292 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL INFORMATICS, VOL. 14, NO.

1, JANUARY 2018

Adaptive Fuzzy Logic Control of

Fuel-Cell-Battery Hybrid Systems for
Electric Vehicles
Jian Chen , Senior Member, IEEE, Chenfeng Xu, Chengshuai Wu, and Weihua Xu

Abstract—In this paper, we propose an adaptive control
approach with fuzzy logic parameter tuning (AFLPT) for the
energy management of electric vehicles that are using fuel
cell battery hybrid systems. The controller is adaptive to
different driving conditions including normal, regenerative,
and overload conditions. Specifically, the power flow
between the fuel cell (FC) and the Li-ion battery is con-
trolled in real time to maintain the battery state of charge
(SOC) at a desirable level while satisfying the FC dynamic
constraints. For guaranteeing performance in different
driving conditions, the FLPT is integrated with the adaptive
controller. Moreover, theoretical properties of the designed
controller are analyzed. Simulation and experiment results
illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed strategy for
FC-battery hybrid systems in electric vehicles.
Index Terms—Adaptive control, electric vehicles, fuel cell
battery hybrid system, fuzzy logic control, power manage-
ment.
I. INTRODUCTION
NCREASINGLY serious energy crisis and greenhouse ef-
I fects motivate the utilization of renewable energy instead of
fossil fuels for cleaner, more reliable, and sustainable systems
[1], [2]. As one of the most promising clean energy sources, fuel
cells (FCs) have the advantages of relatively high efficiency and
almost zero emissions, especially in the applications to hybrid
electric vehicles [3], [4].
Nevertheless, the slow dynamic response is a well-known
technical limitation of FCs. Therefore, FCs are usually utilized
together with other energy sources, e.g., Li-ion batteries or
supercapacitors, to supply load power to electric vehicles in
a hybrid fashion. Those auxiliary energy sources can then
compensate the transient output power, improve the peak power
capability, and absorb the regenerative energy during braking
[5], [6]. This kind of hybridization, however, causes an in-
Manuscript received July 25, 2016; revised September 20, 2016; ac-
cepted October 9, 2016. Date of publication October 19, 2016; date of
current version January 3, 2018. This work was supported in part by the
National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 61433013
and Grant 61304012, and in part by the Chinese Recruitment Pro-
gram of Global Youth Experts. Paper no. TII-16-0744.R1. (Corresponding
author: J. Chen.)
All authors are with the State Key Laboratory of Industrial Control Tech-
nology College of Control Science and Engineering, Zhejiang University,
Hangzhou 310027, China (e-mail: jchen@zju.edu.cn).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available
online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TII.2016.2618886
1551-3203 © 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
creased complexity and brings about challenges to the synthesis
of power management systems. In [7], several hybridization
topologies for FC vehicles have been categorized: FC-battery,
FC-supercapacitor, and FC-battery-supercapacitor. This paper
studies the FC-battery electric vehicle power systems, in which
the FC functions as the main power source and the Li-ion battery
functions as the secondary power source. Compared with other
rechargeable batteries, Li-ion battery has the advantages of
high capacity, a large number of charge–discharge cycles and
reasonable cost [8]. This system is widely utilized in practical
FC-battery electric vehicles [9], [10]. In a FC-battery hybrid
power system, the FC is connected to the dc bus by a unidirec-
tional dc–dc converter and the Li-ion battery is connected to
the dc bus directly. Its energy consumption is less than that of a
FC-supercapacitor system [7] and the powertrain cost is much
lower than that of a FC-battery-supercapacitor system under
the same conditions [11]. The advantages discussed above are
the main reasons why FC-battery systems are widely utilized
in electric vehicles. Compared with FC-battery systems that
have two dc–dc converters, the power system with one dc–dc
converter studied in this paper supplies the load power more
efficiently especially when the load fluctuates violently [12].
Several control strategies have been proposed for the power
management of hybrid power systems. The goal is to coordinate
the power flow between the FC and the auxiliary energy
sources. In [13] and [14], intelligent control strategies based on
artificial neural networks are utilized in FC hybrid vehicles. In
[15], a cascade control strategy for a FC-battery-supercapacitor
system is developed to maintain both the voltage of the dc bus
and state of charge (SOC) of the battery within expected ranges.
In [16], a combination of cascade control and lookup tables
is proposed to regulate the FC output power according to the
battery SOC in a FC-battery vehicle. Most of the work on power
sharing strategies is based on deterministic rules, as utilized
in [17] and [18]. Generally, these rules depend on the analysis
of hybrid powertrain characteristics and the utilization of rich
human experiences. In [19] and [20], model predictive control
is implemented for the power distribution of FC vehicles.
However, most of the controllers involve high computational
complexity which is not desirable for the real-time control of
the power systems in electric vehicles.
Fuzzy logic control has also been used to distribute the power
output between the FC and the auxiliary energy sources under
different driving conditions, see, e.g., [21]–[23], owing to its
CHEN et al.: ADAPTIVE FUZZY LOGIC CONTROL OF FUEL-CELL-BATTERY HYBRID SYSTEMS FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLES
Fig. 1. System structure.
effectiveness but simplicity in decision making for complex sys-
tems. In [21] and [22], the fuzzy logic control is the only system
controller and generates the FC output power directly. In [23],
three driving conditions are categorized by the load power and
the control strategy can achieve a good performance, efficiency,
and durability. However, the changing rates of system key pa-
rameters are usually not considered in these rule base design.
