Journal of Energy Storage 57 (2023) 106276

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Energy Storage

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/est

Research papers

An improved energy management strategy for fuel cell/battery/

supercapacitor system using a novel hybrid jellyfish/particle swarm/
BAT optimizers
Islam M. Abdelqawee, Ahmed W. Emam *, Mohamed S. ElBages, Mohamed A. Ebrahim 1
Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering at Shoubra, Benha University, Cairo, Egypt

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this paper, a fuel cell (FC) hybrid emergency system is presented. It contains fuel cells, batteries, and
Energy management supercapacitors which are effective for different conveyance applications. Abbreviating the hydrogen con­
Fuel cells sumption and incrementing the lifetime of power sources are the key factors of each energy management strategy
Hybrid optimization
(EMS). An incipient proposed EMS depending on an optimized proportional-integral (PI) controller is presented
Hydrogen minimization
considering FC efficiency to ensure the operation of the FC stack within its maximum efficiency region and
Stress reduction
reduce the stress on it which in turn leads to reducing its hydrogen consumption. Regarding tunning the PI
controller gains (Kp,Ki), a proposed hybrid metaheuristic optimization technique named JSPSOBAT has been
presented which merges jellyfish (JS) optimizer, particle swarm optimizer (PSO) and BAT optimizer to achieve
the balance between exploration and exploitation phases. To firstly validate the effectiveness of the JSPSOBAT
technique, a comparative study with other single and hybrid metaheuristic optimization techniques is presented
by testing on 50 complex benchmark functions. Then, the JSPSOBAT is used to select the controller gains of the
proposed PI controller. A 30 min load profile of a More Electric Aircraft (MEA) is used. The performance of the
proposed EMS using the proposed optimization technique is compared with other EMS such as state machine
control strategy, classical PI control strategy, equivalent consumption minimization strategy, external energy
maximization strategy, and the results show that the proposed technique produces the best performance.

1. Introduction addition to Energy Storage Systems (ESS) such as batteries and/or

In modern times, the alarming state of abbreviating fossil fuels and
incrementing vigilance about deteriorating climatic conditions have led
to the adoption of alternative energy technologies. Among various
developed technologies electric transportation systems (ETSs) which
depend on hybrid power sources are expeditiously becoming a part of
the modern conveyance system, due to their contribution to minimizing
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [1,2]. Moreover, some ETSs may pro­
vide power to the electric grid whenever needed.
Much research has been implemented on Fuel cell (FC) application in
vehicular technology as they engender electrical energy from chemical
energy with high efficiency, less noise, and near-zero-emissions
(compared to conventional internal combustion engines), with only
heat and water as by-products. Typically, Effective FC hybrid power
generation systems are those which contain FC power systems in
supercapacitors [3]. ESS is used to increase the system's performance
and overcome the low dynamic response of the FC power system [4,5].
Where batteries have high energy density and low power density, and
supercapacitors have high power density and low energy density, the
combination of them helps in increasing the available average power
during sudden changes in the load.
For the hybrid power generation system which consists of FC, bat­
teries, and supercapacitors, to plenarily benefit from the advantages of
the hybrid energy system, the authoritative ordinance power should be
efficaciously distributed among the available power sources utilizing an
energy management strategy (EMS) [6]. The suitable EMS has more
challenges such as: reducing hydrogen consumption, the operation cost,
and the stress on the energy sources, in addition to operating the fuel cell
at its maximum efficiency [7,8]. Finally, maintaining the bus voltage at
a certain level.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ahmed.Wajih@feng.bu.edu.eg (A.W. Emam).
1
IEEE Senior Member

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2022.106276
Received 27 January 2022; Received in revised form 20 October 2022; Accepted 26 November 2022
Available online 9 December 2022
2352-152X/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
I.M. Abdelqawee et al.
Fig. 1. Classification of energy management strategies.
During the last decay, several researchers have used different types
of EMS for FC hybrid power systems to achieve the previous goals. Also,
several studies have been introduced to classify these EMSs [9,10]. One
of these several accepted classifications is classified EMS into two major
types Fig. 1: offline and online EMSs. Offline EMSs are classified ac­
cording to the level of information of the utilizing load profile and
driving conditions, including ruled-based EMSs and optimization-based
EMSs. Online EMSs are classified into three subcategories, instantaneous
optimization-based EMSs, predictive EMSs, and learning-based EMSs.
Qi Li et al. [11] presented an EMS based on SMS with droop control
for a hybrid power model of tramway based on PEMFC, batteries, and
supercapacitors, SMS is used to distribute the load power on available
power sources, while the droop control is used to provide the DC bus
voltage stability by limiting circulating currents. Qi Li et al. [12]
introduced an EMS based on a combination between SMS and ECMS for
a hybrid tramcar system based on a fuel cell and supercapacitor, the
proposed EMS can coordinate multiple power sources while operating
within their high efficacy range, also the proposed EMS has been
reduced hydrogen consumption by 4.18 % and 0.56 % compared to state
machine strategy and equivalent consumption minimization strategy
respectively.
Zhumu Fu et al. [13] proposed a new EMS based on Frequency
Decoupling Strategy (FDS) based on fuzzy control for hybrid electric
vehicle (HEV) powered by FC/Batt/SC, the controller separates the de­
mand power into three frequencies levels by using haar wavelet, also,
using genetic algorithm technique for optimizing the membership
functions of the proposed controller.
Hoang Vu Doa et al. [14] applied a Fuzzy Logic Control and a Rule-
Based Algorithm on FC/Battery/SC hybrid power system, the authors
used the backtracking search algorithm with sequential dynamic
2
Journal of Energy Storage 57 (2023) 106276
programming to optimize the fuzzy logic's parameters and the result
showed that 10.92 % fuel economy improvement by using the proposed
EMS.
Shiyong Tao et al. [15] have introduced an EMS based on Dynamic
Programming (DP) and SMS for a hybrid FC/SC power system, DP is
used to solve the optimal distribution between the power sources, and
SMS takes the result of DP to update the threshold values of SMS states,
verification of the proposed EMS has been implemented based on RT-
LAB real-time simulator, the results showed that 18.82 % hydrogen
consumption is saved over 800 s compared to normal SMS.
D. Pivetta et al. [16] introduced an EMS based on a Mixed-Integer
Linear-Programming approach, they proposed a multi-objective design
and operation (D&O) optimization technique that contributes to cost
and FC degradation minimization. Also, a comparison between multi-
objective D&O optimization and single-objective optimization (for cost
minimization only) showed that the FC degradation is reduced by 65 %
in the case of multi-objective D&O.
Liu et al. [17] introduced a hybrid genetic algorithm for HEV, the
proposed hybrid technique used the quadratic programming algorithm.
Compared to the traditional GA algorithm the proposed algorithm can
achieve faster convergence and more adaptability. Achikkulath Pra­
santhi et al. [18] minimized the energy sources by a new optimization
technique named Quantum Butterfly Optimization Algorithm (QBOA)
for hybrid FC electric vehicle, the proposed EMS is compared with
Adaptive Energy Management Strategy (AEMS), conventional discrete
wavelet transforms power-splitting technique, and another one between
QBOA, BOA, and PSO, Results showed that the weight and cost of the
hybrid system are reduced by 10 % and 16 % respectively.
Jihun Han et al. [19] presented an EMS based on ECMS which pro­
vides optimal performance for hybrid FC/battery power systems based
I.M. Abdelqawee et al. Journal of Energy Storage 57 (2023) 106276

Table 1
Summary of advantages/disadvantages of main EMSs.
Algorithm type Strategy Main Advantages Main Challenges Ref.

Offline Ruled-based Deterministic • Easy for implementation by a look-up table. • The final operation points maybe not be the [11–13,22,28–32]
• Simple Structure. optimal ones due to not considering the
future load conditions.
Fuzzy-logic • Easy for implementation depending on the level of • Low adaptability due to the hardness of [14,33,34]
similarity among data sets. selecting a suitable membership function
based on various inputs.
Optimization-based Direct • Consider as a benchmark for the other EMSs. • Less adaptation. [34] [15,35,36]
• Achieves near-optimal fuel economy. • More computational complexity.
• Requires load profile database.
Indirect • Optimal control for Global trajectory. • Complex mathematics. [37]
• The model approximation is required for
reducing computation effort.
Gradient • Fast computation. • Robust model simplification [16,38]
• Need of derivative information regarding
the objective function
• Complex mathematics
Derivative-free • Global optimality. • Optimal solution not obtained in limited [17,18,39]
• Good global search performance. no. of iterations.
• Less adaptability.
Online Instantaneous ECMS • On-line implementation. • Possibility of achieving local optimal [19–21,40–43]
optimization-based • More adaptability. solutions.
• Sensitivity of driving cycle for the
equivalent factor.
Robust Control • Robustness with uncertain parameters. • Computational complexity due to the [44]
• More adaptability. nonlinear time-variant model.
• Higher model complexity.
Extremum • The system model is not required so it can • Complexity is related to its [45–48]
Seeking optimize the performance of systems where the implementation.
process model is not accurately known. • Possibility of Local optima.
• Slow convergence.
Predictive Model Predictive • Deal with constraints explicitly. • Complex technique. [49]
Control • Enhance the transient performance of the hybrid • Need for joint chance constraint.
system.
• More adaptability with a lower computational
burden.
Driving cycle • It predicts the load profile for the EMS; hence it • Low fuel economy when existing many [50–52]
prediction achieves the best fuel economy. uncertain factors
Learning-based Reinforcement • Model-free control • Time-consuming regarding preparing the
database.
Neural Network • More adaptable as they can work with incomplete • Need longer time. [22,53]
knowledge. • Require excess data for training space.
• Parallel processing capability.

on the adaptation methodology of the equivalent factor based on SoC
feedback signals.
A new EMS based on Cost Optimization for Finite Horizon Strategy
(CO-FHS) and Adaptive Equivalent Consumption Minimization (A-
ECMS) has been introduced in [20], in this EMS the battery SoC penalty
term has been added in A-ECMS for maintaining the efficient operation
of the charge and discharge cycles of battery and CO-FHS optimized the
fuel consumption depending on the V2V technology, the results showed
that A-ECMS is better for highway driving roads while CO-FHS is better
for urban driving roads with 5 % average fuel improvement compared to
Finite State Machine Strategy (FSM). Laeun Kwon et al. [21] introduced
an EMS based on Degradation -Conscious Equivalent Consumption
Minimization Strategy (D-ECMS) for the FC hybrid system. A compari­
son between the Rule-Based (RP) control strategy, original EMCS, and D-
ECMS has been introduced. The results showed an improvement in
battery and FC degradation of the proposed EMS compared to other
techniques but with more hydrogen consumption. Regarding the
maintaining SoC of the battery, ECMS and D-ECMS are better than RP,
also, D-EMCS saved 1.01 % and 34.43 % of global cost compared to
ECMS and PR, respectively.
A. Benmouna et al. [22] introduced a new EMS based on a combi­
nation between Artificial Neural Network (ANN) and Passivity Based
Control (PBC) for hybrid FC/Battery/SC electric vehicles, ANN is used
for determining the controller's references (battery current reference
and the remaining hydrogen quantity) for the proposed EMS before
sharing the load demand between power sources.
Due to its simplicity, ease of implementation, low cost, and the
capability of improvement by tuning its controller gain values. More­
over, PI is considered one of the most popular and applicable control
schemes. Rupendra Kumar et al. [23] applied a PI controller for the
operation of a phosphoric acid FC (PAFC), and the results showed the
adequation of their method ever under different dynamic conditions.
Bassam et al. [24] developed an improved PI controller which considers
FC's efficiency for hybrid FC/Battery passenger vessels, the proposed
EMS showed lower hydrogen consumption and stress on FC compared to
other techniques. A. Bessam et al. [25] introduced an EMS based on PI
controller for hybrid power system powered by FC and SCs, this strategy
maintains the DC bus voltage according to the load's demand by
distributing the power among the sources.
M. Bassam et al. [26] introduced a multi-scheme strategy that
chooses its EMS based on the system inputs, the proposed EMS schemes
are: SMS, ECMS, Charge Depleting Charge Sustaining (CDCS) strategy,
and the classical PI controller, the proposed multi-scheme strategy
achieved 16.7 % hydrogen consumption and 8 % maximum energy
during 8 h working per day for the passenger's vessel. A new adaptation
methodology for equivalent factor used by EMCS has been introduced by

