Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to you by the University of Kansas (Technical reports: 1998 to Present), Saturday, August

25, 2018

Development of Energy Management Strategies and 2012-01-1609

Published
Analysis with Standard Drive Cycles for Fuel Cell 09/10/2012
Electric Vehicles

Prasada Rao Akula and Lakshmi Jandhyala

Mercedes-Benz R&D India

Frieder Herb
Daimler AG

Akash Narayana
Mercedes-Benz R&D India

Copyright © 2012 SAE International

doi:10.4271/2012-01-1609

consumption. Dynamic Programming (DP) is used for

ABSTRACT
In order to reduce fuel consumption in Fuel Cell Electric
Vehicles, effective distribution of power demand between
Fuel Cell and Battery is required. Energy management
strategies can improve fuel economy by meeting power
demand efficiently. This paper explains development of
various energy management strategies for Fuel Cell Electric
Vehicle with Lithium Ion Battery.
benchmark calculations with simple vehicle models. As
Dynamic Programming requires lot of computation, it can't
be used for complex vehicle models. So a simple and
effective method is introduced for benchmark calculations
with detailed vehicle models. This new method is developed
based on energy and power requirements of Drive cycle. This
paper presents results of benchmark fuel consumption for all
standard Drive cycles.

Drive cycles used for optimization and analysis of the
strategies are New European Drive cycles (NEDC), Japanese
Drive cycles (JAP1015), City Drive cycles, Highway Drive
cycles (FHDS) and Federal Urban Drive cycles (FUDS). All
Fuel consumption and ageing calculations are done using
backward model implemented in MATLAB/SIMULINK.
Various control strategies are developed from simple to
complex. Different strategies like load follower strategy,
equivalent consumption minimization (ECMS) strategies,
fuzzy based strategy and neural network based strategies are
developed. These strategies are optimized for minimizing fuel
consumption using backward model.