In this paper, an adaptive controller with the fuzzy logic
parameter tuning (FLPT) is proposed for the FC-battery hybrid
power system in electric vehicles. The proposed adaptive con-
troller achieves real-time control and effective power allocation.
In particular, the power flow between the FC and the Li-ion
battery is controlled to maintain the battery SOC at a desired
level. Additionally, to guarantee the control performance, the
FLPT is integrated with the adaptive controller considering
different driving conditions and the characteristics of the hybrid
power system.
This paper is organized in the following sections. Section II
describes the model of the FC-battery electric vehicle power sys-
tem, which is the base for the controller design. In Section III,
the power management strategy is developed in detail, including
the adaptive controller, stability analysis, and the FLPT. Simu-
lations and experiments are discussed to validate the proposed
control strategy in Section IV. Finally, a brief conclusion is
presented in Section V.
II. MODEL DEVELOPMENT
The topology of the hybrid system powered by an FC and a
Li-ion battery is presented in Fig. 1.
A. Fuel Cell Model
The FC block is implemented as a generic model to represent
the most popular types of FC stacks that are fed with hydrogen
and air [24]. The model can be expressed as follows:
 
ifc 1 adaptive controller. The steady state, i.e., ifc (t) = i∗fc (t), can be
E = Eoc − N A ln , (1)
i0 sT3 d + 1
Vfc = E − Rohm · ifc (2)
where Vfc and ifc are the FC output voltage and current, re-
spectively. Notation Eoc is the open-circuit voltage and N is
the number of cells. The response time, internal resistance,
293
and exchanged current are represented as Td , Rohm , and i0 ,
respectively. Note that similar to [25], this model is not utilized
in the subsequent controller design but only for simulations.
B. Battery Model
The dynamics of the Li-ion battery are described by an equiv-
alent internal resistance model [26], see Fig. 1, as
d Vc (t)
C(Vsoc ) Vc (t) = iB − , (3)
dt R2 (Vsoc )
VB (t) = Voc (t) − Vc (t) − iB R1 (Vsoc ) (4)
where R1 (Vsoc ) and R2 (Vsoc ) are the battery equivalent internal
resistances, Vc (t) is the voltage of the capacitor C, VB is the
respective voltage of the system dc bus, and iB (t) is the output
current of the battery. The range 0–1 V of Vsoc corresponds to
range 0–100% of the Li-ion battery SOC. Lastly, Voc (t) is the
battery open-circuit voltage with a nonlinear mapping to the
SOC of the battery.
C. Vehicle Load Model
As shown in Fig. 1, an ideal controlled current source that is
connected to the system dc bus is utilized to express the power
consumed by the load, which has also been done in [19]. The
vehicle load model is then expressed as
d
L il (t) = −il (t)Rp + ip (t)Rp + VB (5)
dt
where il (t) is the load current, Rp is the internal resistance of
the ideal current source, and variable current ip (t) is unknown
and varies with the load power. In order to describe the dynamic
behavior of the load more accurately, inductance L is used to
represent the imperfections of the load.
D. DC–DC Converter Model
The FC current and voltage vary with the demanded load
power; thus, a unidirectional dc–dc converter that connects the
FC with the dc bus is necessary to ensure dynamic power out-
puts. In this work, the unidirectional dc–dc converter is repre-
sented by its mean value equivalent model [27] as
d
Ldc ifc (t) = −(1 − d(t))VB + Vfc (t) (6)
dt
where Ldc is the inductance of the converter, d(t) is the duty
ratio of the converter, and ifc (t) is the current of the FC.
E. State-Space Model
In the dc–dc converter, a high-gain PID controller is adopted
to track the FC reference current i∗fc (t) which is controlled by the
achieved after the transient time of the converter which is much
faster than the control cycle of the designed power management
strategy. Hence, the relationship between battery current iB (t)
and FC current i∗fc (t) can be acquired as follows:
Vfc ∗
iB = il − i . (7)
VB fc
294 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL INFORMATICS, VOL. 14, NO. 1, JANUARY 2018

By substituting (4) and (7) into (3) and (5), the system state- to guarantee the dynamic performance of the system as
space model can be expressed as
î˙ p = β1 R̂p (il − i∗l ) + p1 , (14)
ẋ = A(x)x + G(x, u) (8)
˙
R̂1 = −β2 μ(VB − Voc∗ )(iB + il − i∗l ) + p2 , (15)
where the state vector x and control input u are defined as x(t)  ⎧
[ Vc il ]T ∈ R2 and u(t)  i∗fc (t), respectively, and A(x) and ⎨ −g1 , if îp ≥ ip,m ax and g1 > 0
p1 (t) = or îp ≤ ip,m in and g1 < 0 (16)
G(x, u) are defined as ⎩
0, otherwise
⎡ 1 1 ⎤ ⎧
− − ⎨ −g2 , if R̂1 ≥ R1,m ax and g2 > 0
⎢ CR2 C ⎥ p2 (t) = or R̂1 ≤ R1,m in and g2 < 0
A(x)  ⎣ ⎦ (9) ⎩
(17)
1 Rp + R1
− 0, otherwise
L L
⎡ ⎤
Vfc ∗ where g1 = β1 R̂p (il − i∗l ) and g2 = −β2 μ(VB − Voc∗ )(iB +
⎢ − i ⎥
CVB fc il − i∗l ) with β1 and β2 both being positive constant gains. From
G(x, u)  ⎢
⎣ R1 Vfc
⎥. (10)
∗ Voc Rp ⎦ (14) to (17), it is clear that îp (t) and R̂1 (t) are both bounded.
