Applied Energy 152 (2015) 162–172

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Modelling lithium-ion battery hybrid ship crane operation q

E. Ovrum ⇑, T.F. Bergh
DNV GL, NO-1322 Høvik, Norway

h i g h l i g h t s

 We model hybrid and conventional ship fuel consumption for crane operation.
 Hybrid ship model based on data from ship owner.
 Battery, diesel generator and control systems modelled.
 A conventional and two hybrid control systems has been modelled.
 The novel hybrid system has lower capital costs and saves 30% fuel and emissions.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: We have investigated a hybrid power train for ship crane operations, using a lithium-ion battery in
Received 25 March 2014 conjunction with diesel gensets for auxiliary power generation, as an alternative to a conventional power
Received in revised form 22 October 2014 train using only gensets. We have simulated crane operations in port using both solutions, in order to
Accepted 17 January 2015
quantify the potential economic gains of using hybrid power generation. This study is based on a real
Available online 5 March 2015
open-hatch dry bulk vessel of 50,000 dwt, which is compared with a corresponding newbuilding ship
with hybrid auxiliary power generation. We have modelled the complete auxiliary power system, includ-
Keywords:
ing diesel generators, lithium-ion batteries, cranes and ship hotel consumers. We have developed a novel
Hybrid ship
Lithium-ion
hybrid control strategy that has the potential to reduce the minimal size and thereby cost of batteries for
Battery hybrid ships. Our results indicate that the hybrid solution will lead to about 30% reduced fuel consump-
Marine tion and CO2 emissions while operating cranes, which amounts to annual savings of $110,000, with
Simulation $450,000 savings over three years of operation, as well as reduced capital costs compared to the conven-
Economic analysis tional power generation system.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction reductions in certain segments of shipping, as we show in this

Battery hybrid power generation for ships has the potential to
both reduce costs and reduce emission from shipping, as we will
see in this paper. The shipping industry is under pressure to reduce
emissions of CO2 ; NOx ; SOx and particulate matter, due to increas-
ing awareness of anthropogenic climate change and the health
effects of shipping [1]. New emissions control areas (ECA) are
one example of legislation that forces ship owners to design ships
with lower emissions. Presently, several hybrid and battery ships
have been or are being built or retrofitted with batteries [2–4]
while a hybrid tug started operations as early as 2009 [5]. Hybrid
power trains can contribute to both significant cost and emission
q
This paper is included in the Special Issue of Energy Storage edited by Prof.
Anthony Roskilly, Prof. Phil Taylor and Prof. Yan.
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +47 67579900; fax: +47 67579911.
E-mail addresses: eirik.ovrum@dnvgl.com (E. Ovrum), Trond.Flisnes.
Bergh@dnvgl.com (T.F. Bergh).
modelling case study of auxiliary power generation, based on a real
50,000 dwt open-hatch dry bulk vessel.
Today it is not clear in what segments of shipping that hybrids
will be useful, as ships vary greatly in how they are operated and
how their power generation systems are designed, this means that
it is hard to assess the benefits and profitability of a hybrid ship
without performing a detailed analysis. The primary goal of this
paper was to develop a method, using detailed simulations of a
ship’s operation, in order to quantify the main economic and envi-
ronmental impacts of installing a battery on a ship; namely finding
the optimal battery size, the total system costs, and the reduction
of fuel consumption compared to a conventional ship. In order to
achieve this we have modelled the complete auxiliary power train
including diesel generators, lithium-ion battery and power
electronics; as well as the auxiliary power consumers. We have
simulated one phase of the ship’s operations, namely
loading/unloading operations in port in which the auxiliary power