3
I.M. Abdelqawee et al.
Fig. 2. Fuel Cell model.
Fengqi Zhang et al. [27], the new methodology depended on a fuzzy PI
controller, and the proposed technique has been applied to a hybrid
electric vehicle equipped with an internal combustion engine and an
electric motor. Table 1 showed the advantages and disadvantages of
main EMSs.
In this paper, an improvement has been applied to the PI controller
EMS technique by making the input signals to the controller not only
battery State of Charge (SoC) signal as in classical PI controller but also
fuel cell efficiency signal which led to minimizing the hydrogen con­
sumption and reducing the stress on FC which in turn led to reducing
operation, maintenance, and replacement costs.
One challenge for making EMS more efficient is the selection of the
controller gains of the proportional-integral (PI) controller, Meta-
heuristic algorithms are employed in the selection of these gains. The
well-known algorithms are as particle swarm optimization (PSO) algo­
rithm [54], whale optimization algorithm (WOA) [55], bat (BAT) al­
gorithm [55], sine cosine algorithm (SCA) [56], harris hawks optimizer
(HHO) [56], grey wolf optimizer (GWO) [57], cuckoo search (CS) al­
gorithm [57], and jellyfish search (JS) optimizer [58].
Recently, the hybridization of more meta-heuristic algorithms has
been suggested to achieve better performance compared to single opti­
mization techniques by achieving a balance between exploitation and
exploration. Some examples of these algorithms are hybrid of PSO with
GWO [59], a hybrid of WOA with BAT [55], a hybrid of HHO with SCA
[56], and a hybrid of GWO with CS [57].
JS, PSO, and BAT are three widely used meta-heuristic algorithms.
However, their search mechanisms are different. JS is inspired by the
behavior of jellyfish for seeking food in the ocean, which involves
following ocean current at the beginning, movements inside jellyfish
swarms as time goes by, and a time control mechanism for switching
among these motions. PSO is inspired by the deportment of particles,
which move through the search space utilizing an amalgamation of
attraction to the best solution that they individually have found, and
attraction to the best solution that any particle in their neighborhood has
4
Journal of Energy Storage 57 (2023) 106276
found. BAT is inspired by the echolocation characteristics of bats with
varying pulse rates of emission and loudness.
In this paper, an incipiently hybrid-inspired algorithm called
JSPSOBAT is presented with an amalgamation of jellyfish, particle
swarm optimization, and bat algorithm. The main conception is to
improve the facility of exploration and exploitation in the jellyfish al­
gorithm with the facility of exploration in particle swarm optimization
and bat algorithm respectively to improve the convergence speed, so­
lution stability, and finding the global optimum. Some separable, non-
separable, multimodal, and unimodal test benchmark functions are
used to check the performance of the proposed technique compared to
other variant techniques.
The primary contributions of this paper are summarized as follows:
1) A new hybrid algorithm, JSPSOBAT comprises JS, PSO, and BAT is
proposed.
2) To plenarily test the efficacy of JSPSOBAT, several performance as­
pects including precision, reliability, convergence, and statistics are
evaluated by utilizing 50 different benchmark functions.
3) Furthermore, test the effectiveness of JSPSOBAT on selecting the
controller's gains (Kp, Ki) of original EMS techniques, and carried the
performance comparison out in terms of the consumed energy, bat­
tery state of charge (SoC), fuel cell efficiency, hydrogen consump­
tion, and stress analysis on each source of power.
4) A new improvement on PI controller-based EMS is proposed
considering fuel cell efficiency to maintain high efficiency and
increased lifetime of the fuel cell in the presence of the new hybrid
optimization technique for tuning PI controller gains.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes
briefly the subsystems of the hybrid power system with their simulation
model in Sim Power Systems (SPS). Section 3 describes briefly different
energy management strategies and problem formulation. In section 4,
the JSPSOBAT is proposed in detail. Section 5 carries out algorithm
I.M. Abdelqawee et al. Journal of Energy Storage 57 (2023) 106276

Fig. 3. Li-ion battery model.

performance tests and results on different benchmark functions, and
different EMS techniques. It also shows the implementation of the pro­
posed EMS and shows the simulation results. Finally, the work conclu­
sions are presented in Section 6.
2. Hybrid power system structure
The hybrid power system is designed based on the emergency power
system of More-Electric Aircraft (MEA) [60]. It consists of the following:
2.1. Energy sources models
2.1.1. Fuel cell model
A fuel cell is an electrochemical device that produces electricity
without combustion by combining hydrogen and oxygen. A single fuel
cell consists of an electrolyte sandwiched between two thin electrodes
named anode and cathode. The anode is fed by hydrogen where a
catalyst separates negatively charged electrons of hydrogen from posi­
tively charged ions (protons) (1) [61].
H2 →2H + 2e −
At the cathode, oxygen molecules combine with hydrogen ions and
electrons which reach the cathode through the external circuit (i.e. load)
and generate water as a byproduct (2) [61].
2H + ½ O2 + 2e − →H2 O
The output voltage of the fuel cell can be presented in terms of its
losses as follow [62]:
Vfc = ENernest − Vact − Vohm − Vcon
Where ENernest is the thermodynamic voltage, Vact is the activation
voltage drop, Vohm is the ohmic voltage drop, and Vcon is the concen­
tration voltage drop which can be presented as follow [62]:
Vact = − [x1 + x2 T + x3 T × ln(CO2 ) + x4 T × ln(IFC ) ]
Vcon = − B × ln(1 − A/Amax )
Vohmic = IFC × (RM + RC )
RM is the resistance of the membrane, and RC is the resistance due to the
transportation of protons through the membrane.
Individual fuel cells are typically connected in cascade to form a fuel
cell stack, so the output stack voltage is calculated as follows [62]:
Vstack = n × VFC (7)
Where n is the no. of fuel cells. Although the fuel cell system is
environmental with high conversion efficiency, low emission, less space
required, noiseless operations, and without any moving parts until now
it suffers from slow dynamic response to load variations, unstable output
voltage and finally, it has high initial costs with low service life [63].
Fig. 2 shows the fuel cell SPS model.
2.1.2. Battery
Among various types of batteries (such as NiCad, NiMH, or Lead-
acid), Li-ion batteries have the characteristic of producing high energy
density with high efficiency, and due to those advantages, Li-ion bat­
teries have been used in this paper [64]. Fig. 3 shows the Li-ion battery
SPS model. This model is modified according to the Shepherd curve-
fitting model, where the voltage polarization has been added to the
(1)
discharge expression of the battery voltage to consider the effect of the
battery SoC. Moreover, for calculating the polarization resistance and
ensuring the stability of the simulation, the actual battery current is
replaced by a filtered battery current. The output voltage of the battery
is represented as follows [65]:
(2)
Q Q *
Vbatt = Eo − K it − Rb i + Ab e− (U.it)
− K i (8)
Q − it Q − it
(3) Where E0 is the constant voltage of the battery, K is the polarization
constant, Q is the capacity of the battery, it is the actual charge of the
battery, Rb is the internal resistance of the battery, i* is the filtered
current of the battery, Ab is the amplitude of the exponential zone, and U
is the time constant of the exponential zone.
Only during the charging phase, after full charged, the voltage of the
(4) battery increase, so the polarization resistance should be modified as
follows [65]:
(5)
Q
Polres = K (9)
(6) it − 0.1Q

Where x1, x2, x3, x4 and B are the FC stack's parameters, CO2 is the
concentration of oxygen, IFC is the FC's current, A is the current density,

5
I.M. Abdelqawee et al. Journal of Energy Storage 57 (2023) 106276

Fig. 4. Supercapacitor model.

Fig. 5. (a) Average model of the DC-DC boost converter. (b) Average model for the DC-AC converter.

Fig. 6. Overall hybrid system schematic.

6
I.M. Abdelqawee et al.
Table 2
System description.
System Function
Fuel-cell Liquid-cooled proton-exchange-
membrane (PEM) fuel cell power
module (FCPM) which considers
the primary power source with
high energy density and low
power density [67].
Battery Lithium-ion batteries consider
secondary power sources with
high energy density and low
power density to provide extra
load power in case of
overloading of the fuel cell
system [67].
Super- Electric double-layer capacitors
capacitor (EDLCs) which considered
auxiliary power sources with
low energy density and high
power density to deal with load
transients [68,69].
Fuel-cell DC/ DC/DC Boost converter with two
DC inputs is provided for output
converter voltage regulation and input
current limitation [60].
Battery DC/ Two converters are used, the
DC first one is DC/DC boost
converter converter for discharging and
the latter is DC/DC buck
converter for charging. These
converters also have the same
control signals as fuel-cell DC/
DC converters [60].
Inverter DC/AC isolated converter [60].
Load Programmable DC/AC load to
simulate the load profile.
Protecting Absorbs extra power of fuel cell
resistor in case of zero loads and fully
chartered for battery and
supercapacitor.
2.1.3. Supercapacitor
Supercapacitors (SC), are the same as conventional electrolytic ca­
pacitors and are formed by two polarizable electrodes, a separator, and
an electrolyte, but with high capacitance value compared to traditional
ones. SC model is implemented in SPS referred to as the Stern model
which merges the Helmholtz and Gouy–Chapman models [66]. The
capacitance of the supercapacitor cell is expressed as follows [60]:
[ ]− 1
1 1
C= + (10)
CH CGC
With,
CH =
Ne εεo Ai
d considered classified into two categories: conventional strategies and
( )
FQc Qc
CGC = sinh 2 √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
2Ne RT Ne Ai 8RT εεo c
Description
• No. of fuel cells = 65 cell
• Nominal stack efficiency =
50 %
• Operating temperature =
45 ◦ C
• Stack Power [Nominal,
Maximal] = [10.2, 12.5]
kW
• Nominal voltage = 48 V
• Rated capacity = 40 Ah
• Initial state-of-charge = 70
% by [60]:
• Min SoC = 40 %
• Rated capacitance = 15.6 F
• Rated voltage = 291.6 V
• No. of series capacitor =
108 capacitor
• No. of parallel capacitor =
1 capacitor
• Initial voltage = 270 V
• Operating temperature =
25 ◦ C
• Rated power = 12.5 kW
• Full load current = 45 A
• Efficiency @ full and 10 %
load [n1,n2] = [85, 90] %
• DC/DC Boost converter:
• Rated power = 4 kW
• Full load current = 18 A
• Efficiency @ full and 10 %
load [n1, n2] = [80, 88] %
• DC/DC Buck converter:
• Rated power = 1.2 kW
• Full load current = 20 A
• Efficiency @ full and 10 %
load [n1, n2] = [80, 88] %
• Rated power = 15 kVA
• Output line voltage = 200
Vrms
• Output frequency = 400 Hz
• Nominal efficiency = 97 %
• DC bus voltage limits [Vmin,
Vmax] = [200, 280] V
• Consists of 4.5-kW 45-A
350-V electronically pro­
grammable loads.
• Rated power = 15 kW
(11)
(12)
7
Journal of Energy Storage 57 (2023) 106276
Where CH is the Helmholtz capacitance, CGC is the Gouy-Chapman
Capacitance, Ne is the number of electrode layers, ε is the electrolyte
material permittivity, ε0 is the free space permittivity, Ai is the area
between electrolyte and electrodes, d is the distance of the Helmholtz
layer, Qc is the electric charge of the cell, and c is the molar
concentration.
The total capacitance of the supercapacitor module consists of no. of
series cells (Ns) and no. of parallel cells (Np), is given by [60]:
Np
CT = .C. (13)
Ns
The output Voltage of the SC, considering its resistive losses, is given
QT
VSC = − RSC .iSC (14)
CT
With,
∫
QT = Np Qc = iSC dt (15)
Where RSC is the resistance of the SC module, iSC is the current of SC
module. Fig. 4 shows the SC model.
2.2. Power electronics converters models
2.2.1. DC/DC converter model
The FC and battery systems are connected to the DC bus through DC/
DC converters which convert the voltage from low level to high level and
vice-versa, in addition to controlling the FC and battery currents and the
voltage of the DC bus. FC is connected to DC/DC boost converter while
Battery is connected to two types of DC/DC converters; one is a boost
type converter for discharging progress and the other one is a buck type
converter for charging progress. There are two types of modeling for
converters in SPS; one is the average value model and the other is
switching models, in this paper average-value DC/DC converter models
are used as shown in Fig. 5(a) as the simulation time is 1800s.
2.2.2. DC/AC converter model
DC bus is connected to three-phase loads through a three-phase
inverter, the input current to the converter is determined by the
generated system output power and the voltage of the DC bus, similar to
the DC/DC converter model, the DC/AC converter used in this paper is
an average value model as shown in Fig. 5(b).
2.3. Load model
The load is modeled by a three-phase controlled-current source, the
load current is determined based on the load profile, nominal operating
line voltage, and the power factor.
In brief Fig. 6 shows the hybrid power system in SPS and Table 2
shows all components of the system with their functions and parameters
[60].
3. Energy management strategies
The main objectives of EMS are: Maximizing overall system effi­
ciency, minimizing hydrogen consumption, minimizing stress on power
sources, keeping the narrow scope of the battery and ultracapacitor SoC,
maximizing the life cycle of the power sources, and keeping DC bus
voltage within its permissible range. In this paper, five EMSs are
proposed strategies.
The voltage of the DC bus is regulated through a DC/DC buck/boost
converter of the battery for all EMSs as shown in Fig. 8(e, f), the
switching process is carried out based on the current dc bus voltage and
I.M. Abdelqawee et al.
Fig. 7. States of state machine control strategy.
its reference value. The main difference between each EMS is how it
obtains the value of FC reference power. The following sections illustrate
the EMS used in detail.
3.1. Conventional strategies
There are four traditional methods used for energy management
purpose, these methods are as follow:
3.1.1. State machine strategy (SMS)
SMS depends on the historical data of the entire inputs to determine
the controller output. It contains eight states as shown in Fig. 7 to
determine the fuel cell and battery operating points concerning the
required load power and battery SoC [44,60]. Hysteresis control is one
of the disadvantages of this method which occurs during switching be­
tween states in case of changing load demand which slows down the
response of the system.
3.1.2. Classical PI control
Due to their simplicity, PI and PID controllers are some of the most
popular controller techniques used in power management applications.
8
Journal of Energy Storage 57 (2023) 106276
It is used to maintain the battery SoC around its nominal value. The
battery power is determined according to the difference between the
current battery SoC and its reference value. Then, subtract it from load
power to determine the fuel cell power. In the case of battery SoC above
its reference value (SoC*), then the FC power is low, and the battery
supplies its full capacity power. Furthermore, when battery SoC is below
its reference value, then FC supplies almost the required load power
[44,60]. For better performance, gains of the PI controller can be tuned
online or by one of the optimization method techniques.
3.1.3. Equivalent Consumption Minimization Strategy (ECMS)
Minimizing the fuel consumption is the main aim of this method
taking into consideration the equivalence factor which is based on the
SoC of the battery. Considering this equivalence factor made ECMS less
sensitive to the coefficient of the battery SoC balance, this equivalence
factor is a variable that needs to be optimized, in this case, the optimi­
zation problem is formulated as follows [44]:
Min
( )
F = Pfc + αp Pbatt × ΔT (16)
I.M. Abdelqawee et al. Journal of Energy Storage 57 (2023) 106276

