Energy 285 (2023) 129442

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Rule and optimization combined real-time energy management strategy for

minimizing cost of fuel cell hybrid electric vehicles☆
Jinglai Wu a, Yunqing Zhang a, **, Jiageng Ruan b, *, Zhaowen Liang c, d, Kai Liu d
a
School of Mechanical and Engineering, HuaZhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
b
Department of Materials and Manufacturing, Beijing University of Technology, Bejing, China
c
School of Mechanical Engineering, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, 100081, China
d
Beijing Foton AUV New Energy Bus Co., Ltd., Beijing, 102200, China

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

Handling Editor: X Ou This paper proposes three online real-time energy management strategies for fuel cell hybrid electric vehicles
aimed at minimizing the total running cost over the vehicle’s lifecycle. The cost comprises hydrogen con­
Keywords: sumption, battery electricity consumption, and the degradation of fuel cell and battery systems. The first strategy
Fuel cell hybrid electric vehicles is a rule-based approach that controls fuel cell power at several fixed levels, with the battery state-of-charge
Real-time energy management strategy
serving as the shifting condition between these levels. The second strategy is an optimization-based approach
Cost minimization
that determines the fuel cell power by minimizing the instantaneous running cost. Two coefficients, dependent
Fuel cell degradation
on the battery state-of-charge, are employed to adjust the cost weights of hydrogen consumption, battery
electricity consumption, and fuel cell system degradation. The third strategy combines rules with optimization,
incorporating the rules as constraints into the cost optimization model. To account for practical driving condi­
tions throughout the vehicle’s lifecycle, short distance driving cycles, long distance driving cycles, and commuter
driving cycles are separately investigated. The rule and optimization combined energy management strategy
outperforms the others in all driving conditions, benefiting from fewer fuel cell system start-stop cycles and
increased opportunities for operating in high-efficiency regions.

1. Introduction
Fuel cells can be divided into Polymer electrolyte membrane fuel
cells (PEMFC), Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC), Alkaline Fuel Cell (AFC),
Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell (MCFC), and Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell
(PAFC). Among these, PEMFCs have received the most attention in
research and development due to their operation at relatively low
temperatures (− 40 ◦ C–120 ◦ C), making them suitable for portable,
transportation, and stationary power applications [1]. Fuel cell hybrid
electric vehicles (FCHEVs) offer the advantages of zero pollution and gas
emissions like electric vehicles (EVs), while also providing longer
driving ranges and shorter refueling times. However, FCHEVs face the
drawback of high costs, primarily due to operating expenses related to
onboard fuel cell and battery systems, which constitute a significant
portion of the total ownership costs [2]. The running cost is not only the
hydrogen consumption, but also the degradation cost of fuel cell and
battery. Due to the vulnerability and high expense of fuel cell and bat­
tery systems, improper loadings would shorten their lifespans and thus
increase the vehicle’s maintenance costs, which are the degradation cost
of fuel cell and battery. Fuel cell degradation costs, as indicated in
Ref. [3], account for a considerable proportion of the overall operating
cost. The degradation of a fuel cell system is primarily influenced by
various operating conditions, such as start-stop cycles, high and low
loadings, and load shifts [4]. While effective control strategies for
polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell systems (PEMFCS), such as air
supply control, are crucial for ensuring reliability and efficiency [5,6],
an Energy Management Strategy (EMS) for FCHEVs can help reduce
hydrogen consumption costs and mitigate power source system degra­
dation by appropriately allocating power between the fuel cell system
and battery.

☆
This paper is submitted for possible publication in Energy. It has not been previously published, is not currently submitted for review to any other journals, and
will not be submitted elsewhere during the peer review.
* Corresponding author.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: zhangyq@hust.edu.cn (Y. Zhang), ruanjiageng@gmail.com (J. Ruan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.129442
Received 7 April 2023; Received in revised form 28 September 2023; Accepted 21 October 2023
Available online 21 October 2023
0360-5442/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Wu et al.
The EMS allocates the output power between power sources to
reduce the cost and satisfy the power demand. The power following
strategy and thermostat strategy [7–9] are two typical deterministic
rule-based control methods. For the power following EMS (PFEMS), the
required power is mainly provided by a fuel cell system, with any
insufficiency covered by battery [10]. PFEMS usually results in high
hydrogen consumption because the fuel cell system generally operates
outside the high-efficiency region. Additionally, PFEMS causes signifi­
cant load changes, which accelerate the degradation of fuel cell stack.
The thermostat EMS (THEMS) controls the fuel cell to operate at a
constant power point, and the power of fuel cell remains unchanged
unless the battery state-of-charge (SOC) approaches its allowed bounds
[7]. The determination of the constant power is quite important, but the
optimal constant power depends on the driving cycle. The control rules
generally do not change with driving cycles, leading to a poor vehicle
energy-saving rate [11].
The optimization-based methods formulate the EMS as an optimi­
zation problem, where the objective is the energy consumption or
combining with the degradation cost of fuel cell and battery [10]. Dy­
namic programming (DP) can provide the global optimal solution of
EMS when the driving cycle is known [12,13]. DP breaks down the
decision process into stages and solves multiple sub-problems to find the
optimal solutions. It works recursively from the end state to the initial
state, resulting in a set of optimal solutions for each sub-problem that
represents the global optimal solution [14]. However, DP is computa­
tionally intensive and is often used as a benchmark for other
optimization-based approaches. To improve the computational effi­
ciency, some local optimization strategies have been proposed to
approximate the globally optimal solution, such as equivalent con­
sumption minimization strategy (ECMS) [15,16], model predict control
(MPC)-based strategies [17–19], the Pontryagin’s minimum principle
(PMP)-based strategies [20–23], and others [24–26].
The ECMS aims to minimize the combined hydrogen and battery
consumption in FCHEVs. It uses an Equivalent Factor (EF) to represent
the overall fuel economy by unifying hydrogen and electric energy
consumption. The EF greatly impacts the auxiliary energy source’s
hydrogen consumption and the total hydrogen consumption over time.
Many researchers have focused on developing methods to determine the
EF [14]. Offline optimization can provide EF values, but they may not
guarantee optimal fuel economy in different operating conditions [27].
To address this, adaptive ECMS approaches adjust the EF in real-time
[15,28–30]. The External Energy Maximum Strategy (EEMS) [31] and
its improved algorithm, OFA/DP-based EEMS [32], aim to maximize
external energy while minimizing hydrogen consumption by increasing
battery power demand. These methods use empirical formulas to obtain
the cost function without calculating battery equivalent consumption.
However, they do not consider the degradation cost of power sources,
focusing solely on the cost of hydrogen and battery consumption.
The MPC method predicts future vehicular power requests within a
specific time horizon and optimizes an objective function over that
period. It utilizes a genetic algorithm optimized back-propagation neu­
ral network predictor to estimate speed profiles. MPC is then employed
to determine the optimal power allocation decisions for a FCHEV at each
receding horizon [33]. Hu et al. [34] develop a model predictive control
framework to minimize the overall operating cost of a hybrid electric
bus equipped with a fuel cell and a battery. This includes costs related to
hydrogen consumption as well as degradation of the fuel cell and bat­
tery. The framework assumes that the bus’s velocity trajectory within
the prediction horizon is precisely known. Building upon this frame­
work, Zhou et al. [3] propose a real-time energy management strategy to
reduce the vehicle’s operating cost using the MPC method. They utilize
an online-learning enhanced Markov chain to predict the vehicle speed,
making their approach more practical and applicable. Similar works can
also be found in Refs. [35,36]. It can be found that the adaptive EMS can
be summarized as two types: power allocating strategies adjusted based
on predicted vehicle power demand or through feedback of battery state
2
Energy 285 (2023) 129442
of charge (SOC). Prediction-based control strategies heavily rely on the
accuracy of speed prediction, posing challenges for practical imple­
mentation. On the other hand, battery SOC feedback control strategies
do not require future driving condition information but require further
investigation to ensure stability and optimality across different driving
conditions.
One limitation in existing literature is the use of short-distance
driving cycles (typically under 30 km [37]) to develop and test EMS
strategies. This narrow focus on short distances leads to underutilization
of battery capacity, increasing hydrogen consumption and fuel cell
degradation. Additionally, frequent start-stop cycles during
short-distance driving contribute to fuel cell degradation. To effectively
reduce running costs throughout the entire lifespan of FCHEVs, it is
essential to consider more practical driving conditions, including
commuter driving for family vehicles and long-distance driving for
commercial vehicles such as taxis, buses, coaches, and trucks. This study
combines rule-based EMS and optimization-based EMS to create an
online real-time EMS for minimizing the total running cost of FCHEVs.
The proposed EMS integrates SOC-based rules into an instantaneous
optimization model that considers hydrogen consumption, battery
consumption, and the degradation of the fuel cell system and battery. It
effectively utilizes battery capacity, applies to practical FCHEV sce­
narios, and reduces running costs throughout the vehicle’s lifespan. The
EMS demonstrates high computational efficiency and adaptability,
without the need for future vehicle speed predictions.
2. Energy consumption model of FCHEV
This section focuses on modeling the energy consumption of
FCHEVs. It begins by introducing the powertrain configuration exam­
ined in the paper. Next, the modeling of key powertrain components,
such as the motor, battery, and PEMFC system, is discussed. Lastly, an
equivalent hydrogen consumption model is developed, which involves
proposing the equivalent efficiency of hydrogen energy transformation
to battery energy.
2.1. Powertrain configuration of FCHEV
The FCHEV is considered as a midsize sedan, and its powertrain
configuration is depicted in Fig. 1. The powertrain components include a
hydrogen tank, PEMFC system, DC/DC converter, battery, DC bus, DC/
AC inverter, driving motor, and transmission system [3]. The DC/DC
converter is connected to the output of the PEMFC system to regulate
fuel cell current to the DC bus, while the battery is directly connected to
the DC bus. The equation representing the driving force of the vehicle at
a given speed and acceleration is expressed as Eq. (1):
1
F(v, v̇) = mV g sin φ + ρAV Cd v2 + mV gCt cos φ + mV v̇ (1)
2
where F is the driving force, v and v̇ are the vehicle speed and acceler­
ation, respectively. The right-hand side of the equation consists of four
terms that correspond to the road incline resistance, aerodynamic drag,
tire rolling resistance, and vehicle acceleration. the mass of vehicle is
denoted by mV, while g presents the gravity acceleration. φ denotes the
road incline angle, ρ represents the air density, AV is the windward area
of vehicle, Cd denotes the drag coefficient, and Ct represents the tire
rolling friction coefficient. The parameter values can be found in
Table 1. Assuming the transmission efficiency is ηt, the required me­
chanical power of vehicle can be expressed by
F(v, v̇)v
Pd = (2)
ηt
Here, we assume that the brake force is full provided by motor, i.e.
the braking energy is fully recycled by the motor if the required braking
torque is lower than the motor torque.
J. Wu et al. Energy 285 (2023) 129442