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.066
0306-2619/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 E. Ovrum, T.F. Bergh / Applied Energy 152 (2015) 162–172
Nomenclature
Hybrid a ship with energy storage, e.g. battery
q, SOC state of charge
C-rate normalized measure of battery current
Genset diesel engine with generator
SFOC specific fuel oil consumption, g/kWh
B, Capacity max. energy content of battery, kWh
Pbmax maximum simulated (dis) charge power of the battery,
kW
dwt deadweight tonnage, used for ship sizes
PID a proportional-integral-derivative controller
E diesel genset engine size, kW
C max maximum C-rate
C min minimum C-rate
Ng number of installed generators
C hinst hybrid installation costs, $
is used for both hotel consumers (lighting etc.) and onboard cranes.
The simulations rely on randomly generated auxiliary power
demand profiles, based on data from the ship owner. The battery
model is based on a real battery pack produced by Corvus [6]
which has been installed on the Viking Lady [2]; and on
Norway’s first battery-only ferry [4], which will start operating in
2015. Propulsion power is provided by a main engine not connect-
ed to the auxiliary grid, and has not been included in the
modelling.
By simulating the power generation versus a given power
demand in time, we can test different hybrid power generation
control strategies. By adding a battery to the power generation sys-
tem, the control strategy shifts from being just a question of having
the optimal number of gensets running, to a more complex issue.
To illustrate, in a hybrid system one can run a different number
of gensets, or none at all; one can run the gensets at chosen loads,
letting the batteries take the responsibility for meeting the power
demand; the batteries can be charged or discharged at given rates,
and the gensets have to take responsibility for meeting the power
demand; one can have rules stating the minimum or maximum
capacity left in the battery; and more. We have developed two dif-
ferent hybrid ship power generation control strategies, both of
which meet the power demand and result in a significant fuel con-
sumption reduction compared to the conventional system. The
first strategy, called the basic control strategy, slowly changes
the genset loads to maintain the battery’s SOC, this has been used
by other groups simulating hybrid ships, e.g. [7]. Our second strat-
egy, called the advanced control strategy, employs a novel mode
where the genset will increase its load when the ship’s power
demand is high and vice versa, requiring a substantially smaller
battery.
We have used the simulations to determine a minimal battery
size for the conditions of our case study ship, and used this to esti-
mate the costs, savings and payback time of a hybrid system com-
pared with the conventional one.
In Section 2 we discuss the modelling of lithium-ion batteries;
in Section 3 we discuss the modelling of the hybrid crane system;
in Section 4 we discuss the case study; in Section 5 we discuss the
results; in Section 6 we give our conclusions.
1.1. Hybrid ships
A hybrid ship in this context is a ship that has an energy storage
device as part of its power generation system, e.g. flywheel, com-
pressed air or electrochemical batteries. The energy storage unit
accumulates energy from the ship’s power generators or releases
163
C cinst conventional installation costs, $
C hop hybrid annual operational costs, $
C cop conventional annual operational costs, $
cb battery price, $/kWh
cg diesel genset cost, $/kWh
cm maintenance and repair costs, $/h
cf fuel price, $/t
cp power electronics costs, $/kW
fh hybrid fuel consumption, t/ year
fc conventional fuel consumption, t/ year
th genset running time hybrid system, h
tc genset running time conventional system, h
x years before payback
y years until operational savings equal battery cost
energy to the ship’s power consumers in the same way the battery
in the Toyota Prius hybrid car does. In shipping, the term hybrid
ship can have several alternative meanings, but in our case we will
use it in the same sense as in the automotive industry.
To estimate the total cost difference between a hybrid ship and
a conventional ship, there are two main cost aspects that must be
addressed:
 Capital costs – Installation costs of the battery and auxiliary
engines.
 Operational costs – How can the battery contribute to reduced
fuel consumption and maintenance during operation.
There are several compelling arguments to be made for hybrid
power generation:
 Optimal load – The energy efficiency and emissions of diesel and
gas engines depend on the engine load, being far worse for low
loads than high loads (low load means low power output). In a
hybrid ship, the battery can be used to handle deviations from
average demand and allows the conventional engines to operate
closer to the optimal load point.
 Transients – The energy efficiency of diesel and gas engines is
lower when the engine is changing its load, while the emissions
of SOx, NOx and particulate matter increase. In a hybrid system,
the battery can handle the transient demand while the conven-
tional engines deliver the average power.
 Power redundancy – In some cases, a battery pack can presum-
ably count as a power source, allowing ship owners to install
fewer engines while still satisfying class rules for redundancy.
 Facilitate energy harvesting – Energy storage is necessary for effi-
cient onboard harvesting from renewable sources, such as solar
cells.
 Harbor mode – If the battery installation is large enough (which
is not the case in this study) the battery can provide all the pow-
er while in port, eliminating local emissions.
1.2. Hybrid cranes case study
To accurately quantify the benefits of hybrid auxiliary power
generation we need detailed operational profiles. This is because
the potential for savings lie mostly in time-varying power
demands [8]. Vessel types that have mostly constant power
demands, such as long-range freight vessels are expected to gain
less from hybrid power trains, while a ship operating cranes or
using dynamic positioning will have greatly varying power
164 E. Ovrum, T.F. Bergh / Applied Energy 152 (2015) 162–172
demand and therefore greater potential for reduced fuel consump-
tion with a hybrid system. Crane operations are especially suited
for hybrid power generation, because cranes can be run by electric
motors that can use regenerative braking.
The ship we have based our models on is an open hatch dry bulk
vessel of about 50,000 dwt. The ship uses three slewing type cargo
cranes1 powered by electric motors. We have obtained typical power
demand profiles in port for this vessel type from the ship owner, see
Section 3.2 for the details. As the cranes are fully electric the descent
of the cranes’ load is slowed by using the electric motors as
generators, thus generating power. This is commonly referred to as
regenerative braking. In the actual vessel the generated energy from
the crane braking is wasted, while in our hybrid model it is returned
to the grid, and potentially used to charge the battery, if the total
power demand of hotel consumers and cranes is negative.
In Table 1 we see the power generation system (auxiliary only,
not propulsion) configuration of the existing conventional ships,
with three gensets, and of the proposed hybrid ship, with a
lithium-ion battery pack replacing one of the gensets.
Lithium-ion batteries have several advantages over competing
energy storage technologies, in particular, higher energy and pow-
er densities (both to-weight and to-volume ratios), which are
important design parameters for ships. In addition, lithium-ion
batteries have already been chosen to be used in Norway’s first
battery-powered ferry, and in the hybrid offshore supply vessel
Viking Lady, which has been retrofitted with fuel-cells and batter-
ies in connection with the project FellowSHIP III, sponsored by The
Research Council of Norway.
2. Battery modelling
There are two major approaches to modelling batteries:
Equivalent-circuit models, and electrochemical models. An
overview of various modelling strategies and the main battery
characteristics is given in Jongerden et al. [9]. Circuit models are
inherently dynamic, providing a relationship between the voltage
and current over time, see [10] for a comparative study of circuit
models. In addition, the models can include auxiliary models to
represent the batteries’ capacity, temperature dependency (e.g.
[11]), state of charge dependency, as well as performance degrada-
tion. In [12] an equivalent circuit model with a temperature part is
calibrated to measurement data from an 18,650 cell. The model
yields good results for transient response simulations and for ther-
mal behaviour, although deviating for low temperatures and high
discharge rates. The same circuit model is used in [13], where
the cell’s complex impedance is simulated, adding another
important tool for calibrating battery models. In [14] three differ-
ent circuit models are compared, while in [15] a circuit model is
used to simulate plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
2.1. Model specification and selection
To model a battery in a hybrid power system one can in
principle use both an electrochemical model as well as an equiva-
lent circuit model. Both these classes of models can provide the
voltage, current and state of charge, which are the most important
