IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, VOL. 15, NO.
3, JUNE 2014 1193
Comparison of Three Electrochemical Energy
Buffers Applied to a Hybrid Bus Powertrain
With Simultaneous Optimal Sizing
and Energy Management
Xiaosong Hu, Member, IEEE, Nikolce Murgovski, Lars Mårdh Johannesson, Member, IEEE, and
Bo Egardt, Fellow, IEEE
Abstract—This paper comparatively examines three different
electrochemical energy storage systems (ESSs), i.e., a Li-ion bat-
tery pack, a supercapacitor pack, and a dual buffer, for a hy-
brid bus powertrain operated in Gothenburg, Sweden. Existing
studies focus on comparing these ESSs, in terms of either general
attributes (e.g., energy density and power density) or their impli-
cations to the fuel economy of hybrid vehicles with a heuristic/
nonoptimal ESS size and power management strategy. This paper
adds four original contributions to the related literature. First, the
three ESSs are compared in a framework of simultaneous optimal
ESS sizing and energy management, where the ESSs can serve
the powertrain in the most cost-effective manner. Second, convex
optimization is used to implement the framework, which allows the
hybrid powertrain designers/integrators to rapidly and optimally
perform integrated ESS selection, sizing, and power manage-
ment. Third, both hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) and plug-in HEV
(PHEV) scenarios for the powertrain are considered, in order to
systematically examine how different the ESS requirements are
for HEV and PHEV applications. Finally, a sensitivity analysis is
carried out to evaluate how price variations of the onboard energy
carriers affect the results and conclusions.
Index Terms—Convex optimization, electrified vehicle, energy
management strategy, energy storage, optimal sizing.
I. I NTRODUCTION
T HE current transportation system is heavily dependent
on fossil fuels, resulting in serious concerns on energy
and economic sustainability, as well as environmental impact
in densely populated areas. Endeavors are being actively un-
dertaken to alleviate this dependence, in which transportation
electrification has been recognized as one of the most promising
Manuscript received July 22, 2013; revised October 16, 2013; accepted
December 4, 2013. Date of publication January 9, 2014; date of current version
May 30, 2014. This work was supported in part by the Swedish Energy Agency
and in part by the Swedish Hybrid Vehicle Center. The Associate Editor for this
paper was L. Li.
X. Hu, N. Murgovski, and B. Egardt are with the Department of Sig-
nals and Systems, Chalmers University of Technology, 412 96 Gothenburg,
Sweden (e-mail: xiaosong@chalmers.se; nikolce.murgovski@chalmers.se;
bo.egardt@chalmers.se).
L. M. Johannesson is with the Department of Signals and Systems, Chalmers
University of Technology, 412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden and also with the Vik-
toria Swedish ICT, 417 56 Gothenburg, Sweden (e-mail: larsjo@chalmers.se;
lars.johannesson@viktoria.se).
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/TITS.2013.2294675
1524-9050 © 2014 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.
solutions [1]–[3]. It has been projected that electrifying the
whole transportation system could reduce energy dissipation
by 80% of the current level [4]. The use of electricity is able
to diversify the power sources of vehicles, thus downsizing or
even getting rid of low-efficiency internal combustion engines
(ICEs), while facilitating the growth of renewable energy in the
power sector, e.g., wind and solar energy sources and hydro-
electric power [5]. A good interaction between the transporta-
tion and power sectors is therefore anticipated to accomplish a
sustainable energy future [6].
Two key technologies accelerating an evolution toward elec-
trified transportation are hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) and
plug-in HEVs (PHEVs). HEVs/PHEVs are attracting increas-
ing attention from automotive industry and academia, owing to
better fuel economy and lower exhaust emissions in comparison
to conventional ICE vehicles [7]–[12]. The performance of
HEVs/PHEVs is affected by a multitude of factors, in which the
characteristics, sizing, and control of the energy storage system
(ESS, onboard electricity carrier) are instrumental. For exam-
ple, the fuel consumption, recuperation efficiency, and drivabil-
ity of HEVs/PHEVs highly depend on the specific power and
energy of their ESSs [13]–[15]. Additional characteristics of
ESS are lifetime, safety, cost, etc. [16], [17].