Fig. 1. Powertrain configuration of the investigated FCHEV.

consumption can then be calculated by following equation

Table 1
Parameters of the powertrain and vehicle. Pfc
ṁH = , LHVH = 120kJ/g (4)
mV AV Cd Ct (− ) RW nd ηt ηD/D ηD/A ηfc LHVH
(kg) (m2) (− ) (m) (− ) (− ) (− ) (− )
where ṁH is the hydrogen consumption ratio, Pfc denotes the output
2000 1.746 0.3 0.0135 0.32 9 0.91 0.9 0.95
power of PEMFC, ηfc is the efficiency of PEMFC system, and LHVH de­
notes the lower heating value of hydrogen [39].
2.2. Components models of powertrain For the auxiliary energy source, a lithium-ion battery pack with the
capacity of 7.4 kWh (23 Ah/320 V) is chosen. The battery pack com­
The energy efficiency of powertrain is influenced by the efficiency of prises 970 lithium-ion cells, each with nominal voltage of 3.3 V and
various components, including the PEMFCS, battery, motor, DC/DC capacity of 2.3 Ah [3]. The battery is modeled using the R-int model
converter and DC/AC inverter. The efficiencies of DC/DC converter and [40], and its equivalent circuit is illustrated in Fig. 4(a). The open-circuit
DC/AC inverter are assumed to be constant values denoted by ηD/D and voltage Uoc depends on the SOC and operating (charging or discharging)
ηD/A, respectively (as shown in Table 1). A 75-kW AC induction motor is mode of battery, as depicted in Fig. 4(b). The internal resistance R of a
used in this paper, and its efficiency map is obtained from ADVISOR single battery cell varies with the SOC and battery mode, as shown in
software [38] (refer to Fig. 2). The motor efficiency depends on the Fig. 4(c) [41]. The battery SOC rate depends on the battery current i and
torque and speed, which can be derived from the vehicle model. the battery charge capacity Qmax [42], shown as follows:
Therefore, the electric power of motor can be expressed as follows
dSOC i(t)
⎧ =− (5)
⎨ Pd , Pd ≥ 0
⎪
F(v, v̇)Rw nd v
dt Qmax
Pm = ηm (T, ω) ,T = ,ω= (3)
⎪
⎩ ηt nd Rw where t denotes the time, and Qmax = 23 Ah. Based on the battery circuit
ηm (T, ω)Pd , Pd ≤ 0
in Fig. 4(a), the Eq. (5) can be transferred to the following equation
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
where ηm is the motor efficiency, Rw represents the rolling radius of
U 2oc (SOC) − 4R(SOC)Pb − Uoc (SOC)
wheel, and nd denotes the total gear ratio of driveline (see Table 1). Here dSOC
= (6)
the brake torque is assumed to be recycled by the motor completely. dt 2Qmax R(SOC)
Considering the same PEMFCS as Ref. [3], the peak power of
where Pb is the output power of battery, the positive value of which
PEMFCS is 30 kW, and its efficiency changing with output power is
means battery is in discharging while the negative value means battery
shown as Fig. 3.
is in charging.
The PEMFCS has a quite low efficiency when its output power is low,
and the highest efficiency point is at about 12 kW. The hydrogen

Fig. 2. Efficiency map of driving motor.

3
J. Wu et al. Energy 285 (2023) 129442

Fig. 3. Efficiency of PEMFCS

Fig. 4. Battery R-int model.

2.3. Equivalent hydrogen consumption model equivalent hydrogen consumption can be calculated using the following
equation:
Since both the PEMFCS and battery contribute to powering the ∫t ∫t
Pfc (t) Pb (t)
vehicle, it is important to compute the equivalent hydrogen consump­ Heq = dt + dt (7)
0 ηfc (t)LHVH 0 ηH− b (t)LHVH
tion of the battery energy in order to accurately describe the energy
consumption of the powertrain using the same evaluation criteria. The

Fig. 5. Power flow of the investigated FCHEV powertrain.

