20500505, 2022, 10, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1262 by Nri For Criogenics,Icsi Ramnic, Wiley Online Library on [20/02/2023].
See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Received: 20 May 2022 | Revised: 12 July 2022 | Accepted: 14 July 2022
DOI: 10.1002/ese3.1262
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Energy management and system design for fuel cell hybrid
unmanned aerial vehicles
Huiying Liu1,2 | Yongming Yao1
1
School of Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering, Jilin University,
Changchun, China
2
College of Electronic Information
Engineering, Changchun University,
Changchun, China
Correspondence
Tianyu Li, School of Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering, Jilin University,
130025 Changchun, China.
Email: litianyu@jlu.edu.cn
Funding information
Scientific Research Project of Jilin
Provincial Department of Education,
Grant/Award Number: JJKH20220978KJ;
Fundamental Research Funds for the
Central Universities; National Natural
Science Foundation of China,
Grant/Award Number: 51805200
1 | INTRODUCTION
Advancements in microprocessor technologies have
enabled unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) with advan-
tages such as low cost and high mobility; these UAVs
have attracted considerable attention in the past few
years.1 The UAV market is expected to achieve a
compound annual growth rate equating to a market
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original work is properly cited.
© 2022 The Authors. Energy Science & Engineering published by the Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Energy. Sci. Eng. 2022;10:3987–4006.
| Jie Wang1 | Tingyi Yang1 | Tianyu Li1
Abstract
The growth in the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) has created an
increasing demand for energy‐efficient and green power systems. In this
paper, we have evaluated energy management strategies (EMSs) and system
optimization design methodologies for fuel cell/battery‐powered hybrid UAVs
(HUAVs). EMSs aimed at the optimization of flight endurance and fuel cell
durability were proposed based on fuzzy logic, dynamic programming,
equivalent consumption minimization, and Pontryagin's minimum principle
(PMP). System optimization design methodologies, including static design and
synergistic sizing optimization design, were also devised. The synergistic
sizing optimization was based on multiobjective optimization, while optimi-
zation of the EMS used a non‐dominated sorting genetic algorithm. The
effectiveness of the proposed EMSs and optimization design were then
validated by simulation. Results showed that the proposed EMSs have both
long flight time and good fuel cell durability, with the improved PMP
prolonging the fight endurance by 4.64% and reducing the mean current of the
fuel cell by 16.1% compared with fuzzy logic. Substantial improvements were
obtained by using sizing optimization, and parameter sensitivity was
addressed. The findings of this study can aid in the future development of
fuel cell‐powered UAVs.
KEYWORDS
energy management, fuel cell, hybrid power system, optimization design, unmanned aerial
vehicle
value of $45.8 billion by 2025.2 Electric multirotor UAVs
are favored due to their reliability, reduced noise and
thermal pollution, high efficiency, none pollutant emis-
sion, self‐starting capability, and high maneuverability.3
Improving flight endurance is important to enhance
operational capability for UAVs. Currently, electric
power is provided mainly by batteries, which cannot
supply sufficient energy over long periods. Extending
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ese3 | 3987

3988 | LIU
UAVs flight endurance, therefore, requires the use of
additional power sources, while still complying with
mass and space restrictions. Habib reviewed the electric
vehicles drive train architecture, applicable energy
storage system, and the balancing circuit categories.4 It
was found that one potential innovation is to use a
hybrid electric propulsion system that has at least two
power sources. The rapid growth of fuel cell‐based
research and technology has paved great prospects for
hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), which has reference
significance for other fields.5 Studies have shown that
hybrid‐electric propulsion systems can improve the long
endurance of UAVs,6 and several technologies have
been adapted for use in hybrid UAVs (HUAVs).7
Hydrogen fuel cells are considered the most promising
in the aviation industry, as fuel cells have high
efficiency and specific energy.8 Fuel‐cell‐powered UAVs
have been built and shown to have long endurance.9
Wang reviewed the current developments in fuel cell
hybrid propulsion systems applied to UAVs.10 The
development of new designs for high‐performance fuel
cell hybrid power systems is a priority for mobility and
aviation applications.11
The growing interest in fuel cell/battery‐powered
HUAVs is reflected in the ever‐increasing number of
studies concerning the electrification or hybridization of
existing power systems,12 with a particular focus on
partnering fuel cells with lithium‐ion batteries to extend
flying time. However, to date, even for advanced systems,
HUAV designs have seldom considered the possible
synergy between sizing optimization and energy man-
agement strategies (EMSs) in the context of the mission
profiles. One of the main objectives of this study is to
correct this by presenting comprehensive energy man-
agement and sizing optimization methodologies.
Advanced motion control methods can ensure that
UAV can achieve various flight movements, such as
adaptive and feedback theory.13 These control methods
can still be transplanted to HUAVs, but new problems
after the introduction of a hybrid power system need to
be considered. For the hybridization of UAVs, the first
step is to optimize the size of the onboard energy sources.
Mazur and Domanski have studied the feasibility of
adapting environmental‐friendly energy sources for use
as UAVs propulsion systems and found that this
approach offers high efficiency, reliability, controllability,
and a lack of thermal and noise signatures, thus,
providing quiet and clean propulsion with low vibration
levels.14 The key factors to consider are energy efficiency,
system mass, energy density, power density, power
changes, flight endurance, the lifetimes of the power
sources, and the maturity of the technology. For a small
UAV with a fuel cell system, a significant improvement
20500505, 2022, 10, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1262 by Nri For Criogenics,Icsi Ramnic, Wiley Online Library on [20/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ET AL.
in flight endurance can be achieved simply through
design optimization.15 During the design process, the size
of the power sources can be optimized in a quantitative
way to tailor the EMS according to the mission profile.
Donateo proposed an optimization based on a non‐
dominated sorting genetic algorithm‐II (NSGA‐II) and an
S‐metric selection evolutionary multiobjective algorithm,
with the optimization being performed at two different
levels to explore the synergic effect of hybridization.16 In
contrast, Kamjoo used NSGA‐II in the design of a hybrid
renewable energy system with the twin objectives of
minimum system total cost and maximum reliability.17
This study investigates the synergy between EMS choice
and the sizing optimization process. NGSA was used as
the optimization algorithm, following a performance
analysis.
The performance of HUAVs is essentially reliant on
the system architecture, size parameters, and EMS.
Power has to be optimally split between sources for
efficient energy usage, and to enable high‐performance
operation, while also extending the flight time as much
as possible. EMS must reasonably distribute the hybrid
system while considering system efficiency and endur-
ance time. Karunarathne proposed a hybrid electric
propulsion system for fuel cell/battery UAVs, and
introduced an energy management system to optimize
the system performances.18 A hybridization architecture
with an optimal EMS is therefore crucial. EMSs of
HUAVs can be divided into two main types: rule‐based
algorithms and optimal control algorithms.19,20 The use
of the former, which has predefined conditions, is
widespread due to its simplicity and reliability. The most
representative of these algorithms is fuzzy logic, typically
characterized by a very low computational cost that
enables an online EMS. Zhang proposed an online fuzzy
EMS for a UAV propelled by a hybrid fuel cell/battery
power system.21 A fuzzy logic‐based EMS can improve
energy efficiency by enhancing the allocation in the
HUAV power supply.
Optimal control algorithms have been widely dis-
cussed for fuel cell HEVs, and they are fully applicable to
various HUAVs because of the same working principles.
Optimal control algorithms can be based on dynamic
programming, Pontryagin's minimum principle (PMP),
linear programming, equivalent consumption minimiza-
tion strategy (ECMS), and model predictive control
(MPC).22 These algorithms are crucial for resolving the
complex energy management problems of HUAVs.
Dynamic programming can achieve a global optimum,
but normally requires complete knowledge of the future
driving conditions, as well as intensive calculations. It is
therefore often performed offline and used as a bench-
mark instead.23 Ansarey proposed an optimal solution to