Several survey papers have compared the characteristics of
prevalent vehicular ESSs, including batteries, supercapacitors,
flywheels, and fuel cells [18]–[21]. It has been demonstrated
that the electrochemical power sources, i.e., battery and su-
percapacitor technologies, possess better overall performance
than flywheels, thus being the most common options for current
electrified vehicles. Although the fuel cell, another electro-
chemical system, is a good choice of vehicle prime mover, the
long time constant restricts its usage as an ESS [21]. More
specifically, Li-ion batteries have been perceived as one of the
most promising options in the battery group because of its
significant advantage in energy density. Compared with Li-ion
batteries, supercapacitors typically have higher power density
and longer lifespan, enabling a faster response to vehicle power
demand, whereas their energy density is much lower [22], [23].
A dual energy buffer combining two electrochemical power
sources with complementary characteristics, such as a Li-ion
battery pack and a supercapacitor pack, has been also proposed
and analyzed [19], [21], [24]–[26]. Superior performance could
1194 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, VOL. 15, NO. 3, JUNE 2014
be expected for this type of hybrid power source, compensating
the individual shortcomings of the pure battery and the pure
supercapacitor ESSs.
The aforementioned literature [18]–[26] presented a general
description of primary attributes of vehicular ESSs. However,
it did not quantify and compare ESSs’ impacts on the per-
formance (e.g., fuel consumption and economic viability) of
HEVs/PHEVs through a system-level powertrain simulation
and assessment. A vehicle-level energy management strategy,
coordinating the power allocation between the prime mover
(e.g., ICE) and the ESS, also plays an important role in the
efficacy and potential of ESS utilization. A Li-ion battery and a
supercapacitor stack were compared in a simulation of HEV
powertrains in the commercial electrified-vehicle-simulation
platform, Advanced Vehicle Simulator (ADVISOR) [27]. The
results showed that both the battery and the supercapacitor
could be used in HEVs to gain fuel economy improvement
relative to ICE cars, while meeting the requirement of perfor-
mance and drivability. A comparison among a Li-ion battery,
a supercapacitor stack, and a dual energy buffer combining
the former two has been also conducted for both HEVs and
PHEVs in ADVISOR environment [28]. The study indicated
that the dual energy buffer could lead to the best fuel savings in
both scenarios, while reducing the battery stress with the load-
leveling assistance of the supercapacitor stack. Additionally,
the fuel economy and ESS cost of a fuel-cell-based HEV were
compared in a MATLAB-based vehicle simulator for concepts
consisting of a high-speed flywheel, a Li-ion battery, and a
supercapacitor system [29]. These studies, however, considered
rule-based vehicle energy controls that cannot realize the opti-
mal power split between multiple energy sources for minimum
fuel consumption. The consequent nonoptimal ESS power man-
agement may not sufficiently exploit the ESS potential [15],
[30]–[33]. This has also been concluded in [8], [9], [11], [17],
and [30]–[34], by showing the advantages of optimization-
based energy management strategies over the conventional
rule-based strategies. For example, in [34], the optimal energy
management strategy has been obtained by dynamic program-
ming (DP), in order to compare fuel consumption, battery
lifetime, and hybridization cost of a parallel HEV with either
a single Li-ion battery or a dual energy buffer. The dual buffer
was found advantageous, and it was argued that the method-
ology considering the optimal energy control could lead to a
relatively fair comparison.
An additional critical factor that most of the foregoing papers
did not consider is the influence of ESSs’ size on the per-
formance and cost of HEVs/PHEVs, when comparing various
ESSs. First insights have been given in [36]–[39], where it
has been demonstrated that the optimal ESS sizing is closely
coupled with the energy management strategy. These studies
implied that a framework of simultaneous optimal sizing and
energy management is needed to pursue the “truly” optimal
ESS size and vehicle energy control.
This paper presents a comparative study of three electro-
chemical ESSs (i.e., a Li-ion battery pack, a supercapacitor
pack, and a dual buffer) for a hybrid bus powertrain operated in
Gothenburg, Sweden. This study adds four important original
contributions to the related literature. First, the comparison is
Fig. 1. Bus powertrain configuration.
conducted in a framework of simultaneous optimal ESS sizing
and vehicle energy management, in which the sum of operating
cost (i.e., fuel/electricity consumption) and ESS cost for the bus
is minimized. The ESS is, hence, able to serve the hybrid pow-
ertrain in the most cost-effective manner, which is of greatest
concern to the bus operators. Second, to rapidly and efficiently
implement the framework, convex optimization is employed.