4
J. Wu et al. Energy 285 (2023) 129442

where the first term on the right side is the actual hydrogen consumption
of PEMFCS, while the second term is the additional hydrogen con­
sumption induced by battery. The LHVH denotes the lower heating value
of hydrogen, which is 120000 J/g. The symbols ηH-b denotes the
equivalent battery efficiency, which reflects the conversion of hydrogen
energy to battery electrical energy and is influenced by the power flow
within the powertrain. The expression for ηH-b will be derived based on
the power flow of the powertrain, as shown in Fig. 5.
The power from PEMFCS flows to the battery and/or motor, while
the power flows between battery and motor bidirectionally, and the
detailed power flow can be divided into three cases. In the first case,
when the vehicle required power is greater than the power of PEMFCS, i.
e. Pm > Pfc ηD/D ηD/A > 0, both PEMFCS and battery supply power to
motor simultaneously. In the second case, when the vehicle required
power is greater than zero but less than the power output of PEMFCS, i.e.
Pfc ηD/D ηD/A > Pm > 0, the PEMFCS provides power to both the battery
and the motor simultaneously. In the last case, when the vehicle
required power is equal to or less than zero while the power output of
PEMFC is equal to or greater than zero, i.e. Pfc > 0 > Pm , both PEMFCS
and motor supply power to charge battery. Consequently, the equivalent
power flows from hydrogen to the battery (PH-b) and the motor (PH-m)
can be expressed by following equations.
3. Cost model of FCHEV powertrain
In addition to the equivalent hydrogen consumption, the overall
running cost of the FCHEV powertrain includes the degradation cost of
the PEMFCS and battery. Inappropriate operating conditions, such as
frequent start-stop cycles, high loadings, low loadings, load transitions
of the PEMFCS, and excessive current flow through the battery, can
accelerate the degradation of both components. To address this, a
degradation model for the PEMFCS and battery is established. This
degradation model is then integrated with the equivalent hydrogen
consumption model to develop a comprehensive running cost model for
the FCHEV powertrain.
3.1. Degradation model of PEMFCS
The main factors accelerating the degradation of PEMFCS are the
start-stop cycling, high loadings, low loadings, and load transitions [43].
The start-stop cycling has a dominated negative impact on the duration
of FCHEV. Additionally, the PEMFCS also degrades when it works in the
high efficiency region, at a slower rate compared to low and high
loadings [36]. The voltage degradation of a single fuel cell can be
determined by following equation, assuming that all degradation factors
are independent of each other [36], i.e.

⎧ ⎧
⎪ − Pb ⎪ Pb Pfc
⎪
⎪ , P > Pfc ηD/D ηD/A > 0 ⎪
⎪ + , P > Pfc ηD/D ηD/A > 0
⎪ ηH− b m
⎪ ⎪ ηH− b ηfc m
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ Pfc ⎪
⎨
Pm Pm
PH b = η − η η η , Pfc ηD/D ηD/A ≥ Pm ≥ 0 , PH m= , Pfc ηD/D ηD/A ≥ Pm ≥ 0 (8)
⎪
⎪
⎪ fc fc D/D D/A ⎪ fc D/D ηD/A
⎪
⎪
η η
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ P fc P m ⎪
⎪ Pm
⎪
⎩ − , Pfc > 0 > Pm ⎪
⎩ , Pfc > 0 > Pm
ηfc ηH− m ηH− m

where ηH-b and ηH-m denote the equivalent energy efficiency of hydrogen ΔUfc = αon− off Ncycle + αhigh Thigh + αlow Tlow + αhigh eff Thigh eff + αshift Nshift
transforming to the battery and the motor, and they are defined as the (12)
ratio between the received energy of the component and the consumed
energy of hydrogen by PEMFCS. Therefore, they are expressed by where ΔUfc is the voltage degradation in μV, αon-off denotes the cell
∫t ∫t voltage drop rate per on-off cycling, αhigh is the cell voltage degradation
Eb0 + 0 − Pb dt Pm dt
ηH− b = ∫t , ηH− m = ∫ t 0 (9) rate per hour at high loadings which are defined as when the power of
Eb1 + 0 PH− b dt P
0 H− m
dt PEMFC is higher than 80 % of its maximum power, αlow is the cell voltage
degradation rate per hour at low loadings which are defined as when the
where the Eb0 denotes the initial available energy of battery, and Eb1 is power of PEMFCS is lower than 20 % of its maximum power, αhigh_eff is
the maximum available energy of battery, expressed as the cell voltage degradation rate per hour at the high efficiency region
Eb0 = SOC0 Uoc,0 Qmax , Eb1 = Uoc,1 Qmax (10) that is between 20 % and 80 % maximum power of PEMFCS, and αshift
denotes the cell voltage degrading rate of load transitions. Ncycle, Thigh,
where Uoc,0 and Uoc,1 denote the battery voltage when battery SOC in Tlow, and Nshift denote the number of start-stop cycles, the duration of
initial value and the highest value, respectively. Substituting Eq. (8) into high loadings and low loadings in hour, and the amount of load shifts in
Eq. (9), the ηH-b(t) and ηH-m(t) can be calculated iteratively, but it is kW. The degrading rates are provided in Table 2 [36]. Typically, 10 %
computationally expensive. To reduce computational costs, the upper voltage drop of a fuel cell at rated current density is deemed as the
limit of the integral in Eq. (9) is changed to the previous time (t− ), which failure threshold [43]. Using ΔUEOL,fc denotes the voltage drop until the
has minimal impact on accuracy but eliminates the need for iteration. In end of life, the state-of-health (SOH) of PEMFCS can be expressed by
this case, the upper limit of the integral in Eq. (9) becomes (t− ), and all
ΔUfc
the integrands between the lower and upper limits of the integral have SOHfc = 1 − (13)
ΔUEOL,fc
been determined at the previous time. As a result, the right side of Eq. (9)
no longer includes ηH-b(t) and ηH-m(t), effectively eliminating the need for Based on the Ref. [44], ΔUEOL,fc is set as 60000 μV in this paper.
iteration. Consequently, the equivalent energy efficiency of the battery
and motor can be computed using the following equations.
∫ t− ∫ t−
Eb0 + 0 − Pb dt Pm dt Table 2
ηH− b = ∫ t− , ηH− m = ∫ t− 0 (11)
Eb1 + 0 PH− b dt PH− m dt Parameters of the PEMFCS degradation model.
0
αon-off (μV/cycle) αhigh (μV/h) αlow (μV/h) αhigh_eff (μV/h) αshift (μV/kW)
13.79 11.67 9.42 4.881 0.0423