parameters in this context. Equivalent circuit models are usually
simpler and somewhat less accurate than electrochemical models,
but are far easier to use, especially in connection with other com-
ponents. Accurately modelling the lifetime of the battery however,
which is needed to estimate the time to replacement, cannot be
done directly using an equivalent circuit model, and will typically
1
The ship has four cranes, but due to issues with manning three cranes are
normally used.
Table 1
The conventional and hybrid power generation system configurations. The conven-
tional system has three gensets installed, while the hybrid system replaces one genset
with a battery pack with a capacity of B kWh. The second engine in the hybrid system
is not used in simulations, and is only retained for redundancy purposes.
Conventional Hybrid
960 kW Diesel genset 960 kW Diesel genset
960 kW Diesel genset (960 kW Diesel genset)
960 kW Diesel genset B kWh Battery pack
demand an electrochemical or a phenomenological model, as well
as access to significant amounts of experimental data. Our primary
objective was to investigate on a high level the benefits of hybrid
power generation on ships, and in light of that we decided to
implement an equivalent circuit model of a lithium-ion battery
with a state of charge dependent voltage.
2.2. Model description
The simplest equivalent circuit models of batteries consist of a
voltage source and a resistance in series. The most common
elaboration of this simple model is to include one or more
RC-loops in series. An RC-loop consists of a resistance and a
capacitance in parallel and is used to represent relaxation time
constants. In [10] a comparative study of equivalent circuit models
for lithium-ion batteries, comparing lab tests with several different
models, concluded that ‘‘the first-order RC model is preferred for
LiNMC cells’’. We tried running simulations with a single RC-loop
included in the battery model with a wide range of values of the
associated time constant (s ¼ RC), but found that this had no
significant impact on the fuel consumption of the hybrid system.
We therefore chose to include only two components in the equiva-
lent circuit model: a voltage source and a resistance.
In our model the voltage of the battery depends only on the
state of charge (SOC), q, and the current through it, I (positive when
discharging), and is given by
U ¼ U 0 ðqÞ  RI; ð1Þ
where R is the internal resistance of the battery and U 0 is the
open-circuit voltage (OCV).
We assume that U 0 only depends on the SOC, q, and disregard
the temperature-dependence, assuming a fixed temperature of
25 °C. As mentioned earlier, we base our model on battery packs
manufactured by Corvus [6], which in turn consist of cells made
by Dow-Kokam [16]. We have fitted U 0 to data published by the
cell manufacturer of experimentally measured voltage versus state
of charge at 25 °C and 0.5 C, which is shown in Fig. 1 along with
corresponding curves for other C-rates. C-rate is a measure of the
current through a battery, normalized by the capacity of the bat-
tery such that a C-rate of 1 (or 1 C) corresponds to a current that
discharges the battery in one hour. In the published data we note
that there is not much difference between the cell voltage at
25 °C and 60 °C in the SOC range between 10% and 100%, which
we argue justifies the omission of the temperature dependence.
Since U 0 is fitted to a voltage curve for a finite discharge current
it is not exactly equal to the true open-circuit voltage, but since
the voltage curve for 1 C is almost the same as for 0.5 C, we con-
clude that an extrapolation to 0 C will not be substantially different
from 0.5 °C. The modelled open-circuit voltage, U 0 , is seen in Fig. 2.
To determine the value of the internal resistance, R, we have fit-
ted the modelled voltage U, given by Eq. (1), to the voltage curves
for various C-rates (and by extension, for different currents) shown
in Fig. 1, using the least squares method. This procedure yields a
value for R ¼ 565:5 mX. Running simulations with 50% increa-
sed/decreased value of R results in a change of fuel consumption
 E. Ovrum, T.F. Bergh / Applied Energy 152 (2015) 162–172
Fig. 1. Data published by Dow-Kokam [16], reproduced through simulation,
showing voltage as a function of capacity when discharging at 0.5 C, 1.0 C, 2.0 C,
3.0, 5.0 C, and 6.0 C. The two topmost curves, corresponding to the cases of 0.5 C
and 1.0 C, are not clearly distinguishable in this plot.
of only 0:09%, thus the calibrated value of R is precise enough for
the final results.
2.3. AC/DC converter
To model the lithium-ion battery’s interaction with the ship’s
AC power grid we need to represent an additional component, an
AC/DC converter. Specifically, we need to account for the finite
conversion efficiency, the losses of converting the battery’s direct
current to the ship grid’s alternating current, and vice versa. The
converter is modelled as a constant relative power loss, given by
the factor gconverter , both when charging and discharging the
battery. Denoting the external power demand by P ext we express
this by
Pext ¼ gconverter Pbattery ; if Pext > 0;
ð2Þ
Pext gconverter ¼ Pbattery ; if Pext < 0:
We have assumed an efficiency of gconv erter ¼ 0:99. To investigate the
impact of this assumption we ran simulations with lower values of
the converter efficiency, and the impact on fuel consumption and
payback time is shown in Table 2. This shows that poorer converter
efficiency will not have a large impact on the fuel saving potential
and the payback time of the hybrid system, and we therefore con-
clude that the assumption is good enough for our use. We have
Fig. 2. Voltage as a function of SOC, as given by Eq. (1). The modelled voltage is a
curve fit of the manufacturer’s published data by three fourth order polynomials,
applied at three different ranges of state of charge.
165
Table 2
Sensitivity analysis of the AC/DC converter efficiency. In column g we give the
converter efficiency, in column f we give the difference in fuel consumption of the
hybrid system (relative to the baseline), and in column s we give the difference in
payback time of the hybrid system, see Eq. (10).
g (%) f (%) s (%)
99 0 0
99.5 0.5 0.4
97 +0.8 +1.5
95 +1.7 +3.3
not modelled the transmission losses in the power grid, as we
assume they will be the same for the hybrid and conventional
systems.
3. Modelling the hybrid power system
In this section we describe the models of the two alternate
power generation systems for powering the cranes and the hotel
consumers, and their control strategies. The auxiliary diesel gen-
erators are also used to power the ship’s thrusters, but since we
only modelled crane operations while the ship is loading or
unloading in port, the power demand from thrusters was not
included. The conventional power generation system consists of
three gensets, while the hybrid system consists of two gensets
and a battery, see Table 1. For the simulations, only one genset is
running in the hybrid system, the second genset is installed for
redundancy purposes. All gensets have a power rating of 960 kW.
3.1. Literature study
Hybrid vehicles have been studied more for the car industry
than for shipping, with far more studies on simulating hybrid vehi-
cles (cars) than hybrid ships, see e.g. [17,18]. Similar to this paper,
simulating the operation and control strategy of hybrid vehicles to
calculate the savings and payback time has also been done for fuel
cell and battery hybrid buses in [19]. While in [20] different control
strategies for hybrid cars have been tested, specifically investigat-
ing control strategies that can prolong battery life.
Several groups [21–23] have investigated hybrid power arrange-
ments on ships. In [24] a battery swap system for ferries was inves-
tigated. In [25] the fuel savings for using hybrid propulsion in the
dry bulk world fleet in transit is estimated. Different ship types
have different operational modes and hybrid systems have better
performance in some operational modes than others. In [8] the
authors have estimated the potential benefits of hybrid power gen-
eration for different ship types. In [22] a hybrid propulsion system
for an all-electric passenger ship was investigated, with a 7.5 MWh
NaS battery installed to assist in power generation, resulting in a 2%
reduction of fuel consumption. In [25] an attempt was made to
quantify the benefits of converting the world bulk fleet to
all-electric ships with battery energy storage. The study assumed
different ships to have Redox flow or Sodium Nickel Chloride bat-
teries installed, ranging from 4 MWh to 15 MWh in size.
The control strategy used to control the battery and gensets can
have a large impact on the performance of a hybrid ship. Del Pizzo
et al. [26] investigated a battery hybrid passenger ship, 23 m long
with two hybrid operational strategies: the first strategy had the
diesel generator set providing the average power demand as inte-
grated over time, while the second strategy only used the battery
when the power demand was greater than an upper limit or below
a lower limit. In [7], Zahedi et al. modelled an offshore supply ves-
sel with four gensets and a battery for energy storage, employing
two different hybrid control strategies: the first would let the bat-
tery discharge and charge alternately, while switching between
166 E. Ovrum, T.F. Bergh / Applied Energy 152 (2015) 162–172