i + +
LVB fc L L The state errors of the system (8) are defined as

x̃(t)  x(t) − x∗ (t) = [ Ṽc ĩl ]T ∈ R2 (18)

III. CONTROL DEVELOPMENT
A. Adaptive Control Design where x∗ (t)  [ Vc∗ i∗l (t) ]T is the reference state vector, and
Vc∗ = 0. Based on the adaptive update laws for i∗l (t), îp (t), and
In (8), the FC current is the only control input. The control
objective is to regulate the FC current to provide the main load R̂1 (t) in (8)–(15), the closed-loop error system is derived as
power and maintain the SOC of the battery at a desired level. follows:
The control input u(t) is designed based on the model in (8) as
x̃˙ = Ae (x)x̃ + Ge (x, u) (19)
follows:

VB where Ae (x) = A(x), and

u(t) = i∗fc = [h(t) − μ(VB − Voc∗ )] (11)
Vfc Ge =
where Voc∗ 
is the expected open-circuit voltage of the battery, − Cμ (VB − Voc∗ ) + T
C ḣ
+
μ ∈ R is a positive bounded control gain that can be designed V oc −V oc∗ +R p ĩ p
.
L̂ −L ∗
by the FLPT in the subsequent section. The second term in the L (VB
μ
− Voc∗ )(2R̂1 − R1 ) − T R 1 ḣ
L + L + L il
square bracket is utilized to protect the battery from overcharge
and overdischarge. In (11), h(t) is determined by the following B. Stability Analysis
differential equation:
In order to prove the stability of the closed-loop error system
(19), a candidate Lyapunov function V (t) is chosen as follows:
h + T ḣ = i∗l (12)
1 1 ĩ2p R̃2
where T is a positive time constant, and i∗l (t) is designed to V (t) = C Ṽc2 + Lĩ2l + + 1 (20)
track the transient load current, which is determined by 2 2 2β1 2β2
where C and L are positive and bounded according to the bat-
L̂i˙∗l = Voc∗ − (i∗l − îp )R̂p − 2μR̂1 (VB − Voc∗ ) (13) tery and load models. Therefore, V (t) is guaranteed to be non-
negative.
where L̂ and R̂1 (t) are the estimates of the inductance L in the Then, the derivative of V (t) can be obtained with (19) as
load and the battery inner resistance R1 , respectively. In (13), follows:
R̂p and îp (t) are defined as the estimates of the inner resistance  
and the current of the ideal current source shown in Fig. 1, 1 1 ∂C ĩp
V̇ = − (R1 + Rp )ĩl −
2
− V̇soc Ṽc2 + i̇p
respectively. To satisfy the system dynamic constraints, L̂ is R2 2 ∂Vsoc β1
configured as a positive constant much larger than Ldc . Lastly,
+ μ(VB − Voc∗ )(2R̂1 ĩl − R1 ĩl + Ṽc ) + (VB − Voc∗ )ĩl
R̂p is configured as a positive parameter.
Obviously, ip (t) is bounded due to the limits of the load, i.e., R̃1
ip,m in ≤ ip ≤ ip,m ax . Similarly, due to the limits of the battery + μR̃1 (VB − Voc∗ )(iB + ĩl ) − T R1 ḣĩl + Ṙ1
β2
internal resistance, R1 (t) is bounded with the upper bound
R1,m ax and the lower bound R1,m in . Inspired by [28], two adap- ĩp R̃1
+ (L̂ − L)ĩl i̇∗l + T ḣV̂c − p1 − p2 . (21)
tive update laws for îp (t) and R̂1 (t), respectively, are developed β1 β2
CHEN et al.: ADAPTIVE FUZZY LOGIC CONTROL OF FUEL-CELL-BATTERY HYBRID SYSTEMS FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLES 295

According to (3), (4), (7), (11), and (12), the following equation where 0 < θ < 1, and
can be obtained:
−λm in (1 − θ)||x̃||2 + |S3 Ṙ1 | + |S4 i̇p | + |S5 | < 0,
−Ṽc − R1 ĩl Voc − Voc∗ − R̃1 T ḣ 
VB − Voc∗ = + . (22) |S3 Ṙ1 | + |S4 i̇p | + |S5 |
1 + μR1 1 + μR1 ∀||x̃|| > . (27)
λm in (1 − θ)
By substituting (22) into (21), the derivative of V (t) can be Therefore, the following expression always holds:
rewritten as follows:
V̇ < 0 ∀||x̃|| > γ (28)
V̇ = − x̃ Qx̃ + S1 Ṽc + S2 ĩl + S3 R̃1 + S4 ĩp + S5
T
where
ĩp μ(1 + μR̂1 ) R̃1 γ=
− p1 − (Voc − Voc∗ − T R1 ḣ)2 − p2
β1 (1 + μR1 )2 β2 ⎛ ⎛ ⎞⎞
(23) |S3 Ṙ1 | + |S4 i̇p | + |S5 | 2 · max(|S1 |, |S2 |)⎠⎠
sup⎝max⎝ , .