5
J. Wu et al. Energy 285 (2023) 129442

Table 3 4. Online real-time energy management strategies

Pre-exponential factor as a function of C-rate.
C-rate 0.5 2 6 10 To satisfy the online real-time application, the proposed EMSs are
based on rules and instantaneous optimization model without using the
B 31630 21681 12934 15512
future driving cycle information. Three online real-time EMSs including
a rule-based EMS (REMS), an instantaneous optimization-based EMS
3.2. Degradation model of battery (OEMS), and a rule and optimization combined EMS (ROCEMS) are
proposed to reduce the total running cost of FCHEV throughout its entire
The degradation of the battery is caused by irreversible physical and life cycle.
electrochemical changes, resulting in a gradual decrease in its capacity.
Bloom et al. [45] proposed a battery degradation model based on the 4.1. Rule-based EMS
Arrhenius equation. The equation allows estimating the capacity loss
(ΔQ0) as a percentage of the initial capacity using the following equation To optimize the hydrogen consumption and minimize the degrada­
( ) tion cost of the PEMFCS, a strategy is proposed to limit the operation of
− Ea (c)
ΔQ0 = B(c)exp A(c)z (14) the PEMFCS to specific power levels. The PEMFCS is restricted to work
RT
at five power levels: P1 = 0 kW (off state), P2 = 6 kW, P3 = 12 kW, P4 =
24 kW, and P5 = 30 kW (maximum power). The P2 and P4 are the critical
where B(c) is the pre-exponential factor depending on the C-rate, Ea(c) is
points of high efficiency region, i.e. the 20 % and 80 % of its maximum
the activation energy, R is the ideal gas constant, T is the lumped cell
power. The aim is to keep the PEMFCS operating in the high efficiency
temperature, and z is the power-law factor. Under the assumption of
region as much as possible, which corresponds to power levels P2 to P4.
constant operating conditions, the total throughput A(c) in Ah is a
These power levels have lower degradation rates compared to the low
function of the C-rate. The model parameters used in the equation were
efficiency region. The off state (P1) of the PEMFCS has a degradation rate
derived from the data published in Ref. [46]. These parameters are
of zero, but starting it in the future may result in increased degradation.
summarized in following equations and Table 3 [47].
Therefore, the PEMFCS is turned off only when the battery SOC reaches
Ea (c) = 31700 the upper bound to avoid unnecessary degradation. The PEMFCS adjusts
− 370.3c (J / mol), z = 0.55, R = 8.31 (J / mol.K), T = 313 (K) (15) its output power levels based on the battery SOC. It operates at the high
efficiency region (P2 to P4) whenever possible to minimize hydrogen
Using Eq. (14), we can calculate the throughput Ah AEOL(c) and the consumption and degradation. It only ramps up to the maximum power
total number of cycles NEOL at the end-of-life of battery as follows (P5) when the battery SOC reaches the lower bound, indicating a high
⎛ ⎞1z power demand from the vehicle. By implementing this strategy, the
ΔQEOL AEOL (c) PEMFCS operates at its highest efficiency points while avoiding the low
⎜ )⎟
AEOL (c) = ⎝ ( ⎠ , NEOL = (16) efficiency region.
Qcell
The frequent change of PEMFCS power brings rapidly degradation of
− Ea (c)
B(c)exp RT
PEMFCS, so it should be avoided. The gear shift strategy of gearbox is
The end-of-life is defined as a 20 % capacity fade, so ΔQEOL is set as employed here, which is explained by Fig. 6. The battery SOC is required
20. Qcell represents the initial capacity of a single battery in Ah. Based on to stay in an intermediate interval, otherwise the battery degrades
the definition, the SOH of battery can be determined using following rapidly, so the battery SOC is used as the shift condition of PEMFCS. The
differential equation [3]. downshift points are SOCH1, SOCH2, SOCH3, and SOCH4, and upshift
points are noted by SOCL1, SOCL2, SOCL3, and SOCL4. For example, if the
dSOHb |icell |
=− (17) current power of PEMFCS is P1, it would upshift to P2 when battery SOC
dt 2NEOL Qcell
is lower than SOCL1. However, the PEMFCS only downshift from P2 to P1
in this equation, the initial SOH of battery is considered to be 100 %, and when the battery SOC is higher than SOCH1, which is much larger than
the icell represents the current from a single battery cell. SOCL1, so it can avoid the frequently state change between P1 and P2.
More detailed rules can be expressed by following flow chart (see Fig. 7).
3.3. Total running cost model of FCHEV powertrain The battery SOC changes between SOCL4 and SOCH1 to take full
advantage of the battery capacity from 20% to 80 %. The changing range
The total running cost of the FCHEV is determined by the cost of of battery SOC is suggested to be wide enough, otherwise the PEMFCS
equivalent hydrogen consumption and the degradation cost of PEMFCS needs to frequently change its output power, which aggravates its
and battery. It can be expressed as follows. degradation. After the manual tuning of parameters, the shift points of
∫ t( ) battery SOC used in this paper are shown in Table 4. The REMS aims to
γ
Ceq =CHeq +Cfc,d +Cb,d = H
Pfc (t) Pb (t)
+
( )
dt+γ fc 1− SOHfc Pfc,max make the PEMFCS work in the high efficiency region for most of the
LHVH 0 ηfc (t) ηH− b (t) time, reducing both the hydrogen consumption and PEMFCS degrada­
+γ b (1− SOHb )Eb tion. Moreover, it also reduces the possibility of load shifting and start-
stop cycles of PEMFCS by increasing the allowed changing range of
(18)
battery SOC, potentially slowing down the degradation of PEMFCS
where the CHeq, Cfc,d, and Cb,d represent the cost of equivalent hydrogen further.
consumption, the degradation cost of PEMFCS and battery, respectively.
The maximum output power of PEMFCS is Pfc,max = 30 kW, and the 4.2. Instantaneous optimization-based EMS
battery capacity is Eb = 7.5 kWh. The coefficients γH, γfc, and γb denote
the price of hydrogen, PEMFC stack, and battery, respectively, in USD/ The OEMS aims to minimize the total running cost at each time step
kg, USD/kW, and USD/kWh. Based on Ref. [1], the prices of hydrogen by considering the increment of total running cost. Based on Eq. (16) and
and PEMFC stack are set as γ H = 5.00 USD/kg, γfc = 75.00 USD/kW, assuming a time step of 1 s, the increment of running cost at each time
while the price of battery is set as γb = 150 USD/kWh [48]. step can be expressed as

6
J. Wu et al. Energy 285 (2023) 129442

Fig. 6. Shift map of PEMFCS.

Fig. 7. The flow chart of REMS.

Table 4
Shift points of battery SOC in REMS.
Parameters SOCL1 SOCL2 SOCL3 SOCL4 SOCH1 SOCH2 SOCH3 SOCH4

Values 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.8 0.75 0.7 0.65

γH Pfc γ H Pb γ fc Pmax,fc ΔUfc

ΔCeq = ΔCHeq + ΔCfc,d + ΔCb,d = + + γH Pfc γ H Pb βH βL γ fc Pmax,fc ΔUfc γ Eb |icell |
ηfc LHVH ηH− b LHVH ΔUEOL,fc ΔCeq = + + + b (20)
βH ηfc LHVH βL ηH− b LHVH ΔUEOL,fc 2NEOL Qcell
γ b Eb |icell |
+
2NEOL Qcell When the battery SOC is close to the allowed lower bound, the bat­
(19) tery should be minimized, so the coefficient βL increases the cost of using
battery. Conversely, when the battery SOC is close to the upper bound,
By minimizing Eq. (18) at each time step, the total running cost is the battery should be used more frequently, so the coefficient βH in­
expected to decrease, but this optimization may result in the battery SOC creases the cost of using PEMFC. To simplify the expression of βH and βL,
exceeding its allowed changing range. Therefore, in order to control the a linear function with respect to battery SOC is used, expressed by
battery SOC within the allowed range, two SOC-dependent coefficients,
βH and βL, are introduced to adjust the objective function. The modified βL = a(SOC − SOCL ), βH = a(SOCH − SOC) (21)
objective function is expressed as

Fig. 8. Adjusting coefficients changing with battery SOC.