different numbers of running gensets; while the second strategy Table 3

would run a fixed number of gensets, and the battery and gensets
would take a given share of the power fluctuations. To our knowl-
edge, the equivalent of the ‘‘limit C-rate mode’’ in our advanced
control strategy (seen in Fig. 6) has not been published.
The operation schedule of a simulated crane, provided by the ship owner. Each phase
of the cycle is numbered and named, with duration in seconds and electric power
consumption tabulated. The ‘‘Load on/off’’ phases have a uniformly random duration
in the ranges tabulated. When power is negative, the electric motors on the cranes are
used for regenerative braking and will thus generate electric power which is fed back
to the ship’s electric grid when using the hybrid system.

3.2. Power consumers Phase Duration (s) Power (kW)

1 Load on 45–85 20
The power demand is the sum of the demand of the ship’s hotel 2 Hoisting 15 m 45 372
demand and that of the three cranes. The hotel load accounts for 3 Luffing in & hoisting 5 m 14 475
4 Slewing 75° 27 80
things like living quarters, bridge, etc. The power required by the
5 Lowering 10 m 27 212
cranes is modelled as a power consumer with a time-varying 6 Load off 10–20 20
demand, while the hotel consumers are modelled as a single con- 7 Hoisting 5 m & slewing 75° 15 125
sumer with a constant demand. The value of the constant hotel 8 Luffing out & lowering 15 m 30 89
load has been set in discussion with the ship owner from an aver-
age of actual measurements. The hotel load does actually vary in
time, but with a much smaller frequency and amplitude than the
crane power, and for the purpose of this study we model the hotel
load as a constant with the value 375 kW.
The cranes perform a series of operations to complete a loading
cycle, these are shown in Table 3, with names for each operation
phase, the time it takes to complete, and its power demand. The
whole loading cycle for a crane takes about four minutes.
Each of the three cranes run through this cycle, but to produce a
more realistic power demand profile, the ‘‘Load on/off’’ phases of
the cycle are assumed to vary in duration, and are thus assigned
a (uniformly) random duration in the ranges given in Table 3.
These randomised durations also help ensure that the sum of the
power of all the cranes working simultaneously is not a cyclic
function. For simulation purposes we build up 1 h long operational
profiles for each crane by repeating the cycle in Table 3, with new
random durations for the ‘‘Load on/off’’ phases in each iteration. A
single power demand profile is obtained by adding the contribu- Fig. 3. The SFOC, as a function of engine load from 10% to 100% of the 960 kW diesel
genset. This curve has been constructed by linear interpolation between the SFOC of
tions from each crane and the hotel load, which serves as input a 750 kW genset (Caterpillar Marine 3508B) and a 1120 kW genset (Caterpillar
to the simulations of the hybrid power generation system. In Marine 3512B) [27].
Fig. 7 we see part of a one-hour operation generated from
Table 3 in this manner. Since the conventional power generation
system does not utilize regenerative braking, the power demand
profile of each crane is in this case limited below at zero power
before adding. This can be summarized by the following equations:

X
3
PðWith regenerationÞ ¼ P Hotel þ Pi ; ð3Þ
i¼1

X
3
PðWithout regenerationÞ ¼ PHotel þ max ðPi ; 0Þ; ð4Þ
i¼1

where P i is the power demand profile of an individual crane.

3.3. Diesel genset model

The diesel genset models are lookup tables based on data from
genset manufacturer brochures [27]. For a given load,
l 2 ½10%; 100%, the fuel consumption is linearly interpolated from
a table, and in Fig. 3 the resulting SFOC as a function of load is
shown. The electric power output is a function of the load times
the maximal power output, P ¼ lP max , with Pmax ¼ 960 kW. The gen-
set lookup table model is a steady state model that does not take
into account increased fuel consumption at transient conditions.
3.4. Conventional control system
We designed the control strategy for the conventional system
(see Fig. 4) where three gensets constitute the conventional power
generation system, to be as close as possible to the existing system.
Fig. 4. The conventional control system. A PI-controller maintains the genset loads
(which are the same for all three) such that the power delivered is equal to the
power demand from the crane operations and the hotel load.
In the existing system, one or more gensets can be shut off, but the
running gensets are always at equal load. The load is determined
by a PID controller which assures that the total power generated
is equal to the total power demand. The conventional system con-
sists of three equal-sized diesel gensets, each with nominal electri-
cal power output of 960 kW. The existing control system uses two
gensets when two cranes are in use and three gensets when three
or four cranes are in use, this means that in our simulations all
three gensets are being used.
 E. Ovrum, T.F. Bergh / Applied Energy 152 (2015) 162–172 167

3.5. Hybrid control system

We have developed a control strategy for the hybrid system

from the ground up, as we did not have access to a real hybrid ship
with a hybrid control system to base our model on. The hybrid ship
has two different types of power generators and two or more
power consumers; and additionally, the battery can change from
generating power to storing energy, i.e. it switches between being
a power generator and a power consumer. This means that keeping
the control system simple can be challenging. In addition, a ship
can have different operational modes, e.g. loading or sailing, and
it is not necessarily clear which control strategy is optimal for each
mode of operation. To ensure both the safety and longevity of the
battery pack, the current and state of charge (SOC) must be kept
within certain limits. We have developed two versions of the con-
trol strategy for the hybrid power generation system: One basic
control strategy (Fig. 5)); and one more advanced strategy
(Fig. 6), that allows for a smaller battery size at the cost of greater
transient loads on the generator set. Fig. 5. The normal mode of the hybrid control strategies. The main input to the
One of the main benefits of a hybrid system is that one can generator set control system is the time averaged power demand, as given by Eq.
(5). An SOC correction factor is added to this to ensure a steady SOC on the battery.
operate the genset closer to optimal load and decrease the tran-
If the SOC is below the desired value, this correction factor is positive, and vice
sients of the engine. In the basic control strategy the genset power versa. The battery will deliver/receive power according to the difference between
is set equal to the time-averaged power demand plus a correction the total power demand and what the genset generates.
factor. The purpose of the correction factor is to maintain the bat-
tery at a steady state of charge. The fastest transient loads are left
to the battery to handle, with the genset slowly ramping up and
down to maintain a close to constant SOC on the battery. This shal-
low cycling of the battery is expected to make cell degradation
from cycling negligible. The time-averaged power demand is not
treated as an a priori known parameter, but is instead a
time-dependent variable in the simulation, given by
Z t
1 0
Paverage ðtÞ ¼ Pdemand ðt 0 Þdt : ð5Þ
t 0