λm in (1 − θ) μλm in
where
⎡ ⎤ Based on (28) and the selected Lyapunov function V (t) in (20),
1 1 ∂C

⎢ R2 − V̇ soc 0 ⎥ μ(1 + μR̂1 ) 1 R1 x̃(t) will eventually converge to the domain {x̃| ||x|| < γ}.
Q=⎣ 2 ∂V soc ⎦+ ,
(1 + μR1 )2 R1 R12 Therefore, the closed-loop error system (19) with adaptive con-
0 R1 + Rp troller (11)–(15) is stable and the control objectives are satisfied.
2μ(1 + μR̂1 ) R̃1
Remark 1: According to the stability analysis, in the steady
S1 = (Voc − Voc∗ − T R1 ḣ) + T ḣ, S3 = , state, the state-space variable Vc (t) will eventually converge to
(1 + μR1 )2 β2

 zero, which means that the open-circuit voltage Voc (t) remains
2μ(1 + μR̂1 )R1 unchanged due to the dynamical circuit relations. Therefore, the
S2 = + 1 (Voc − Voc∗ − T R1 ḣ)
(1 + μR1 )2 battery current iB (t) will eventually converge to zero and the
battery SOC will converge to a constant. In this way, the battery
+ (L̂ − L)i̇∗l , can be protected from overcharge and overdischarge.
ĩp
S4 = , S5 = μ(VB − Voc∗ )(Voc − Voc∗ − R̂1 T ḣ). C. Fuzzy Logic for Different Driving Conditions
β1
In the adaptive controller, the values of μ and Voc∗ have a
Considering the relatively slow dynamics of the battery SOC, significant influence on the control performance. If they are
the following assumption is made. set as constants under different driving conditions, the control
Assumption 1: Under all the operating conditions of the bat- performance could be degraded. Thus, an FLPT is developed
tery, the following relationship between R2 (Vsoc ) and C(Vsoc ) to improve the adaptive control performance under different
is always satisfied: driving conditions.
  The input variables of the FLPT are chosen as
1  1 ∂C 
>  V̇soc  . (24) 1) the estimation of load current, i.e., i∗l ;
R2 2 ∂Vsoc 2) the absolute value of the derivative of i∗l , i.e., |i̇∗l |;
3) the deviation between the battery voltage and the ex-
Since μ is positive and bounded, the matrix Q is symmetric
pected battery voltage Vref , i.e., ΔVB , which is obtained
positive definite if Assumption 1 is satisfied. Based on (14)–(17),
from
the following inequalities always hold:
ΔVB  VB − Vref . (29)
ĩp (t)p1 (t) ≥ 0, R̃1 (t)p2 (t) ≥ 0. (25)
Instead of using fuzzy logic controllers to generate output
powers of the FC and the storage devices as has been done in
Let λm in denote the minimum eigenvalue of the matrix Q,
the literature [21] and [22], the outputs of the FLPT in this paper
then by the Rayleigh Ritz inequality [29], the inequalities can
are the parameters μ and ΔVfl which are obtained as
be obtained as follows:
ΔVfl  Vref − Voc∗ . (30)
V̇ ≤ − x̃ Qx̃ + S1 Ṽc + S2 ĩl + S3 R̃1 + S4 ĩp + S5
T
Remark 2: Vref and the parameter Voc∗
defined in (11) are
≤ − λm in (1 − θ)||x̃||2 + |S3 Ṙ1 | + |S4 i̇p | + |S5 | different concepts, and Voc∗ is equal to Vref if and only if the
adaptive controller is used alone. With the introduction of the
+ (2 · max(|S1 |, |S2 |) − λm in θ||x̃||)||x̃|| FLPT, Voc∗ varies with load shifting in different control cycles.
≤ − λm in (1 − θ)||x̃||2 + |S3 Ṙ1 | + |S4 i̇p | + |S5 |, However, Vref is the expected battery open-circuit voltage and
usually set as a constant in the whole vehicle runtime.
1 To guarantee the effectiveness and reliability of controller, the
∀||x̃|| > 2 · max(|S1 |, |S2 |) (26)
μλm in rules of the FLPT are specified based on the dynamic response
296
Fig. 2. Membership functions of input and output variables. (a) Input
variable i∗l , (b) input variable ΔV B , (c) input variable |i̇∗l |, (d) output
variable μ, and (e) output variable ΔV fl .
constraints of the FC and the Li-ion battery. The membership
functions (MFs) of the input and output variables are depicted
in Fig. 2. The MFs for the input variable i∗l are designed as 1)
small (S); 2) middle (M); and 3) big (B); small, middle, and big
correspond to the regenerative braking driving condition, normal
driving condition, and overload driving condition, respectively,
in the driving cycle.
The MFs for input |i̇∗l | are low (L), middle (M), and high
(H), which represent the load-shifting speed. The MFs for input
ΔVB are negative big (NB), negative middle (NM), negative
small (NS), zero (Z), positive small (PS), positive middle (PM),
and positive big (PB), which represent the deviation degree
between the current SOC and the expected SOC of the battery.
Similarly, the MFs of the output variable ΔVfl are NB, NM, NS,
Z, PS, PM, and PB. The MFs for μ are big low (BL), middle
low (ML), small low (SL), middle (M), small big (SB), middle
big (MB), and big big (BB).