7
J. Wu et al.
where a is the slope of the linear function. At the same time, both two
coefficients are limited to change between 0.01 and 1. Considering the
lower and upper bounds of SOC are set as SOCL = 0.2, and SOCH = 0.8,
we set a = 5 in this paper, then the plot of the two coefficients is shown
as Fig. 8.
It can be found that when the battery SOC closes to the allowed upper
bound 0.8, βH become smaller, increasing the cost of PEMFCS and
indicating that the battery is expected to provide more power.
Conversely, βL increases the cost of the battery when the SOC ap­
proaches the lower bound of 0.2, encouraging the PEMFCS to provide
more power. When the battery SOC is between 0.4 and 0.6, the two
adjusting coefficients remain at 1, indicating that they do not affect the
cost weight within this interval. During each time step, the degradation
cost of the PEMFCS caused by changes in load is typically larger than the
other terms in the optimization model. This leads the model to strive for
a stable power output from the PEMFCS. However, to maintain the
battery SOC within the allowed range, the power output of the PEMFCS
needs to be adjusted. Consequently, the third term in Eq. (19) is also
multiplied by the two coefficients (βH and βL), which weakens its impact
on load changes and effectively manages the battery SOC. In summary,
the two adjusting coefficients are utilized to control the battery SOC, and
they only come into play when the battery SOC is close to the allowed
bounds.
Due to the PEMFCS is low efficient when its output power is lower
than the 20 % of its maximum power, and it also has high degrading rate
in this region, so the PEMFCS should avoid to work in this region.
Finally, the REMS can be expressed by following optimization model.
min ΔCeq =
γH Pfc
+
γ H Pb
+
βH βL γ fc Pfc,max ΔUfc γ Eb |icell |
+ b
Pfc βH ηfc LHVH βL ηH− b LHVH ΔUEOL,fc 2NEOL Qcell
s.t. Pfc = 0 kW, or 6kW ≤ Pfc ≤ Pfc, max ;
βL = a(SOC − SOCL ), βH = a(SOCH − SOC)
(22)
Since there is only one design variable, the enumerating method is
used to seek the approximated global optimum. The design variable Pfc
is discretized by using a regular grid with the grid width of 1 kW. The
objective function values are computed at each discretized point, and
the point with the minimum objective function value is selected as the
optimal solution. Considering the high computational efficiency of the
optimization model, it can be implemented as a real-time EMS due to its
ability to provide timely decisions and control actions based on the
current system state.
4.3. Rule and optimization combined EMS
This subsection proposes a ROCEMS, which is expected to obtain
better performance. The main idea is that the power levels of PEMFCS
under the REMS are changed to power intervals, and then the detailed
power of PEMFCS is selected from the power intervals by using the
optimization model in OEMS. The detailed rules are expressed by
following equation.
⎧
I1 = P1 , SOC ≥ SOCH1
⎪
⎪
⎨
I2 = [P1 , P2 ], SOCH3 ≤ SOC < SOCH1
Pfc ∈ (23)
⎪
⎪ I = [P1 , P3 ], SOCL4 < SOC < SOCH3
⎩ 3
I4 = [P3 , P5 ], SOC ≤ SOCL4
where the interval bounds Pi and shift points of battery SOC are the same
values shown in subsection 4.1. When the battery SOC is larger than 0.8,
the output power of PEMFC is 0 kW, i.e. it is off-state, which is the same
rule as subsection 4.1. For the other three cases, the optimum working
points are determined by optimization model. Therefore, the ROCEMS
can be expressed by following optimization model, which has integrated
the rules shown in Eq. (23) into the constraints of the optimization
model.
8
Energy 285 (2023) 129442
γH Pfc γ H Pb βH βL γfc Pfc,max ΔUfc γ Eb |icell |
min ΔCeq = + + + b
Pfc βH ηfc LHVH βL ηH− b LHVH ΔUEOL,fc 2NEOL Qcell
s.t. if SOC ≥ 0.8, then Pfc = 0 kW
if 0.7 ≤ SOC < 0.8, then Pfc = 0 kW or 6 kW;
if 0.2 < SOC < 0.7, then Pfc = 0 kW, or 6 kW ≤ Pfc ≤ 12 kW;
if SOC ≤ 0.2, then 12 kW ≤ Pfc ≤ 30 kW;
βL = a(SOC − SOCL ), βH = a(SOCH − SOC)
(24)
Compared to the optimization model of OEMS shown in Eq. (22) the
optimization model of ROCEMS can be thought as the original optimi­
zation model of OEMS with more constraints, and the constraints are the
battery SOC-based rules. The same enumerating method is used to solve
the optimization model, which can satisfy the requirement of real-time
control.
5. Results and discussion
This section presents the performance of the proposed three EMSs
under different driving conditions, which are categorized into short
distance driving cycles, long distance driving cycles consisting of mul­
tiple repeated driving cycles, and commuter driving cycles based on
standard driving cycles with several hours of stops. For the short dis­
tance driving cycles, the DP method is directly utilized to generate the
reference solution. However, for the long distance driving cycles and
commuter driving cycles, the computational cost of applying DP directly
to solve such lengthy driving cycles is prohibitive. Hence, the DP method
is employed to determine the optimal solution for a single driving cycle,
which is then repeated for each driving cycle in the sequence.
5.1. Short distance driving cycles
This subsection focuses on the analysis of two repeated LA92 driving
cycles as short distance driving cycles. The three proposed strategies for
power allocation between the PEMFCS and battery are applied. In order
to facilitate comparison, the DP method is utilized to generate the
reference solution. To minimize computational costs, the discrete step
for PEMFCS output power is set to 1 kW. Since the battery SOC at the end
of the driving cycle differs for the three strategies, the DP method is
executed three times, with the battery SOC set to be the same as each of
the three strategies. These are denoted as DP-REMS, DP-OEMS, and DP-
ROCEMS, respectively, ensuring a fair comparison between the strate­
gies. The simulation results are presented in Fig. 9, considering an initial
battery SOC of 0.5.
For the REMS, the PEMFCS remains in the off state initially and starts
at 6 kW around 460 s when the battery SOC drops to 0.35. Subsequently,
the battery SOC gradually decreases to 0.3, and the PEMFCS shifts to 12
kW until the end of the driving cycles, causing the battery SOC to in­
crease gradually to 0.59. In the case of DP-REMS, the PEMFCS starts at
12 kW initially and transitions to 11 kW after 600 s. The battery SOC
gradually increases to above 0.7, after which the PEMFCS reduces its
power output until it stops. The REMS results in an initial decrease and
subsequent increase in battery SOC, while DP-REMS initially increases
and then decreases the battery SOC, ultimately converging to similar
levels at the end of the driving cycles.
In OEMS, the PEMFCS starts at 30 kW after 900 s when the battery
SOC is around 0.2, causing the battery SOC to quickly increase to 0.7.
From 1500 s onwards, the PEMFCS power decreases to 6 kW until the
end of the driving cycles, resulting in a gradual decrease in the battery
SOC to 0.65. DP-OEMS has a similar PEMFCS power profile to DP-REMS,
but it keeps the PEMFCS active for a longer time due to a higher final
battery SOC.
For the ROCEMS, the PEMFCS is initiated at 12 kW at 900 s and
maintains this power level until the end of the driving cycles. The
J. Wu et al.
Fig. 9. Simulation results for two repeated LA92 driving cycles.
battery SOC profile of ROCEMS resembles that of REMS, but the former
results in a lower minimum battery SOC value before returning to 0.5 at
the end. In the case of DP-ROCEMS, the power profile of the PEMFCS is
similar to that of DP-REMS, but DP-ROCEMS shuts down the PEMFCS
earlier, aiming to achieve a final battery SOC of 0.5.
In terms of running cost, the OEMS stands out with significantly
higher costs compared to the other strategies. This is because the OEMS
9
Energy 285 (2023) 129442
allows the PEMFCS to operate at 30 kW, which is a region of low effi­
ciency and high degradation. On the other hand, the ROCEMS achieves
the lowest equivalent cost among the three proposed strategies by
maximizing the PEMFCS’s operating time in the highest efficiency
range. The DP-REMS and DP-ROCEMS show slightly better performance
than the REMS and ROCEMS, respectively, but the difference is
negligible.
J. Wu et al. Energy 285 (2023) 129442