This work consists of following topics
• Benchmark calculations for fuel consumption
• Development of Energy management strategies
• Optimization of strategies for minimizing fuel consumption
• Analysis of strategies for fuel consumption with different
Drive cycles
• Analysis of strategies for stack and battery durability with
different Drive cycles
Initially, benchmark calculations are performed for Fuel Cell
Electric Vehicle to know theoretical/ultimate limits for fuel
Detailed analysis of the performance of various control
strategies on different Drive cycles is presented. This analysis
consists of fuel consumption per 100 km, influence on stack
durability and influence on battery durability. Drive cycles
are repeated several times for simulation to get effective fuel
consumption values and to nullify the effect of state of charge
(SOC) of battery on these calculations.
INTRODUCTION
Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles still have enormous potential in
terms of costs reduction and durability. Addition of energy
 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to you by the University of Kansas (Technical reports: 1998 to Present), Saturday, August 25, 2018
storage devices (ESS) to Fuel Cell Vehicles helps
significantly to improve the stack durability, efficiency and
transient response. Energy management strategies play a vital
role in improving performance of Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle.
So, Energy management strategies have become very
important research topic nowadays. Benchmark calculations
are also very important to know the theoretical/ultimate limits
for fuel consumption of hybrid vehicles which helps in
component sizing.
There are various methods available in literature for
benchmark calculations of hybrid vehicle. L. Guzella and
A.Sciarretta [1] presents various standard methods for
predicting minimum fuel consumption for a given hybrid
vehicle. Olle Sundstrom and Lino Guzella [3] developed
generic dynamic programming function in matlab and
calculated fuel consumption using dynamic programming
approach. Emmanuel Vinot and Rochi Trigui [4] used
dynamic programming to compare different configurations of
hybrid vehicles and component sizing.
A literature survey shows that various energy management
strategies have been developed for hybrid vehicles. One of
the Earlier works on energy management strategies is simple
conditions based strategy presented by Jin-Hwan Jung and
Young-Kook Lee[5] where the mode of hybrid controller is
defined based on demanded power, state of charge of battery
(SOC) and binary rules are formed to operate Fuel Cell at
efficient region. Xiangjun Li and Liangfei Xu [6] developed
fuzzy control based strategy for Fuel Cell hybrid vehicle
where demanded power and state of charge of battery are
taken as inputs for fuzzy controller and estimated optimal
load on Fuel Cell using rule base containing nine rules.
Ahmad Fadel and Biao Zhou [7] developed fuzzy based
strategy with new structure where degree of hybridization
(DOH) is taken as output of fuzzy controller instead of load
on to Fuel Cell. Zheng Chen and Chris Chunting Mi [8]
developed fuzzy based strategy for hybrid vehicles and
compared results with dynamic programming. Gino Paganelli
and Yann Guezennec [9] developed equivalent consumption
minimization strategy (ECMS) and compared results with
SOC-proportional control based strategy. Cristian Musardo
and Giorgio Rizzoni [10] developed adaptive energy
management strategy based on ECMS frame work. Xie
“Chang”- jun and Quan Shu-hai [12] presented energy
management strategy based on Neural Network Optimization.
Xia Meng and Nicolas Langlois [13] developed energy
management strategy based on adaptive neuro fuzzy
inference systems [NFIS]. Frieder Herb [14] [15] developed
ageing models for Stack & Lithium ion battery and analyzed
effect on stack and battery durability with simple energy
management strategies.
Each energy management strategy mentioned previously may
improve the vehicle efficiency when applied to certain hybrid
vehicles. These energy management strategies have not been
compared to the same vehicle to conclude best strategy
suitable for vehicle in terms of fuel consumption and
durability of power sources. Various strategies available in
literature are extended to suit the requirement of Mercedes B-
class Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle. All the strategies are
analyzed in terms of fuel economy and durability of power
sources. Ageing models developed by Frieder Herb [14] [15]
are used to compare stack and battery durability for different
strategies
The main objectives of this work are development of vehicle
model, performing benchmark calculations, development of
energy management strategies and analysis of strategies in
terms of fuel economy and durability of power sources.
Principle
Vehicle model is based on dynamics and energetic models for
different components of vehicle. This vehicle model can be
simulated with different Drive cycles to compute fuel
consumption. There are two methods for solving set of
equations for each component of vehicle: Forward and
backward methods. Each method has its own advantages and
drawbacks.
Forward Model
Forward model [2] contains driver model which estimate
power demand based on reference speed and actual speed of
vehicle. Energy management strategy splits demanded power
between Fuel Cell system and battery. Actual power of Fuel
Cell and battery is computed using dynamics and limitations
of power sources. Total power from power sources is the
input to motor model. Motor model converts input power to
torque and speed, which are inputs to transmission model.
Traction force at the wheels is computed based on
transmission efficiency and gear ratio. Finally, velocity of
vehicle is computed based on dynamics of the vehicle.
These forward models are very complex, hence can not be
used for optimizing parameters of energy management
strategies. These models are not suitable for comparing the
performance of vehicle with different energy management
strategies as there always exists difference between reference
velocity and actual velocity of the vehicle and this difference
also depends upon energy management strategy being used.
Backward Model
Backward model [2] does not require driver model to control
speed of the vehicle. Traction force at the wheel is computed
directly from velocity and gradient using set of vehicle
dynamic equations. Component to component, this
calculation approach carries backward against the tractive
power flow direction to calculate power required at motor
input. Energy management strategy splits power between
Fuel Cell and battery. Finally, fuel consumption and state of
charge of battery are calculated based on respective loads.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to you by the University of Kansas (Technical reports: 1998 to Present), Saturday, August 25, 2018

Figure 1. Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle backward model

Backward model is well suited for comparing performance of information i.e., velocity and gradient as inputs and computes
the vehicle with different energy management strategies as it the required power [1]. This model allows calculation of key
gives same power demand profile for a Drive cycle variables such as fuel consumption and state of charge (SOC)
irrespective of energy management strategy being used. This of battery.
model is very simple and can be used for optimization of
strategies. Longitudinal dynamics of road vehicle is given by equation
(1)
In this work, backward model is used for optimizing
parameters of energy management strategies, fuel
consumption analysis and ageing analysis of power sources
with different Drive cycles.
(1)
Fuel Cell Vehicle Configuration Traction force required at wheels is calculated by equation
This work focused on Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (2)
configurations where lithium - Ion battery is used as energy
storage device. Main powertrain components are Fuel Cell,
battery and Electric Motor. The Vehicle used in the analysis
is comparable with Mercedes B class F-Cell. Vehicle (2)
specifications are summarized in Table 1 [16].
Aerodynamic friction force is given by equation (3)
Table 1. Fuel Cell Vehicle Specifications