The advanced control strategy is the same as the basic one, except
that it has an additional control mode, which we call ‘‘limit
C-rate’’ mode (we will refer to the only mode of the basic control
strategy as the ‘‘normal’’ mode). The advanced control mode is illus-
trated in Fig. 6. The motivation for developing the advanced hybrid
control strategy is to enable a smaller (hence, cheaper) battery pack,
at the expense of greater transients in the engine load. Greater tran-
sient loads may mean less efficient power generation, although the
Fig. 6. The ‘‘limit C-rate’’ control mode. As in the normal mode, the battery
transients are still greater for the conventional system, an effect provides/receives the difference in power between what is required by the
which we have not modelled. This control mode is engaged when consumers and what the genset generates. However, the genset load is determined
the normal mode battery C-rate would exceed the battery safety by a PI-controller which aims to keep the battery C-rate at either C min or C max , when
the corresponding limit would be exceeded in normal mode. The ‘‘limit C-rate’’
limits, denoted by C min /C max . In this mode the generator load will
mode will then increase the genset load to assist the battery, if needed, when the
be increased or decreased in order to keep the battery C-rate within battery C-rate is already at C max ; and decrease the genset load, if needed, when the
the safe range. While in this mode the average load and battery SOC battery C-rate is already at C min .
is ignored (though the normal mode will be forced if the SOC safe
limits are reached, i.e. the battery is in danger of running out of
charge or being overcharged). The safe C-rate range for the battery
costs of the conventional and hybrid systems. First we describe the
is based on discussions with the manufacturer [16], namely 2C/4C,
conventional system and then describe how this system could be
which means that the maximal charge current corresponds to 2C
redesigned as a hybrid system. We then use the fuel savings per
and the maximal discharge current corresponds to 4C. The C-rate
year of operation to calculate the payback time of the alternative
may exceed these limits without causing significant harm to the
design, as a function of capital costs and operational costs. We do
battery for short intervals of 1–10 s. However, as we can see from
this for both the basic and advanced hybrid systems described in
the results in Fig. 8, even though the maximum charging value is
Section 3.5.
2C, the average C-rate is closer to 1C/1C.
The conventional system consists of three diesel gensets provid-
In Fig. 7 we show 12 min of simulated crane operation using the
ing all the electric power for the hotel and cranes on the ship, see
basic hybrid strategy.
Table 1. The hybrid system has a battery installed to assist with the
power load when the power demand is high, and to be charged
4. Case study when the power demand is low. In the hybrid system there is no
need to install three diesel gensets; in fact the system only requires
To analyze the economic benefits of installing a battery on the one diesel genset as the average load in the test case is less than
case study ship, we consider both the capital costs and operational 960 kW. Due to redundancy requirements, however, we install
168 E. Ovrum, T.F. Bergh / Applied Energy 152 (2015) 162–172
Fig. 7. 12 min of simulated crane operation, where the hybrid power demand is
fluctuating while the diesel engine power output is quite stable, aiming at
delivering the average of hybrid power demand. Whenever the power demand is
greater than the genset power output, the battery is discharging energy, and
whenever the power demand is lower than the genset output, the battery is being
charged.
two gensets in the system. To use the battery one must also install
power electronics, e.g. AC/DC converters, capable of handling the
power output of the battery.
4.1. Cost analysis
There are two main operational costs we consider for the con-
ventional and hybrid systems, fuel consumption and diesel engine
maintenance and repairs. Diesel engine maintenance and repair
contribute significantly to the operational costs of ships, and the
ship owner has provided us with an estimated cost of maintenance
and repair for the diesel engines per hour of operation. The hybrid
system only runs one diesel engine at a time, while the conven-
tional system uses three engines at a time (see Section 3.4), which
means that for every hour the ship is in port loading the hybrid
system will have one hour of engine operation, while the conven-
tional has three hours of operation.
In Section 5 we present a cost analysis based on ranges of prices
for fuel and batteries. Today, the fuel price is about 1000 $/t (dol-
lars per ton) for marine diesel oil (MDO), and about 650 $/t for
heavy fuel oil (HFO). In [25] the prices for typical auxiliary diesel
engine generator sets is set to 350 $/kW. The battery price today
is roughly 1000 $/kWh, while an estimated price for the power
electronics, in $/kW, was obtained through private communica-
tions with a power electronics manufacturer. We find the annual
fuel consumption by multiplying our simulated fuel consumption
for one hour of crane operations with the shipowner’s estimates
that the ship is loading or unloading for 1470 h a year.
In calculating the profitability of the hybrid system, we look at
the payback time of the hybrid system compared to the conven-
tional one. The payback time is the time to break even, i.e. when
the installation and operational costs are equal for the hybrid sys-
tem and the conventional systems.
The capital costs for conventional system (Section 3.4) and the
hybrid system (Section 3.5) are given by
C cinst ¼ Ng cg E; ð6Þ
C hinst ¼ Ng cg E þ cb B þ cp Pbmax : ð7Þ
The maximum simulated (dis) charge power of the battery, Pbmax ,
and the battery size, B, will be different for the basic and the
advanced hybrid control strategy. The advanced strategy enables a
battery with less capacity, and hence cheaper, at the cost of greater
transients for the generator set. The operational costs depend
mainly on the annual fuel consumption (f c=h ) and maintenance
requirements, which are determined by engine running time (t c=h ):
C cop ¼ cf f c þ cm t c ; ð8Þ
C hop ¼ cf f h þ cm t h : ð9Þ
We define the payback time, x, as the years before the costs of the
hybrid and conventional systems are equal,
C hinst þ xC hop ¼ C cinst þ xC cop
C hinst  C cinst
)x¼ : ð10Þ
C cop  C hop
The payback time illustrates the potential profits of the hybrid
system, in that for every year of operation above x, the profits are
the difference in operational costs
DC op ¼ C cop  C hop ; ð11Þ
assuming that the battery does not need replacement within x
years.
To further indicate the profitability of the hybrid installation,
we calculate the number of years of operation (y) of the system
before the ship owner can afford to buy a new battery installation,
using only the accumulated operational savings:
yDC op ¼ cb B; ð12Þ
assuming no change in battery prices. This tells us that as long as
the battery life is longer than y, the hybrid system will be more
profitable than the conventional.
4.2. Determining battery size
For an application with a given maximum power demand, such
as we have in our case study of the hybrid cranes, we determine
the necessary size or capacity, in kWh, of the battery pack from
the C-rate limitations of the battery and the maximum C-rate
encountered in simulated operations. As we discussed in
Section 3.5, we set the battery C-rate limits at 2C/4C, meaning
maximally sustained2 2C charging and 4C discharging of the battery.
The C-rate limits are recommended by cell manufacturers in order to
limit degradation of the cells, as excessive currents will lead to dra-
matically shorter useful lifespans. Different battery chemistries have
different current tolerances, and some manufacturers also provide
so-called ‘‘power cells’’ that focus on being able to deliver high
C-rates, rather than high capacities. This means that deciding upon
which battery to use for different hybrid ship applications requires
a good understanding of the details of the ship’s operation.
The strategy of the hybrid control system greatly impacts the
required battery size. Using the basic hybrid control strategy, the
maximal charge current and the maximal discharge current of