LIU ET AL.
the energy management problem in fuel cell HEV for fuel
economy using multidimensional dynamic program-
ming.24 PMP can optimize the power distribution online,
and the cost function can consider the fuel cell
performance and fuel economy. Ou developed an
adaptive supervisory EMS and an adaptive PMP for
optimizing the fuel cell/battery hybrid operating sys-
tem.25 Nguyen proposed a simplification of the PMP EMS
to avoid the adaptation mechanism in real‐time, which is
effective for generating near‐optimal results that are
similar to those achieved by dynamic programming.26
ECMS and MPC are two typical causal algorithms. ECMS
is a good candidate for solving energy management
problems, which can calculate the optimal fuel consump-
tion online instantaneously. Tian presented a
practicality‐oriented adaptive EMS for a parallel HEV,
which combines the adaptive neuro‐fuzzy inference
system and ECMS.27 Li presented an online adaptive
ECMS for HEV powered by a fuel cell, battery, and
supercapacitor. The strategy is designed to adjust
equivalent factors and fuel cell dynamic current along
with the state of health of the fuel cell and battery, to
prolong the lifetime of the fuel cell.28 MPC can
repeatedly optimize decisions online over short future
time horizons without the requirement for prior knowl-
edge. He proposed an MPC EMS to distribute power
flows, with a novel objective function within the defined
lifetime constraints and battery state of charge (SoC)
limitations.29 We have previously proposed EMSs for fuel
cell HEVs and found that the above algorithms achieve a
good control effect.30,31 EMS should be shaped by the
characteristics and performance requirements of the
HUAV. Another objective of this study is to develop
appropriate EMS for HUVAs and evaluate different
EMSs for long endurance.
The aim objective of this study is to evaluate the
application of fuel cell hybrid systems for UAVs and
contribute to the future development of HUAVs,
especially in the optimization design of system parame-
ters. Therefore, the primary contributions of this paper
are summarized as follows:
(1) A mathematical model of the fuel cell HUAV is
established, including the propulsion system and the
hybrid system. The model provides a model basis for
system optimization design and EMS development.
(2) EMSs optimized for long flight endurance and fuel
cell lifetime for HUAVs are proposed based on fuzzy
logic, dynamic programming, ECMS, and PMP
algorithms. The effectiveness of the proposed EMSs
is validated and compared in the simulation.
(3) The synergy between the sizing optimization and
EMSs in HUAVs is explored for better system design.
20500505, 2022, 10, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1262 by Nri For Criogenics,Icsi Ramnic, Wiley Online Library on [20/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
| 3989
A multiobjective NAGA‐III approach is proposed for
the effective optimization design of system parame-
ters. This system optimization design method can
achieve reasonable scheme results with the specific
objective.
(4) Based on the system's optimal design, parameter
sensitivity for HUAVs is analyzed. Sensitivity analy-
sis can provide a better analysis of design results,
which can help to optimize system design.
Then, the paper is organized as follows: In Section 2,
we establish a model system of the multirotor HUAV. In
Section 3, we describe five EMSs for fuel cell HUAVs. In
Section 4, we propose a system optimization design
methodology. In Section 5, we present the simulation
results, which are followed by a discussion. Finally, in
Section 6, we present the summary and conclusions.
2 | SYSTEM MODELING
2.1 | System description
In this section, we present the system structure,
mathematical modeling, and the theoretical foundations
of HUAVs. Although these principles are based on a
small multicopter, to aid understanding and for practical
implementation, they can be generalized to any HUAV.
Herein, the example system structure has fuel cell/
batteries. Lithium batteries are commonly used as an
energy source because they are adaptable, require little
maintenance, and have high energy density and low self‐
discharge rates. Among the available hybrid system
architectures, active, semi‐active, and passive structures
have all been considered extensively.32 We use a semi‐
active structure, where the batteries are connected to the
DC bus by a bidirectional DC/DC converter, which also
serves as the regulator.33 The architecture for the fuel
cell/battery hybrid system is shown in Figure 1. The fuel
cells are connected to the DC bus by a unidirectional DC/
DC converter, while the batteries are connected by a
bidirectional one. The Brushless DC motors drive the
propellers to provide flight power for UAV. The
controller on the motherboard, various sensors, and
some other electronic loads consume a certain amount of
power. In this paper, these power consumptions are
assumed as a constant value.
The fuel cells and batteries, working in parallel, can
fulfill the power requirements. As shown in Figure 1,
they deliver power to the DC bus through unidirectional
and bidirectional converters. These converters receive
signals from the energy management controller that
handles power distribution. The bidirectional converter
 20500505, 2022, 10, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1262 by Nri For Criogenics,Icsi Ramnic, Wiley Online Library on [20/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
3990 | LIU ET AL.

F I G U R E 1 HUAV system structure. (A) Power system, and (B) quad‐, hexa‐, and octo‐rotor configurations for UAVs. HUAV, hybrid
unmanned aerial vehicle; UAV, unmanned aerial vehicle.


numP

can charge and discharge the batteries, reduce the peak PFCDC + PBDC = Pmi + Paux , (1)
i =1
power, or fill the power valley. The two major objectives
of this study are to optimize the size of the power sources where PFCDC and PBDC denote the output power of
and develop appropriate EMSs. An accurate system the fuel cell through DCDC, and the output power of the
model is therefore needed. Due to the variety of flight battery through DCDC, respectively. Pm denotes the
motions, the establishment of a complete kinematic and driving power of the motor. Paux denotes the power
dynamic model has little significance on parameter consumed by the controllers. numm is the number of the
design. The performance of a HUAV is mainly deter- motors.
mined by the propulsion system, which consists of
propellers, motors, electronic speed controllers (ESCs),
fuel cells, batteries, and the DC/DC convertor. In HUAV, 2.2 | Propeller
there is a power relationship as described in Equation
(1). That is, the output power of the fuel cell through The propulsion system is the main onboard device
DCDC, and the output power of the battery through responsible for power consumption and converts elec-
DCDC, provide power for the overall unit. The consumed trical energy into mechanical power. We present a
power of HUAV is primarily the consumption of driving propeller model based on circuit theories discussed in
motors. The controllers also consume a certain amount the literature.34 During hovering, propeller performance
of power, which is quite small. The mathematical depends on the thrust and torque, expressed as follows:





expression of the thrust and power can be obtained
 m = m + num m + num m + num m
m = mN + mL


based on the propeller and motor models, which will be




further used to derive the power change of the fuel cell N 0 p p p m FC FC ,


and battery. In this study, all model inputs were based on + numB mB + num H2 m H2 + mDC
the manufacturer recommendations and the literature. (2)
 20500505, 2022, 10, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1262 by Nri For Criogenics,Icsi Ramnic, Wiley Online Library on [20/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
LIU ET AL. | 3991

mg
FP = , Um + Im R e
nump (3) Ie = Im, (7)
Ue

FP Pe = Ue Ie , (8)
NP = Nm = 60 , (4)
ρDP4 CT

 N 2
TP = ρDP5 CM  P  ,
where Ie, Re, Ue, and Pe denote the ESC input current,

 60 
(5)
where m, m N , and, m L denote the total mass, no‐load
mass, and load mass of HUAV, respectively. m 0 , m p,
m m, mFC, m B , m H2 , and m DC, denote the mass of UAV
airframe, propeller, motor, single fuel cell, battery
cell, hydrogen tank per liter, and DC/DC converters,
respectively. num P , num FC, num B , and num H2 are the
number of propellers, fuel cells, battery cells, and
hydrogen, respectively. FP , NP, and T P denote the
thrust, speed, and torque of the propeller, respec-
tively. N m denotes the motor speed. g is the gravity
coefficient; ρ denotes the air density of the flight
environment; DP is the propeller diameter; CT and CM
are the thrust coefficient and torque coefficient of the
resistance, voltage, and power, respectively. The ESC
voltage is supplied by the fuel cells and batteries through
DC/DC converter.
2.5 | Fuel cell
The fuel cell power system provides power for UAVs.
Fuel cell models mainly include the empirical model and
mechanism model.36 The mechanism model is quite
complex, and the empirical model is widely used in
the research of hybrid systems, which is mainly based on
the parameters obtained from the experiments. In this
paper, a representative fuel cell model is established as
follows:

 I 


UFC = UOC − r − AT ln  FC  + Be


(C IA )
  A
IFC FC


propeller. Nm is the motor speed which is the same

 PFC = UFC IFC
,

as NP . A

(9)
2.3 | Motor . MH2
m H2 = numFC IFC , (10)
ne F
The DC motors used in multirotor UAVs are brush-
less, identical to permanent‐magnet DC motors.
Their equivalent currents and voltages represent the where UOC denotes the reversible open circuit voltage,
loads on the ESC.35 The latter can be expressed as and IFC denotes the FCS current. AT denotes the slope of
follows. the Tafel line, and r represents the area‐specific resist-





ance. A denotes the active area of the fuel cell, and B and



TP KV Um0

C are constants in the mass‐transfer overvoltage equa-


Im = + Im0


9.55(Um0 − Im0 Rm )

tion. m H2 , MH2 , ne, F, UFC, IFCS, and PFC denote the




U − Im0 Rm ,

(6) hydrogen consumption, the molar mass of hydrogen,

Um = (Im + Im0 ) Rm + m0

Nm

 Pm = Um Im
K U
V m0 number of electrons, and Faraday's constant, working
voltage, working current, and output power of fuel cell,
respectively. These coefficients of the fuel cell are from
where Im and Um denote the equivalent voltage and literatures.37,38
current of the motor, respectively. Im0 and Um0 are the
motor nominal no‐load current and voltage, which
are approximately constant. Rm is the motor armature 2.6 | Fuel cell durability
resistance, and KV is the nominal no‐load motor
constant. Fuel cells and batteries tend to degenerate following
long‐term use.39,40 In the hybrid system, the fuel cell
lifetime is more sensitive to load.41 It must be pointed
2.4 | Electronic speed controller out that the fuel cell and battery provide power together.
When one power source is conservative, the other
The ESC operates as a motor speed controller, respond- power source will be radical. To ensure the smooth
ing to the flight controller's throttle signal. It can be output of the fuel cell, the battery needs to fluctuate
described as follows: with the load. Therefore, in view of the characteristics,
 20500505, 2022, 10, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1262 by Nri For Criogenics,Icsi Ramnic, Wiley Online Library on [20/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
3992 | LIU ET AL.