Pload Ifc*
Pfc*
State Machine Pfc* Ifc* SoC* -+ PI -+ x
x /
SoC Control Algorithm /
(a) Vdc (b) SoC Pload Vdc

Pload Pfc* Ifc*

Pfc* Ifc* SoC* +
- PI -+ ++ x
ECMS x /
SoC
/
SoC Pload Vdc
(c) Vdc

Pload Vdc
Pload Fceffe* +
- PI
Ifc*
Pfc* /
EMMS -+ (d)
SoC x Fceffe
V
Ibatt_boost* Ibatt_boost*

Voltage Voltage
++ +-
Ibatt_buck* V*dc +-
Ibatt_buck*
V*dc regulator regulator
-1 -1
(e) Vdc (f) Vdc

Fig. 8. Energy management schemes. (a) State machine control. (b) Classical PI control. (c) ECMS. (d) Proposed PI controller. (e) EMMS. (f) DC-bus voltage control is
common for (a, b, c, and d).

The equality constraint of the optimization problem is as follows: optimization progress of the EEMS technique [68]:
Pload = Pfc + Pbatt (17) Max
( )
1 (20)
(SoC − 0.5(SoCmax + SoCmin ) ) J= Pbatt .ΔT + Cr .ΔV 2
αp = 1 − 2 μ (18) 2
SoCmax + SoCmin
But there are some inequality constraints of battery energy, battery
While the boundaries of decision variables are described as follows: power, and the voltage of DC bus are described as follows [68]:
Pmin max ( )
fc ≤ Pfc ≤ Pfc Pbatt ΔT ≤ SoC − SoCmin Vbatt Q
Pmin max
batt ≤ Pbatt ≤ Pbatt
(19) Pmin max
(21)
batt ≤ Pbatt ≤ Pbatt
0 ≤ αp ≤ 2 min
Vdc max
≤ Vdc ≤ Vdc

where Pfc is the fuel cell power, Pbatt is the battery power, Pload is the load
demand, αp is the penalty's coefficient, ΔT is the sampling time, Pmin fc and
Pmax min max
fc are the min and max of FC power respectively, Pbatt and Pbatt are the
min and max of battery power respectively, SoCmin and SoCmax are the
min and max of the battery SoC, and μ is the coefficient of the SoC
balance.
In this EMS method, the controlling of the voltage of the DC bus can
occur through the battery converters, so the supercapacitor is not
included in the optimization problem. The supercapacitor is charged
through the battery once it was discharged. Therefore, the load's total
energy can only be handled via the FC and battery.
3.1.4. External energy maximization strategy (EEMS)
It aims to minimize fuel cell consumption by maximizing the power
drawn from the battery and supercapacitor. Therefore, it should be
taking into consideration the constraints of operation. One advantage of
this method is its simplicity as the battery energy calculation is not
required, and the only cost function of the battery and supercapacitor is
considered [44,60]. In this technique, the inputs are the DC bus voltage,
and SoCs of both the battery and supercapacitor, while the outputs are
the battery reference power and the charge or discharge voltage of the
supercapacitor. Then determining the FC reference power by abstracting
the battery reference power from the required load power. The state of
the supercapacitor whenever charges or discharges determines based on
the comparison between the immediate voltage of the DC bus and the
summation of the supercapacitor voltage and the DC bus reference
voltage. The following mathematical formulas can represent the
Where Pbattis the battery power during a sampling time ΔT, Cr is the
rated capacitance of SC, Vmax min
dc and Vdc are the minimum and maximum
limits of the DC bus voltage, respectively. Vbattis the nominal voltage of
the battery and Qis the rated capacity of the battery.
The schemes of EMS are shown in Fig. 8. Details about implementing
all previous EMS can be found in [24,54,60,68,70].
3.2. Proposed PI control strategy
One of the aims of this work is to improve the classical PI controller-
based EMS by considering fuel cell efficiency to ensure better perfor­
mance of the system [24]. The scheme of the proposed PI controller is
shown in Fig. 8d. In this scheme, first, the battery current is resolute
according to the distinction between the current battery SoC and its
reference value. Then the fuel cell current which is the result of
abstracting the battery current from the required load current is updated
according to the comparison between current fuel cell efficiency and its
reference value. Utilizing SoC and fuel cell efficiency as inputs allows the
fuel cell to operate at higher efficiency which denotes low stress and a
long lifetime for the fuel cell stack. As can be seen from Fig. 8f, In-state
machine strategy, ECMS, and EEMS techniques there are three PI con­
trollers for DC-bus voltage. Also, for the classical PI control strategy,
there are four PI controllers, three for regulating DC-bus voltage and one
for maintaining the required battery SoC. the proposed PI controller
strategy are the same as classical PI but in addition to one more PI
controller for maintaining FC-Eff around its reference value, these
control gains of each PI controller are tuned using hybrid optimization

9
I.M. Abdelqawee et al. Journal of Energy Storage 57 (2023) 106276

Fig. 9. The flow chart of the JSPSOBAT algorithm.