Its effectiveness and computational advantages over DP and
evolutionary algorithms for optimal sizing and control of hybrid
powertrains have been demonstrated in our prior work [17],
[38]–[41]. The proposed convex-programming-based frame-
work can provide the hybrid powertrain developers/integrators
with a new efficient tool for integrated ESS selection, sizing,
and power management at the initial exploratory stage of
vehicle design. Third, both HEV and PHEV configurations
for the bus powertrain are considered while comparing the
three different ESSs. This makes it possible to systematically
examine how different the requirements on the ESS are for
HEV and PHEV applications. Finally, a sensitivity analysis of
the result is performed with respect to the prices of fuel, battery,
and supercapacitor. Although the aforementioned contributions
are made specifically for a series hybrid bus powertrain, the
proposed framework and implementation approach are readily
extendible to other topologies.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section II
details the bus line and the powertrain model; the convex-
programming-based framework of simultaneous optimal ESS
sizing and energy management is introduced in Section III;
the comparative results for both HEV and PHEV scenarios are
discussed in Section IV; a sensitivity analysis of the comparison
result is described in Section V; limitations and future work
are briefly discussed in Section VI followed by conclusions
presented in Section VII.
II. B US L INE AND P OWERTRAIN M ODEL
A series hybrid bus powertrain is considered [17], [38], as
shown in Fig. 1. The bus traction is provided by an electric
motor (EM) with a power rating of 220 kW. The two power
sources are an ESS and a 180-kW engine-generator unit (EGU).
An HEV or PHEV operation of the series hybrid drivetrain
architecture can be implemented, depending on the ESS size
and the accessibility of grid electricity. The demanded velocity
HU et al.: THREE ELECTROCHEMICAL ENERGY BUFFERS APPLIED TO A HYBRID BUS POWERTRAIN
Fig. 2. Bus line in Gothenburg, Sweden. (a) Speed. (b) Road slope.
and road gradient for the bus, i.e., a realistic bus line in
Gothenburg, Sweden, are shown in Fig. 2. In order to ensure a
quick simulation of the complete driving cycle with reasonable
accuracy, the quasi-static modeling methodology is employed
to model the powertrain [31]. The power demand at the wheels
is interpreted as an angular velocity ω(t) and a torque Tv (t) on
the shaft between the EM and the final drive, which is based on
the longitudinal vehicle dynamics (see [40] for more details).
The EM with a delivered torque T (t) is able to both sat-
isfy high torque demand for propelling and allow regenerative
braking. However, when either its torque threshold Tmin (ω(t))
or the ESS charge limit is violated, conventional dissipative
braking Tbrk (t) will act as a complement. The torque and power
balance equations are represented as
T (t) = Tv (t) − Tbrk (t)
Pm (t) + Ploss,m (t) + Pau (t) = Pess (t) + P egu (t)
where Pm is the EM power applied to the final drive computed by
Pm (t) = T (t)ω(t)
and the EM loss Ploss,m is delineated by a quadratic function of
torque
Ploss,m = b0 (ω)T 2 + b1 (ω)T + b2 (ω)
where bi (i = 0, 1, 2) are nonnegative speed-dependent coeffi-
cients. Pau , Pess , and P egu denote the auxiliary, ESS, and EGU
powers, respectively. Without loss of a fair comparison among
ESSs, as in [17] and [38], and for simplicity, the losses of power
electronics are neglected because they are considerably more
efficient than the key onboard power sources. Pau is assumed
to be constant.
The fossil fuel (diesel) power is characterized by
Pf (t) = a0 P 2egu (t) + (a1 + 1)P egu (t) + a2 e(t)
1195
Fig. 3. EGU and EM efficiencies. (a) EGU efficiency. (b) EM efficiency.
Fig. 4. Pack configuration.
with ai ≥ 0, i ∈ {0, 2}. The underlying assumption is that
the EGU operates along the optimal operating line, which can
be realized by a local EGU controller [33]. The quadratic
loss functions, i.e., (3) and (4), are deliberately employed to
preserve the optimization problem convexity (see Section III).