UB = UOCV − IB RB − UP1 − UP 2






 PB = UB IB

cost, and durability of fuel cells, it is necessary to give




priority to ensuring the fuel cells' lifetime. A degener-




( )
ated fuel cell can restrict flight capabilities and cause − t − t



UP1 = UP10 e RP1 CP1 + IB RP1 1 − e RP1 CP1 ,

(13)


maneuverability issues, in turn increasing the likeli-
UP 2 = UP 20 e− RP2 CP2 + IB RP 2 1 − e− RP2 CP2



( )
hood of collisions. Therefore, the fuel cell lifetime t t

should be considered during optimization, and fuel cell

aging should be considered in the context of long‐term
performance.
Many factors decrease fuel cell performance and
capacity. The degradation rate of the fuel cell lifetime
significantly increased over time at a high current
density.42 The time and the current density highly
affect the durability of the fuel cell system. In general,
the driving cycle is used as a kind of standard protocol
reflecting different times and current densities. 43
Therefore, the durability model of the fuel cell can
be simulated to evaluate the degradation rate under
different driving cycles.44 Therefore, in this paper, the
current load characteristics of the fuel cell are
considered in terms of their effect on fuel cell lifetime.
Many eigenvalues can be extracted from the current
data, representing the mean load, amplitude, standard
deviation, extreme values, etc. Considering the diffi-
culty of extracting the eigenvalues from the current
load, in this study we extracted two representative
eigenvalues: (1) The mean value, which reflects the
overall current level. (2) The standard deviation,
which reflects the degree of dispersion and fluctuation
in the current. With a larger mean, the fuel cell load is
bigger. A larger standard deviation reflects more
severe load fluctuation.

IB
SoCB = SoCB 0 − dt , (14)
QB
where UB, PB, UOCV, IB, and RB denote polarization
voltage, output power, ideal open‐circuit voltage, load
current, and internal resistance of the battery, respec-
tively. RP1 and RP2 are the resistances, CP1 and CP2 are the
capacitors. UP10 and UP12 denote the initial polarization
voltage. SoCB denotes the battery SoC, and QB denotes
the battery capacity. The parameters of model compo-
nents can not be measured directly and need to be
identified. There are standard identification methods and
specific processes for circuit parameter identification.46,47
2.8 | DC/DC convertor
DC/DC converters are important devices for regulating
power. The time constants of the inductors are assumed
to be much longer than the switching period. Kirchhoff's
law has been used to determine converter efficiency.
A DC/DC converter that uses an equivalent static model
can therefore be expressed as follows:
1  
UIN − L L − IL RL,

 IFCi,
κDC  
dI
n UDC = (15)
1 dt
IFC = (11)
n i =1
sgn(IDC )

in=1 (IFCi − IFC )2

IDC = κDC IL ηDC , (16)

SI = , (12)
n−1 where UIN, UDC are the input and output voltage of the
converter. RL denotes the inductor resistor, and L is the
where IB and SI denote the mean value and standard inductance, κDC is a coefficient. IL and IDC are current
deviation of the fuel cell current, respectively.

2.7 | Battery

Batteries are important energy storage devices in

HUAVs. Wen presented an overview of the research for
improving battery energy storage density and renewable
energy conversion efficiency.45 Lithium‐ion batteries
have higher working voltages, higher specific energies,
a lighter weight, and lower self‐discharge rates, which is
suitable for HUAVs.40,46 Here, the battery model is based
on an improved PNGV model, as shown in Figure 2. The
battery model is as follows: FIGURE 2 Equivalent circuit model of battery

LIU ET AL.
through the inductor and the output current of the
converter, respectively. ηDC is the efficiency of the
converter.
3 | D E V E L O P M E N T OF TH E E M S
The EMS is responsible for determining how the
energy distribution from different sources is
optimized to meet specific objectives. This paper
develops EMS for use with HUAVs, considering the
specific requirements of UAVs: Long flight endurance
time and fuel cell durability. We propose five
representative EMSs for fuel cell HUAVs, based on
fuzzy logic, dynamic programming, ECMS, and PMP
algorithms.
Therefore, fuzzy logic is an important EMS, which is
usually used as a benchmark.
3.1 | Fuzzy logic‐based strategy
The fuzzy logic method has strong robustness and
fault tolerance, does not need models, and is especially
suitable for real‐time online control in a complex
environment. Fuzzy logic is a classical controller in
F I G U R E 3 Schematics of the Fuzzy logic‐
based strategy. (A) Schematics and (B) surface of
the regulars.
20500505, 2022, 10, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1262 by Nri For Criogenics,Icsi Ramnic, Wiley Online Library on [20/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
| 3993
the field of energy management for HEVs, and usually
serves as a reference for online energy management
problems. In this paper, a fuzzy logic‐based EMS is
proposed. The control objective is to adjust the fuel
cell output according to the power demand and
battery SoC, combined with expert experience.
Depending on the real‐time power demand and SoC,
this strategy can distribute power effectively.
Although fuzzy logic cannot achieve optimal endur-
ance time, its strong robustness can ensure system
stability in the complex environment of UAVs. The
input parameters are the normalized demand power
and battery SoC, and the output parameter is the
output power of the fuel cell. Demand power and
battery SoC used bilateral Gaussian membership
functions, and fuel cell power used triangular mem-
bership functions. Demand power is converted to
[0, 1] by normalization function, and the output power
is converted to [0, PFCmax] by inverse normalization
function. The schematics of the strategy and surface of
the regulars are designed in MATLAB® (MathWorks)
fuzzy logic designer as shown in Figure 3. The control
system needs to operate under certain constraints,
including for the motor, battery, and fuel cell, and
with respect to the electricity regulation, as shown as
follows:
 20500505, 2022, 10, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1262 by Nri For Criogenics,Icsi Ramnic, Wiley Online Library on [20/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
3994 | LIU ET AL.

 Im  Im max





 IB min  IB  IB max

As Equation (18) shows, the objective function


 IFC  IFC max
s. t. 
for dynamic programming consists of a constraint




on the hydrogen consumption, a constraint on the


,

(17)

ΔIB min  ΔIB  ΔIB max

SoC deviation, and a constraint on the fuel cell



ΔIFC  ΔIFC max
 SoCB min  SoCB  SoCB max
current. The controller must satisfy certain con-
straints, which are shown in Equation (17). The core
function of dynamic programming is to decompose a
where Immin, IB min, IB max, and IFC max denote constraints multistage process into a series of inter‐related single
of motor current, battery current, and fuel cell current; processes and to then solve the series in order or in
ΔIB min, ΔIB max, and ΔIFC max denote constraints of reverse.
battery current change rate and fuel cell current change
rate; SOCBmin and SOCBmax denote constraints of
battery SoC. 3.3 | ECMS‐based strategy

The ECMS is an algorithm for online control usually

3.2 | Dynamic programming‐based
strategy
Dynamic programming is a numerical method that
solves multistage problems and involves some decision‐
making. It ensures a globally optimal solution. Generally,
a full understanding of the future is required, so the
benchmark is usually calculated offline. Here we propose
an EMS for HUAVs based on offline dynamic program-
ming. Within the control framework, the battery SoC is a
variable. While the endurance time cannot be calculated
directly, it is usually converted into a real‐time hydrogen
consumption of the fuel cell. The objective function
generated by dynamic programming is the minimum
energy consumption, as shown as follows:
associated with lower fuel consumption than other
algorithms. As a causal control algorithm, it is not
restricted by any specific condition and aims to
minimize consumption on every sampling occasion.
The presented strategy divides the total energy
consumption into two parts: the hydrogen consump-
tion by the fuel cell and the equivalent consumption by
the battery. The energy change in the battery should
therefore be identical to that of the fuel cell. The cost
function is as follows:
. .
JECMS (k ) = m H2 (k ) + βSoCB (k )
(20)
β = β0 + kS (SoCB (k ) − SoCBref ),
where kS, β, and β0 are coefficients. These coefficients

 (m H (i) + α1 (SoCB (i) − SoCBref )2

i=k . can be selected by a large amount of experimental or
JDP (k ) = 2 empirical data. In this paper, they are set kS = 0.5
i =1 (18)
and β0 = 0.8.
+ α2 IFC (i )), Here, the instantaneous energy consumption
rate is given by the mass of consumed hydrogen
where α1 and α2 are coefficients, SoCBRef is a median plus the equivalent energy consumed by the battery.
battery SoC value. In this paper, they are set α1 = 0.25, To calculate the consumption rate accurately, ECMS
and α2 = 0.001. uses a variable equivalent coefficient (β), determined
According to Behrman's principle, the recursive based on the working conditions of the HUAV,
equation that solves the above objective function is as and then adjusted in real‐time according to the
follows: battery SoC.