Remark 3: In the adaptive controller, if the range of μ is
from 0 to 20, the bigger the μ, the faster the output response of
the FC, which means that the load power demand can be better
satisfied. With regard to ΔVfl , the battery SOC will converge to
its expected level with smaller errors when |ΔVfl | increases but
still bounded.
The rules of the synthesis process of the FLPT during different
driving conditions are subject to the principles listed as follows:
1) Normal driving condition: Whenever i∗l is middle (M),
which implies that the load power is positive and smaller
than the FC-rated power, the FC supplies the main load
demand and the battery is regulated to its own reference
voltage. At this moment, μ and ΔVfl are sensitive to the
load-shifting speed and the deviation between the current
and reference battery voltages, as shown in Table I.
2) Regenerative braking driving condition: Whenever i∗l is
small (S), which implies that the load power is negative,
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL INFORMATICS, VOL. 14, NO. 1, JANUARY 2018
TABLE I
RULE BASE FOR THE NORMAL DRIVING CONDITION
TABLE II
RULE BASE FOR THE REGENERATIVE BRAKING CONDITION
TABLE III
RULE BASE FOR THE OVERLOAD DRIVING CONDITION
the battery works in the charging mode and the output
power of the FC would be decreased depending on the
battery SOC level. At this moment, in order to absorb the
regenerative braking energy as much as possible, μ and
|ΔVfl | reduce properly, as shown in Table II.
3) Overload operating condition: Whenever i∗l is big (B), it
implies that the load power is greater than the FC-rated
power and the battery works in the discharge mode. At
this moment, the FC output power should be regulated
more smoothly. Thus, ΔVfl can almost remain unchanged
and μ should be decreased properly to achieve a smoother
FC response, as shown in Table III.
Remark 4: The FC-rated output voltage and power will de-
crease after long periods of driving. Due to the degradation
mechanism, the FC transient performance could be degraded
and the system dynamic constraints could also be changed [30].
Under this condition, the rule base in Tables I–III should be
adjusted correspondingly as follows. Under the overload driv-
ing condition, to protect the FC from the fuel starvation, the
values of μ and ΔVfl in Table III should be decreased accord-
ingly due to the degraded FC-rated power; Under the normal
driving condition and the regenerative driving condition, due to
the transient performance degradation, the values of μ and ΔVfl
CHEN et al.: ADAPTIVE FUZZY LOGIC CONTROL OF FUEL-CELL-BATTERY HYBRID SYSTEMS FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLES
Fig. 3. Load power.
Fig. 4. FC and battery output power.
in Tables I and II should be reduced properly, especially when
|i̇∗l | has values of M and H.
Remark 5: The FLPT inputs consider |i̇∗l | (the changing rate
of the load current estimation). Under the normal driving condi-
tion, the FLPT outputs are sensitive to the load current changing
rate and should be increased properly when the MF of |i̇∗l | is
H. Under the overload driving condition, the FC output should
be regulated more smoothly. Therefore, when |i̇∗l | has values
of M or H, the FLPT outputs should be decreased accordingly
compared with the outputs under the normal driving condition.
Under the regenerative driving condition, all the regenerative
energy is absorbed by the battery. Therefore, the FLPT outputs
should not be sensitive to the load current changing rate but to
the battery SOC even if |i̇∗l | has values of M or H. Note that |i̇∗l | is
already calculated in (13) and only utilized in the FLPT lookup
tables; therefore, it will almost not increase the computational
complexity for the real-time control.
IV. SIMULATION AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
A. Simulation Results
To evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed control strategy
and the rationality of considering the load current estimation
changing rate, two groups of comparative simulations are car-
ried out: the comparison of the adaptive controller with and
without the FLPT, and the comparison of using the FLPT with
and without the input |i̇∗l |. The FC-rated current and voltage in
the simulation are 50 A and 39 V. The Li-ion battery capacity
and rated voltage are 50 Ah and 48 V. The FC current changing
rate is limited to less than 8 A/s, which corresponds to the con-
d ∗
troller constraint −8 < dt il (t) < 8. The expected SOC level
of the Li-ion battery is 55–65%, which corresponds to the ex-
pected open-circuit battery voltage Vref range 48 ± 0.4 V. Fig. 3
297
Fig. 5. Comparison of FC output in different strategies.
Fig. 6. Comparison of open-circuit voltage of battery.
Fig. 7. FLPT output. (a) Parameter μ and (b) parameter ΔV fl .
presents the load power demand in the simulations. The load
inductor L and the resistor Rp are 0.01 mH and 10 Ω. The other
parameters in the control strategy are determined by multiple
repeated simulation experiments and are selected as follows:
β1 = 0.015, β2 = 0.5, T = 10,
L̂ = 0.98 mH, R̂p = 10.3 Ω, Vref = 48 V.
The effectiveness of the proposed adaptive controller is illus-
trated in Fig. 4 with the parameters μ = 7 and Voc∗ = Vref = 48 V.