The effectiveness of convexifying these energy conversion units
was elaborated in [17], [38], and [39]. The binary term e(t)
is used to eliminate the idling loss a2 , while shutting off the
engine, which is herein decided by
 ∗
1, Tv (t)ω(t) ≥ Pon
(1) e(t) = (5)
0, otherwise.
It is meant to switch on the engine if the bus power demand ex-
(2) ∗ ∗
ceeds a threshold Pon . The best Pon is determined by iteratively
solving the convex optimization problem, given different Pon
values in an outer loop. The detailed search routine is presented
in [38] and [40], in which it has been demonstrated that the
(3) heuristic technique guarantees a solution close to the global op-
timum. The efficiencies of the EM and EGU are given in Fig. 3.
We consider an ESS consisting of one or two electrochem-
ical buffers, where the buffer is a lithium-ion battery or a
supercapacitor pack. Each pack consists of strings connected in
parallel, with each string containing the same number of cells
connected in series, as illustrated in Fig. 4. By modeling the cell
as an open-circuit voltage, i.e., uj (t), in series with a resistor
Rj , the power at the pack terminals can be calculated by
 
(4) Ptj (t) = uj (t)ij (t) − Rj i2j (t) nj (6)
1196
Fig. 5. Battery open-circuit voltage versus SOC.
where ij (t) is the cell current, nj is the total number of cells,
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, VOL. 15, NO. 3, JUNE 2014
which is a concave function of P j (t), E j (t), and nj , provided
that E j (t) and nj are nonnegative real values. When sizing
the ESS, this study investigates the optimal power ratings
and energy capacity of the individual packs as nonquantized
values, which is achieved by relaxing nj to a real value. This
makes it possible to lower the dependence on premanufactured
cells. Instead, the focus is kept on the battery/supercapacitor
technology, assuming that cells can be fabricated and assembled
in accordance with the desired (optimized) pack power and
energy content.
Several constraints are imposed on the buffer pack, including
limits on the cell current (iminj and imaxj ), limits on the
allowed SOC range (socminj and socmaxj ), ESS energy conser-
vation for HEV, and ESS energy depletion for PHEV. Including
the cell dynamics, all the constraints can be written as convex
with respect to P j (t), E j (t), and nj below
⎧
⎪
⎪ Ė j (t)= −P j (t)
⎪
⎪

and the subscript j ∈ {b, c} denotes a battery or a superca- ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ i n
2E j (t)
+ u 2 n
pacitor, respectively. Then, the power of a dual-buffer system ⎪
⎪
minj j Cj 0j j
⎪
⎪ 

can be readily represented as Pess (t) = Ptb (t) + Ptc (t). The ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ ≤ P j (t) ≤ imaxj nj
2E j (t)
+ u20j nj
discharge power is assumed to be positive, by convention. Cj
The battery cell’s open-circuit voltage is given as a nonlinear C j nj  2  (10)
⎪
⎪ u (soc ) − u 2
function of state of charge (SOC), as illustrated in Fig. 5. ⎪
⎪ 2 j minj
0j

⎪
⎪ C n
≤ E j (t) ≤ j2 j u2j (socmaxj ) − u20j
However, throughout this paper, we will use an approximated ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
affine voltage–SOC model ⎪
⎪
E j (t0 ) = E j (tf ), (HEV case)
⎪
⎪
⎪ E
⎩ j f
(t ) = E j (socminj ), (PHEV case)
Qb j ∈ {b, c}, ∀ t ∈ [t0 , tf ]
ub (t) = soc(t) + u0b (7)
Cb
where t0 and tf are the initial and final times of the driving
which gives a good fit within the allowed SOC range. In (7), cycle, respectively. For further details on the convex modeling
Qb is the cell capacity in ampere-seconds, and Cb and u0b steps, interested readers are referred to [42].