* (SoCB (k )) = min (mH 2 (k )

.
JDPk
3.4 | PMP‐based strategy


* +1(SoCB (k + 1)) 
+ α1 (SoCSBC (k ) − SoCBref )2 + α2
,


The PMP‐based EMS can provide effective offline
IFC (k )) + JDPk
and online solutions for maximizing HUAV flight
k = N − 1, N − 2, …, 0 times and fuel cell lifetime. To achieve a long
(19) endurance time and fuel cell lifetime, a scenario must
determine the optimal power distribution between the
where Jk* denotes the optimal solution at kth moment, fuel cell and battery while minimizing the energy
and JN* = 0. supplied to the hybrid system per unit time. PMP is an
 20500505, 2022, 10, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1262 by Nri For Criogenics,Icsi Ramnic, Wiley Online Library on [20/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
LIU ET AL. | 3995

instantaneous optimization algorithm that can obtain ( )

HIPMP SoCB*, m H*2 , λ*, γ1*, γ2*
a locally optimal solution. We consider two types of (27)
PMP: one that only considers energy consumption, (
 HIPMP SoCB*, m H2 , λ*, γ1*, γ2* ,)
and one that also considers the specific objectives.
It is widely known that high‐frequency, peak current where Tend denotes the end time of the flight.
changes decrease the operation lifetime of a fuel
cell.
To prolong fuel cell lifetime, we consider the fuel 4 | SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION
cell current and rate of change in the optimization DESIGN
process. According to the model for fuel cell aging, it is
theoretically possible to prolong the fuel cell lifetime Multicopters have many design parameters. To design a
by controlling these two variables. For all power units, HUAV, components satisfying certain performance
we must therefore consider their output power limita- requirements, such as good hovering endurance, system
tions and instantaneous rate of change. The Hamilto- efficiency, and maximum load, etc., must be considered.
nian function of a basic PMP is defined in Equation Many designs are the result of experimentation or
(21), and that of the improved PMP is defined in experience, and often show inefficient performance and
Equation (22). high cost. How the choice of components is related to the
. . performance remains a complex problem that is hard to
HPMP = m H2 (k ) − λSoCB (k ), (21) solve by experimentation or experience alone. For a
. . HUAV, component size is a complex parameter and is
HIPMP = m H2 (k ) − λSoCB (k ) + γ1 IFC (k ) usually calculated theoretically. In this paper, we
(22) consider the synergy between sizing optimization and
+ γ2 ΔIFC (k ),
the EMS, for a realistic representation of the actual
where λ is co‐state variable. γ1 and γ2 are tuning operating conditions of HUAV. Here, the task of
parameters. These coefficients can be selected by a large parameters design is divided into two parts: static design,
amount of experimental or empirical data. In this paper, and synergistic sizing optimization. The former task
they are set λ = −2.5, γ1 = 0.05, and γ2 = 0.005. focuses on the basic flight parameters, such as the
The Hamiltonians used to solve the above equations hovering state, and constant speed. The dynamic power
are as follows. load is taken to represent the propellers and motors. The





latter task focuses on adjusting the system parameters


.
 HPMP

SoC B* = according to the performance of the control strategies.


λ



,

.  H (23)


PMP
λ *= −
 SoCB 4.1 | Static design
 .






 HIPMP


SoCB* = The algorithm for static parameters design is consistent



λ


with the traditional design method. The parameters of


. 

H IPMP each component are calculated according to the desired

λ *= −


 SoCB


performance. We adopted a backward deduction

,

(24)

.
 HIPMP

approach, with the starting point being the performance

*

γ = −


1
 IFC

requirement. The information is passed backward via the


 2
.
 H

power components, including the propellers, motors,
γ * = − IPMP
 ΔIFC ESC, and power sources. Backward deduction considers
the conversion efficiency of the overall powertrain, as
where * denotes the optimal variable value. well as the interactions among the components. The
A set of necessary constraints is shown in Equation electric energy demanded by the components is split in
(21), and some terminal constraints are shown as follows: an appropriate way. This approach needs an accurate
. . mathematical system model, as presented in Section 2.
SoCB*(Tend )  SoCB*(0), (25) The process of the design method is: Generate all design
parameter combinations, and select a group of design
( ) (
HPMP SoCB*, m H*2 , λ*  HPMP SoCB*, m H2 , λ* , ) parameters at random; Set the design parameters of the
(26) system model; Take the representative load spectrum of

3996 | LIU
UAV as the input of the system model; Start the model
simulation with the specific EMS; Evaluate the design
scheme according to the simulation results, including
hydrogen consumption, endurance time, the current
state of fuel cell; Repeat the above process to obtain all
effective design parameter combinations. Therefore, a
flowchart of the static design is illustrated in Figure 4.
There are many design parameters of HUAV, and
some important parameters are of special concern,
such as propeller size, and battery size. These critical
parameters are closely related to product performance.
Therefore, designers should fully be well aware of the
parts' performance to design a better HUAV.
This paper focuses on the parameter design method-
ology. In the given case, it is assumed that the
propellers belong to the same characteristics and that
the motor and ESC can provide enough power in a
large range. It is assumed that the rated power of
the single fuel cell is 5 W, and the battery cell is
a 3.7 V/3700 mhA module. Finally, this paper
20500505, 2022, 10, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1262 by Nri For Criogenics,Icsi Ramnic, Wiley Online Library on [20/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ET AL.
selects propeller diameter, propeller number, fuel cell
stack power, number of battery cells, and capacity of
hydrogen tank as variables to test the proposed
methodology. That is, the design variable is
X = {DP , numP , numFC , numB , num H2 }T . The range of the
design variables is listed in Table 1, together with
their lower and upper bounds.
Using the parameters given in Tables 1–3, several
design results can be obtained through static design
methodology. For quad‐, hexa‐rotor, and octo‐rotor
schemes, there are many applicable design results,
several examples of which are given in Table 4. The
performance criteria include minimum mass, maxi-
mum lift (maximum load mass), and flight endurance
time. When calculating the maximum lift, it is
assumed that the performance of the motors and
propellers is good enough under given constraints. As
maximum load mass is the load capacity under
maximum lift, these two criteria belong to the same
optimization goal.
FIGURE 4 Schematics of the static design
 20500505, 2022, 10, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1262 by Nri For Criogenics,Icsi Ramnic, Wiley Online Library on [20/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
LIU ET AL. | 3997

TABLE 1 Range of the design

Design variables Unit Lower bound Upper bound
variables
Propeller diameter (DP) inch 5 20
Propeller number (Even) (numP) 4 8
Fuel cell rated power (5numFC) W 500 3000
Number of battery cell (numB) 4 12
Hydrogen tank capacity (numH 2 ) L 3 9
Note: These variables belong to the powertrain parameters, and characterize the size and operating
conditions of the different components of the hybrid system. Note also the large number of constraints,
which ensures that the results are physically and geometrically feasible. Constraints for hybrid system of
the HUAV have been shown as Equation (17). Some model parameters and performance constraints of
the HUAV are shown in Tables 2 and 3.

