL. 3, NO. 1, MARCH 2017
[11] B. Hredzak, V. G. Agelidis, and M. Jang, “A model predictive con-
trol system for a hybrid battery-ultracapacitor power source,” IEEE
Trans. Power Electron., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 1469–1479, Mar. 2014.
[12] H. A. Borhan and A. Vahidi, “Model predictive control of a power-split
hybrid electric vehicle with combined battery and ultracapacitor energy
storage,” in Proc. Amer. Control Conf. (ACC), Jun. 2010, pp. 5031–5036.
[13] J. Moreno, M. E. Ortüzar, and J. W. Dixon, “Energy-management system
for a hybrid electric vehicle, using ultracapacitors and neural networks,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 614–623, Apr. 2006.
[14] F. Odeim, J. Roes, and A. Heinzel, “Power management optimiza-
tion of an experimental fuel cell/battery/supercapacitor hybrid system,”
Energies, vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 6302–6327, 2015.
[15] H. Yin, C. Zhao, M. Li, and C. Ma, “Utility function-based real-time
control of a battery ultracapacitor hybrid energy system,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Informat., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 220–231, Feb. 2015.
[16] J. P. F. Trovão, V. D. N. Santos, C. H. Antunes, P. G. Pereirinha,
and H. M. Jorge, “A real-time energy management architecture for
multisource electric vehicles,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 62, no. 5,
pp. 3223–3233, May 2015.
[17] H. Yin, W. Zhou, M. Li, C. Ma, and C. Zhao, “An adaptive fuzzy
logic-based energy management strategy on battery/ultracapacitor hybrid
electric vehicles,” IEEE Trans. Transport. Electrific., vol. 2, no. 3,
pp. 300–311, Sep. 2016.
[18] M. C. Kisacikoglu, M. Uzunoglu, and M. S. Alam, “Fuzzy logic
control of a fuel cell/battery/ultra-capacitor hybrid vehicular power
system,” in Proc. IEEE Vehicle Power Propuls. Conf. (VPPC), Sep. 2007,
pp. 591–596.
[19] O. Erdinc, B. Vural, and M. Uzunoglu, “A wavelet-fuzzy logic based
energy management strategy for a fuel cell/battery/ultra-capacitor hybrid
vehicular power system,” J. Power Sour., vol. 194, no. 1, pp. 369–380,
Oct. 2009.
[20] B. Vural et al., “Fuel cell and ultra-capacitor hybridization: A prototype
test bench based analysis of different energy management strategies
for vehicular applications,” Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, vol. 35, no. 20,
pp. 11161–11171, Oct. 2010.
[21] A. A. Ferreira, J. A. Pomilio, G. Spiazzi, and L. de Araujo Silva, “Energy
management fuzzy logic supervisory for electric vehicle power supplies
system,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 107–115,
Jan. 2008.
[22] F. Akar, Y. Tavlasoglu, E. Ugur, B. Vural, and I. Aksoy, “A bidirectional
nonisolated multi-input DC–DC converter for hybrid energy storage
systems in electric vehicles,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 65, no. 10,
pp. 7944–7955, Oct. 2016.
[23] F. Akar and B. Vural, “Battery/UC hybridization for electric vehicles via
a novel double input DC/DC power converter,” in Proc. 3rd Int. Conf.
Electr. Power Energy Convers. Syst. (EPECS), Oct. 2013, pp. 1–4.
[24] O. Erdinc, B. Vural, M. Uzunoglu, and Y. Ates, “Modeling and analysis
of an FC/UC hybrid vehicular power system using a wavelet-fuzzy logic
based load sharing and control algorithm,” Int. J. Hydrogen Energy,
vol. 34, no. 12, pp. 5223–5233, Jun. 2009.
[25] Y. Ates, O. Erdinc, M. Uzunoglu, and B. Vural, “Energy management
of an FC/UC hybrid vehicular power system using a combined neural
network-wavelet transform based strategy,” Int. J. Hydrogen Energy,
vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 774–783, Jan. 2010.
[26] H. Chaoui, N. Golbon, I. Hmouz, R. Souissi, and S. Tahar, “Lyapunov-
based adaptive state of charge and state of health estimation for lithium-
ion batteries,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 1610–1618,
Mar. 2015.
[27] J. Kim and B.-H. Cho, “State-of-charge estimation and state-of-health
prediction of a li-ion degraded battery based on an EKF combined
with a per-unit system,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 60, no. 9,
pp. 4249–4260, Nov. 2011.
[28] H.-T. Lin, T.-J. Liang, and S.-M. Chen, “Estimation of battery state of
health using probabilistic neural network,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat.,
vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 679–685, May 2013.
[29] J. Wang et al., “Cycle-life model for graphite-LiFePO4 cells,” J. Power
Sour., vol. 196, no. 8, pp. 3942–3948, Apr. 2011.
[30] Y. Zhang, C.-Y. Wang, and X. Tang, “Cycling degradation of an
automotive LiFePO4 lithium-ion battery,” J. Power Sour., vol. 196, no. 3,
pp. 1513–1520, Feb. 2011.
[31] V. V. Viswanathan and M. Kintner-Meyer, “Second use of transportation
batteries: Maximizing the value of batteries for transportation and grid
services,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 60, no. 7, pp. 2963–2970,
Sep. 2011.
Furkan Akar received the B.Sc. degree in electrical
and electronics engineering from Mersin Univer-
sity, Mersin, Turkey, in 2009, the M.Sc. degree in
electrical engineering from Florida State University,
Tallahassee, FL, USA, in 2012, and the Ph.D. degree
in electrical engineering from Yildiz Technical Uni-
versity, Istanbul, Turkey, in 2015.
He is currently an Assistant Professor with Düzce
University, Düzce, Turkey. His current research
interests include switched reluctance machines,
renewable energy sources, dc–dc converters, electric
vehicles, and hybrid energy storage systems.
Yakup Tavlasoglu received the B.Sc. degree in
electronics engineering from the Gebze Institute of
Technology, Kocaeli, Turkey, in 2011, and the M.Sc.
degree in electrical engineering from Yildiz Tech-
nical University, Istanbul, Turkey, in 2015, where
he is currently pursuing the Ph.D. degree with the
Department of Electrical Engineering.
His current research interests include photovoltaic
systems, dc–dc converters, electric vehicles, and
hybrid systems.
Bulent Vural received the B.Sc., M.Sc., and Ph.D.
degrees from Y?ld?z Technical University, Istanbul,
Turkey, in 2004, 2007, and 2010, respectively, all in
electrical engineering.
He has authored and co-authored over 35 journal
and conference papers. His research interests include
embedded control systems, power electronics appli-
cations in alternative/renewable energy systems and
electric vehicles, smart grid, and power hardware-
in-the-loop simulations.