(3)

Rolling friction force is given by equation (4)

Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Backward

(4)
Model
Figure 1 shows example of Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle
represented in backward model. This model takes drive cycle
 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to you by the University of Kansas (Technical reports: 1998 to Present), Saturday, August 25, 2018

The force induced by gravity when driving on non-horizontal Energy management strategy splits required power between
road is given by equation (5) Fuel Cell and battery

Fuel consumption is calculated based on Fuel Cell efficiency

map according to equation (11)
(5)
Traction torque at wheels is given by equation (6)

(6) (11)

Assuming there is no slip in the wheels, angular speed of the

wheel is given by equation (7)

Battery current is calculated from equation (12)

(7)
Considering differential gear ratio as 1, then torque at the
wheels is equal to output torque of transmission.
(12)
Motor torque or torque input to transmission is calculated by
considering losses in transmission by equation (8)

(8)

State of charge of battery is calculated from equation (13)

Angular speed of the motor is given by equation (9)

(13)

(9)
Total power required at the input of inverter is calculated
considering efficiencies of inverter and motor by equation
(10) CALCULATING THEORITICAL
LIMITS OF FUEL CONSUMPTION
Backward model can be used to compute power required at
each time step of the Drive cycle. Once power required at
(10) each time step of the Drive cycle is known, next step is to
calculate theoretical/ultimate limits of fuel consumption of a
given Drive cycle for Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle. This paper
 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to you by the University of Kansas (Technical reports: 1998 to Present), Saturday, August 25, 2018

presents three possible ways of predicting theoretical/ultimate

limits of fuel consumption for a given Drive cycle.

Average Operating Power Approach

In this approach [1], total energy required for a known Drive
cycle is calculated by integrating power required. Then (16)
average power required is calculated as per equation (14).
Stack is operated at average power for the duration of Drive
cycle and fuel consumption rate at each time step is
calculated. Finally, fuel consumption per 100 km is
calculated for the Drive cycle by integrating fuel
consumption rate.

Average power of the Drive cycle is calculated according to

equation (14) (17)
Total energy required for a Drive cycle has to be supplied by
Fuel Cell alone for effective calculation of fuel consumption.

(14) Average power (Pave) is calculated by formulating as

optimization problem as in equation (18)
This method is very simple and fast. Using this method
change in fuel consumption with variation of different
parameters of Fuel Cell system can be studied e.g. operating
temperature, polarization curve of stack etc. This method
(18)
gives minimum possible fuel consumption, but fuel
consumption obtained is not very near to realistic values. This S.T
method is not suitable to find change in fuel consumption
with variation of battery parameters.

Average Operating Power with Battery
Limits Approach
In this approach, stack is operated at average power (Pave).
The average power (Pave) is calculated based on battery
power limits namely maximum discharging power (MDP)
and maximum charging power (MCP)
Average operating power with battery limits are obtained by
operating Fuel Cell as per following algorithm (15, 16, 17 &
18)
Fuel Cell is operated as per the equation (15) for the entire
simulation for a given Drive cycle and fuel consumption rate
at each time step is calculated. Finally, total fuel consumption
is calculated by integrating fuel consumption rate. This fuel
consumption is projected for 100 km based on distance travel
using simple proportional rule.
Using this method effect of battery power limits on fuel
consumption can also be analyzed. This method is simple and
required less computations. But, this method can not be used
to study effect of capacity of battery on fuel consumption as
there is no constraint on state of charge (SOC) of battery.