It is clear that the FC provides the main load power demand with
a slow dynamic and the Li-ion battery provides the transient
load power demand. Comparisons are made for the adaptive
controller with and without the FLPT in terms of the FC output
power and the battery open-circuit voltage, which are depicted
in Figs. 5 and 6, respectively. From Fig. 5, it is clear that, with the
FLPT, the FC can track the load power more effectively under the
same constraints of transient current, especially when the load
fluctuates violently. From Fig. 6, it is clear that, with the FLPT,
the Li-ion battery open-circuit voltage fluctuates more closely
to the reference voltage Vref on the whole, which means the cor-
responding battery SOC is closer to the expected level. Besides,
Figs. 5 and 6 show the comparison results with and without |i̇∗l |
in the FLPT inputs. From the zoom-ins in Fig. 5, we can observe
that, with |i̇∗l | in the FLPT inputs, the FC output approximates
the load demand better under the same system constraints, which
298 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL INFORMATICS, VOL. 14, NO. 1, JANUARY 2018
Fig. 8. Test vehicle.
Fig. 9. Driving route.
Fig. 10. Relationship between V oc and SOC(V soc ).
Fig. 11. Experimental load power.
demonstrates the effectiveness of considering the load current
estimation changing rate. Furthermore, Fig. 6 shows that, with
|i̇∗l | in the FLPT, the battery open-circuit voltage deviates less
from the reference voltage (Vref ) than that without |i̇∗l | in the
FLPT inputs. The FLPT outputs are shown in Fig. 7. Depending
on the simulation results mentioned above, the proposed control
strategies for power management are proved to be effective.
B. Experimental Results
In order to further verify the effectiveness of the proposed
controller, the control strategy is deployed in our experimental
FC-battery electric vehicle, as shown in Fig. 8. And the reference
ranges of some parameters in the controller are obtained from the
simulations. The FC-rated current and voltage in the vehicle are
50 A and 39 V. The capacity and rated voltage of the Li-ion bat-
Fig. 12. Power of the battery and FC.
Fig. 13. Estimation of R 1 .
Fig. 14. Comparison of FC output with load power.
Fig. 15. FLPT output in the experiment. (a) Parameter μ and (b) pa-
rameter ΔV fl .
tery in the vehicle are, respectively, 100 Ah and 50 V. The current
changing rate of the FC is limited to less than 10 A/s. Owing to
the immeasurability of the battery SOC, the internal mapping be-
tween the SOC and the open-circuit voltage (Voc ) of the battery
used in the experiments is measured based on the experimental
procedure carried out in [8], which is depicted in Fig. 10.
We first validate the proposed adaptive controller with the
parameters μ = 5 and Voc∗ = Vref = 49.5 V. The load demand
power, the FC, and battery output power (Pfc and Pbat ) in this
test cycle are depicted in Figs. 11 and 12, respectively. Note
that the FC provides the main load power demand with a slow
dynamic and the Li-ion battery, as an auxiliary power source,
provides the transient load power demand. The estimation of the
battery inner resistance R1 is depicted in Fig. 13, which switches
frequently along with the battery mode change between charging
and discharging.
CHEN et al.: ADAPTIVE FUZZY LOGIC CONTROL OF FUEL-CELL-BATTERY HYBRID SYSTEMS FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLES
TABLE IV
BATTERY SOC MAINTENANCE EXPERIMENTS
A B
Tests 1 2 3 1
V start (V) 49.325 49.898 50.253 49.346
V end (V) 49.301 49.872 50.225 49.334
S start 23.7% 49.1% 73.1% 26.7%
S end 20.6% 46.8% 69.8% 25.8%
The validation of the adaptive control approach with FLPT
(AFLPT) is divided into two parts: the effectiveness of the FC
output power regulation and the battery SOC maintenance. In
Fig. 14, comparisons are made for the adaptive controller with
and without the FLPT in terms of the FC output power. It is
clear that, with the FLPT, the FC output can catch up with the
load power more effectively under the same current constraint,
especially when the load power demand fluctuates violently
(from 330 to 450 s), which means that the AFLPT has a better
adaptability on satisfying the load power demand in comparison
with the adaptive controller. In the highlighted areas of Fig. 14,
with the FLPT, the FC output decreases faster than that without
the FLPT under the same system dynamic constraints, which
demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed control strategy
under the typical regenerative braking driving condition. This is
further clearly shown in the zoom-in in Fig. 14. The FLPT out-
puts in the experimental driving cycle are presented in Fig. 15.
It is clear that the more violently the load fluctuates, the more
significantly the μ and ΔVfl vary accordingly. The appropriate
variation of these two parameters improve the FC output a lot,
which is the reason why the AFLPT performs better on the FC
output power regulation.
The battery SOC maintenance capability of the AFLPT is
illustrated by another group of experiments. From Fig. 10, the
battery SOC can be estimated by the battery open-circuit voltage
(Voc ). To validate the controller more effectively, the following
experimental process is designed: first, before every driving test,
the value of the battery open-circuit voltage is denoted as Vstart
and the corresponding battery SOC is denoted as Sstart . Then, the
FC system is launched and the driving test is processed along
the routes depicted in Fig. 9. After arriving at the terminal point,
the FC system is shutdown immediately and the Li-ion battery is
kept at standby at least half an hour till the battery open-circuit
voltage remains unchanged. Finally, the value of the battery
open-circuit voltage is denoted as Vend and the corresponding
battery SOC is denoted as Send . Note that each experiment cycle
has the same vehicle driving route, however, all the load demand
curves differ from each other more or less due to the different
driving and traffic conditions. To obtain experimental results
more accurately, the validation driving experiments are divided
into three groups: A, B, and C, where each group has three
driving tests. In the test group A, the FC output power is set
as a constant which is the average FC output power calculated
from test groups B and C. The proposed adaptive controller
and the proposed AFLPT are utilized in the test groups B and
C, respectively. All the test results are presented in Table IV.