the battery are about the same. In this case the necessary battery
size is determined by the maximal discharge C-rate of 2. Using
the advanced strategy allows for a battery of smaller capacity,
and in this case the battery size is limited by the maximal dis-
charge C-rate of 4.
Our strategy for determining the battery size yields results that
are highly dependent on the actual operation of the hybrid ship,
with the maxima and minima in the ship’s power demand being
the main input parameters (yielding maximal power into and out
of the battery). The profitability of the hybrid system, illustrated
2
More than 10 s.
 E. Ovrum, T.F. Bergh / Applied Energy 152 (2015) 162–172
by our calculations of the payback time, depends very much on the
required capacity of the battery pack, which was the motivation for
developing the advanced control strategy.
5. Results
In this section, we show the results from modelling the opera-
tion of three cranes on a hybrid ship. We model the operation of
the cranes for one hour using ten different randomly generated
power demand profiles as described in Section 3.2. We average
the results for the ten different profiles to get a representative hour
of operation. For this hour of operation we calculate the fuel con-
sumption of the hybrid and conventional systems, and we multiply
this by the hours of crane operation per year (see Section 4.1) to get
the annual fuel consumption. We have not modelled emissions of
NOx ; SOx and particulate matter, but as seen in [5] we expect similar
or greater reduction of these emissions as well. We then proceed to
discuss the validity of our model and how reliable our results are.
Below we show the annual savings of the hybrid systems, the pay-
back time of the hybrid systems, and time until the savings equal
the price of a new battery (see Section 4.1). Fig. 8 shows results from
a 1 h simulation of the two hybrid control strategies.
5.1. Economic results
In Table 4 we show the results from the comparison between
the hybrid and conventional systems, for both the basic and the
advanced control strategies. The fuel consumption for the two
hybrid strategies and the relative fuel savings compared with the
conventional setup are almost identical, but the battery size for
the basic hybrid strategy is 312 kWh while only 156 kWh for the
advanced hybrid. The reason that the model predicts only a small
difference in fuel consumption is that the diesel genset model
(see Section 3.3) does not take into account the increased fuel con-
sumption of diesel engines at transient loads, see 5.5. The advanced
control strategy simulations have diesel genset loads that are fluc-
tuating more than for the basic control strategy, but still less than
for the conventional system, see Figs. 7 and 8. Therefore the
increased fuel consumption due to varying loads is greater for
the conventional system than for the advanced control strategy
hybrid system. The annual operational savings of the hybrid com-
pared with the conventional is shown in Fig. 9.
In Fig. 10 we show the contour map of x, the payback time for
the basic hybrid control strategy: the time until the installation
and operational costs of the hybrid and conventional systems are
equal. When we turn to using the advanced control strategy, how-
ever, the battery can be smaller and the payback time is shorter,
negative in fact, meaning that the installation costs are lower for
the hybrid than the conventional system, see Fig. 11.
In Fig. 12 we show the contour map of y for the advanced con-
trol strategy, the time it takes for the operational savings of the
hybrid system to equal the price of buying a new battery. As long
as the battery has a lifetime greater than y, the investment of
installing the hybrid system will pay off. For the basic hybrid y is
close to three years at today’s prices, while for the advanced hybrid
it is about a year and a half at today’s prices.
In Fig. 13 we show the total savings of the two different hybrid
installations compared to the conventional system, as a function of
time in years. We see that the basic hybrid installation is more
expensive than the conventional system, and the total savings at
the beginning, year zero, is negative. After three years, however,
the total savings are more than $250 k. For the advanced strategy
the hybrid installation costs $120 k less than the conventional,
and after three years the total savings are higher than $400 k.
This novel control strategy results in approximately the same
169
savings as the basic one, but requires only half the battery size in
this case, significantly reducing the installation costs of the hybrid
system. This result indicates that there needs to be done further
research to find different control strategies that can be suitable
for different types of hybrid ship operations.
5.2. Lifetime considerations
In order to perform an accurate analysis of the savings of the
battery throughout its life, one must use a battery model that
includes performance degradation due to age. The annual savings
predicted by a model with performance degradation would
decrease as the battery aged. We have not included performance
degradation in our models, but instead focused on a shorter time
frame, aiming to find the payback time of the investment.
There are several factors influencing the useful lifetime of a bat-
tery. Cell temperature is a very important aspect; a ship operating
in the Persian Gulf might have significantly shorter battery life-
times than a ship operating in the North Sea due to the high ambi-
ent temperatures. In this paper we do not consider temperature or
the energy consumption of a temperature control system for the
battery installation.
The other important factor for battery lifetime is cycling. Cycles
with a high depth of discharge are more harmful to the battery than
shallow cycles. We have not modelled degradation effects in the
battery, but we do model the cycling of the battery and can there-
fore give an indication of whether or not the battery will have a long
life before needing to be replaced. In Fig. 8 we show the engine load
and C-rate of the battery operating for one hour. From the figure
one can see the highly fluctuating C-rate as the battery meets the
varying power demand of the system. At the same time the SOC
of the battery hardly changes, fluctuating between 0.68 and 0.72,
for about 20 small cycles per hour. For the case of 20 cycles an hour,
the battery would have 20  1470  30; 000 micro cycles a year at
about 3% DoD, which according to the manufacturer would allow
for hundreds of thousands of cycles. Without giving any definitive
answer to the question of lifetimes, we conclude on the note that
the cycles are shallow and this will probably mean that the battery
lifetime will be determined by calendar fade rather than cycling. On
the other hand, the battery is constantly working at high C-rates
and could reach high temperatures, which would accelerate the cal-
endar aging and decrease its lifetime if not controlled.
As we cannot presently say what the lifetimes of the batteries
will be, we instead show how long it will take for the ship owner
to have saved enough to be able to buy another battery, see
Fig. 12. In the cases we have investigated this time is far lower than
what we expect the lifetime of the battery to be, and we therefore
do not perform a full fledged life cycle analysis of the hybrid ship.
The expected battery lifetime is a very important design para-
meter as the designer must take into account:
 Battery replacement: The battery must be replaced once its per-
formance has fallen below a certain level.
 Capacity fade: The capacity, the maximum of stored energy, of
the battery is decreased both from cycling and from the age of
the battery itself. The capacity fade must be taken into account
when designing the battery so that it can deliver the required
power and energy throughout its life. Therefore the battery size
must be increased from the ideal size to compensate for capa-
city fade.
 Voltage drop: As the battery is cycled and ages, the internal
resistance increases. The increased resistance decreases the bat-
tery’s maximum voltage and power, its charge/ discharge effi-
ciency, and increases its heat generation. The increased
resistance can lead to lower maximum power of the battery,
and higher fuel consumption in a hybrid system.
170 E. Ovrum, T.F. Bergh / Applied Energy 152 (2015) 162–172