Table 5 cycles (approximately 13 h of operation time), a modified approach is

Detailed running cost for each EMS. adopted. The DP method is utilized to obtain the solution for a single
FC-C B–C FC-D B-D Ceq combined long driving cycle, and this solution is then applied to the
(USD) (USD) (USD) (USD) (USD) subsequent driving cycles. Considering computational efficiency, only
REMS 2.05 − 0.20 0.66 0.26 2.77 the DP-ROCEMS strategy is considered, as it exhibits the lowest running
DP-REMS 2.03 − 0.19 0.67 0.25 2.76 cost among the three proposed strategies. To align the battery SOC with
OEMS 2.49 − 0.37 0.75 0.30 3.17 that of the ROCEMS at the end of the ten repeated driving cycles, the
DP-OEMS 2.16 − 0.33 0.68 0.25 2.76 battery SOC of the DP method is adjusted. For instance, if the final
ROCEMS 1.86 − 0.01 0.64 0.26 2.75
DP- 1.83 0.00 0.66 0.25 2.74
battery SOC of the ROCEMS is 0.7 with an initial value of 0.5, then DP-
ROCEMS ROCEMS sets the final battery SOC as 0.52 for the single integrated
driving cycle, ensuring a final battery SOC of 0.7 after the 10 repeated
driving cycles.
The detailed cost breakdown for each EMS is presented in Table 5. The OEMS strategy exhibits more start-stop cycles compared to the
The equivalent hydrogen consumption cost (FC–C + B–C) for all stra­ other strategies, leading to an incremental increase in PEMFCS degra­
tegies, except OEMS, is quite similar, ranging from 1.83 USDs to 1.85 dation cost with each startup cycle. Moreover, OEMS operates the
USDs. The OEMS incurs higher hydrogen consumption costs due to PEMFCS at maximum power during certain periods, resulting in higher
prolonged operation in the low-efficiency region. In terms of degrada­ hydrogen consumption cost and PEMFCS degradation cost. On the other
tion cost, the ROCEMS has the lowest while the OEMS has the highest. hand, the REMS and ROCEMS strategies demonstrate similar power
As a result, the OEMS has the highest total running cost at 3.17 USDs, profiles for the PEMFCS, with the PEMFCS operating at 6 kW for most of
followed by the REMS at 2.77 USDs, and the ROCEMS at 2.75 USDs. The the time and occasionally at 12 kW, leading to a lower running cost. For
DP-based strategies have slightly lower running costs than the REMS and the DP-ROCEMS, the PEMFCS power varies between 7 kW and 8 kW,
ROCEMS, respectively, but the difference is so small that it can be while the battery SOC changes gradually to match the value of the
neglected. Therefore, the proposed REMS and ROCEMS exhibit almost ROCEMS at the end of the driving cycles.
the same optimal performance as the DP. The analysis shows that the The battery SOC for all three strategies fluctuates within the pre­
hydrogen consumption cost and degradation cost of the PEMFCS make defined interval range of 0.2–0.8, but the OEMS exhibits more frequent
up around 65 % and 25 % of the total running cost in all EMS strategies, fluctuations compared to the REMS and ROCEMS, leading to higher
respectively. It is evident that the start-stop cycles significantly battery degradation cost. In terms of running cost, the hydrogen con­
contribute to the degradation cost of the PEMFCS, as demonstrated by sumption cost remains the primary factor and is significantly higher
the sharp increase in running cost depicted in Fig. 9. Thus, for real-world than the PEMFCS degradation cost in the short-distance driving cycles.
driving conditions throughout the lifespan of FCHEVs, reducing the The battery consumption cost remains relatively stable around zero, as
frequency of start-stop cycles and ensuring that the PEMFCS operates in the energy consumed by the battery is negligible compared to the
the high-efficiency region are crucial measures for minimizing the total hydrogen consumption in the long-distance driving cycles.
running cost. The detailed running cost of EMSs are shown in Table 6. The REMS
and ROCEMS strategies achieve nearly a 10 % reduction in running costs
5.2. Long distance driving cycles compared to the OEMS. The higher cost of the OEMS is primarily due to
the increased loading and more start-stop cycles of the PEMFCS. The DP-
The long distance driving cycles are employed to assess the running ROCEMS has a slightly higher cost than the ROCEMS strategy because it
cost of business vehicles such as taxis, buses, and coaches. In this study, uses a sectionalized DP approach for a single combined driving cycle.
the FCHEV under investigation is considered as a taxi due to its classi­ The proportion of hydrogen cost increases to over 80 %, while the
fication as a light vehicle. To account for various standard driving cycles, PEMFCS degradation cost decreases to below 10 %, which is similar to
the LA92, NEDC, HWFET, and UDDS driving cycles are combined in the battery degradation cost. Therefore, for continuous long-distance
sequence to form an extended driving cycle. The speed and power driving cycles, reducing hydrogen consumption cost is the key mea­
profiles of this combined driving cycle are illustrated in Fig. 10. sure for lowering the total running cost.
To simulate the daily operation of a taxi, the combined long driving The computational time for simulating the 10 repeated driving cycles
cycle is repeated ten times, covering a total driving distance of 550 km. of REMS, OEMS, and ROCEMS is only a few seconds using MATLAB/
The simulation results are presented in Fig. 11. Due to the high Simulink software on a laptop with a 2.30 GHz CPU and 16 GB RAM.
computational cost of the DP method for the entire 10 repeated driving This indicates that the proposed EMSs are capable of real-time control.

Fig. 10. Speed and power profile for the integrated long driving cycle.

10
J. Wu et al. Energy 285 (2023) 129442

Fig. 11. Results of the long distance driving cycles.

However, the single driving cycle of DP took over 17 h on a workstation
with a 2.5 GHz CPU and 128 GB RAM using the same software. This
highlights the impracticality of using DP directly to design the allocating
strategy for the entire 10 repeated driving cycles.
5.3. Commuter driving cycles
To simulate the commuter driving cycles, we assume that the user
drives the vehicle from home to the office at 7 a.m. and returns home at
6 p.m. on working days. Each single trip is represented by a standard
driving cycle, with the NEDC driving cycle being used as an example

11
J. Wu et al. Energy 285 (2023) 129442

Table 6 without the PEMFCS starting, the vehicle relies solely on the battery,
Detailed running cost for the long distance driving cycles. resulting in a rapid decrease in battery SOC. Conversely, when the
FC-C B–C FC-D B-D Ceq PEMFCS starts during a trip, the battery SOC increases rapidly.
(USD) (USD) (USD) (USD) (USD) The DP is employed to generate the reference solution using two
REMS 27.82 − 0.65 2.99 3.05 33.21 different strategies. The first strategy, termed DP-S, produces the
OEMS 29.16 − 0.68 4.35 3.31 36.13 reference solution for a single trip using DP and then repeats this solu­
ROCEMS 27.68 − 0.49 2.97 3.06 33.21 tion for each trip. The second strategy, DP-ROCEMS, utilizes DP to
DP- 27.89 − 0.51 2.97 3.00 33.35 produce the solution only for the trip in which the PEMFCS starts under
ROCEMS
the control of ROCEMS. Hence, the PEMFCS operation in DP-ROCEMS
aligns with that of ROCEMS. Since the PEMFCS starts in the 5th trip
here. The simulation duration is set as one week, consisting of 5 working for all EMSs, the output power of the PEMFCS and battery SOC for this
days. During this time, there are 10 standard driving cycles with several trip are plotted in Fig. 13.
hours of downtime between each consecutive driving cycle. In the simulation results, it is evident that for DP-S and DP-ROCEMS,
The simulation results of commuter NEDC driving cycles for a week the PEMFCS starts at the beginning of the trip. However, DP-S operates
are presented in Fig. 12, with the x-axis representing the days. It can be the PEMFCS for a shorter period compared to DP-ROCEMS. This is
observed that not every trip requires the PEMFCS to start. In the case of because DP-S aims to achieve a final battery SOC equal to the initial
REMS, the PEMFCS starts 5 times, while for OEMS and ROCEMS, it only value of 0.5, whereas DP-ROCEMS allows the battery SOC to increase
starts 3 times. This means that REMS activates the PEMFCS every 2 trips, from 0.27 to 0.72, requiring a longer operation time for the PEMFCS.
whereas OEMS and ROCEMS activate it every 3 trips. During the trips Regarding the proposed EMS strategies, they start the PEMFCS during

Fig. 12. Results of the commuter HWFET driving cycles.