Theoretical/ultimate limits of Fuel consumption per 100 km

is calculated with 10 kW, 20 kW, 40 kW and 80 kW
maximum battery powers using this method. Percentage of
decrease in fuel consumption compared to 10 kW battery as
(15) shown in the figure 2. Battery capacity and weight of battery
are taken as constant for this analysis.
Energy required for a Drive cycle is calculated based on
power limits of battery

Total energy required for a Drive cycle is calculated

according to (16)
 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to you by the University of Kansas (Technical reports: 1998 to Present), Saturday, August 25, 2018

kW and 80 kW maximum battery discharge powers. Capacity

and weight of battery are considered to be constant for these
calculations. Percentage decrease in fuel consumption
compared with 10kW battery is as shown in the figure 4

Figure 2. Percentage of decrease in fuel consumption

compared to 10 kW Battery

Dynamic Programming Approach

Dynamic programming [3] [4] is used to find the optimal
trajectory of SOC of battery to minimize fuel consumption
for a known Drive cycle. The objective function to be
minimized for a Drive cycle is given by (19)
Figure 3. Optimal Trajectory of SOC of Jap1015 using
DP

(19)
S.T

SOC is taken as state variable to define power dynamics of

Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle. SOC is divided into number of
grid points and DP computes Cost-to-Go matrix at each SOC
grid point in backward direction. DP selects SOC values at
each time step whose total fuel consumption is low from
Cost-to-Go matrix in forward direction. This set of SOC
values at each time step forms optimal trajectory of SOC as
shown in Figure 3.

Dynamic Programming is a powerful approach to find fuel

consumption with different limits of battery and Fuel Cell.
Figure 4. Percentage of decrease in fuel consumption
Fuel consumption obtained is very near to realistic values.
compared to 10 kW battery using DP
But, it requires lot of computations and takes lot of time to
converge. It can not be applied to complex models.
ENERGY MANAGEMENT
Power required at each time step is obtained using backward STRATEGIES FOR FUEL CELL
model. Simple Fuel Cell and battery models are developed to
reduce computation time for dynamic programming. ELECTRIC VEHICLE
Required power is taken as input to dynamic programming Energy management strategies developed in this work for
and Cost-to-Go matrix is calculated using simple Fuel Cell Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle can be classified into three
and battery models. Theoretical/ultimate limits of Fuel categories namely heuristic energy management strategies,
consumption per 100km is calculated with 10kW, 20 kW, 40
 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to you by the University of Kansas (Technical reports: 1998 to Present), Saturday, August 25, 2018
optimal control based energy management strategies and
Neural Network/Learning based control strategies.
Heuristic Energy Management Strategies
Heuristic energy management strategies are developed based
on Boolean or fuzzy rules involving various vehicular
variables.
1. Proportional SOC energy management strategy
2. Load follower energy management strategy [5]
3. Fuzzy based energy management strategy [6][7][8]
Proportional SOC Energy Management
Strategy
Load on battery is computed based on lookup table as shown
in figure5 (Battery discharge power is taken as negative). The
difference in demanded power and battery power will be
supplied by Fuel Cell. If demanded power is negative, Fuel
Cell is turned off. Battery discharge power in this strategy is
limited to 30% of MDP to control SOC and to get good fuel
economy.
Figure 5. Look up table used in Proportional Soc energy
management strategy
Load Follower Energy Management Strategy
Main objective of this strategy is to operate Fuel Cell at
efficient region and to keep battery SOC in battery efficient
region where battery internal resistance won't change much
with battery SOC.
This strategy is divided into four regions based on optimum
power of the Fuel Cell and Minimum allowed SOC of the
battery. Fuel Cell optimum power (Popt) is the power of Fuel
Cell where efficiency of Fuel Cell is maximum. Load on Fuel
Cell is decided based on demanded power and SOC as per
Table 2
Table 2. Load follower energy management strategy
logic
Fuzzy Based Energy Managemnet Strategy
Required power and SOC are converted to fuzzy variables
Very Small (VS), Small (S), Medium (M) and Big (B) using
trapezoidal membership functions. Rule base containing 16
rules are used to define Fuel Cell power. These rules are
defined based on experience. Weighted average
defuzzification method is used to find fuzzy output. The
structure of Fuzzy strategy is as shown in Figure 6.
Optimal Control Based Energy
Management Strategies
Following energy management strategies are developed based
on principles from optimal control theory
1. Equivalent consumption minimization strategy (ECMS)
[9][10]
2. Equivalent consumption minimization strategy with
modes (ECMSModes)[11]
Equivalent Consumption Minimization Strategy
(ECMS)
Main idea behind this strategy is to find minimum fuel
consumption at each time step for a Fuel Cell Electric
Vehicle. Battery power is converted to equivalent fuel
consumption by multiplying battery power with equivalent
factor and fuel consumption of Fuel Cell is calculated based
on efficiency curve of Fuel Cell system. Total equivalent fuel
consumption is the sum of equivalent fuel consumption from
battery and fuel consumption from Fuel Cell system. At each
time step, total equivalent fuel consumption is computed for
different Fuel Cell powers from 0 to maximum Fuel Cell
power (Pfcmax). The Fuel Cell power which gives minimum
equivalent fuel consumption is selected as best operating
power for Fuel Cell.
Objective function to be minimized at each time step is give
by equation (20)
(20)
Based on whether the Battery is charging or discharging,
Equivalent fuel consumption for Battery is defined by
equations (21 & 22)
 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to you by the University of Kansas (Technical reports: 1998 to Present), Saturday, August 25, 2018