Fig. 8. Engine load (top frame) and battery C-rate (bottom frame) for one hour of operation using the basic and the advanced control strategy. For the basic control strategy
the engine load varies only slightly, and the battery C-rate is mostly confined to the range [2, 2]. Using the advanced control strategy allows for a battery of only half the size
of the previous case. In this case the engine load varies more as a consequence of keeping the battery within the safe C-rate range [2, 4].

Table 4 5.3. Hybrid vs. regenerative

The battery capacity and summary of the benefits of the hybrid power generation
system. The two battery sizes corresponds to the advanced control strategy and basic
The hybrid system in this case study benefits both from using the
control strategy, respectively.
battery to run the diesel engines at more efficient loads, and from
Battery size 156 kWh / 312 kWh regenerative braking of the cranes. To investigate the benefits of
Diesel engine running time saved 2940 h
the hybrid setup compared to the regenerative braking benefits we
Fuel used conventional 307 t=year
Fuel used hybrid 215 t=year ran simulations of the conventional system with and without regen-
Fuel savings 92 t=year erative braking, and of the hybrid system (basic control strategy)
Relative fuel savings 30% with and without regenerative braking. To simulate regenerative

Fig. 9. The annual savings of the hybrid system compared to the conventional
system, taking into account fuel savings and reduced maintenance and repair. The
annual savings are the same for both the basic and the advanced control strategies.
At current fuel prices of about 1000 $/t the hybrid system has annual operational
savings of about $110,000.
Fig. 10. Contour plot of the payback time for the basic control strategy as a function
of fuel cost and battery cost (see Eq. (10)), with a battery size of 312 kWh. At current
battery prices of about 1000 $/kWh and fuel prices of 1000 $/t the basic hybrid
system payback time is less than one year.
 E. Ovrum, T.F. Bergh / Applied Energy 152 (2015) 162–172 171

5.4. Control strategy limitations

The control strategies we have developed are explicitly formu-

lated and not formally optimized as in the way described in [28].
For hybrid electric vehicles there has been utilized formal
optimization techniques to find the optimal control strategies for
a given vehicle and its use. A limitation of our work is that our
strategies are explicitly formulated and intrinsically heuristic, this
means that in future work we can find strategies that will perform
better than the ones presented here.

5.5. Validity of the economic analysis

In this work we have only considered the effects of adding a

Fig. 11. Contour plot of the payback time for the advanced control strategy as a battery and removing one genset. There are plenty of other options
function of fuel cost and battery cost (see Eq. (10)), with a battery size of 156 kWh. for reducing fuel consumption and emissions that can also be
At current battery prices of about 1000 $/kWh and fuel prices of 1000 $/t the investigated in the same manner. One example is a conventional
advanced hybrid system payback time is negative, indicating that the hybrid system system where there are only two engines running when operating
installation costs are less than the conventional system installation costs.
three cranes on the ship. Another option would be to investigate a
hybrid system with three engines with a lower power rating and
correspondingly lower installation cost.
As documented in [29] combustion engines are less efficient
braking in the conventional power system we used the hybrid power
while changing load – while they are in dynamic or transient
demand in Eq. (3), this simulates a case without batteries where the
operation. The decreased efficiency of combustion engines at tran-
regenerative power from each crane is fed back to the ship’s power
sient conditions means that a hybrid system will use less fuel and
grid.
therefore have less CO2 and local emissions. This effect is not
In Table 5 we show the annual fuel consumption for crane
presently taken into account in our model, which means that our
operations for the four cases; conventional without regeneration,
results, in this regard, understate the benefits of installing a
conventional with regeneration, hybrid without regeneration, and
battery.
hybrid with regeneration. The rightmost column shows the
In Section 5.2 we discussed the lifetime of the battery, and in a
decrease in fuel consumption when including regeneration for
real installation one would have to include a larger battery than
the conventional and hybrid systems. The bottom row shows the
ideal to account for capacity loss.
decrease in fuel consumption for installing the hybrid system. At
It is of course hard to accurately predict the price of battery sys-
the bottom right corner is the decrease in fuel consumption when
tems and fuel costs in the future, but there are two trends that
replacing a conventional system without regeneration with a
point toward increased profitability of hybrid systems:
hybrid system with regeneration. We see that regeneration saves
24 t alone for the conventional system, allowing for a potential
 Fuel prices have increased drastically over the last decade, the
7.7% decrease of fuel consumption without installing a battery.
more they increase the more profitable any fuel saving tech-
On the other hand, if the ship already has regenerative braking
nology will become.
installed and a battery is installed for hybrid power generation,
 Lithium-ion battery prices will probably decrease for some time
one saves 70 t or 24.4% of the fuel. To put this another way, the bat-
due to increasing demand and increasing production capacity
tery accounts for 70–74% of the total fuel savings in this case study.
[30].