TABLE 2 Model parameters TABLE 3 Design constraints

Performance Unit Vaule Performance Unit Vaule
Motor mass (mm) kg 0.15 Load mass (mL) kg ≥1
DC/DC converter mass (mDC) kg 0.3 Take‐off mass (m) kg ≤7
Single fuel cell mass (mFC) kg 0.0075 No‐load flight endurance time min ≥120
Gravity coefficient (g) N/kg 9.8 Body radius m ≤1.2
Air density (ρ) kg/m 3
1.293 Flight altitude m ≥150
Nominal no‐load motor constant (KV) rpm/V 900 Maximum motor current (Im max) A ≤60
Motor armature resistance (Rm) Ω 0.08 Propeller and motor speed (NP) rpm ≤8000
Motor nominal no‐load voltage (Um0) V 10 Propeller tip speed (πDPNP) Ma ≤0.7
Motor nominal no‐load current (Im0) A 0.6 Propeller pull (TP) Nm ≤60
ESC resistance (Re) Ω 0.008 Hovering throttle % ≤65
Battery cell capacity (QB/numB) mAh 3700 Battery cell voltage V 3.7
Battery cell voltage V 3.7 Battery cell discharge rate (ΔIB max) C ≤30
Battery cell mass (mB) kg 0.05 Battery cell charge rate (ΔIBmin) C ≤5
Airframe mass (m0) kg 1

longest flight‐endurance time (319.7 min). This scheme

E H2 + EBAT
TFET = ,
60Pe
where E H2 and EBAT are the electricity supplied by
hydrogen and battery, respectively. TFET is the flight
endurance time of an HUAV.
As can be seen from Table 4, long flight endurance
time and heavy load capacity are achievable goals. For
scheme 1 (quadcopter), the no‐load mass is only 5.16 kg
with a 3 L hydrogen tank, although using a small
hydrogen tank led to a shorter flight endurance time.
However, for light and small‐size UAV applications,
scheme 1 is feasible. Scheme 2 (hexacopter) uses a
1400 W fuel cell, seven battery cells, and a 6 L hydrogen
tank, and the flight‐endurance time of scheme 2 is
second only to scheme 3. Among the octocopter schemes,
scheme 3 has the lowest fuel cell power (1200 W) but the
is appropriate for extremely long‐endurance UAVs.
(28)
Scheme 4 has the largest maximum load mass (3.43 kg)
and the maximum fuel cell power (2000 W), making it
suitable for carrying heavy accessories. Overall, these
schemes are reasonable and feasible, as they meet
the basic performance requirements of the HUAV and
have outstanding advantages in some specific perform-
ance criteria. The optimal scheme can be selected
according to the actual situation or specific performance
requirements, as shown in Figure 4. How each parameter
affects performance is very important for HUAV design.
This will be analyzed in detail in Section 5.
In the approach detailed above, the parameters of
each HUAV component were calculated reversely
according to the specific requirements before arriving
at a representative operation point. This approach is
suitable for a simple power system but is difficult to apply
 20500505, 2022, 10, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1262 by Nri For Criogenics,Icsi Ramnic, Wiley Online Library on [20/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
3998 | LIU ET AL.

TABLE 4 Examples of design results

Design variables Unit Scheme 1 Scheme 2 Scheme 3 Scheme 4
Optimization objective Minimum mass Maximum endurance Maximum lift
Propeller diameter (DP) inch 15 15 16 14
Propeller number (numP) 4 6 8 8
Fuel cell rated power (5numFC) W 1900 1400 1200 2000
Number of batteries (numB) 4 7 4 4
Hydrogen tank capacity (numH 2 ) L 3 6 6 3
Flight endurance time min 121.2 265.7 319.7 147.6
No‐load mass (mN) kg 5.16 5.79 5.68 5.96
Maximum lift (numPTP) Nm 76.4 76.74 75.8 101.8
Maximum load mass (mL) kg 1.63 1.04 1.06 3.43

to a system with multiple power sources. The synergy of

workload and EMS also cannot be considered in this
approach, and the performance of the fuel cells and
battery cannot be effectively evaluated.

4.2 | Analysis of design variables

sensitivity

During system design, it is very necessary to clarify how

the design variables affect the system performances. The
performance characteristics of the HUAV will change
with changes in the design variables. Therefore, this
paper analyses the design variables' sensitivity. Based on
static design, this paper focuses on two important
performances of HUAV—flight endurance time and load
mass, and analyses the change in performance with the
change in design variable. Based on the performance
requirements and design variable bounds listed in
Tables 1–3, this paper has selected several sets of specific
design variables for use in this analysis, keeping other
design variables unchanged. The design variables are
taken from the minimum value interval to the maximum
value. The static design method is used to obtain the
corresponding performance with the selected parame-
ters. The results are shown in Figures 5–9.
It can be seen from Figure 5 that when the size of the
propellers gradually increases to 15–16 inches, the flight
endurance time and load mass gradually improve, and
the endurance can be increased by 10.9%, and the load
mass by 23.8%. When the propeller sizes continue to
increase, the performance starts to decline. In theory, the
larger the propeller size, the longer the hovering time, as,
with a large propeller, a lower speed provides the same
thrust. However, this relationship is valid only within a
certain range. These results suggest that the selection of
F I G U R E 5 Performance of a HUAV with propeller size
(8 propellers, 1200 W fuel cell, 4 battery cells, 6 L Hydrogen tank).
HUAV, hybrid unmanned aerial vehicle.
propeller sizes needs to be appropriate to the application.
As can be seen from Figure 6, performance gradually
improved with an increasing number of rotors, with
flight endurance for the hexa‐ and octo‐rotor layouts
compared to the quad‐rotor layout increasing by 18.8%
and 31%, respectively, while for load mass, the increase
was 35% and 65%, respectively. In general, when the
take‐off mass is the same, the more rotors, the longer the
hovering time, and therefore, having more rotors can
lead to better overall performance.
As Figure 7 shows, the flight endurance gradually
decreases, and load mass gradually increases with
increasing fuel cell size. While Figure 8 shows that flight
endurance gradually decreases with increasing battery
size, but the difference is no more than 7.5%. At the same
time, the load mass changes from 3.3 to 3.4 kg, which
means the variable is not insensitive. Finally, Figure 9
shows that hydrogen tank size has a significant impact
on flight endurance. When the hydrogen tank size is
increased from 5 to 9 L, the flight endurance increases

LIU ET AL.
F I G U R E 6 Performance of a HUAV with the number of
propellers (16‐inch propeller diameter, 1600 W fuel cell, 4 battery
cells, 9 L Hydrogen tank). HUAV, hybrid unmanned aerial vehicle.
F I G U R E 7 Performance of a HUAV with fuel cell size (16‐inch
propeller diameter, 8 propellers, 4 battery cells, 9 L Hydrogen tank).
HUAV, hybrid unmanned aerial vehicle.
F I G U R E 8 Performance of a HUAV with battery size (16‐inch
propeller diameter, 8 propellers, 1600 W fuel cell, 6 L Hydrogen
tank). HUAV, hybrid unmanned aerial vehicle.
from 210.5 to 377.4 min—an increase of 179.3%. This
result suggests that hydrogen tank size is the primary
variable that determines flight endurance. However, the
load mass does not change with different hydrogen tank
sizes. So, in summary, it is necessary to carefully consider
the sensitivity of design variables and choose parameters
according to the application.
20500505, 2022, 10, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1262 by Nri For Criogenics,Icsi Ramnic, Wiley Online Library on [20/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
| 3999
F I G U R E 9 Performance of a HUAV with hydrogen tank size
(16‐inch propeller diameter, 8 propellers, 1600 W fuel cell, 4 battery
cells). HUAV, hybrid unmanned aerial vehicle.
4.3 | Synergistic sizing optimization
In a hybrid system, the energy flows are much more
complex. The EMS affects the energy distribution,
which has a direct impact on the performance of each
component. To optimize the system parameters of the
HUAV, the effect of the EMSs must be considered.
This requires a system model as shown in Section 2,
and an appropriate EMS as shown in Section 3. For a
hybrid system, the operating conditions will also affect
the parameters design. Under variable demand power
conditions, the advantages of the hybrid system will be
fully apparent, and synergistic sizing optimization is
needed. We propose a synergistic sizing optimization
method based on multiple objective optimizations.
Optimization objectives should be established accord-
ing to work demand, with flight endurance as the
primary objective. We include the mean value
and standard deviation of the fuel cell current as
optimization objectives in this study. Therefore, in
this optimization problem, the optimization variable
is still X = {DP , numP , numFC , numB , num H2 }T , and the
optimization objectives are optimal endurance time
and fuel cell lifetime, as shown in Equation (29).
The constrains are the same as static design method.
X = {DP , numP , numFC , numB , num H2 }T




obj . 

max TFET


 min S
(29)

min IFC .
 I
Synergistic sizing optimization is based on optimiza-
tion theory and the EMS. The actual workload is used as
the input, and a specific EMS is used to simulate the
actual working conditions. Synergistic sizing optimiza-
tion is characterized by multiobjective optimization and