Figure 6. Fuzzy based strategy flow from Fuzzification to defuzzification

Case: Discharging Free running mode:

(25)

(21) Neural Network/Learning Based Energy

Case: charging
Management Strategies
Following energy management strategies are developed based
on learning of neural networks to minimize fuel consumption.

(22) 1. Simple neural network based strategy (NN) [12]

2. Neuro fuzzy inference system based strategy(NFIS) [13]

Equivalent Consumption Minimization Strategy
with Modes (ECMSMODES)
This strategy is also similar to the ECMS strategy. To keep
the SOC within limits, different control modes are introduced
namely free running mode, SOC increasing mode and SOC
decreasing mode. Based on the mode, Fuel Cell power search
vector for minimum fuel consumption differs as per the
equations. 23, 24 & 25
Simple Neural Network Based Strategy (NN)
Optimal Fuel Cell power at each time step is obtained using
dynamic programming (DP) for NEDC Drive cycle. The data
obtained from Dynamic Programming (DP) is used to train
neural network model offline with demand power and SOC
as inputs and Fuel Cell power as output. The Neural Network
(NN) model obtained by offline training is used as energy
management strategy.

SOC increasing mode:

(23)

SOC decreasing mode:

(24) Figure 7. Neural network strategy structure

 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to you by the University of Kansas (Technical reports: 1998 to Present), Saturday, August 25, 2018
Neuro Fuzzy Inference System Based Strategy
(NFIS)
This strategy is also same as fuzzy based strategy, but rule
base is derived from offline training. Takagi-Sugeno (TS)
rules are used to define the fuzzy output. Weights of TS rules
are obtained by optimization to minimize fuel consumption.
The structure of the NFIS strategy is shown in figure 8.
Inputs x and y are demanded power and SOC respectively
and output f is load on Fuel Cell.
Layer1: Inputs are fuzzified and output is membership
function value
Layer2: At each node product of member ship function value
is taken
Layer3: Membership values at each node are normalized
Layer4:
Layer5: Sum of all outputs from layer 4 to calculate final
output f
Figure 8. Neuro fuzzy inference system structure
ANALYSIS OF ENERGY
MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
Energy mangement strategies are integrated with backward
model and simulated with various Drive cycles to find best
strategy that gives minimum fuel consumption and better
stack durability for Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles. These
strategies are compared in terms of fuel consumption, stack
degradation and battery degradation. Simple proportional
SOC energy management strategy is taken as base strategy
and all strategies are compared with this strategy.
Fuel Economy Comparison
Energy management strategies are simulated with different
Drive cycles and fuel consumption is calculated per 100 km.
These fuel consumption values are compared with base
strategy and represented in percentage increase or decrease in
fuel consumption as shown in Table3. Negative values mean
decrease in fuel consumption and positive values mean
increase in fuel consumption. To nullify the effect of initial
SOC on fuel consumption values, Drive cycles are repeated
nine times and fuel consumption is calculated as average of
last two cycles. Total power supplied by both power sources
is compared with demanded power to check drivability at
each time step. Energy difference is calculated between
energy demanded by Drive cycle and energy supplied by Fuel
Cell. Fuel consumption, energy difference and drivability are
the factors to consider for selecting best strategy in terms of
fuel economy. All strategies mentioned in table 3, 4 and 5
met drivability and energy requirements of Drive cycles.
Table 3. Percentage of Hydrogen consumption for
different standard Drive cycles
Stack Degradation Comparison
In polymer electrolyte membrane Fuel Cell, different
components have different ageing problems. Four most
influenced stress factors such as stack inlet temperature,
current dynamic, cathode humidity and idle current (max.
voltage) have been investigated to model the mathematical
function of aging mechanism in PEM Fuel Cell.[14][15].
Rate of decrease in stack cell voltage is taken as measure for
stack degradation. [14] [15] contain details of Fuel Cell stack
ageing models used in this work.
Energy management strategies are simulated with backward
model with different Drive cycles. Drive cycles are repeated
nine times for effective calculation of stack degradation.
Stack cell voltage is captured at each time step and rate of
decrease in cell voltage for the duration of simulation is
found. The strategy which has less stack ageing for a given