are coefficients in farads and volts, respectively. It has been
certified that the affine approximation will lead to a convex bat-
III. S IMULTANEOUS O PTIMAL ESS S IZING AND E NERGY
tery model, in terms of pack energy E b (t) and terminal power
M ANAGEMENT VIA C ONVEX P ROGRAMMING
Ptb (t) [42]. Here, we briefly repeat the convex modeling steps,
but the internal pack power (without considering loss) P b (t) = A. Convex Modeling
nb ub (t)ib (t) is used as an optimization variable, instead of
A convex programming problem is formulated as follows:
Ptb (t). Hence, the battery pack energy can be expressed as
minimize F (x)

soc(t)
subject to fi (x) ≤ 0, i = 1, . . . , n
E b (t) = nb Qb ub (t) d soc(t)
hl (x) = 0, l = 1, . . . , q
0
x∈ℵ (11)
 
soc(t) 
Qb
= nb Qb soc(t) + u0b d soc(t) where ℵ ∈ Rn is a convex set, F (x) and fi (x) are convex
Cb
functions, and hl (x) are affine functions of the optimization
0 
Qb 2
vector x [43]. Here, we take the dual buffer as an example
= n b Qb soc (t) + u0b soc(t) to show how a convex optimization problem for ESS sizing
2Cb
nb Cb  2  and energy management can be formulated, since those for the
= ub (t) − u20b . (8) battery-only ESS and the supercapacitor-only ESS can be easily
2
obtained as special cases. The optimization variables are P b (t),
The supercapacitor pack energy can be obtained in a similar E b (t), nb , P c (t), E c (t), nc , P egu (t), and T (t); the con-
way by replacing the subscript b with c in (8), and using straints are the bus power balance (1), the ESS constraints (10),
u0c = 0. Then, by expressing the open-circuit voltage from (8) the EM torque bounds, the EGU power bounds, nb ≥ 0, and
as a function of energy, the terminal pack power (6) can be nc ≥ 0. Relaxing the equalities (1) to inequalities preserves
written as convexity while not qualitatively changing the problem, i.e.,
Rj Cj P 2j (t) T (t) ≥ Tv (t)
Ptj (t) = P j (t)− , j ∈ {b, c}, u0c = 0 (9)
2E j (t)+u20j Cj nj Pm (t) + Ploss,m (t) + Pau (t) ≤ Pess (t) + P egu (t) (12)
HU et al.: THREE ELECTROCHEMICAL ENERGY BUFFERS APPLIED TO A HYBRID BUS POWERTRAIN 1197

where TABLE I
C ONVEX -O PTIMIZATION -BASED ESS S IZING
AND E NERGY M ANAGEMENT
Pess (t) = P b (t) + P c (t) − Rb i2b (t)nb − Rc i2c (t)nc . (13)

As in [17] and [38]–[40], the convex objective function F (x),

which is of greatest interest to bus operators, is formulated to
minimize a summation of the diesel/electricity cost and the ESS
cost, i.e.,
tf
cf ce
F = Pf (t) dt + cbe nb + cce nc +
Cf 3.6 × 106 ηgrid
t0

× (E b (t0 ) + E c (t0 ) − E b (tf ) − E c (tf )) (14)

where cf is the diesel price per liter, Cf is the lower heating

value of diesel in joules per liter, ce is the electricity price
per kilowatthour, and ηgrid is the charging efficiency. The
recharging time and power levels are not explicitly considered TABLE II
in the study. As in [44] and [45], a constant charging efficiency L I - ION C ELL S PECIFICATION
is used, and all the three ESSs are assumed to have the same
efficiency. The equivalent cost of the ESS cje is the cycle-
normalized ESS cost (i.e., the purchasing cost times the per-
centage of the driving-cycle length with respect to the total bus
mileage in service). The ESS is paid with 5% yearly interest
rate in the period of bus operation, thus yielding
Ld
cje = 1.075cj Enj mj (15)
S
where cj is the ESS price per kilowatthour (including packaging
and circuitry), Enj is the specific energy in kilowatthours per
kilogram, and mj is the cell mass in kilograms. The driving-
cycle length and the total bus mileage (in kilometers) are
denoted by Ld and S, respectively. Here, the underlying as-
sumption is that there is no ESS replacement during the two-
year operation (100 000 km, the bus operation period), as in
our prior work [41]. Typically, there is no concern over the
supercapacitor lifetime in vehicular applications. With contin- IV. C OMPARATIVE R ESULTS
ually ameliorated chemistry and control, the battery durability
A. ESS Specifications and Main Vehicle Parameters
is also probably sufficient for automotive use [46], [47]. Battery
replacement was often neglected in similar studies, such as [17], The Li-ion battery (Saft VL 45 E) and the supercapacitor