10
I.M. Abdelqawee et al. Journal of Energy Storage 57 (2023) 106276

Fig. 10. Pseudocode of JSPSOBAT algorithm

11
I.M. Abdelqawee et al. Journal of Energy Storage 57 (2023) 106276

Table 3
Optimization Results of JSPSOBAT, JS, PSO, BAT, GWO, HHO, SCA, WOA, HPSOGWO, WOABAT, GWOCS, and HHOSC Obtained in Small/
Average-Scale Mathematical Problems.
JSPSOBAT JS PSO BAT GWO HHO
F
Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev
F1 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 -4E+34 4E+34 6E+00 4E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00
F2 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 1E+01 3E+01 5E+04 1E+04 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00
F3 3E-142 1E-141 2E-11 4E-11 2E-01 3E-01 4E+04 1E+04 3E-17 3E-17 7E-43 4E-42
F4 1E-95 5E-95 3E-06 1E-05 8E+00 2E+01 5E+02 5E+02 5E-18 4E-18 3E-45 1E-44
F5 1E-04 6E-05 1E-03 6E-04 8E+01 1E+02 7E+00 2E+00 9E-04 4E-04 2E-04 2E-04
F6 0E+00 0E+00 3E-29 5E-29 2E-01 3E-01 4E-02 2E-01 1E-07 1E-07 2E-10 5E-10
F7 -1E+00 0E+00 -1E+00 0E+00 -2E-01 4E-01 -5E-06 2E-05 -1E+00 5E-07 -1E+00 5E-05
F8 6E-256 0E+00 3E-36 1E-35 8E-31 4E-30 6E-12 6E-12 6E-108 2E-107 1E-59 6E-59
F9 6E-07 2E-06 9E-05 2E-04 3E+03 1E+04 3E-04 1E-03 4E-01 1E+00 2E-03 5E-03
F10 -5E+01 6E-14 -5E+01 5E-05 -5E+01 3E-10 5E+01 1E+02 -5E+01 2E-04 -5E+01 2E-02
F11 -2E+02 4E-07 -2E+02 1E+00 -2E+02 4E-01 6E+03 2E+03 -2E+02 2E+01 -2E+02 3E-01
F12 7E-75 4E-74 8E-05 2E-04 8E+05 1E+06 2E-01 1E+00 1E-27 5E-27 8E-38 4E-37
F13 4E-15 1E-14 4E-08 2E-07 1E+07 1E+07 2E-01 8E-01 2E-04 2E-04 1E-44 7E-44
F14 2E-58 9E-58 4E-06 8E-06 8E+02 2E+03 4E+07 1E+08 1E-10 4E-11 1E-22 7E-22
F15 2E-153 1E-152 3E-11 7E-11 1E+00 1E+00 6E+05 2E+05 4E-16 4E-16 4E-42 2E-41
F16 8E+00 1E+01 8E-01 1E+00 3E+04 9E+04 5E+07 2E+07 3E+01 7E-01 5E-02 8E-02
F17 3E-03 2E-03 2E-01 5E-02 7E+02 1E+03 9E+03 2E+04 7E-01 9E-04 3E-01 2E-03
F18 1E+00 4E-01 1E+00 2E-16 3E+00 3E+00 1E+01 6E+00 2E+00 2E+00 2E+00 1E+00
F19 4E-01 0E+00 4E-01 0E+00 4E-01 0E+00 4E-01 1E-10 4E-01 6E-06 4E-01 5E-05
F20 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 4E+01 1E+02 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00
F21 0E+00 0E+00 2E-21 1E-20 2E-25 9E-25 2E-10 2E-10 7E-07 6E-07 4E-05 9E-05
F22 0E+00 0E+00 3E-01 1E+00 1E+02 3E+01 2E+02 5E+01 4E+00 3E+00 0E+00 0E+00
F23 -1E+04 2E+03 -7E+03 2E+03 -4E+38 5E+38 -3E+03 5E+02 -6E+03 5E+02 -1E+04 2E+00
F24 -2E+00 9E-16 -2E+00 9E-16 -2E+00 5E-02 -1E+00 3E-01 -2E+00 4E-06 -2E+00 7E-06
F25 -5E+00 5E-02 -5E+00 4E-02 -3E+00 4E-01 -3E+00 6E-01 -5E+00 2E-01 -4E+00 4E-01
F26 -9E+00 3E-01 -9E+00 2E-01 -4E+00 6E-01 -5E+00 1E+00 -8E+00 6E-01 -6E+00 8E-01
F27 0E+00 0E+00 4E-10 1E-09 2E-02 2E-02 4E-01 1E-01 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00
F28 -1E+00 7E-16 -1E+00 6E-16 -1E+00 2E-01 -6E-01 8E-01 -1E+00 2E-08 -1E+00 1E-09
F29 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 2E+02 3E+02 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00
F30 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 2E-18 1E-17 2E+01 3E+01 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00
F31 -2E+02 3E-14 -2E+02 4E-04 -2E+02 3E+00 -1E+02 5E+01 -2E+02 2E-03 -2E+02 5E-02
F32 3E+00 1E-15 3E+00 1E-15 2E+01 3E+01 2E+01 3E+01 3E+00 5E-06 3E+00 5E-06
F33 3E-04 4E-19 3E-04 4E-05 2E-03 8E-05 7E-03 2E-02 1E-03 4E-03 5E-04 4E-04
F34 -1E+01 5E-14 -1E+01 3E-05 -6E+00 3E+00 -5E+00 2E+00 -9E+00 2E+00 -5E+00 1E+00
F35 -1E+01 5E-13 -1E+01 5E-07 -6E+00 3E+00 -5E+00 2E+00 -1E+01 1E+00 -5E+00 9E-01
F36 -1E+01 2E-15 -1E+01 3E-01 -6E+00 4E+00 -4E+00 2E+00 -1E+01 2E-03 -5E+00 5E-01
F37 4E-03 2E-03 2E-01 2E-01 6E-01 1E+00 2E-02 2E-02 3E-01 5E-01 2E+00 2E+00
F38 5E-04 2E-03 1E-02 1E-02 2E-02 9E-02 2E-04 2E-04 3E-02 2E-01 2E-01 2E-01
F39 -4E+00 3E-15 -4E+00 3E-15 0E+00 0E+00 -4E+00 1E-08 -4E+00 2E-03 -4E+00 7E-03
F40 -3E+00 8E-16 -3E+00 9E-06 0E+00 0E+00 -3E+00 5E-02 -3E+00 7E-02 -3E+00 1E-01
F41 0E+00 0E+00 4E-09 2E-08 3E-02 9E-02 4E+02 1E+02 4E-03 7E-03 0E+00 0E+00
F42 9E-16 0E+00 6E-07 7E-07 2E+01 8E-02 2E+01 2E-03 1E-09 6E-10 9E-16 0E+00
F43 7E-10 1E-09 3E-07 6E-07 5E+00 2E+00 1E+08 7E+07 1E-02 9E-03 2E-05 3E-05
F44 4E-09 7E-09 2E-06 3E-06 1E+01 1E+01 3E+08 1E+08 1E-01 1E-01 8E-05 1E-04
F45 -1E+00 4E-16 -1E+00 5E-16 -1E+00 2E-01 -1E+00 1E-01 -1E+00 6E-07 -1E+00 6E-11
F46 -1E+00 3E-01 -1E+00 2E-01 0E+00 0E+00 -1E-01 1E-01 -1E+00 3E-01 -8E-01 3E-01
F47 -5E-01 2E-01 -7E-01 2E-01 0E+00 0E+00 -1E-03 4E-03 -7E-01 3E-01 -5E-01 2E-01
F48 0E+00 0E+00 6E-09 1E-08 7E-01 2E+00 3E-08 4E-08 3E-04 4E-04 2E-04 6E-04
F49 1E+02 3E+02 7E+01 1E+02 4E+03 2E+03 5E+02 3E+02 5E+01 1E+02 7E+02 8E+02
F50 2E+02 3E+02 5E+01 7E+01 3E+03 2E+03 3E+02 3E+02 7E+01 2E+02 9E+02 1E+03
Count of best hit 27 14 3 1 9 10

12
I.M. Abdelqawee et al. Journal of Energy Storage 57 (2023) 106276

SCA WOA HPSOGWO WOABAT GWOCS HHOSC

F
Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev
F1 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 3E-02 2E-01 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00
F2 1E+03 7E+02 0E+00 0E+00 1E+03 4E+03 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00
F3 8E+02 4E+02 1E-42 2E-42 2E+03 6E+03 1E-07 8E-08 3E-18 5E-18 2E-55 8E-55
F4 9E+01 6E+01 3E-44 7E-44 6E+02 1E+03 2E-06 1E-06 2E-19 3E-19 6E-55 2E-54
F5 7E-01 5E-01 2E-03 2E-03 1E+00 5E+00 3E-04 5E-04 9E-04 5E-04 2E-04 1E-04
F6 2E-04 2E-04 1E-11 3E-11 4E-05 1E-04 0E+00 0E+00 1E-07 1E-07 8E-08 1E-07
F7 -1E+00 1E-03 -1E+00 2E-08 -1E+00 9E-02 -1E+00 4E-17 -1E+00 6E-07 -1E+00 1E-04
F8 9E-22 2E-21 3E-136 1E-135 2E-06 1E-05 1E-88 3E-88 1E-104 5E-104 1E-69 6E-69
F9 1E+00 4E-01 1E+00 2E+00 1E+00 3E+00 3E-09 2E-09 9E-02 3E-01 2E-03 4E-03
F10 -5E+01 2E+00 -5E+01 3E-05 -5E+01 1E+01 -5E+01 1E-13 -5E+01 2E-04 -5E+01 4E-02
F11 -3E+01 8E+01 -2E+02 4E-02 -1E+02 2E+02 -2E+02 4E-04 -2E+02 1E-02 -2E+02 5E-01
F12 1E-02 3E-02 2E+00 4E+00 3E-01 9E-01 4E-07 3E-07 6E-30 8E-30 2E-46 1E-45
F13 6E+01 5E+01 1E-05 2E-05 7E+01 2E+02 2E-09 7E-09 1E-04 1E-04 9E-57 4E-56
F14 4E+00 2E+00 2E-24 6E-24 1E+02 4E+02 3E-03 8E-04 3E-11 1E-11 1E-26 7E-26
F15 9E+03 6E+03 5E-42 1E-41 1E+05 1E+05 2E-06 1E-06 2E-17 2E-17 1E-51 6E-51
F16 2E+06 4E+06 3E+01 4E-01 2E+06 6E+06 4E-05 7E-05 3E+01 7E-01 7E-02 1E-01
F17 7E+03 9E+03 7E-01 2E-04 3E+04 9E+04 2E-02 2E-02 7E-01 2E-04 3E-01 1E-03
F18 1E+00 4E-01 1E+00 4E-01 1E+00 2E-01 1E+00 3E-16 2E+00 9E-01 2E+00 2E+00
F19 4E-01 2E-03 4E-01 2E-07 4E-01 2E-04 4E-01 2E-15 4E-01 4E-06 4E-01 1E-04
F20 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 2E-02 7E-02 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00
F21 5E-04 6E-04 4E-05 8E-05 9E-05 3E-04 9E-10 2E-09 4E-07 5E-07 1E-04 3E-04
F22 1E+02 4E+01 0E+00 0E+00 1E+02 9E+01 3E-05 2E-05 3E+00 4E+00 0E+00 0E+00
F23 -4E+03 3E+02 -1E+04 1E+03 -7E+03 1E+03 -1E+04 2E-08 -1E+04 2E+00 -1E+04 1E+03
F24 -2E+00 2E-03 -2E+00 2E-07 -2E+00 3E-04 -2E+00 1E-15 -2E+00 5E-06 -2E+00 5E-04
F25 -3E+00 3E-01 -4E+00 5E-01 -4E+00 5E-01 -4E+00 6E-01 -5E+00 7E-02 -4E+00 4E-01
F26 -5E+00 5E-01 -6E+00 1E+00 -8E+00 2E+00 -7E+00 1E+00 -9E+00 5E-01 -5E+00 8E-01
F27 0E+00 0E+00 9E-03 2E-02 1E-02 2E-02 1E-02 2E-02 1E-03 8E-03 0E+00 0E+00
F28 -1E+00 3E-05 -1E+00 4E-11 -1E+00 7E-04 -1E+00 5E-16 -1E+00 2E-08 -1E+00 2E-08
F29 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 4E-02 2E-01 4E-18 1E-17 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00
F30 6E-18 3E-17 1E-10 6E-10 2E-02 9E-02 2E-11 3E-11 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00
F31 -2E+02 5E-01 -2E+02 2E-05 -2E+02 3E-01 -2E+02 3E-14 -2E+02 3E-02 -2E+02 3E-02
F32 3E+00 9E-05 3E+00 1E-06 3E+00 7E-03 4E+00 5E+00 3E+00 6E-06 3E+00 9E-05
F33 1E-03 3E-04 8E-04 5E-04 6E-04 5E-04 4E-04 4E-04 3E-04 2E-05 5E-04 3E-04
F34 -4E+00 1E+00 -1E+01 2E+00 -8E+00 3E+00 -1E+01 9E-01 -8E+00 3E+00 -8E+00 2E+00
F35 -5E+00 9E-01 -9E+00 3E+00 -9E+00 2E+00 -1E+01 3E-15 -8E+00 3E+00 -9E+00 2E+00
F36 -5E+00 1E+00 -1E+01 2E+00 -9E+00 2E+00 -1E+01 4E-15 -9E+00 3E+00 -8E+00 2E+00
F37 8E-01 7E-01 4E+00 7E+00 3E-01 7E-01 5E+00 7E+00 5E-01 7E-01 2E+00 3E+00
F38 8E-01 4E-01 1E+00 2E+00 1E-01 3E-01 3E-01 5E-01 2E-03 2E-03 5E-01 5E-01
F39 -4E+00 3E-03 -4E+00 1E-03 -4E+00 4E-03 -4E+00 2E-15 -4E+00 4E-05 -4E+00 1E-02
F40 -3E+00 6E-02 -3E+00 7E-02 -3E+00 9E-02 -3E+00 4E-02 -3E+00 8E-06 -3E+00 2E-01
F41 1E+01 6E+00 4E-03 2E-02 2E+01 5E+01 7E-09 4E-09 3E-03 6E-03 0E+00 0E+00
F42 1E+01 7E+00 6E-15 2E-15 5E+00 6E+00 3E-04 9E-05 3E-10 2E-10 9E-16 0E+00
F43 2E+06 6E+06 2E-03 1E-03 3E+06 1E+07 1E-09 7E-10 9E-03 8E-03 3E-05 3E-05
F44 5E+06 6E+06 2E-02 3E-02 2E+07 5E+07 2E-08 1E-08 1E-01 9E-02 1E-04 1E-04
F45 -1E+00 4E-04 -1E+00 1E-13 -1E+00 1E-05 -1E+00 6E-16 -1E+00 7E-07 -1E+00 1E-06
F46 -6E-01 1E-01 -8E-01 3E-01 -1E+00 3E-01 -7E-01 3E-01 -1E+00 2E-02 -9E-01 2E-01
F47 -7E-02 4E-02 -3E-01 2E-01 -5E-01 3E-01 -2E-01 2E-01 -9E-01 5E-01 -4E-01 2E-01
F48 3E-02 3E-02 8E-07 2E-06 5E-03 2E-02 0E+00 0E+00 2E-04 3E-04 3E-03 5E-03
F49 5E+02 3E+02 1E+03 2E+03 3E+02 8E+02 5E+02 1E+03 6E+02 2E+02 7E+02 8E+02
F50 5E+02 3E+02 1E+03 2E+03 7E+01 1E+02 2E+03 3E+03 1E+03 4E+03 1E+03 2E+03
Count of best hit 5 5 2 11 8 10