12
J. Wu et al. Energy 285 (2023) 129442

Fig. 13. Speed profile and PEMFCS power during a single HWFET trip.

terms of running cost, with a total cost of 8.77 USDs. The PEMFCS
Table 7
degradation cost is noticeably reduced compared to the previous two
Detailed running cost for the commuter driving cycles.
EMSs, as the PEMFCS is only started three times. However, the equiv­
FC-C B–C FC-D B-D Ceq alent hydrogen consumption cost is the highest at 5.86 USDs due to the
(USD) (USD) (USD) (USD) (USD)
significant amount of low-efficiency operating points for the PEMFCS.
REMS 5.51 − 0.18 3.22 1.05 9.60 Fourthly, ROCEMS further reduces the total running cost to 7.91 USDs
OEMS 5.45 0.41 2.10 0.81 8.77
by ensuring that the PEMFCS operates in the high-efficiency region for a
ROCEMS 4.74 0.35 1.96 0.86 7.91
DP-S 5.08 0.00 5.96 0.75 11.80 longer duration, effectively reducing both the equivalent hydrogen
DP- 4.53 0.52 1.90 0.69 7.65 consumption cost and PEMFCS degradation cost. Finally, DP-ROCEMS
ROCEMS achieves the lowest running cost (7.65 USDs), with slightly lower
degradation costs for both the PEMFCS and battery. However, the
improvement compared to ROCEMS is not significant. It’s important to
the latter stage of the trip and continue its operation until the battery
note that DP-ROCEMS utilizes information generated by ROCEMS,
SOC reaches the upper limit of 0.8. In this stage, the OEMS predomi­
particularly regarding which trips require the PEMFCS to start.
nantly operates the PEMFCS at its maximum power, allowing for faster
ROCEMS, on the other hand, does not rely on any predicted information
battery charging and earlier shutdown. The PEMFCS in the ROCEMS
for individual trips, making it highly applicable. Overall, the number of
works at the highest efficiency point of 12 kW for most of the time,
start-stop cycles for the PEMFCS has the greatest impact on the total
leading to a reduced hydrogen consumption cost. In contrast, the REMS
running cost for commuter driving cycles. Therefore, reducing the start-
keeps the PEMFCS working at 6 kW, resulting in a longer charging time
stop cycles of the PEMFCS becomes the key factor in minimizing the
for the battery.
total running cost for such driving scenarios.
Table 7 provides a detailed breakdown of the running costs for each
Based on the results obtained from the analysis of short distance
EMS. From the analysis of Fig. 12 and Table 7, several observations can
driving cycles, long distance driving cycles, and commuter driving cy­
be made.
cles, we have summarized the performance of the proposed three EMSs
Firstly, DP-S has the highest running cost, primarily due to the
in Table 8. The table indicates that the ROCEMS demonstrates the best
frequent start-stop cycles of the PEMFCS, as it needs to be started in each
adaptation to different driving conditions among the three online EMSs.
trip. Although DP-S has a low equivalent hydrogen consumption cost
(5.08 USDs), it results in the highest fuel cell degradation cost (5.96
USDs). Secondly, REMS has the second-highest running cost, with
Table 8
relatively high costs in each term. This includes a significant equivalent Comparison of the proposed EMSs.
hydrogen consumption cost (5.33 USDs), PEMFCS degradation cost
Short distance Long distance Commuter Comprehensive
(3.22 USDs), and battery degradation cost (1.05 USDs). These costs are
mainly influenced by the higher number of start-stop cycles of the REMS ** *** * **
PEMFCS and increased battery usage. Thirdly, OEMS ranks third in OEMS * * ** *
ROCEMS *** *** *** ***