Fig. 12. Contour plot of the number of years before the savings from the hybrid
solution are large enough to buy another battery pack, for the advanced control
strategy. As long as the lifetime of the battery is greater than this, the hybrid
solution will be more profitable than the conventional solution. At today’s prices, Fig. 13. Total savings of the hybrid system compared to the conventional system,
the advanced hybrid system has saved up enough for another battery after about for both the basic control strategy (the lower dashed line) and the advanced
one and a half years. strategy (the upper line).
172 E. Ovrum, T.F. Bergh / Applied Energy 152 (2015) 162–172
Table 5
This table shows the isolated benefits of the battery and the regenerative braking.
No regeneration (t) Regeneration (t)
Conventional 311 287
Hybrid 245 217
D 66 70
Diesel engine and power electronics technologies are highly
matured and the prices will probably not change as much in the
coming years, we have therefore chosen to use fixed prices for
genset and power electronics while using a range of prices for
batteries and fuel.
The ship we have modelled has diesel generator sets providing
electric power for the hotel, cranes and thrusters. The ship is not an
all-electric ship and uses mechanical power propulsion from its
variable speed diesel main engines. The mechanical propulsion
means that when the ship is sailing, the battery cannot contribute
to propulsion, but the battery can be used for hybrid electric power
generation. We have only modelled the crane operation, and have
not taken into account the benefits of hybrid power generation for
the hotel while the ship is sailing, maneuvering, or in harbour and
not loading. By not simulating all operational modes of the ship,
our results understate the benefits of installing a battery and
hybrid system.
Overall, we have omitted details that can both increase and
decrease the benefits of hybrid power generation for crane
operations. Even though this is an early result, we believe our
results might be too conservative, that they probably understate
the benefits of the hybrid installation on our case study ship.
6. Conclusions and recommendations
We have described a simulation-based method of quantifying
the benefits of using hybrid power with batteries for energy
storage on ships, for the special case of crane operations. We have
modelled diesel generator sets, a battery pack, the cranes and the
ship hotel load, as well as developed two different control
strategies for the hybrid power system in order to simulate power
generation of the ship. The battery model has been calibrated to
data from the Dow Kokam cells used by Corvus, the battery
manufacturer for both the Viking Lady and Norway’s first battery
ferry. The presented method has been used in a case study of a
Grieg Star open hatch vessel with four cranes driven by electric
motors, capable of regenerative braking. We have demonstrated
how one can use simulations to provide essential decision support
for ship owners by quantifying the benefits of hybridization for a
ship type that has not yet been hybridized.
We have estimated the optimal battery package size and the
annual fuel savings for the hybrid system, compared with the con-
ventional system. With given genset sizes and ship power demand,
we used the manufacturer’s C-rate limitations to determine the
minimal battery size for the given hybrid control strategy. Our eco-
nomic analysis takes into account the installation and fuel costs of
both the conventional and hybrid systems. Due to the benefits of
hybrid power generation, as well as the gains from regenerative
braking of the cranes, we find that hybrid power generation for
crane operation is highly profitable. The hybrid system with regen-
erative braking saves $110,000 per year from crane operations on
the ship alone. The annual savings of the hybrid solution amount
to a third of the battery costs. The basic hybrid control strategy
requires a battery size of 312 kWh that results in a payback time
of less than a year; while the advanced hybrid control strategy,
D (t) with the novel ‘‘limit C-rate mode’’, requires a battery size of
24 156 kWh yielding lower installation costs than the conventional
28 system and savings from day one for the advanced control strategy.
94
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Jan Øivind Svardal from Grieg
Star for his essential contributions in terms of providing the vessel
particulars and operational information.
Part of this work was done in connection with the project Low
Carbon Shipping and the financial support by the Research Council
of Norway is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Corbett JJ, Winebrake JJ, Green EH, Kasibhatla P, Eyring V, Lauer A. Environ Sci
Technol 2007;41:8512–8.
[2] Eidesvik offshore supply vessel Viking Lady. last visited 08.2013, <http://
vikinglady.no/>; 2013.
[3] Østensjø platform supply vessel Edda Ferd. last visited 08.2013, <http://
ostensjo.no/?fleet=eddaferd>; 2013.
[4] Norled battery ferry, to start sailing in 2015. last visited 08.2013, <http://
www.tu.no/industri/2012/11/09/her-er-verdens-storste-batteridrevne-ferge>;
2013.
[5] Carolyn dorothy hybrid tugboat online report. last visited 08.2013, <http://
www.arb.ca.gov/ports/marinevess/harborcraft/documents/hybridreport1010.
pdf>; 2010.
[6] Corvus energy. last visited 08.2013, <http://www.corvus-energy.com/>; 2013.
[7] Zahedi B, Norum LE, Ludvigsen KB. J Power Sources 2014;255:341–54.
[8] Vartdal B-J, Chryssakis C. In: Les Rencontres Scientifiques d’IFP Energies
nouvelles – Int. Scient. Conf. on hybrid and electric vehicles – RHEVE; 2011.
[9] M. Jongerden, B. Haverkort, Battery Modeling, Technical Report, Centre for
Telematics and Information Technology, University of Twente; 2008.
[10] Hu X, Li S, Peng H. J Power Sources 2012;198:359–67.
[11] Erdinc O, Vural B, Uzunoglu M. In: 2009 international conference on clean
electrical power, ICCEP 2009, June 9, 2009–June 11, 2009. IEEE Computer
Society; 2009. p. 383–6.
[12] Gao L, Liu S, Dougal RA. In: IEEE transactions on components and packaging
technologies, vol. 25, pp. 495–505.
[13] Liaw BY, Nagasubramanian G, Jungst RG, Doughty DH. Fourteenth
international conference on solid state ionics, June 22, 2003–June 27, 2003,
vol. 175. Elsevier; 2003. p. 835–9.
[14] Chen M, Rincon-Mora GA. IEEE Trans Energy Convers 2006;21:504–11.
[15] Kroeze RC, Krein PT. In: PESC ’08 – 39th IEEE annual power electronics
specialists conference, June 15, 2008–June 19, 2008. Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers Inc.; 2008. p. 1336–42.
[16] Dow Kokam data sheets, model slpb125255255h, must be ordered online. last
visited 08.2013, <http://www.dowkokam.com/cell-products-technology/cells/
kokam-cells/>; 2013.
[17] Liu W. Introduction to hybrid vehicle system modeling and control. Wiley;
2013.
[18] Hu X, Murgovski N, Johannesson L, Egardt B. Appl Energy 2013;111:1001–9.
[19] Sorrentino M, Pianese C, Maiorino M. J Power Sources 2013;221:308–17.
[20] Zhang X, Mi CC, Yin C. J Power Sources 2014;245:292–300.
[21] Wang L, Lee D-J, Lee W-J, Chen Z. J Power Sources 2008;185:1284–92.
[22] Gully BH, Webber ME, Seepersad CC, Thompson RC. ASME 3rd international
conference on energy sustainability, ES2009, July 19, 2009–July 23, 2009, vol.
1. American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2009. p. 771–9.
[23] De Breucker S, Peeters E, Driesen J. Possible applications of plug-in hybrid
electric ships. Inst. of Elec. and Elec. Eng. Computer Society; 2009. p. 310–317.
[24] Rozine V, Ockerman J. J Ship Prod 2012;28:82–6.
[25] Dedes EK, Hudson DA, Turnock SR. Energy Policy 2012;40:204–18.
[26] Del Pizzo A, Polito R, Rizzo R, Tricoli P. In: XIX international conference on
electrical machines. p. 1–6.
[27] Caterpillar genset specs, must be ordered online. last visited 08.2013, <http://
www.cat.com/power-generation>; 2013.
[28] Sciarretta A, Guzzella L. Control systems. IEEE 2007;27:60–70.
[29] Lindgren M. Engine exhaust gas emissions from non-road mobile machinery.
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; 2004.
[30] Mckinsey analysis. last visited 08.2013, <http://www.greencarcongress.com/
2012/07/mckinsey-20120712.html>; 2013.