13
I.M. Abdelqawee et al. Journal of Energy Storage 57 (2023) 106276

Function No. is 5 -200 Function No. is 7 10 Function No. is 22

-10 10
0
10
Fitness function

10
0
-100 -0.5 10
-10

100 -1
0 10 20 30 40 10
-10

0
-10
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Function No. is 41 Function No. is 42 Function No. is 50
0 105
0
10
10
Fitness function

0
10

10
-10 10-10

-5
10
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
iteration iteration iteration
JS PSO BAT PSOGWO WOABAT JSPSOBAT
Function No. 5 Function No. 7 Function No. 22
0
-10-200 -0.9996 10
Fitness function

100 -0.9997
-0.9998
-100
-10 -0.9999
-1 10-10
0 50 100 150 200
0
10-5 -10
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Function No. 41 Function No. 42 Function No. 50
0
100 10
4
Fitness function

10

-10
10 103
-10
10

10
-20 102
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
iteration iteration iteration
WOA SCA HHO GWO GWOCS HHOSC JSPSOBAT

Fig. 11. Convergence curves of JSPSOBAT and other optimization algorithms for some functions.

technique to operate the system at optimal performance. So, the next
section shows a proposed hybrid optimization technique that will be
used for determining these parameters.
The power of the supercapacitor is not taken into consideration in
the EMS optimization problem as the voltage of the DC bus is controlled
through the DC/DC battery converters. Therefore, as soon as SCs
discharge, they are recharged from the battery system with the same
energy. So, the total energy of the load is shared only among FC and
battery over the given load profile.
4. Hybrid JS, PSO, and BAT algorithms
4.1. Jellyfish optimizer
beginning, jellyfish follow the ocean current searching for food as fol­
lows [58]:
̅̅̅→
Xi (t + 1) = Xi (t) + rand(0, 1) × trend (22)
Xi (t + 1) = Xi (t) + rand(0, 1) × (X * − β × rand(0, 1) × μ ) (23)
Where X represents the position vector of jellyfish; the trend denotes
the direction of the ocean current; β is a distribution coefficient, related
to the length of the trend. Then, as time goes by, jellyfish move inside the
swarm. In a swarm, jellyfish exhibit either passive (type A) or active
(type B) motions. Initially, when the swarm has just been formed, most
jellyfish exhibit passive motion. As time goes by, they increasingly
exhibit active motion as follows [58]:

Jellyfish optimizer (JS) is a newly developed meta-heuristic algo­ Xi (t + 1) = Xi (t) + γ × rand(0, 1) × (Ub − Lb ) (24)
rithm that imitates the behavior of jellyfish in the ocean. In JS, in the

14
I.M. Abdelqawee et al. Journal of Energy Storage 57 (2023) 106276

50
HYBRID OTHER ALGORITHM

COUNT OF BEST HIT

40

30

20

10

A
JS

SC
O

O
O

S
C
BA

BA
O
SC
W
PS

W
H

O
O
W
H
G

H
W
O

H
G
PS

W
H
METAHAURISTIC OPTIMIZATION ALGORITHM

Fig. 12. Count of best hits of JSBSOBAT compared to other algorithms.

̅̅→
Step = Xi (t + 1) − Xi (t) (25) speed Vi randomly in the search space and update their positions Xi at a
constant frequency Fmin, loudness A0 and different wavelength λ. Yang
̅̅→ ̅̅̅̅̅̅→ used three equations to update these parameters as follows [55]:
where Step = rand(0, 1) × Direction (26)
{ ( ) Fi = Fmin + (Fmax − Fmin )λ (32)
̅̅̅̅̅̅→ Xj (t) − Xi (t) if f (Xi ) ≥( f )Xj
Direction = (27) ( )
Xi (t) − Xj (t) if f (Xi )〈f Xj Vit+1 = Vit + Xit − X * Fi (33)
̅̅→
Xi (t + 1) = Xi (t) + Step (28) Xit+1 = Xit + Vit (34)
⃒(
⃒ t
) ( ( ⃒
⃒ Where Xi is the bat's position, Vi is the bat's velocity, Fi is the wave's
c(t) = ⃒⃒ 1 − × 2 × rand 0 , 1) − 1)⃒⃒ (29) frequency, λ is a random variable with a range in [0,1]. As shown the
Maxiter
new solution's position is depending on the new velocity of the search
A time control mechanism is used for controlling the switching be­ agent which is concordant with the frequency.
tween previous motions and determining the type of motion over time.
Eq. (29) shows the time control function, when its value exceeds a pre-
4.4. Hybrid JS-PSO-BAT algorithm
defined value (Co), jellyfish follow the ocean current. Otherwise, they
move inside the swarm.
However, although all previous algorithms can solve various com­
plex problems, they still have some inherent disadvantages. For
4.2. Particle swarm optimization
instance, PSO is facile to fall into the local optimum in high-dimensional
space and has a low convergence rate in the iterative process [57]. BAT
Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) is a well-known population-
converges very expeditiously at the early stage and then the conver­
based optimization algorithm that is inspired by the behavior of parti­
gence rate decelerates and precision may be inhibited if the number of
cles. Briefly, PSO, in the beginning, randomly, the particles are initial­
function evaluations is not high [55]. So, the proposed hybrid technique
ized and fly within a multidimensional search space. While flying, their
aims to improve the convergence speed and solution stability by
velocity and position are updated according to their own experience and
improving the ability of exploration and exploitation in the jellyfish
also of their companion particles. In the PSO algorithm, the position of
algorithm with the ability of exploration in particle swarm optimization
each particle is updated by these two mathematical equations as follows
and bat algorithm respectively. As a result, for this combination of three
[54]:
techniques, the JSPSOBAT technique can obtain better results in fewer
Xit+1 = Xit + Vit+1 , i = 0, 1, ..N − 1 (30) no. of iterations compared to JS. More details about this modification
have been shown in the JSPSOBAT flowchart using dashed red rectan­
( ) ( )
Vit+1 = w × Vit + C1 × r1 Pti − Xit + C2 × r2 Gt − Xit (31) gles with italic bold words to highlight these modifications Fig. 9, also
Fig. 10 present the pseudocode of the JSPSOBAT optimizer.
WhereXt+1i is the i-th component of the particle position after the (t + 1)
th update, Vt+1
i is the i-th particle's velocity after the (t + 1)th update, w 5. Results and analysis
is initial weight, C1and C2are the speed control coefficients, Ptiis the
personal best solution, Gtis the global best solution and r1and r2 are For investigating the performance of the proposed system, the ex­
random vectors in [0,1]. periments are performed in two sets. In the first one, JSPSOBAT is tested
on 50 benchmark test functions which have different characteristics, and
4.3. Bat algorithm after validating the efficacy of the hybrid optimization technique, it is
used for selecting the optimal controller gains of different PI controllers
The bat algorithm is based on the bat's echolocation behavior which shown in Fig. 8. The second set is for showing the performance of the
the bat using it to sense the distance and know the difference between proposed PI control scheme based on comparison with the conventional
prey/food and background obstacles. By using the concept of the time EMSs in terms of DC bus voltage stability, stress analysis on each energy
delay, which is determined as the distance between the ears of bats and source, the efficiency of FC stack, overall system efficiency, battery SoC,
the variations of echo waves. While searching for prey, bats fly with a and hydrogen consumption. So, the second section of results showed

15
I.M. Abdelqawee et al. Journal of Energy Storage 57 (2023) 106276

Fig. 13. Relation between optimization technique and EMS.

Table 4
Gains values obtained by JSPSOBAT.
Range Proposed PI SMS PI ECMS EMMS

Min Max Optimized Gains from Optimized Gains from Optimized Gains from Optimized Gains from Optimized
gains ref. [60] gains ref. [60] gains ref. [60] gains ref. [60] gains

Kp1 5000 10,000 8565.1414 N/A N/A 50,000 5081.4194 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Ki1 0 10 4.9371 N/A N/A 5000 0.0403 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Kp2 50 100 71.8631 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Ki2 0 10 8.5603 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Kp3 50 100 94.2832 10 11.7474 10 82.2243 10 54.2149 10 93.86
Ki3 0 200 13.6968 10 116.1722 10 150.8358 10 56.1935 10 174.03
Kp4 10 100 11.9368 10 98.1094 10 39.8230 10 39.0659 10 35.02
Ki4 30 150 47.5606 10 111.4747 10 40.5910 10 58.5284 10 54.80
Kp5 100 500 383.9908 10 147.9569 10 155.5712 10 148.5677 10 150.85
Ki5 100 500 308.9979 10 158.0496 10 157.1409 10 153.7355 10 155.49

validation of the performance of each conventional EMS before and after
using JSPSOBAT for selecting controller gains and then compared with
the proposed PI control technique.
5.1. JSPSOBAT for benchmark test function
For comparison, different optimization techniques are selected. The
first comparison will be between JSPSOBAT, the original techniques
involved to create the proposed hybrid optimization technique, and
other optimization techniques which contain some of the original opti­
mization techniques like GWOPSO and WOABAT. The second compar­
ison will be between JSPSOBAT and other optimization techniques like
GWO, HHO, SCA, WOA, HHOSC, and GWOCS. For all algorithms, the
number of populations is 50, and the maximum no. of iterations is 200.
Moreover, 50 test functions [58] are used. These functions are divided
into four categories based on their modality and dimensionality. The
first category represented unimodal separable (US) functions (F1-F5),
the Second category represented unimodal non-separable (UN) func­
tions (F6-F17), the third category represented multimodal separable
(MS) functions (F18-F26) and the last category represented multimodal
non-separable (MN) functions (F27-F50). Also, 30 independent runs are
performed.
Table 3 shows the mean and standard deviation (Std Dev) values
obtained by all algorithms on all previous benchmark functions. It can
be observed that JSPSOBAT has shown supreme results compared to
other algorithms by obtaining the best mean values for all unimodal
separable functions (F1-F5), nine out of twelve unimodal non-separable
functions (F6-F8, F10-F12, F14, F15, and F16), three out of nine
multimodal separable functions (F20-F22) and ten out of twenty-four
multimodal non-separable functions (F27-F30, F37, F41-F44 and F48).
Fig. 11 provides some samples of convergence curves for different cat­
egories of function based on the last MATLAB run. By comparing

16
I.M. Abdelqawee et al. Journal of Energy Storage 57 (2023) 106276

Fig. 14. Simulink model of the system with the proposed PI controller.

10
Power (kVA)

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Time (sec)

Fig. 15. Load profile of a 30-min emergency landing scenario of MEA.