4000 | LIU
the introduction of simulation data under typical work-
ing conditions with the specific EMS. Therefore, syner-
gistic sizing optimization design is more in line with the
actual working conditions and control system for HUAV
design. A multiobjective optimization algorithm was
adopted to obtain a set of optimal front solutions.
Research shows that, for low‐dimensional multiobjective
optimization problems, the NSGA‐Ⅲ algorithm is very
effective, which is efficient for finding the optimal Pareto
solution set.48 In this study, a classic NSGA‐Ⅲ from
literature49 is used to solve the multiobjective sizing
optimization problem. The detailed flowchart of the
optimization scheme is illustrated in Figure 10. The
pseudo‐code of NSGA‐Ⅲ is shown in Table 5. The design
parameters of all groups were optimized within a single
run. The accuracy of the results, discussed in Section 5,
depends on the quality of the models.
20500505, 2022, 10, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1262 by Nri For Criogenics,Icsi Ramnic, Wiley Online Library on [20/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ET AL.
5 | R ES ULT S AN D DI S C US S I ON
To fully verify the superiority of the proposed EMSs, a
small HUAV was tested. The HUAV's specifications for
simulation are listed in Table 6. The simulations were
performed in MATLAB. System parameters design is a
function of the working load, but due to complex working
conditions, there is no standard load for the UAVs.
Therefore, in this study, a reference electric power request
curve generated by a small all‐electric hexacopter taken
from the literature50 is used, as shown in Figure 11. Since
the power required is proportional to the mass raised to
the power 1.5, it is possible to obtain the power required
for larger multicopters from this.51 The proposed EMSs
were verified by analyzing the working conditions through
simulation. During the simulations, the load spectrum
shown in Figure 11 was applied twice in succession.
F I G U R E 10 Schematics of the synergistic
sizing optimization
 20500505, 2022, 10, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1262 by Nri For Criogenics,Icsi Ramnic, Wiley Online Library on [20/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
LIU ET AL. | 4001

TABLE 5 Pseudo‐code of NSGA‐Ⅲ

Input: Population size N, probability of crossover and mutation,
mutation strength, etc.
Output: Optimal solutions
1: Initialize population and iteration number
2: While Termination criteria is not achieved
3: Calculate the power flow of the population P(k), and calculate
each objective function
4: Fast non‐dominated sorting, and stratifying the population F I G U R E 11 Representative power request of the reference
according to the value of the objective function UAV (taken from Donateo et al.50)
5: Reference point‐based selection operation
6: Perform genetic operations, and obtain the offspring power is inputted into the system model. According to
population Q(k) the set EMS, the output of the fuel cell and battery will be
7: Merge the parent population and the offspring population and dynamically distributed. So that the HUAV can respond
obtain new population R(k) to the power request, and achieves energy management
8: Calculate the power flow of R(t), and calculate the value of objectives. Five EMSs based on fuzzy logic, dynamic
each objective function programming, ECM, PMP, and improved PMP are
9: Fast non‐dominated sorting according to the value of the
adopted to distribute power between the fuel cell and
objective function battery. The evaluation criteria include equivalent
hydrogen consumption that has converted the battery
10: Select preferable individuals to enter the next generation of
SoC change into hydrogen consumption, theoretical
population P(k + 1)
flight endurance time, and mean and standard deviation
11: end of the current of a single fuel cell. The results of
12: Output optimal solutions simulation results are presented in Table 7 and
13: Return Figures 12–14.
As it can be seen from Figure 12, the fuel cell power
curves differ greatly under different EMSs. The fuel cell
power under improved PMP is remarkedly smooth and
TABLE 6 Reference HUAV specifications
stable. While under dynamic programming, it fluctuates
Performance Unit Vaule greatly between 650 W and 224 W, the largest swing of
No‐load mass (mN) kg 5.14 all the strategies. This is because dynamic programming
Take‐off mass (m) kg 6.14 can make full use of the load information, and obtain
the global optimal solutions, while there is no restric-
Load mass (mL) kg 1
tion on the fuel cell power change rate, so the
Propeller diameter (DP) inch 15 fluctuations are relatively large within the limited range
Propeller number (numP) 6 (80 W/S). ECMS also has obvious power fluctuations
and a large rate of change. This stems from the fact that
Body radius m 0.6
ECMS is designed to minimize equivalent consumption
Flight altitude m 150 and has no constraints on power change rate. The power
Fuel cell rated power (5numFC) W 800 changes under fuzzy logic are very characteristic, with
Number of battery cell (numB) 4 minimal swings between maxima and minima. This is
because of the robust character of fuzzy logic. Therefore,
Hydrogen tank capacity (31.4 g/L) (numH 2 ) L 3
fuzzy logic is a very practical online control method.
Abbreviation: HUAV, hybrid unmanned aerial vehicle. Both power curves under the two PMPs have definite
fluctuations. Except for when the load changes are
greatest, the power changes very smoothly. This is
5.1 | Analysis of EMSs because PMP considers battery SoC to minimize
fluctuation. The improved PMP considers the mean
Based on the system model, the EMSs are simulated and and standard deviation of the fuel cell current based on
validated in MATLAB, with a calculation period of 0.1 s. the basic PMP, and so the fuel cell current fluctuates
In the process of system simulation, the representative particularly smoothly under the improved PMP.
 20500505, 2022, 10, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1262 by Nri For Criogenics,Icsi Ramnic, Wiley Online Library on [20/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
4002 | LIU ET AL.

TABLE 7 Simulation results of EMSs

Equivalent hydrogen Flight Mean Standard Calculation time
EMS consumption (g) endurance (min) current (A) deviation per cycle (ms)
Fuzzy logic 2.48 319.2 1.61 0.23 0.44
Dynamic 2.56 309.2 1.73 0.48 ‐
programming (DP)
ECMS 2.46 321.8 1.69 0.45 0.14
PMP 2.40 331.2 1.35 0.40 0.52
Improved PMP 2.37 334 1.35 0.23 0.53
Abbreviations: EMS, energy management strategy; PMP, Pontryagin's minimum principle.

F I G U R E 12 Fuel cell power under the different EMS F I G U R E 14 Battery SoC under the different EMS employed.
employed. EMS, energy management strategy. EMS, energy management strategy.

most of the time, so the battery power is close to 0. And

F I G U R E 13 Battery power under the different EMS employed.
EMS, energy management strategy.
Figures 13 and 14 show the variations in battery
power and SoC, which are directly related. The battery
power can be considered to be the difference between
the load and the fuel cell power. In Figure 13, the results
with dynamic programming and ECMS differ from
those of the other strategies. The battery under dynamic
programming tends to provide a more stable output/
input of between 308.8 and 240.6 W. Therefore, the
corresponding battery SoC in Figure 14 also changes
little, ranging between 0.798 and 0.811. Under ECMS,
the battery does not contribute to power compensation
the battery SoC fluctuation in Figure 14 is also very
small, ranging between 0.8 and 0.811. Under fuzzy logic,
the battery always works to maintain the balance of
SOC, and due to its robustness, the fluctuations in
battery power are not large. The corresponding battery
SoC ranges between 0.732 and 0.806. Under both basic
and improved PMP, the battery power fluctuates more
obviously than with the other algorithms, and it also
fluctuates all the time. The control effect of both PMP‐
based strategies is similar, but the power fluctuation of
the improved PMP is the smaller of the two. This is
because PMP‐based strategies tend to make full use of
the battery. The basic and improved PMP‐strategy SoC
curves fluctuate and fall in the range of [0.604, 0.8] and
[0.595, 0.8], respectively.
Table 7 gives the performance metrics of the
simulation. The equivalent hydrogen consumption
under the fuzzy logic, dynamic programming, ECMS,
PMP, and improved PMP strategies are 2.48, 2.56, 2.46,
2.40, and 2.37 g, respectively. Assuming the HUAV
keeps flying under the given cyclic load, then, the
corresponding theoretical flight endurance time would
be 319.2, 309.2, 321.8, 331.2, and 334 min, respectively.
Dynamic programming has the highest hydrogen
 20500505, 2022, 10, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1262 by Nri For Criogenics,Icsi Ramnic, Wiley Online Library on [20/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
LIU ET AL. | 4003

consumption, while improved PMP has the lowest.

This is because, under dynamic programming, fuel cell
power fluctuates greatly, reducing energy efficiency.
Fuel cell power is most stable under the improved
PMP, so its energy consumption under that scenario is
also the lowest. Improved PMP increases flight
endurance by 8% compared to dynamic programming
and by 4.64% compared to fuzzy logic. Although ECMS
aims at the lowest energy consumption, due to the
large fluctuations in fuel cell power, it saves only 0.8%
more hydrogen consumption than fuzzy logic. These
results show that PMP strategies, especially improved
PMP, can achieve longer flight endurance than other
strategies. The mean currents of the fuel cell under the
five strategies are 1.61, 1.73, 1.69, 1.35, and 1.35 A,
respectively, and the corresponding standard devia-
tions are 0.23, 0.48, 0.45, 0.40, and 0.23, respectively.
These correspond to the power change of the fuel cell,
as discussed above. The more drastic the change of
fuel cell power is, the larger the mean current and the
standard deviation are. The improved PMP‐based EMS
improved the fuel cell lifetime by reducing the mean
and standard deviation current of the fuel cell by 22%
and 52.1%, respectively, compared with dynamic
programming, and reducing the mean current by
16.1% compared with fuzzy logic. These results
demonstrate that the improved PMP‐based EMS
effectively achieves the optimization objectives. In
theory, the fuel cell lifetime and durability are greatly
improved.
In general, dynamic programming, as an offline
evaluation strategy, can obtain the global optimum, but
its control effect is not necessarily as required. The
robustness of fuzzy logic is strong, and the actual control
effect is acceptable, which is a fundamental online
control strategy. In contrast, the control effect of ECMS
is less than desirable. When multiple objectives are
considered, PMP can still achieve better results, and it is
a recommended online control algorithm.