299
C
2 3 1 2 3
49.825 50.188 49.280 49.867 50.204
49.814 50.174 49.276 49.860 50.198
43.9% 65.7% 19.4% 46.3% 68.5%
42.8% 64.9% 19.1% 45.9% 68.1%
The battery SOC values are calculated by Fig. 10. Making a
comparison between the tests of groups A and B in Table IV,
it is clear that the adaptive controller can maintain the battery
SOC in the desired level more effectively than the average output
strategy in group A. The SOC maintenance deviation in group
B is about 1.2%. And making a comparison between the tests
of groups B and C, it is clear that the AFLPT performs better
on the battery SOC maintenance than the adaptive controller in
group B. The SOC maintenance deviation in group C is about
0.5%. Depending on the experiment results mentioned above,
the proposed control strategy for power management is proved
to be effective.
V. CONCLUSION
In this paper, an adaptive controller with the FLPT is de-
veloped to manage the power flow in the FC-battery electric
system. The proposed control strategy adjusts the power flow
between the FC and the battery in real time without the need to
predict the system behavior. In order to achieve control objec-
tives in the adaptive controller, two parameter update laws are
developed for the immeasurable inner resistance of the battery
and the current of the ideal controlled current source. The sta-
bility analysis based on Lyapunov theory shows the rationality
of the adaptive controller. The FLPT is designed to improve the
performance of the adaptive controller by adjusting the parame-
ters μ and ΔVfl appropriately under different driving conditions.
Simulation and experimental results validate the effectiveness
of the proposed adaptive controller and FLPT on power man-
agement.
REFERENCES
[1] J. Twidell and T. Weir, Renewable Energy Resources. Evanston, IL, USA:
Routledge, 2015.
[2] W. Su, H. Eichi, W. Zeng, and M.-Y. Chow, “A survey on the electrification
of transportation in a smart grid environment,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat.,
vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–10, Feb. 2012.
[3] U. Eberle, B. Müller, and R. von Helmolt, “Fuel cell electric vehicles
and hydrogen infrastructure: Status 2012, ” Energy Environ. Sci., vol. 5,
no. 10, pp. 8780–8798, 2012.
[4] D. Feroldi, M. Serra, and J. Riera, “Design and analysis of fuel-cell hybrid
systems oriented to automotive applications,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.,
vol. 58, no. 9, pp. 4720–4729, Nov. 2009.
[5] M. Jang, M. Ciobotaru, and V. G. Agelidis, “Design and implementa-
tion of digital control in a fuel cell system,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat.,
vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1158–1166, May 2013.
[6] I. L. Sarıoğlu, O. P. Klein, H. Schröder, and F. Küçükay, “Energy man-
agement for fuel-cell hybrid vehicles based on specific fuel consumption
due to load shifting,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 13, no. 4,
pp. 1772–1781, Dec. 2012.
300 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL INFORMATICS, VOL. 14, NO. 1, JANUARY 2018

[7] J. Bauman and M. Kazerani, “A comparative study of fuel-cell- [29] W. J. Rugh, Linear System Theory, vol. 2. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA:
battery, fuel-cell-ultracapacitor, and fuel-cell-battery-ultracapacitor vehi- Prentice-Hall, 1996.
cles,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 760–769, Mar. 2008. [30] B. Wahdame “Analysis of a fuel cell durability test based on design
[8] M. Chen and G. A. Rincon-Mora, “Accurate electrical battery model of experiment approach,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 23, no. 4,
capable of predicting runtime and I-V performance,” IEEE Trans. Energy pp. 1093–1104, Dec. 2008.
Convers., vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 504–511, Jun. 2006.
[9] Z. Jiang and R. A. Dougal, “A compact digitally controlled fuel cell/battery
hybrid power source,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 1094–
1104, Jun. 2006.
[10] X. Hu, N. Murgovski, L. M. Johannesson, and B. Egardt, “Optimal di-
mensioning and power management of a fuel cell/battery hybrid bus via
Jian Chen (M’06–SM’10) received the B.E. de-
convex programming,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron., vol. 20, no. 1, pp.
gree in detection technology and instrumen-
457–468, Feb. 2015.
tation and the M.E. degree in control sci-
[11] B. Vural, S. Dusmez, M. Uzunoglu, E. Ugur, and B. Akin, “Fuel consump-
ence and engineering from Zhejiang University,
tion comparison of different battery/ultracapacitor hybridization topolo-
Hangzhou, China, in 1998 and 2001, respec-
gies for fuel-cell vehicles on a test bench,” IEEE Trans. Emerg. Sel. Topics
tively, and the Ph.D. degree in electrical engi-
Power Electron., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 552–561, Sep. 2014.
neering from Clemson University, Clemson, SC,
[12] C. Carrejo, R. Giral, E. Arango, C. Ramos-Paja, C. Olalla, and C. Alonso,
USA, in 2005.
“Fuel cell hybrid topologies selection and control,” in Proc. IEEE Int.