JSPSOBAT to other algorithms, it can be observed that JSPSOBAT study, the Integral Time Absolute Error (ITAE) criteria are used with the
demonstrates a faster rate of convergence and achieves optimal solu­ difference of current DC voltage and the reference value of it as the error
tions for most functions with a small disturbance of population's distri­ signal.
bution during the search progress. Furthermore, Fig. 12 shows the
∫∞
comparison between the proposed algorithm with each algorithm indi­
ITAE = t.|e(t) |.dt (35)
vidually which provides that the hybridization of JS, PSO, and BAT has
significantly improved the stability and ability of global searching.
0

error.signal = Vdc − Vdc,ref (36)

5.2. EMS models using JSPSOBAT
With constraints:
For further investigation of the effective performance of JSPSOBAT, Kp,min ≤ Kp ≤ Kp,max
the five types of EMS techniques controller gains are tuned using (37)
Ki,min ≤ Ki ≤ Ki,max
JSPSOBAT to guarantee the best DC-bus voltage profile which has a
positive impact on the other performance criteria such as the SoC level, Fig. 13 demonstrates the procedures of the proposed applied tech­
the stress on power sources and the overall system efficiency. In this niques. The input to the JSPSOBAT optimizer is the voltage error signal

17
I.M. Abdelqawee et al.
Fig. 16. DC-bus Voltage. (a) State machine control. (b) Classical PI control. (c) ECMS. (d)EEMS.
then different gains for PI controllers are estimated until reach the
optimal control parameters which achieve the minimum error according
to Eq.(36). After that the EMS generates the required control signals
(Ifc*, IBATD*, and IBATC*) for different converters of the system.
Table 4 showed the gains obtained from [60] and the gains obtained
from JSPSOBAT. A comparison between each EMS technique without
and with using JSPSOBAT and the proposed technique is presented. The
Simulink model of the system is shown in Fig. 14 containing the pro­
posed PI EMS where the reference values of battery SoC and FC effi­
ciency are selected to be 60 % and 55 % respectively. The performances
of EMS were compared using MATLAB Simulink with the same load
profile for the 1800s as shown in Fig. 15.
5.2.1. DC bus voltage analysis
From Fig. 16, It can be noted that by comparing each EMS to itself
after using JSPSOBAT, the maximum overshoot voltage is slightly lower
by 0.45 % and 0.19 % for SMS and PI controller respectively, while the
steady-state ripple voltage is slightly lower by 0.41 % for all EMS
compared to its original values without using JSPSOBAT.
5.2.2. Stress analysis
The results show that after using JSPSOBAT, the stress on the battery
and the supercapacitor has been reduced compared to its original values
which results in increasing their lifetime and partially solving the
problem of partial SoC cycling of the battery [72]. Fig. 17 shows the
stress analysis using Haar wavelet decomposition which decomposes
each power in low and high-frequency components [44]. The histogram
and standard deviation of this component are a good indication of the
stress applied to each power source. It must be noted that in both results
(before using JSPSOBAT and after using JSPSOBAT) on the same EMS
technique, the impact on the lifetime of the fuel cell almost remains
constant as the stresses seen by the fuel cell system is very close. But
considering fuel cell efficiency as shown in the proposed system records
the least stress on fuel cells compared to other techniques.
5.2.3. Fuel cell efficiency analysis
Concentrating on fuel cell efficiency (FC_effe), it can be estimated as
follow [73]:
V NH2,theor
η= × (38)
1.482 NH2,act
I
NH2,theor = (39)
nF
18
Journal of Energy Storage 57 (2023) 106276
Where η is the fuel cell efficiency, V is the measured stack potential, NH2,
theor is the amount of hydrogen consumed in the electrochemical reaction
while NH2, act is the amount supplied, I is the fuel cell current and nF is
the transferred charge. Comparison between all EMS techniques, the
mean value, standard deviation, and variation coefficient of FC_effe are
calculated as shown in Table 2. However, the mean value of FC_effe is
almost similar for all EMS, the standard deviation and variation coeffi­
cient of the proposed system are remarkably lower by 34.5 % and 34.7 %
compared to the state machine controller, 39.2 % and 39.3 % compared
to the classical PI controller, 24.5 % and 24.9 % respectively compared
to ECMS controller, and 39.3 % and 39.5 % respectively compared to
EEMS controller. This means more stability in FC_effe which leads to less
stress on fuel cells and a long lifetime as discussed earlier.
5.2.4. Hydrogen consumption and SoC analysis
For more investigation of the performance of the proposed system, a
comparison in terms of hydrogen consumption is implemented. Using
eq.(40) for hydrogen consumption calculation.
∫
1800
N
ConsH2 = ifc dt (40)
F
0
From Table 5, it can be noted that the proposed system has lower
hydrogen consumption by 3.2 %, 2.6 %, 4.3 %, and 2.6 % compared to
state machine strategy, classical PI, ECMS, and EEMS respectively. This
saving is due to two reasons, first one is the operating of the FC stack
within its max. Efficiency region which tends to have less stress as dis­
cussed earlier, the second one is that the proposed system tends to use
more energy power from the battery compared to other EMS techniques
so it's found that the SoC of the proposed system is reduced from 65 % to
40.5 %.
5.2.5. Total energy and cost analysis
For having a detailed comparison between different EMS techniques
(the conventional techniques and the proposed technique), Fig. 18
shows the total energy consumed by the fuel cell stack and battery using
Eqs. (41), (42).
EnergyFC = H2Cons × HHV H2 (41)
∫
EnergyBatt = powerBatt .dt (42)
Where (HHVH2) is the higher heating value of the hydrogen fed to the
PEMFC.
I.M. Abdelqawee et al. Journal of Energy Storage 57 (2023) 106276

FC Power ( Pfc=fc[a2]+fc[d1] ) fc[d1] histogram

4000
100
6000
fc[a2] (W) 3000

fc[d1] (W)
50
4000
0 2000

2000 -50 1000

-100
0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 -100 -50 0 50 100
Std=25.55
Size (Data) Size (Data)
Battery Power ( Pbatt=batt[a2]+batt[d1] ) batt[d1] histogram
5000

1000 4000
batt[a2] (W)

batt[d1] (w)
2000
3000
0
0 2000
-1000 1000

-2000 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 -1000 -500 0 500 1000
Size (Data) Size (Data) Std=30.93

SC Power ( Psc=sc[a2]+sc[d1] ) sc[d1] histogram

2000 6000
1000
sc[d1] (W)
sc[a2] (W)

1000
4000
0
0

-1000 2000
-1000

-2000 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 -1000 -500 0 500 1000
Size (Data) Size (Data) Std=33.3
(A) Stress Analysis for State Machine Control without Optimization

FC Power ( Pfc=fc[a2]+fc[d1] ) fc[d1] histogram

100 4000

6000
50 3000
fc[a2] (W)

fc[d1] (W)

4000 0 2000

2000 -50 1000

0 -100 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 -100 -50 0 50 100
Size (Data) Size (Data) Std=25.55

Battery Power ( Pbatt=batt[a2]+batt[d1] ) batt[d1] histogram

4000

100
batt[d1] (w)
batt[a2] (w)

2000 3000

0
2000
0
-100 1000

-2000 -200 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 -400 -200 0 200 400
Size (Data) Size (Data) Std=21.6

SC Power ( Psc=sc[a2]+sc[d1] ) sc[d1] histogram

8000
2000
100
1000 6000
50
sc[a2] (w)

sc[d1] (w)

0 0 4000

-1000 -50
2000
-100
-2000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0
-200 0 200
Size (Data) Size (Data) Std=17.4
(B) Stress Analysis for State Machine Control with Optimization

Fig. 17. Stress analysis. (A, B) State machine control with and without JSPSOBAT. (C, D) Classical PI control with and without JSPSOBAT. (E, F) ECMS with and
without JSPSOBAT. (G, H) EEMS with and without JSPSOBAT. (I) Proposed PI control with JSPSOBAT.

19
I.M. Abdelqawee et al. Journal of Energy Storage 57 (2023) 106276

FC Power ( Pfc=fc[a2]+fc[d1] ) fc[d1] histogram

5000

6000 100 4000

fc[d1] (w)
fc[a2] (w)
4000 3000
0
2000
2000 -100
1000

0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 -200 -100 0 100 200
Size (Data) Size (Data) Std=26

Battery Power ( Pbatt=batt[a2]+batt[d1] ) batt[d1] histogram

5000
1000
4000

batt[d1] (W)
batt[a2] (W)

2000 500
3000
0
0 2000
-500
1000
-1000
-2000 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 -1000 -500 0 500 1000
Size (Data) Size (Data) Std=27.85

SC Power ( Psc=sc[a2]+sc[d1] ) sc[d1] histogram

5000 6000
1000
sc[a2] (W)

sc[d1] (W)

500 4000
0 0
-500 2000

-1000
-5000 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 -500 0 500
Size (Data) Size (Data) Std=32.32

(C) Stress Analysis for Classical PI control without Optimization

FC Power ( Pfc=fc[a2]+fc[d1] ) fc[d1] histogram

100 4000
6000
fc[d1] (W)
fc[a2] (W)

50 3000
4000 0
2000
2000 -50
1000
-100
0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 -200 -100 0 100 200
Size (Date) Size (Data) Std=25.97

Battery Power ( Pbatt=batt[a2]+batt[d1] ) batt[d1] histogram

4000 400 3000
batt[d1] (W)
batt[a2] (W)

200
2000 2000
0
0 1000
-200

-2000 -400 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 -200 -100 0 100 200
Size (Data) Size (Data) Std=21.41

SC Power ( Psc=sc[a2]+sc[d1] ) sc[d1] histogram

4000 200
6000
100
sc[d1] (W)
sc[a2] (W)

2000
4000
0
0
-100 2000

-2000 -200
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 -200 -100 0 100 200
Size (Data) Size (Data) Std=18.62
(D) Stress Analysis for Classical PI control with Optimization

Fig. 17. (continued).

20
I.M. Abdelqawee et al. Journal of Energy Storage 57 (2023) 106276

FC Power ( Pfc=fc[a2]+fc[d1] ) fc[d1] histogram

5000
100
6000 4000
50

fc[d1] (W)
fc[a2] (W)
3000
4000 0
2000
2000 -50
1000
0 -100
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0
-100 0 100
Size (Data) Size (Data) Std=23.97
Battery Power ( Pbatt=batt[a2]+batt[d1] ) batt[d1] histogram
4000 1000 5000

4000

batt[d1] (W)
batt[a2] (W)

500
2000
3000
0
2000
0
-500
1000

-2000 -1000 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 -1000 -500 0 500 1000
Size (Data) Size (Data) Std=24.78

SC Power ( Psc=sc[a2]+sc[d1] ) sc[d1] histogram

4000 1000

6000
500
sc[a2] (W)

sc[d1] (W)

2000
0 4000

0
-500 2000

-2000 -1000 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 -1000 -500 0 500 1000
Size (Data) Size (Data) Std=29.13

(E) Stress Analysis for ECMS without Optimization

FC Power ( Pfc=fc[a2]+fc[d1] ) fc[d1] histogram

100
4000
6000
50
fc[a2] (W)

fc[d1] (W)

3000
4000
0
2000
2000 -50
1000

0 -100 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 -100 -50 0 50 100
Size (Data) Size (data) Std=23.9

Battery Power ( Pbatt=batt[a2]+batt[d1] ) batt[d1] histogram

4000 5000
500
4000
batt[d1] (W)
batt[a2] (W)

2000
3000
0
2000
0
1000
-500
-2000 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 -1000 -500 0 500 1000
Size (Data) Size (Data) Std=23.66

SC Power ( Psc=sc[a2]+sc[d1] ) sc[d1] histogram

10000
3000 500
8000
2000
sc[d1] (W)
sc[a2] (W)

6000
1000 0
4000
0
2000
-1000 -500
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000
Size (Data) Size (Data) Std=20.93
(F) Stress Analysis for ECMS with Optimization

Fig. 17. (continued).

21
I.M. Abdelqawee et al. Journal of Energy Storage 57 (2023) 106276

FC Power ( Pfc=fc[a2]+fc[d1] ) fc[d1] histogram

200
4000
6000
100

fc[d1] (W)
fc[a2] (W)
3000
4000 0 2000

2000 -100 1000

0 -200 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 -400 -200 0 200 400
Siza (Data) Size (Data) Std=26.17

Battery Power ( Pbatt=batt[a2]+batt[d1] ) batt[d1] histogram

4000 2000
4000

batt[d1] (W)
batt[a2] (W)

1000
2000 3000

0 2000
0
-1000 1000

-2000 -2000 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 -1000 -500 0 500 1000
Size (Data) Size (Data) Std=30.48

SC Power ( Psc=sc[a2]+sc[d1] ) sc[d1] histogram

4000 2000
6000

2000 1000
sc[d1] (W)
sc[a2] (W)

4000
0 0

2000
-2000 -1000

-4000 -2000 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 -500 0 500
Size (Data) Size (Data) Std=34.25

(G) Stress Analysis for EMMS without Optimization

FC Power ( Pfc=fc[a2]+fc[d1] ) fc[d1] histogram

4000
6000 100
fc[d1] (W)
fc[a2] (W)

50 3000
4000 0 2000

2000 -50
1000
-100
0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 -200 -100 0 100 200
Size (Data) Size (Data) Std=26.31

Battery Power ( Pbatt=batt[a2]+batt[d1] ) batt[d1] histogram

4000 1000 4000

3000
batt[d1] (W)
batt[a2] (W)

500
2000
0 2000

0
-500 1000

-2000 -1000 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 -500 0 500
Size (Data) Size (Data) Std=23.67

SC Power ( Psc=sc[a2]+sc[d1] ) sc[d1] histogram

1000
6000
2000 500
sc[d1] (W)
sc[a2] (W)

4000
0 0

-500 2000
-2000

-1000 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 -200 -100 0 100 200
Size (Data) Size (Data) Std=20.85

(H) Stress Analysis for EMMS with Optimization

Fig. 17. (continued).