13
J. Wu et al.
The REMS shows better performance for continuous driving cycles
compared to the OEMS, while the OEMS performs better for commuter
driving cycles. The ROCEMS effectively reduces the total running cost
for the entire life cycle of FCHEVs and achieves performance that closely
resembles the offline DP-based EMS.
6. Conclusions
This paper proposes three online real-time EMSs to minimize the
total running cost of FCHEVs by considering the degradation of PEMFCS
and battery. REMS uses a gear shift strategy based on battery SOC to
reduce costs. OEMS optimizes instantaneous costs by adjusting weight­
ings with battery SOC-based coefficients. ROCEMS combines features of
REMS and OEMS to prioritize objectives. The proposed EMSs were
evaluated under different driving conditions: short distance driving
cycles, long distance driving cycles, and commuter driving cycles.
For short and long distance driving cycles, REMS and ROCEMS
performed similarly to the offline dynamic programming (DP) solution
in terms of running cost. However, OEMS had significantly higher
running costs due to operating the PEMFCS in the low efficiency region
for extended periods and generating more start-stop cycles. In the case of
commuter driving cycles, REMS had the highest running cost, while
ROCEMS had the lowest running cost among the three strategies. REMS
had more start-stop cycles of the PEMFCS, leading to higher PEMFCS
degradation costs compared to the other strategies. To minimize running
costs in continuous driving cycles, improving the efficiency of PEMFCS
working points is crucial. For commuter driving cycles, reducing start-
stop cycles of the PEMFCS is key. ROCEMS outperformed the other
strategies by improving the average working efficiency of the PEMFCS
and reducing start-stop cycles for different driving conditions, making it
the best-performing strategy overall.
The conclusions of the paper suggest that reducing start-stop cycles
of PEMFCS and utilizing battery capacity effectively can help minimize
running costs. However, these findings are based on specific power sizes
of PEMFCS and batteries used in the study. Changes in power sizes,
battery capacity, and economic factors may require reevaluation and
adjustment of optimal control parameters. Therefore, while the con­
clusions are valuable, they should be applied with consideration of
varying system parameters and economic conditions.
Credit author statement
Jinglai Wu: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Soft­
ware, Writing. Yunqing Zhang: Conceptualization, review & editing.
Zhaowen Liang: Investigation, Visualization. Jiageng Ruan: Software,
Validation, review & editing. Kai Liu: Data Curation, Visualization. The
entire work is executed with the guidance of Jinglai Wu.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgement
This research is supported in part by National Science Foundation of
China (12272142), and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central
Universities (2172021XXJS048).
14
Energy 285 (2023) 129442
References
[1] Wang Y, Pang Y, Xu H, Martinez A, Chen KS. PEM Fuel cell and electrolysis cell
technologies and hydrogen infrastructure development – a review. Energy Environ
Sci 2022;15(6):2288–328.
[2] Lü X, Wu Y, Lian J, Zhang Y, Chen C, Wang P, et al. Energy management of hybrid
electric vehicles: a review of energy optimization of fuel cell hybrid power system
based on genetic algorithm. Energy Convers Manag 2020;205:112474.
[3] Zhou Y, Ravey A, Péra M-C. Real-time cost-minimization power-allocating strategy
via model predictive control for fuel cell hybrid electric vehicles. Energy Convers
Manag 2021;229:113721.
[4] Fletcher T, Thring R, Watkinson M. An Energy Management Strategy to
concurrently optimise fuel consumption & PEM fuel cell lifetime in a hybrid
vehicle. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2016;41(46):21503–15.
[5] Chen H, Liu Z, Ye X, Yi L, Xu S, Zhang T. Air flow and pressure optimization for air
supply in proton exchange membrane fuel cell system. Energy 2022;238:121949.
[6] Liu Z, Chen H, Peng L, Ye X, Xu S, Zhang T. Feedforward-decoupled closed-loop
fuzzy proportion-integral-derivative control of air supply system of proton
exchange membrane fuel cell. Energy 2022;240:122490.
[7] Song K, Li F, Hu X, He L, Niu W, Lu S, et al. Multi-mode energy management
strategy for fuel cell electric vehicles based on driving pattern identification using
learning vector quantization neural network algorithm. J Power Sources 2018;389:
230–9.
[8] Gao J, Sun F, He H, Zhu G, Strangas E. A comparative study of supervisory control
strategies for a series hybrid electric vehicle. In: 2009 Asia-Pacific power and
energy Engineering Conference. Wuhan; 2009. China.
[9] Li D, Feng D. Thermostatic control for series hydraulic hybrid vehicle (SHHV)
energy management. Adv Mater Res 2012;512:2676–81.
[10] Song K, Chen H, Wen P, Zhang T, Zhang B, Zhang T. A comprehensive evaluation
framework to evaluate energy management strategies of fuel cell electric vehicles.
Electrochim Acta 2018;292:960–73.
[11] Guo J, He H, Li J, Liu Q. Real-time energy management of fuel cell hybrid electric
buses: fuel cell engines friendly intersection speed planning. Energy 2021;226:
120440.
[12] Zhou W, Yang L, Cai Y, Ying T. Dynamic programming for new energy vehicles
based on their work modes Part II: fuel cell electric vehicles. J Power Sources 2018;
407:92–104.
[13] Ansarey M, Shariat Panahi M, Ziaratic H, Mahjoob M. Optimal energy management
in a dual-storage fuel-cell hybrid vehicle using multi-dimensional dynamic
programming. J Power Sources 2014;250:359–71.
[14] Zhao X, Wang L, Zhou Y, Pan B, Wang R, Wang L, et al. Energy management
strategies for fuel cell hybrid electric vehicles: classification, comparison, and
outlook. Energy Convers Manag 2022;270:116179.
[15] Zeng T, Zhang C, Zhang Y, Deng C, Hao D, Zhu Z, et al. Optimization-oriented
adaptive equivalent consumption minimization strategy based on short-term
demand power prediction for fuel cell hybrid vehicle. Energy 2021;227:120305.
[16] Skugor B, Deur J, Cipek M, Pavkovi D. Design of a power-split hybrid electric
vehicle control system utilizing a rule-based controller and an equivalent
consumption minimization strategy. Proc Inst Mech Eng - Part D J Automob Eng
2014;228(6):631–48.
[17] Zhou Y, Li H, Ravey A, Péra M-C. An integrated predictive energy management for
light-duty range-extended plug-in fuel cell electric vehicle. J Power Sources 2020;
451:227780.
[18] Hu D, Wang Y, Li J, Yang Q, Wang J. Investigation of optimal operating
temperature for the PEMFC and its tracking control for energy saving in vehicle
applications. Energy Convers Manag 2021;249:114842.
[19] Zhou Y, Ravey A, Péra M-C. Multi-mode predictive energy management for fuel
cell hybrid electric vehicles using Markov driving pattern recognizer. Appl Energy
2020;258:114057.
[20] Hemi H, Ghouili J, Cheriti A. Combination of Markov chain and optimal control
solved by Pontryagin’s Minimum Principle for a fuel cell/supercapacitor vehicle.
Energy Convers Manag 2015;91:387–93.
[21] Odeim F, Roes J, Heinzel A. Power management optimization of a fuel cell/
battery/supercapacitor hybrid system for Transit bus applications. IEEE Trans Veh
Technol 2016;65(7):5783–8.
[22] Song K, Wang X, Li F, Sorrentino M, Zheng B. Pontryagin’s minimum principle-
based real-time energy management strategy for fuel cell hybrid electric vehicle
considering both fuel economy and power source durability. Energy 2020;205:
118064.
[23] Ou K, Yuan W-W, Kim Y-B. Development of optimal energy management for a
residential fuel cell hybrid power system with heat recovery. Energy 2021;219:
119499.
[24] Hu X, Murgovski N, Johannesson L, Egardt B. Optimal Dimensioning and Power
Management of a Fuel Cell/Battery Hybrid Bus via Convex Programming IEEE/
ASME TRANSACTIONS ON MECHATRONICS 2015;20.
[25] Elbert P, Widmer M, Gisler HJ, Onder C. Stochastic dynamic programming for the
enregy management of a serial hybrid electric bus. Int J Veh Des 2015;65(7):
5783–8.
[26] Caux S, Gaoua Y, Lopez P. A combinatorial optimisation approach to energy
management strategy for a hybrid fuel cell vehicle. Energy 2017;133:219–30.
[27] Hong Z, Li Q, Han Y, Shang W, Zhu Y, Chen W. An energy management strategy
based on dynamic power factor for fuel cell/battery hybrid locomotive. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2018;43(6):3261–72.
[28] Gao H, Wang Z, Yin S, Lu J, Guo Z, Ma W. Adaptive real-time optimal energy
management strategy based on equivalent factors optimization for hybrid fuel cell
system. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2021;46(5):4329–38.
J. Wu et al.
[29] Li H, Ravey A, N’Diaye A, Djerdir A. Online adaptive equivalent consumption
minimization strategy for fuel cell hybrid electric vehicle considering power
sources degradation. Energy Convers Manag 2019;192:133–49.
[30] Wu J, Zhang N, Tan D, Chang J, Shi W. A robust online energy management
strategy for fuel cell/battery hybrid electric vehicles. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2020;
45(27):14093–107.
[31] Motapon SN, Dessaint L-A, Al-Haddad K. 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 2014;61(11):6148–56.
[32] Quan R, Li Z, Liu P, Li Y, Chang Y, Yan H. Minimum hydrogen consumption-based
energy management strategy for hybrid fuel cell unmanned aerial vehicles using
direction prediction optimal foraging algorithm. Fuel Cell 2023;23(2):221–36.
[33] Liu Y, Li J, Chen Z, Qin D, Zhang Y. Research on a multi-objective hierarchical
prediction energy management strategy for range extended fuel cell vehicles.
J Power Sources 2019;429:55–66.
[34] Hu X, Zou C, Tang X, Liu T, Hu L. Cost-optimal energy management of hybrid
electric vehicles using fuel cell/battery health-aware predictive control. IEEE Trans
Power Electron 2020;35(1):382–92.
[35] Quan S, Wang Y-X, Xiao X, He H, Sun F. Real-time energy management for fuel cell
electric vehicle using speed prediction-based model predictive control considering
performance degradation. Appl Energy 2021;304:117845.
[36] He H, Jia C, Li J. A new cost-minimizing power-allocating strategy for the hybrid
electric bus with fuel cell/battery health-aware control. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2022;47(52):22147–64.
[37] https://www.car-engineer.com/the-different-driving-cycles/.
15
Energy 285 (2023) 129442
[38] ADVISOR. Advanced Vehicle Simulator. http://adv-vehicle-sim.sourceforge.net/.
[39] Ettihir K, Boulon L, Agbossou K. Optimization-based energy management strategy
for a fuel cell/battery hybrid power system. Appl Energy 2016;163:142–53.
[40] David Huang K, Tzeng S-C. A new parallel-type hybrid electric-vehicle. Appl
Energy 2004;79(1):51–64.
[41] Windarko NA. SOC estimation based on OCV for NiMH batteries using an improved
takacs model. Journal of Power Electronics 2010;10(2):181–6.
[42] Bin Y, Li Y, Feng N. Nonlinear dynamic battery model with boundary and scanning
hysteresis. Conference Nonlinear dynamic battery model with boundary and
scanning hysteresis, Hollywood, California, USA vol. DSCC2009-2745. p. 245-251.
[43] Chen H, Pei P, Song M. Lifetime prediction and the economic lifetime of Proton
Exchange Membrane fuel cells. Appl Energy 2015;142:154–63.
[44] Hua Z, Zheng Z, Péra M-C, Gao F. Remaining useful life prediction of PEMFC
systems based on the multi-input echo state network. Appl Energy 2020;265:
114791.
[45] Bloom I, Cole BW, Sohn JJ, Jones SA, Polzin EG, Battaglia VS, et al. An accelerated
calendar and cycle life study of Li-ion cells. J Power Sources 2001;101(2):238–47.
[46] Wang J, Liu P, Hicks-Garner J, Sherman E, Soukiazian S, Verbrugge M, et al. Cycle-
life model for graphite-LiFePO4 cells. J Power Sources 2011;196(8):3942–8.
[47] Ebbesen S, Elbert P, Guzzella L. Battery state-of-health perceptive energy
management for hybrid electric vehicles. IEEE Trans Veh Technol 2012;61(7):
2893–900.
[48] Global EV Outlook 2023. Catching up with climate ambitions. International Energy
Agency; 2023.