From 2006 to 2008, he was a Research Fel-
Conf. Power Eng., Energy Electr. Drives, 2011, pp. 1–6.
low with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
[13] Y. Ates, O. Erdinc, M. Uzunoglu, and B. Vural, “Energy management of a
MI, USA, where he was involved in fuel cell mod-
FC/UC hybrid vehicular power system using a combined neural network-
eling and control. In 2008, he joined IdaTech LLC, Bend, OR, USA, where
wavelet transform based strategy,” Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, vol. 35, no. 2,
he was involved in the National Fuel Bus Program. In 2013, he joined
pp. 774–783, Jan. 2010.
the Department of Control Science and Engineering, Zhejiang Univer-
[14] M. Karthik and K. Gomathi, “Design, modeling and simulation study of a
sity, where he is currently a Professor in the College of Control Science
cascaded optimal neural network based fuel cell powered electric vehicle,”
and Engineering. His research interests include modeling and control
in Proc. IEEE 2nd Int. Conf. Electr. Energy Syst., 2014, pp. 71–76.
of fuel cell vehicles, battery management, visual servo techniques, and
[15] P. Thounthong, S. Rael, and B. Davat, “Energy management of fuel
nonlinear control.
cell/battery/supercapacitor hybrid power source for vehicle applications,”
J. Power Sources, vol. 193, no. 1, pp. 376–385, 2009.
[16] M. Pahlevaninezhad, P. Das, J. Drobnik, G. Moschopoulos, P. K. Jain, and
A. Bakhshai, “A nonlinear optimal control approach based on the control-
Lyapunovfunction for an ac/dc converter used in electric vehicles,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Informat., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 596–614, Aug. 2012.
[17] D. Feroldi, M. Serra, and J. Riera, “Energy management strategies based Chenfeng Xu was born in 1992. He received
on efficiency map for fuel cell hybrid vehicles,” J. Power Sources, the Bachelor’s degree in automation engineer-
vol. 190, no. 2, pp. 387–401, 2009. ing from Central South University, Changsha,
[18] F. R. Salmasi, “Control strategies for hybrid electric vehicles: Evolution, China, in 2014. He is currently working toward
classification, comparison, and future trends,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., the M.E. degree in control science and engineer-
vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 2393–2404, Sep. 2007. ing at Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
[19] J. P. Torreglosa, P. Garcia, L. M. Fernandez, and F. Jurado, “Predictive His research interests include hybrid fuel
control for the energy management of a fuel-cell-battery-supercapacitor cell/battery system energy management and
tramway,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 276–285, fuzzy logic control.
Feb. 2014.
[20] A. Taghavipour, M. Vajedi, N. L Azad, and J. McPhee, “Predictive power
management strategy for a PHEV based on different levels of trip in-
formation,” Engine Powertrain Control, Simul. Model., vol. 3, no. 1,
pp. 326–333, 2012.
[21] D. Gao, Z. Jin, and Q. Lu, “Energy management strategy based on fuzzy
logic for a fuel cell hybrid bus,” J. Power Sources, vol. 185, no. 1, Chengshuai Wu was born in 1992. He received
pp. 311–317, 2008. the Bachelor’s degree in automation engineer-
[22] H. Hemi, J. Ghouili, and A. Cheriti, “A real time fuzzy logic power ing, in 2014 from Zhejiang University, Hangzhou,
management strategy for a fuel cell vehicle,” Energy Convers. Manage., China, where he is currently working toward the
vol. 80, pp. 63–70, 2014. Ph.D. degree in control science and engineer-
[23] A. A. Ferreira, J. A. Pomilio, G. Spiazzi, and L. de Araujo Silva, “En- ing.
ergy management fuzzy logic supervisory for electric vehicle power sup- His current research interests include hybrid
plies system,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 107–115, fuel cell/battery systems, nonlinear control, and
Jan. 2008. port-Hamiltonian systems.
[24] O. Tremblay et al., “A generic fuel cell model for the simulation of
fuel cell vehicles,” in Proc. IEEE Veh. Power Propulsion Conf., 2009,
pp. 1722–1729.
[25] M. Hilairet, M. Ghanes, O. Béthoux, V. Tanasa, J. Barbot, and D.
Normand-Cyrot, “A passivity-based controller for coordination of con-
verters in a fuel cell system,” Control Eng. Pract., vol. 21, no. 8,
pp. 1097–1109, 2013. Weihua Xu received the B.E. degree in automa-
[26] L. Gao, S. Liu, and R. A. Dougal, “Dynamic lithium-ion battery model tion engineering and the Ph.D. degree in control
for system simulation,” IEEE Trans. Compon. Packag. Technol., vol. 25, science and engineering from Zhejiang Univer-
no. 3, pp. 495–505, Sep. 2002. sity, Hangzhou, China, in 1998 and 2003, re-
[27] E. Van Dijk, J. Spruijt, D. M. O’sullivan, and J. B. Klaassens, “PWM- spectively.
switch modeling of dc–dc converters,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., She is currently an Associate Professor in
vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 659–665, Nov. 1995. the College of Control Science and Engineer-
[28] T. Das and S. Snyder, “Adaptive control of a solid oxide fuel cell ultra- ing, Zhejiang University. Her research interests
capacitor hybrid system,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 21, include adaptive control of uncertain linear sys-
no. 2, pp. 372–383, Mar. 2013. tems, modeling and control of distributed energy
systems, and nonlinear control.