22
I.M. Abdelqawee et al. Journal of Energy Storage 57 (2023) 106276

FC Power ( Pfc=fc[a2]+fc[d1] ) fc[d1] histogram

5000
100
6000
4000
50
fc[a2] (W)

fc[d1] (W)
4000 3000
0
2000
2000 -50
1000
-100
0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 -100 -50 0 50 100
Siza (Data) Siza (Data) Std=6.86

Battery Power ( Pbatt=batt[a2]+batt[d1] ) batt[d1] histogram

5000
3000 1000
4000

batt[d1] (W)
batt[a2] (W)

2000 500
3000
1000 0
2000
0 -500
1000
-1000
-1000
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000
Size (Data) Size (Data) Std=23.65

SC Power ( Psc=sc[a2]+sc[d1] ) sc[d1] histogram

5000 8000
1000

500 6000
sc[d1] (W)
sc[a2] (W)

0 0 4000

-500 2000

-1000
-5000 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000
Size (Data) Size (Data) Std=26.37
(I) Stress Analysis for Proposed PI control with Optimization

Fig. 17. (continued).

Table 5
Overall Performance of Each EMS Strategy.
Proposed State Optimized State Classical Optimized ECMS Optimized EEMS Optimized
PI Machine Machine PI PI ECMS EEMS

Mean (%) 52.05 51.85 51.85 51.91 51.91 51.75 51.75 51.91 51.91
Fuel Cell Std (%) 1.06 1.62 1.62 1.75 1.75 1.41 1.41 1.75 1.76
Efficiency Coefficients of
0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
Variation
Hydrogen
232.77 240.54 240.54 238.99 239.08 243.26 243.26 239.02 238.89
Consumption (g)
Fuel Cell
Cost of Hydrogen ($) 0.56 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.57
Stress 9.21 25.55 25.54 26.00 25.97 23.97 23.90 26.17 26.31
SoC (%) 40.67 45.79 45.69 43.94 43.87 47.26 47.11 44.04 43.76
Battery Cost of Recharge ($) 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04
Stress 23.13 30.93 21.60 27.85 21.41 24.78 23.66 30.48 23.67
Super
Stress 24.70 33.30 17.04 32.32 18.62 29.13 20.93 34.25 20.85
Capacitor
Max. Overshoot (%) 3.41 % 1.30 % 0.85 % 4.30 % 4.11 % 0.70 % 0.70 % 4.22 % 4.22 %
DC Bus
Steady State Ripple
Voltage 1.37 % 1.30 % 0.89 % 1.30 % 0.89 % 1.30 % 0.89 % 0.56 % 0.15 %
Voltage (%)

10
Total energy (kWh)

9
Fuel cell energy
Battery energy
8

7 State Classical Proposed

ECMS EEMS
Machine PI PI

Fig. 18. Comparison of total energy consumption of different strategies.