[29], and [36]–[42], for component sizing and energy controls (Maxwell BCAP 2000) for hybrid and electric vehicles are
of hybrid propulsion systems at the initial exploratory stage. considered for this study. Since Saft and Maxwell are well-
known Li-ion battery and supercapacitor manufacturers for
transportation applications, respectively, their products can be
B. Framework of Simultaneous Optimal ESS Sizing and
considered as typical representatives of electrochemical cell
Energy Management
technologies. The main specifications of the Li-ion battery
The convex programming algorithm for simultaneous op- and the supercapacitor are summarized in Tables II and III,
timal ESS sizing and energy management of the hybrid bus respectively. It is clear that the Li-ion battery has much higher
with the dual buffer is summarized in Table I. The so-called specific energy, whereas the supercapacitor has considerably
expressions in the table are not equality constraints, but are better capability of sourcing and sinking power. The ESS price
only used for better readability. Their values are derived from includes costs for materials, manufacturing, packaging, and
the associated mathematical equations. A tool, CVX [43], [48], circuitry. Cell packaging and circuitry are assumed to account
is applied to parse the problem in Table I, leading to a general for 12.3% of the total mass of the ESS pack [54]. Note that the
semidefinite program that can be efficiently solved by Self Dual power-type battery technology is not considered, since it typi-
Minimization (SeDuMi) [17], [49]. Owing to the convexity, a cally has substantially higher cost per kilowatt and lower power,
globally optimal solution is guaranteed with arbitrary initial- compared with the supercapacitor technology [50]. Both the
ization. The theoretical and algorithmic properties of convex HEV and PHEV scenarios are discussed. In the HEV scenario,
optimization are elaborated in [43]. the ESS is operated in a charge-sustaining mode, and the energy
1198 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, VOL. 15, NO. 3, JUNE 2014
TABLE III
S UPERCAPACITOR S PECIFICATION
TABLE IV
M AIN V EHICLE PARAMETERS
consumed for traction is from the engine; whereas in the PHEV
scenario, the ESS charge is used (depleted to a specified value
and then recharged through electricity grid), and the engine
also provides traction energy. A general control strategy that
optimally blends the ESS and EGU powers throughout the
driving cycle is adopted in the PHEV scenario (see Table I).
The detailed specifications of ESS SOC constraints are listed
in Tables II and III. Owing to high power and long lifetime, a
large SOC fluctuation of the supercapacitor is often allowed in
charge-sustaining HEVs [27], [53].
The main vehicle parameters are shown in Table IV. For
simplicity, the number of passengers onboard is assumed to be
constant.
B. HEV Scenario
The convex optimization can rapidly and efficiently solve
the optimal ESS size and power split between the engine and
the ESS. The optimal power distribution of the bus powertrain
in the HEV scenario is shown in Fig. 6. Compared with the
battery, the supercapacitor can provide or sink substantially
larger power, leading to a smaller demand on the EGU power
and better recuperation capability. Because of the relatively
high cost per kilowatt, it is not optimal to size the battery-only
ESS big enough to be able to recuperate the maximum brake
Fig. 6. Optimal power split of the bus in the HEV scenario. (a) EGU output
power. (b) Battery terminal power. (c) Supercapacitor terminal power.
power in the driving cycle. In addition, the supercapacitor in the
dual buffer has an obvious load-leveling effect on the battery.
Furthermore, it can be observed that the dual buffer makes it
possible to turn off the engine more frequently and for longer
durations. The SOC trajectory and operating efficiency of the
ESS are shown in Fig. 7. In contrast to the supercapacitor-
only ESS, the battery-only ESS has a larger efficiency span and
even sometimes reaches its power bounds where the efficiency
is relatively low. With the assistance of the supercapacitor,
the efficiency of the battery in the dual buffer is improved.