Drive cycle is given Rank 1 and is the best strategy for that
Drive cycle. Next higher value in that Drive cycle is Rank 2
and so on.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to you by the University of Kansas (Technical reports: 1998 to Present), Saturday, August 25, 2018
Table 4. Stack degradation analysis for different
standard Drive cycles
Battery Degradation Comparison
In a Battery different components have different ageing
problems. Four most influenced stress factors such as
temperature, depth of discharge (DOD), state of charge (soc)
and current dynamic have been investigated to model an
aging mechanism of the Li-ion battery. Rate of increase in
battery internal resistance is taken as measure for battery
degradation. [14] [15] contain details of Lithium-Ion battery
ageing models used in this work.
Rate of increase in battery internal resistance is taken as
measure for battery degradation [14]. Energy management
strategies are simulated with standard Drive cycles. Drive
cycles are repeated nine times for effective calculation of
battery degradation. Rate of increase in battery internal
resistance is captured at each time step and rate of increase in
battery terminal resistance is calculated for entire duration of
Drive cycle. The strategy which has less battery ageing for a
given Drive cycle is given Rank 1 and is the best strategy for
that Drive cycle. Next higher value in that Drive cycle is
Rank 2 and so on.
Table 5. Battery degradation analysis for different
standard Drive cycles
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
In this work, backward model is developed for Fuel Cell
Electric Vehicle, estimated the ultimate limits of fuel
consumption with different approaches, analyzed the effect of
battery size on fuel consumption with different Drive cycles,
developed different energy management strategies from
simple to complex and compared energy management
strategies in terms of fuel economy, stack degradation &
battery degradation. From the results, it is clear that Neuro
fuzzy inference system (NFIS) based strategy, fuzzy based
strategy and ECMS based strategy are doing well in terms of
fuel economy and stack life time. It is also clear that the
strategies which are good for stack durability are bad for
battery durability. Percentage of improvement in stack
durability is observed to be higher than the percentage of
improvement in fuel economy. Hence, there is a lot of scope
for improving stack durability with control strategies than
fuel economy. All these results are obtained by simulating
backward model. In future, all these control strategies have to
be simulated using test bench simulator with various standard
Drive cycles and results have to be verified. Development of
control strategies to improve stack durability with minimal
effect on vehicle performance is also an interesting topic for
research.
REFERENCES
1. Guzzella, L., and Sciarretta, A. “Vehicle Propulsion
Systems, Introduction to modeling and optimization”, second
edition, Springer
2. Markel, T. and Brooker, A. “ADVISOR: a systems
analysis tool for advanced vehicle modeling”, Journal of
Power Sources 110 2002, 255-266
3. Sundstrom, Olle and Guzzella, Lino. “A Generic Dynamic
Programming Matlab Function”, IEEE Multi-conference on
Systems and Control, July 8-10, 2009
4. Vinot, Emmanuel and Rochdi, “HEVs comparision and
Component Sizing Using Dynamic Programming”, IEEE,
2007
5. Jung, J., Lee, Y., Joo, J., and Kim, H., “Power Control
Strategy for Fuel Cell Hybrid Electric Vehicles,” SAE
Technical Paper 2003-01-1136, 2003, doi:
10.4271/2003-01-1136.
6. Li, Xiangjun and Xu, Liangfei, “Control Algorithm of
Fuel cell/ Battery Hybrid Vehicular Power system, IEEE,
2008
7. Fadel, A. and Zhou, B., “Power Management
Methodologies for Fuel Cell-Battery Hybrid Vehicles,” SAE
Technical Paper 2010-01-0849, 2010, doi:
10.4271/2010-01-0849.
8. chen, Zheng and Mi, Chris Chunting, “An adaptive Online
Energy management Controller for Power-Split HEV based
on Dynamic programming and Fuzzy Logic”, IEEE, 2009
9. Paganelli, G., Guezennec, Y., and Rizzoni, G.,
“Optimizing Control Strategy for Hybrid Fuel Cell Vehicle,”
SAE Technical Paper 2002-01-0102, 2002, doi:
10.4271/2002-01-0102.
10. Musardo, Cristian and Rizzoni, Giorgio, “A-ECMS: An
adaptive Algorithm for Hybrid Electric Vehicle Energy
Management”, IEEE conference on Decision and Control,
December 12-15, 2005
11. Sezer, Volkan and Gokasan, Metin, “A Novel ECMS and
Combined Cost Map Approach for High Efficiency Series
Hybrid Electric Vehicles”, IEEE, 2011
 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to you by the University of Kansas (Technical reports: 1998 to Present), Saturday, August 25, 2018