23
I.M. Abdelqawee et al.
0.6
Total cost ($)
0.4
0.2
0
State Classical
Machine PI
Fig. 19. Comparison of the total energy cost of different strategies.
Also, the total cost including the cost of hydrogen and the cost of
recharging the battery to its initial SoC is calculated neglecting the
supercapacitor energy cost as it is very small compared to FC and battery
energies, considering 2.4 $/Kg hydrogen and 0.137 $/Kwh according to
IEA and GlobalPetrolPrice [74,75]. Fig. 19 shows that the proposed PI is
having savings in the cost of 1.52 %, 1.39 %, 1.85 %, and 1.36 %
compared to SMS, classical PI, ECMS, and EEMS respectively.
6. Conclusion
A new hybrid optimization technique (JSPSOBAT) is developed in
this article. Moreover, different benchmark functions (unimodal sepa­
rable, unimodal non-separable, multimodal separable, and multimodal
non-separable) are employed to validate the performance of the devel­
oped JSPSOBAT compared to mature single as well as hybrid optimi­
zation techniques. The attained results prove a successful hit rate with
fast convergence and a small disturbance of population's distribution
during the search progress. Also, a modified PI controller-based EMS (PI-
EMS) that takes both the efficiency of the fuel cell (FC_effe) and the
battery state of charge (SoC) into consideration as inputs for the control
schematic is provided for minimizing hydrogen consumption and stress
on the FC stack. After approving the better performance of JSPSOBAT, it
was used for the selection of the optimal gains of the modified PI-EMS
compared to the benchmark EMSs.
For the fairness of the comparison, the proposed PI-EMS and the
existing benchmark EMSs have been studied for the 1800s of emergency
landing scenarios of more electric aircraft. The obtained simulation re­
sults show that the system under study equipped with PI-EMS has a
lower H2 consumption by 3.2 %, 2.6 %, 4.3 %, and 2.6 % compared to
state machine strategy, classical PI, equivalent consumption minimiza­
tion strategy (ECMS), and external energy maximization strategy
respectively. Furthermore, the suggested PI-EMS contributes to reduce
stress on the FC stack by 61.59 % compared to ECMS which recording
the least FC stress among the previous EMSs as tabulated in Table 5.
Intellectual property
We confirm that we have given due consideration to the protection of
intellectual property associated with this work and that there are no
impediments to publication, including the timing of publication, with
respect to intellectual property. In so doing we confirm that we have
followed the regulations of our institutions concerning intellectual
property.
Declaration of competing interest
No conflict of interest exists.
We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest
associated with this publication and there has been no significant
financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome.
Journal of Energy Storage 57 (2023) 106276
Hydrogen
Battery chraging
ECMS EEMS Proposed
PI
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
References
[1] M. Muthukumar, et al., The development of fuel cell electric vehicles – a review, in:
Materials Today Proceedings 45, Elsevier, Apr. 2020, pp. 1181–1187, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.03.679.
[2] Xiaoli Sun, et al., Technology development of electric vehicles: a review, Energies
13 (Dec. 2019) 1–29, https://doi.org/10.3390/en13010090.
[3] G. Nicoletti, et al., A technical and environmental comparison between hydrogen
and some fossil fuels, in: Energy Conversion and Management 89, Elsevier, Jan.
2015, pp. 205–213, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.09.057.
[4] E. Dijoux, et al., A review of fault tolerant control strategies applied to proton
exchange membrane fuel cell systems, in: Journal of Power Sources 359, Elsevier,
Aug. 2017, pp. 119–133, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2017.05.058.
[5] Xueqin Lü, et al., Status evaluation of mobile welding robot driven by fuel cell
hybrid power system based on cloud model, in: Energy Conversion and
Management 198, Elsevier, Oct. 2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2019.111904.
[6] Xueqin Lü, et al., A comprehensive review on hybrid power system for PEMFC-
HEV: issues and strategies, in: Energy Conversion and Management 171, Elsevier,
Sep. 2018, pp. 1273–1291, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.06.065.
[7] H. Hanane, et al., Combination of Markov chain and optimal control solved by
Pontryagin's Minimum Principle for a fuel cell/supercapacitor vehicle, in: Energy
Conversion and Management 91, Elsevier, Feb. 2015, pp. 387–393, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.12.035.
[8] Xueqin Lü, et al., Energy optimization of logistics transport vehicle driven by fuel
cell hybrid power system, in: Energy Conversion and Management 199, Elsevier,
Nov. 2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.111887.
[9] Fengqi Zhang, et al., Energy management strategies for hybrid electric vehicles:
review, classification, comparison, and outlook, Energies 13 (Jun. 2020) 3352,
https://doi.org/10.3390/en13133352.
[10] Dai-Duong Tran, et al., Thorough state-of-the-art analysis of electric and hybrid
vehicle powertrains: topologies and integrated energy management strategies, in:
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119, Elsevier, Mar. 2020, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109596.
[11] Qi Li, et al., A state machine strategy based on droop control for an energy
management system of PEMFC-battery-supercapacitor hybrid tramway, in:
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 41, Elsevier, Sep. 2016,
pp. 16148–16159, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.04.254.
[12] Qi Li, et al., A state machine control based on equivalent consumption
minimization for fuel cell/ supercapacitor hybrid tramway, IEEE Trans. Transp.
Electrificat. 5 (Jun. 2019) 552–564, https://doi.org/10.1109/TTE.2019.2915689.
[13] Fu. Zhumu, et al., Optimization based energy management strategy for fuel cell/
battery/ultracapacitor hybrid vehicle considering fuel economy and fuel cell
lifespan, in: International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 45, Elsevier, Mar. 2020,
pp. 8875–8887, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.01.017.
[14] Hoang Vu Dao, et al., in: Optimization-based fuzzy energy management strategy
for PEM fuel cell/battery/supercapacitor hybrid construction excavator vol. 8,
Springer, 2021, pp. 1267–1285.
[15] Shiyong Tao, et al., in: Energy management strategy based on dynamic
programming with durability extension for fuel cell hybrid tramway vol. 29,
Springer, Sep. 2021, pp. 299–313, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/
s40534-021-00247-w.
[16] D. Pivetta, et al., Multi-objective optimization of hybrid PEMFC/Li-ion battery
propulsion systems for small and medium size ferries, in: International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy 46, Elsevier, Oct. 2021, pp. 35949–35960, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.02.124.
[17] Liu Xudong, et al., Optimal sizing of a series hybrid electric vehicle using a hybrid
genetic algorithm, in: 2007 IEEE International Conference on Automation and
Logistics, IEEE, Oct. 2007, pp. 1125–1129, https://doi.org/10.1109/
ICAL.2007.4338737.
[18] P. Achikkulath, et al., Optimization of hybrid energy systems and adaptive energy
management for hybrid electric vehicles, in: Energy Conversion and Management
243, Elsevier, Sep. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114357.
24
I.M. Abdelqawee et al.
[19] Jihun Han, et al., Synthesis of predictive equivalent consumption minimization
strategy for hybrid electric vehicles based on closed-form solution of optimal
equivalence factor, IEEE Trans.Veh.Technol. 66 (Jul. 2017) 5604–5616, https://
doi.org/10.1109/TVT.2017.2660764.
[20] G. Piyush, et al., Comparative analysis of state of charge based adaptive
supervisory control strategies of plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles, in: Energy 230,
Elsevier, Sep. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.120856.
[21] Laeun Kwon, et al., Degradation-conscious equivalent consumption minimization
strategy for a fuel cell hybrid system, Energies 14 (Jun. 2021) 3810, https://doi.
org/10.3390/en14133810.
[22] A. Benmouna, et al., Efficient experimental energy management operating for FC/
battery/SC vehicles via hybrid Artificial Neural Networks-Passivity Based Control,
in: Renewable Energy 178, Elsevier, Nov. 2021, pp. 1291–1302, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2021.06.038.
[23] Rupendra K. Pachauri, et al., A study, analysis and power management schemes for
fuel cells, in: Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 43, Elsevier, Mar. 2015,
pp. 1301–1319, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.11.098.
[24] M. Bassam, B. Phillips, R. Turnock, A. Wilson, An improved energy management
strategy for a hybrid fuel cell/battery passenger vessel, in: International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy 41, Elsevier, Dec. 2016, pp. 22453–22464, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.08.049.
[25] A. Bessam, et al., A passivity-based controller for coordination of converters in a
fuel cell system used in hybrid electric vehicle propelled by two seven phase
induction motor, in: International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 42, Elsevier, Oct.
2017, pp. 26362–26376, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.08.099.
[26] M. Bassam, et al., Development of a multi-scheme energy management strategy for
a hybrid fuel cell driven passenger ship, in: International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy 42, Elsevier, Jan 2017, pp. 623–635, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2016.08.209.
[27] Fengqi Zhang, et al., An adaptive equivalent consumption minimization strategy
for parallel hybrid electric vehicle based on Fuzzy PI, in: IEEE Intelligent Vehicles
Symposium (IV), Jun. 2016 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7535426.
[28] Y. Wang, et al., Energy management strategy for battery/supercapacitor/fuel cell
hybrid source vehicles based on finite state machine, in: Applied Energy vol. 254,
Elsevier, Nov. 2019, p. 113707, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113707.
[29] T. Wang, et al., Application of energy management strategy based on state machine
in fuel cell hybrid power system, in: IEEE Transportation Electrification Conference
and Expo, Asia-Pacific (ITEC Asia-Pacific), Aug. 2017, https://doi.org/10.1109/
ITEC-AP.2017.8080854.
[30] Sina Changizian, et al., Performance optimization of hybrid hydrogen fuel cell-
electric vehicles in real driving cycles, in: International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy vol. 45, Elsevier, Dec. 2020, pp. 35180–35197, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2020.01.015.
[31] Peng Dai, et al., Stability analysis of FCHEV energy system using frequency
decoupling control method, J.Power Electron. 17 (Mar. 2017) 490–500, https://
doi.org/10.6113/JPE.2017.17.2.490.
[32] Huang Xiaoliang, et al., Energy Management Strategy based on frequency-varying
filter for the battery supercapacitor hybrid system of Electric Vehicles, in: World
Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exhibition (EVS27), Nov. 2013, https://doi.org/
10.1109/EVS.2013.6915018.
[33] Ying Shen, et al., Variable structure battery-based fuel cell hybrid power system
and its incremental fuzzy logic energy management strategy, in: International
Journal of Hydrogen Energy vol. 45, Elsevier, Apr. 2020, pp. 12130–12142,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.02.083.
[34] Hanane Hemi, et al., A real time fuzzy logic power management strategy for a fuel
cell vehicle, in: (Energy Conversion and Management 80, Elsevier, Apr. 2014,
pp. 63–70, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.12.040.
[35] Hu. Zunyan, et al., Multi-objective energy management optimization and
parameter sizing for proton exchange membrane hybrid fuel cell vehicles, in:
Energy Conversion and Management 129, Elsevier, Dec. 2016, pp. 108–121,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.09.082.
[36] Tom Fletcher, et al., An Energy Management Strategy to concurrently optimise fuel
consumption & PEM fuel cell lifetime in a hybrid vehicle, in: International Journal
of Hydrogen Energy 41, Elsevier, Dec 2016, pp. 21503–21515, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.08.157.
[37] J. Bernard, et al., Global optimization in the power management of a fuel cell
hybrid vehicle (FCHV), in: IEEE (2006 IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion
Conference), May 2007, pp. 1–6, https://doi.org/10.1109/VPPC.2006.364289.
[38] Stéphane Caux, et al., A combinatorial optimization approach to energy
management strategy for a hybrid fuel cell vehicle, in: Energy vol. 133, Elsevier,
Aug. 2017, pp. 219–230, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.05.109.
[39] Zhang Yu, et al., Management strategy based on genetic algorithm optimization for
PHEV, Int. J. Control Autom. 7 (2014) 381–390, https://doi.org/10.14257/
ijca.2014.7.11.37.
[40] Gourui Zhang, et al., Study on equivalent consumption minimization strategy for
fuel cell hybrid tramway, in: IEEE Transportation Electrification Conference and
Expo, Asia-Pacific (ITEC Asia-Pacific), Aug. 2017, https://doi.org/10.1109/ITEC-
AP.2017.8080858.
[41] Huan Li, et al., A novel equivalent consumption minimization strategy for hybrid
electric vehicle powered by fuel cell, battery and supercapacitor, in: Journal of
Power Sources 395, Elsevier, Aug. 2018, pp. 262–270, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jpowsour.2018.05.078.
[42] Tao Zeng, et al., Optimization-oriented adaptive equivalent consumption
minimization strategy based on short-term demand power prediction for fuel cell
hybrid vehicle, in: Energy 227, Elsevier, Jul. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2021.120305.
25
Journal of Energy Storage 57 (2023) 106276
[43] Zhihu Hong, et al., An energy management strategy based on dynamic power factor
for fuel cell/battery hybrid locomotive, in: International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy 43, Elsevier, Feb. 2018, pp. 3261–3272, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2017.12.117.
[44] Njoya Motapon, A. Dessaint, Kamal Al-Haddad, A robust H2-consumption-
minimization-based energy management strategy for a fuel cell hybrid emergency
power system of more electric aircraft, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 61 (Nov. 2014)
6148–6156, https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2014.2308148.
[45] Daming Zhou, et al., A comparative study of extremum seeking methods applied to
online energy management strategy of fuel cell hybrid electric vehicles, in: Energy
Conversion and Management 151, Elsevier, Nov. 2017, pp. 778–790, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.08.079.
[46] Daming Zhou, et al., Online energy management strategy of fuel cell hybrid electric
vehicles: a fractional-order extremum seeking method, IEEE Trans.Ind.Electron. 65
(Aug. 2018) 6787–6799, https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2018.2803723.
[47] Nicu Bizon, Real-time optimization strategy for fuel cell hybrid power sources with
load-following control of the fuel or air flow, in: Energy Conversion and
Management 157, Elsevier, Feb. 2018, pp. 13–27, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2017.11.084.
[48] Nicu Bizon, Energy optimization of fuel cell system by using global extremum
seeking algorithm, in: Energy Conversion and Management 206, Elsevier, Nov.
2017, pp. 458–474, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.08.097.
[49] Shengwei Quan, et al., Real-time energy management for fuel cell electric vehicle
using speed prediction-based model predictive control considering performance
degradation, in: Applied Energy 304, Elsevier, Dec. 2021, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117845.
[50] Mauro G. Carignano, et al., Energy management strategy for fuel cell-
supercapacitor hybrid vehicles based on prediction of energy demand, in: Journal
of Power Sources 360, Elsevier, Aug. 2017, pp. 419–433, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jpowsour.2017.06.016.
[51] Cheng Li, et al., Adaptive equivalent consumption minimization strategy and its
fast implementation of energy management for fuel cell electric vehicles, Energy
Res. 46 (Jun 2022) 16005–16018, https://doi.org/10.1002/er.8296.
[52] C. Zheng, et al., Comparison of ECMS and optimal control in FCHVs, in: (2012)
26th Electric Vehicle Symposium 2012, EVS 2012 vol. 3, May 2012,
pp. 2008–2013.
[53] Dehao Min, et al., Genetic algorithm optimized neural network based fuel cell
hybrid electric vehicle energy management strategy under start-stop condition, in:
Applied Energy 306, Elsevier, Jan. 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2021.118036.
[54] Fatih Ahmet Şenel, et al., in: A novel hybrid PSO–GWO algorithm for optimization
problems vol. 35, SpringerLink, Oct. 2019, pp. 1359–1373, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00366-018-0668-5.
[55] M. Mohammed, U. Umar, A. Rashid, in: A systematic and meta-analysis survey of
whale optimization algorithm 2019, Hindawi, Apr. 2019, p. 1, https://doi.org/
10.1155/2019/8718571.
[56] M.A. Ebrahim, et al., Implementation of self-adaptive Harris Hawks Optimization-
based energy management scheme of fuel cell-based electric power system, in:
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 46, Elsevier, Mar. 2021,
pp. 15268–15287, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.02.116.
[57] Wen Long, Shaohong Cai, Jianjun Jiao, Xu. Ming, Wu. Tiebin, A new hybrid
algorithm based on grey wolf optimizer and cuckoo search for parameter
extraction of solar photovoltaic models, in: Energy Conversion and Management
203, Elsevier, Jan. 2020, pp. 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2019.112243.
[58] Jui-Sheng Chou, Dinh-Nhat Truong, A novel metaheuristic optimizer inspired by
behavior of jellyfish in ocean, in: Applied Mathematics and Computation 389,
Elsevier, Jan. 2021, pp. 1–47, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2020.125535.
[59] Narinder Singh, S.B. Singh, in: Hybrid algorithm of particle swarm optimization
and grey wolf optimizer for improving convergence performance vol. 2017,
Hindawi, Nov. 2017, pp. 1–15, https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/2030489.
[60] Njoya Motapon, et al., A comparative study of energy management schemes for a
fuel-cell hybrid emergency power system of more-electric aircraft, IEEE Trans.Ind.
Electron. 61 (Apr. 2013) 1320–1334, https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2013.2257152.
[61] Xueqin Lu, Dynamic modeling and fractional order PIλDμ control of PEM fuel cell,
Int. J. Electrochem. Sci. 8 (Aug. 2017) 7518–7536, https://doi.org/10.20964/
2017.08.12.
[62] Carlos Andrés, et al., A PEM fuel-cell model featuring oxygen-excess-ratio
estimation and power-electronics interaction, IEEE Trans.Ind.Electron. 57 (Jun.
2010) 1914–1924, https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2009.2026363.
[63] Ambrosio B. Cultura, et al., Dynamic analysis of a stand alone operation of PEM
fuel cell system, <sb:contribution><sb:title>J. Power Energy </sb:title> </sb:
contribution> <sb:host> <sb:issue> <sb:series> <sb:title> Eng.</sb:title></sb:
series></sb:issue></sb:host> (Jan. 2014) 1–8, https://doi.org/10.4236/
jpee.2014.21001.
[64] P. García, et al., Viability study of a FC-battery-SC tramway controlled by
equivalent consumption minimization strategy, in: International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy 37, Elsevier, Jun. 2012, pp. 9368–9382, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.02.184.
[65] O. Tremblay, et al., Experimental validation of a battery dynamic model for EV
applications, World Electr. (Jun. 2009) 289–298, https://doi.org/10.3390/
wevj3020289.
[66] Ali Castaings, et al., Comparison of energy management strategies of a battery/
supercapacitors system for electric vehicle under real-time constraints, in: Applied
Energy 163, Elsevier, Feb. 2016, pp. 190–200, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2015.11.020.
I.M. Abdelqawee et al.
[67] Xueqin Lü, et al., Energy management of hybrid electric vehicles: a review of
energy optimization of fuel cell hybrid power system based on genetic algorithm,
in: Energy Conversion and Management 205, Elsevier, Feb. 2020, pp. 1–26,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112474.
[68] Hegazy Rezk, M. Nassef, Comparison among various energy management strategies
for reducing hydrogen consumption in a hybrid fuel cell/supercapacitor/battery
system, in: International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 46, Elsevier, Jan. 2021,
pp. 6110–6126, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.11.195.
[69] Chun Wang, Hongwen He, Yongzhi Zhang, Mu. Hao, A comparative study on the
applicability of ultracapacitor models for electric vehicles under different
temperatures, in: Applied Energy 196, Elsevier, Jun. 2017, pp. 268–278, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.03.060.
[70] Ahmed Fathy, Hegazy Rezk, M. Nassef, Robust hydrogen-consumption-
minimization strategy based salp swarm algorithm for energy management of fuel
26
Journal of Energy Storage 57 (2023) 106276
cell/supercapacitor/batteries in highly fluctuated load condition, in: Renewable
Energy 139, Elsevier, Aug. 2019, pp. 147–160, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2019.02.076.
[72] A. Fadel, B. Zhou, Power management methodologies for fuel cell-battery hybrid
vehicles, in: SAE Technical Paper 2010-01-0849, Apr. 2010, https://doi.org/
10.4271/2010-01-0849.
[73] Frano Barbir, Chapter 3 - fuel cell electrochemistry, in: PEM Fuel Cells, Elsevier,
2005, pp. 33–72, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012078142-3/50004-5.
[74] International Energy Agency, Hydrogen production costs by production source,
2018, Available, https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/hydrogen-pro
duction-costs-by-production-source-2018.
[75] GlobalPetrolPrices.com, Available, https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/electricit
y_prices/.