5.2 | Analysis of sizing optimization

As the results of the previous section show, the three

optimization objectives are maximum flight endur-
ance time and minimum mean and standard deviation
of the current of the fuel cell. This is a typical
multiobjective optimization problem, which, in this
study, we solve using the NSGA‐III algorithm. The
population size was set to 200, the mutation rate to
0.02, and both the crossover and mutation percentages F I G U R E 15 Optimization results of NSGA‐III for (A) the
to 0.5. The performance of the NSGA‐III algorithm in Quadcopter, (B) the Hexarotor, and (C) the octocopter. NSGA‐III,
the optimization process was analyzed, especially non‐dominated sorting genetic algorithm‐II.

4004 | LIU
during the acceleration phase (reflected in the optimal
front; Figure 15).
Figure 15 shows plots of the normalized curve for the
optimal front, which denotes the optimal solution
calculated by NSGA‐III, in terms of maximizing the
flight endurance time and minimizing the mean and
standard deviation of the fuel cell current. Three NAGA‐
III obtained effective front solutions, and the sizing
optimization was most responsible for the performance
improvements achieved. The multiattribute decision‐
making method can be used to evaluate the Pareto
frontier solution set and find an optimal solution. While
the optimization objectives are classified according to
the attribute characteristics. The flight endurance time
belongs to the benefit index, the mean current to the
qualitative attribute, and the current standard deviation
to the cost attribute. Multiattribute decision‐making
generally compares the ranking of comprehensive attri-
bute values of the solution set with the decision
information being aggregated by weighting the arithme-
tic average operator. For the three layout schemes, the
synergy between the sizing optimization and EMS makes
it possible for the optimal configuration to be deter-
mined, even though the three objectives have certain
contradictions. The final configuration chosen depends
on the relative importance of the three objectives, and,
based on their priorities, designers may need to flexibly
adjust the weight.
6 | CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we proposed a sizing optimization
methodology and five EMSs for fuel cell/battery‐
powered HUAVs. A mathematical model of a HUAV
was established. With the objectives of improving flight
endurance and fuel cell lifetime, the five EMSs are based
on fuzzy logic, dynamic programming, ECMS, PMP, and
improved PMP. The EMSs were validated by MATLAB
simulations, which showed that the power flow between
the sources was effective. The improved PMP‐based EMS
prolonged the fight endurance by 4.64% and 8%
compared with fuzzy logic and dynamic programming
EMS, respectively. It also improved the fuel cell lifetime
by reducing 22% mean current and 52.1% standard
deviation of the fuel cell compared with dynamic
programming and reducing 16.1% mean current com-
pared with fuzzy logic. The sizing optimization scheme
for the HUAVs is divided into two parts, that is, a static
design, and synergistic sizing optimization. By consider-
ing the synergy between aircraft design and the EMSs, a
methodology for multiobjective optimization was pro-
posed. Improving the flight endurance and fuel cell
20500505, 2022, 10, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1262 by Nri For Criogenics,Icsi Ramnic, Wiley Online Library on [20/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ET AL.
lifetime were the objectives of the optimization process.
The calculations were performed by NSGA‐Ⅲ. Numerical
results showed that NSGA‐Ⅲ well approximated the
front solutions. Large performance improvements were
possible by considering the synergy between the aircraft
design and control strategy, where synergy gave optimal
solution set to the overall performances. Design variables
sensitivity was also addressed for better HUVA design.
Importantly, this study shows that HUAV design can
benefit from consideration of the EMS. The performance
of HUAVs could be further improved through EMS
optimization. During the missions of UAV, there are
many scheduled flight and trajectory tracking flights.
How to make effective use of motion control information
and combine EMS with motion control, is an issue
worthy of in‐depth study. We will investigate the
integration of EMS and motion control for HUVAs in
the near future.
AC KNOW LEDGM ENTS
This study was supported by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China [grant number 51805200];
the Scientific Research Project of Jilin Provincial
Department of Education [grant number JJKH2022-
0978KJ]; and the Fundamental Research Funds for the
Central Universities.
C O NF L I C T O F I N T E R E S T
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
ORC ID
Tianyu Li http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9431-2501
REFER ENCES
1. Shakhatreh H, Sawalmeh AH, Al‐Fuqaha A, et al. Unmanned
aerial vehicles (UAVs): a survey on civil applications and key
research challenges. IEEE Access. 2019;7:48572‐48634. doi:10.
1109/ACCESS.2019.2909530
2. MarketsandMarkets. Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Mar-
ket by Vertical, Class, System, Industry (Defense & Security,
Agriculture, Construction & Mining, Media & Entertainment),
Type, Mode of Operation, Range, Point of Sale, MTOW and
Region ‐ Global Forecast to 2025;2021.
3. Dai X, Quan Q, Ren J, Cai KY. An analytical design‐optimization
method for electric propulsion systems of multicopter UAVs
with desired hovering endurance. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron.
2019;24:228‐239. doi:10.1109/TMECH.2019.2890901
4. Habib AKMA, Hasan MK, Mahmud M, Motakabber SMA,
Ibrahimya MI, Islam S. A review: energy storage system and
balancing circuits for electric vehicle application. IET Power
Electron. 2020;14:1‐13. doi:10.1049/pel2.12013
5. Hasan MK, Mahmud M, Ahasan Habib AKM, Motakabber SMA,
Islam S. Review of electric vehicle energy storage and manage-
ment system: standards, issues, and challenges. J Energy Storage.
2021;41:102940. doi:10.1016/j.est.2021.102940