12. Chang-jun, Xie and Shu-hai, Quan, “Control Strategy of

Hybrid Power System for Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle based on
DEFINITIONS/ABBREVIATIONS
Neural Network Optimization”, IEEE, 2008 FCEV - Fuel cell electric vehicle
13. Meng, Xia and Langlois, Nicolas, “Optimized Fuzzy NEDC - New European Drive cycle
Control Strategy of Hybrid Vehicle Using ADVISOR”,IEEE, FHDS - Federal Highway Drive cycle
2010
JAP1015 - Japanese Drive cycle
14. Herb, Frieder, “Aging mechanisms in Lithium-Ion- DP - Dynamic programming
Battery and PEM-Fuel Cell and their influence on Hybrid-
SOCll - Lower limit of Soc
Systems”, Dissertation, Ulm, Mai 2010, http://vts.uni-ulm.de/
doc.asp?id=7404 SOChh - Higher limit of Soc
NN - Neural Network
15. Herb, Frieder and Trivedi, Kavin, “Aging mechanisms in
Lithium-Ion-Battery and PEM-Fuel Cell and their influence NFIS - Neuro fuzzy inference system
on Hybrid - Systems”, European Fuel Cell Forum 2011. ECMS - Eqvivalent consumption minimization strategy
16. http://www.autowandel.de/cms/servlet/Query? MDP - Maximum Discharge power
node=14190&language=1 MCP - Maximum Charge power
Effdis_batt - Efficiency of battery during discharge
CONTACT INFORMATION Effch_batt - Efficiency of battery during charging
Prasada Rao Akula Pbatt - Battery demanded power
Mercedes-Benz Research and Development Preq - Total required power
Bangalore
India Pfc - Fuel cell demanded power
prasada.akula@daimler.com

Lakshmi Jandhyala
Mercedes-Benz Research and Development India
Bangalore
India
lakshmi.jandhyala@daimler.com

Frieder Herb
Daimler AG
GR/AFF
Nabern, Stuttgart
Germany
frieder.herb@daimler.com

Akash Narayana
Mercedes-Benz Research and Development India
Bangalore
India
akash.narayana@daimler.com

The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not
successfully completed SAE's peer review process under the supervision of the session necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper.
organizer. This process requires a minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts. SAE Customer Service:
Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, Fax: 724-776-0790
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE. Email: CustomerService@sae.org
ISSN 0148-7191 SAE Web Address: http://www.sae.org
Printed in USA