LIU ET AL.
6. Duy VN, Kim HM. Review on the hybrid‐electric propulsion
system and renewables and energy storage for unmanned
aerial vehicles. Int J Electrochem Sci. 2020;15:5296‐5319.
doi:10.20964/2020.06.13
7. Abdul Sathar Eqbal M, Fernando N, Marino M, Wild G.
Hybrid propulsion systems for remotely piloted aircraft
systems. Aerospace. 2018;5:34. doi:10.3390/aerospace5020034
8. Depcik C, Cassady T, Collicott B, et al. Comparison of lithium
ion batteries, hydrogen fueled combustion engines, and a
hydrogen fuel cell in powering a small unmanned aerial
vehicle. Energy Convers Manag. 2020;207:112514. doi:10.1016/
j.enconman.2020.112514
9. Baroutaji A, Wilberforce T, Ramadan M, Olabi AG. Compre-
hensive investigation on hydrogen and fuel cell technology in
the aviation and aerospace sectors. Renew Sustain Energy Rev.
2019;106:31‐40. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2019.02.022
10. Wang B, Zhao D, Li W, et al. Current technologies and
challenges of applying fuel cell hybrid propulsion systems in
unmanned aerial vehicles. Prog Aerosp Sci. 2020;116:100620.
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2020.100620
11. Ma S, Lin M, Lin TE, et al. Fuel cell‐battery hybrid systems
for mobility and off‐grid applications: a review. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev. 2021;135:110119. doi:10.1016/j.rser.
2020.110119
12. Belmonte N, Staulo S, Fiorot S, Luetto C, Rizzi P, Baricco M.
Fuel cell powered octocopter for inspection of mobile cranes:
design, cost analysis and environmental impacts. Appl Energy.
2018;215:556‐565. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.02.072
13. Boby RI, Abdullah K, Jusoh AZ, Parveen N, Mahmud M.
Adaptive control of nonlinear system based on QFT application
to 3‐DOF flight control system. Telkomnika (Telecommunication
Comput Electron Control. 2019;17:2595‐2606. doi:10.12928/
TELKOMNIKA.v17i5.12810
14. Mazur AM, Domanski R. Hybrid energy systems in unmanned
aerial vehicles. Aircr Eng Aerosp Technol. 2019;91:736‐746.
doi:10.1108/AEAT-08-2018-0218
15. Oh TH. Conceptual design of small unmanned aerial vehicle
with proton exchange membrane fuel cell system for long
endurance mission. Energy Convers Manag. 2018;176:349‐356.
doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2018.09.036
16. Donateo T, De Pascalis CL, Ficarella A. Synergy effects in
electric and hybrid electric aircraft. Aerospace. 2019;6:32.
doi:10.3390/aerospace6030032
17. Kamjoo A, Maheri A, Dizqah AM, Putrus GA. Multi‐objective
design under uncertainties of hybrid renewable energy system
using NSGA‐II and chance constrained programming. Int
J Electr Power Energy Syst. 2016;74:187‐194. doi:10.1016/j.
ijepes.2015.07.007
18. Karunarathne L, Economou JT, Knowles K. Power and energy
management system for fuel cell unmanned aerial vehicle.
Proc Inst Mech Eng Part G J Aerosp Eng. 2012;226:437‐454.
doi:10.1177/0954410011409995
19. Boukoberine MN, Zhou Z, Benbouzid M. A critical review on
unmanned aerial vehicles power supply and energy manage-
ment: solutions, strategies, and prospects. Appl Energy.
2019;255:113823. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113823
20. Lei T, Yang Z, Lin Z, Zhang X. State of art on energy
management strategy for hybrid‐powered unmanned aerial
20500505, 2022, 10, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1262 by Nri For Criogenics,Icsi Ramnic, Wiley Online Library on [20/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
| 4005
vehicle. Chinese J Aeronaut. 2019;32:1488‐1503. doi:10.1016/j.
cja.2019.03.013
21. Zhang X, Liu L, Dai Y, Lu T. Experimental investigation on
the online fuzzy energy management of hybrid fuel cell/
battery power system for UAVs. Int J Hydrogen Energy.
2018;43:10094‐10103. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.04.075
22. Sulaiman N, Hannan MA, Mohamed A, Ker PJ, Majlan EH,
Wan Daud WR. Optimization of energy management system
for fuel‐cell hybrid electric vehicles: issues and recommen-
dations. Appl Energy. 2018;228:2061‐2079. doi:10.1016/j.
apenergy.2018.07.087
23. Peng H, Chen Z, Li J, et al. Offline optimal energy
management strategies considering high dynamics in batteries
and constraints on fuel cell system power rate: from analytical
derivation to validation on test bench. Appl Energy.
2021;282:116152. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116152
24. Ansarey M, Shariat Panahi M, Ziarati H, Mahjoob M. Optimal
energy management in a dual‐storage fuel‐cell hybrid vehicle
using multi‐dimensional dynamic programming. J Power
Sources. 2014;250:359‐371.
25. Ou K, Yuan WW, Choi M, Yang S, Jung S, Kim YB.
Optimized power management based on adaptive‐PMP
algorithm for a stationary PEM fuel cell/battery hybrid
system. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2018;43:15433‐15444. doi:10.
1016/j.ijhydene.2018.06.072
26. Nguyen BH, German R, Trovao JPF, Bouscayrol A. Real‐time
energy management of battery/supercapacitor electric vehicles
based on an adaptation of pontryagin's minimum principle.
IEEE Trans Veh Technol. 2019;68:203‐212. doi:10.1109/TVT.
2018.2881057
27. Tian X, He R, Sun X, Cai Y, Xu Y. An ANFIS‐Based ECMS for
energy optimization of parallel hybrid electric bus. IEEE
Trans Veh Technol. 2020;69:1473‐1483. doi:10.1109/TVT.
2019.2960593
28. Li H, Ravey A, N'Diaye A, Djerdir A. Online adaptive
equivalent consumption minimization strategy for fuel cell
hybrid electric vehicle considering power sources degradation.
Energy Convers Manag. 2019;192:133‐149. doi:10.1016/j.
enconman.2019.03.090
29. He H, Quan S, Sun F, Wang YX, Wang YX. Model predictive
control with lifetime constraints based energy management
strategy for proton exchange membrane fuel cell hybrid power
systems. IEEE Trans Ind Electron. 2020;67:9012‐9023. doi:10.
1109/TIE.2020.2977574
30. Li T, Huang L, Liu H. Energy management and economic
analysis for a fuel cell supercapacitor excavator. Energy.
2019;172:840‐851. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2019.02.016
31. Li T, Liu H, Wang H, Yao Y. Hierarchical predictive control‐
based economic energy management for fuel cell hybrid
construction vehicles. Energy. 2020;198:117327. doi:10.1016/j.
energy.2020.117327
32. Raga C, Barrado A, Miniguano H, Lazaro A, Quesada I,
Martin‐Lozano A. Analysis and sizing of power distribution
architectures applied to fuel cell based vehicles. Energies.
2018;11:2597. doi:10.3390/en11102597
33. Sankarkumar RS, Natarajan R. Energy management tech-
niques and topologies suitable for hybrid energy storage
system powered electric vehicles: an overview. Int Trans

4006 | LIU
Electr Energy Syst. 2021;31:e12819. doi:10.1002/2050-7038.
12819
34. Dai X, Quan Q, Ren J, Cai KY. Efficiency optimization and
component selection for propulsion systems of electric multi-
copters. IEEE Trans Ind Electron. 2019;66:7800‐7809. doi:10.
1109/TIE.2018.2885715
35. Shi D, Dai X, Zhang X, Quan Q. A practical performance
evaluation method of multirotors. IEEE/ASME Trans
Mechatronics. 2017;22:1337‐1348.
36. Priya K, Sathishkumar K, Rajasekar N. A comprehensive
review on parameter estimation techniques for proton
exchange membrane fuel cell modelling. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev. 2018;93:121‐144. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2018.05.017
37. Liu Y, Li J, Chen Z, Qin D, Zhang Y. Research on a multi‐
objective hierarchical prediction energy management strategy
for range extended fuel cell vehicles. J Power Sources.
2019;429:55‐66. doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2019.04.118
38. Sharaf AM, El‐Gammal AAA. 38—Novel AI‐based soft
computing applications in motor drives. In: Rashid MH,
ed. Rashid Power Electronics Handbook. 4th ed., 2018:
1261‐1302.
39. Chen H, Song Z, Zhao X, Zhang T, Pei P, Liang C. A review of
durability test protocols of the proton exchange membrane
fuel cells for vehicle. Appl Energy. 2018;224:289‐299. doi:10.
1016/j.apenergy.2018.04.050
40. Jung S, Jeong H. Extended Kalman filter‐based state of charge
and state of power estimation algorithm for unmanned aerial
vehicle Li‐Po battery packs. Energies. 2017;10:10. doi:10.3390/
en10081237
41. Chen H, Pei P, Song M. Lifetime prediction and the economic
lifetime of proton exchange membrane fuel cells. Appl Energy.
2015;142:154‐163. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.12.062
42. Ren P, Pei P, Li Y, Wu Z, Chen D, Huang S. Degradation
mechanisms of proton exchange membrane fuel cell under
typical automotive operating conditions. Prog Energy Combust
Sci. 2020;80:100859. doi:10.1016/j.pecs.2020.100859
43. Han J, Han J, Yu S. Investigation of FCVs durability under
driving cycles using a model‐based approach. J Energy Storage.
2020;27:101169. doi:10.1016/j.est.2019.101169
20500505, 2022, 10, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1262 by Nri For Criogenics,Icsi Ramnic, Wiley Online Library on [20/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ET AL.
44. Zhang T, Wang P, Chen H, Pei P. A review of automotive
proton exchange membrane fuel cell degradation under start‐
stop operating condition. Appl Energy. 2018;223:249‐262.
doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.04.049
45. Wen J, Zhao D, Zhang C. An overview of electricity powered
vehicles: lithium‐ion battery energy storage density and
energy conversion efficiency. Renew Energy. 2020;162:
1629‐1648. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2020.09.055
46. Daowd M, Omar N, Van Mierlo J, Van Den Bossche P. An
extended PNGV battery model for electric and hybrid vehicles.
Int Rev Electr Eng. 2011;6:1692‐1706.
47. Daowd M, Omar N, Van Mierlo J, Van Den Bossche P.
Extended PNGV battery model for electric and hybrid
vehicles. Int Rev Electr Eng. 2011;6:1264‐1278.
48. Li H, Deb K, Zhang Q, Suganthan PN, Chen L. Comparison
between MOEA/D and NSGA‐III on a set of many and multi‐
objective benchmark problems with challenging difficulties.
Swarm Evol Comput. 2019;46:104‐117. doi:10.1016/j.swevo.
2019.02.003
49. Deb K, Jain H. An evolutionary many‐objective optimization
algorithm using reference‐point‐based nondominated sorting
approach, part I: solving problems with box constraints. IEEE
Trans Evol Comput. 2014;18:577‐601. doi:10.1109/TEVC.2013.
2281535
50. Donateo T, Spedicato L, Pio Placentino D. Design and
performance evaluation of a hybrid electric power system for
multicopters. Energy Procedia. 2017;126:1035‐1042. doi:10.
1016/j.egypro.2017.08.310
51. Johnson W. Rotorcr Aeromechanics. Cambridge University
Press; 2006:1‐927. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139235655
How to cite this article: Liu H, Yao Y, Wang J,
Yang T, Li T. Energy management and system
design for fuel cell hybrid unmanned aerial
vehicles. Energy Sci Eng. 2022;10:3987‐4006.
doi:10.1002/ese3.1262