The cycle-averaged efficiencies of the power sources of the
bus with the three different ESSs are summarized in Table V
(the idling points are excluded). The supercapacitor has higher
average efficiency than the battery, despite the substantially
larger current and relatively low SOC (e.g., 20%), where the
efficiency is relatively low. Nevertheless, the average efficiency
of the EGU of the bus with the supercapacitor-only ESS is
lowest (slightly worse than the other two) because of the lowest
EGU power (see Fig. 3). The EGU of the bus with the dual
buffer has the highest efficiency, since the optimization is more
likely to yield the best EGU operation, given additional degrees
of freedom (e.g., power split between the battery and the
supercapacitor). The optimal ESS size and costs are compared
in Table VI. It can be observed that the optimized dual buffer
leads to the smallest total cost, whereas the bus with the battery-
only ESS is most costly. Compared with the battery-only ESS,
the supercapacitor-only ESS and the dual buffer can reduce the
total cost by 9.9% and 13.7% in the driving cycle, respectively.
This gives a considerable economic benefit in the service
period of the bus. Additionally, we can see that, although the
supercapacitor-only ESS induces lower EGU efficiency, the
consequent diesel consumption is less than that of the battery-
only ESS, owing to the much less energy requested by the EGU.
HU et al.: THREE ELECTROCHEMICAL ENERGY BUFFERS APPLIED TO A HYBRID BUS POWERTRAIN
Fig. 7. ESS SOC and efficiency in the HEV scenario. (a) Battery-only ESS.
(b) Supercapacitor-only ESS. (c) Dual-buffer ESS.
TABLE V
AVERAGE E FFICIENCIES OF P OWER S OURCES IN THE HEV S CENARIO
TABLE VI
O PTIMAL ESS S IZE AND C OSTS IN THE HEV S CENARIO
1199
Fig. 8. Optimal power split of the bus in the PHEV scenario. (a) EGU output
power. (b) Battery terminal power. (c) Supercapacitor terminal power.
C. PHEV Scenario
The ESS charge is depleted to a lower bound in the PHEV
scenario. The blending of the ESS and engine powers in the
driving cycle is optimized by the convex programming intro-
duced in Section III. The optimal power distribution in the
PHEV scenario is shown in Fig. 8. As opposed to the HEV
scenario, the supercapacitor-only ESS leads to the most fre-
quent EGU utilization, since the low specific energy and quite
high price per kilowatthour (see Table III) give the result that a
small supercapacitor pack will minimize the total cost (the large
majority of energy comes from the EGU). It is apparent that the
optimized battery-only ESS and the dual buffer can effectively
reduce the EGU energy output. In the dual buffer, the domi-
nant element is the battery, while the supercapacitor provides
complementary power. The SOC trajectory and efficiency of the
ESS are presented in Fig. 9. The supercapacitor-only ESS still
shows better efficiency, due to the much smaller resistance. The
average efficiencies of the bus power sources in the PHEV sce-
nario are listed in Table VII. As in the HEV scenario, the dual
buffer results in the best EGU efficiency. The optimal ESS size
and costs are presented in Table VIII. The results show that the
dual buffer is most cost effective, whereas the supercapacitor-
only ESS is worst. Compared with the battery-only ESS, the
supercapacitor-only ESS increases the total cost by 25.2%,
implying that it may not be suitable for PHEV applications. On
the other hand, it can be seen that the battery in the dual buffer is
larger than the battery-only ESS, since the high power of the su-
percapacitor helps to use more electricity through reducing the
duration of the EGU operation (see Fig. 8). Further enlarging
the battery-only ESS to reduce the diesel consumption would
be more costly, owing to the relatively high battery cost per
kilowatt. The dual buffer outperforms the battery-only ESS by
1.7%, in terms of the total cost, which is, however, slight.
1200 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, VOL. 15, NO. 3, JUNE 2014
Fig. 9. ESS SOC and efficiency in the PHEV scenario. (a) Battery-only ESS.
(b) Supercapacitor-only ESS. (c) Dual-buffer ESS.
TABLE VII
AVERAGE E FFICIENCIES OF P OWER S OURCES IN THE PHEV S CENARIO
TABLE VIII
O PTIMAL ESS S IZE AND C OSTS IN THE PHEV S CENARIO
TABLE IX
P RICES OF E NERGY C ARRIERS FOR S ENSITIVITY A NALYSIS
V. S ENSITIVITY A NALYSIS
The optimization results discussed in Section IV are based
on the baseline prices of diesel, electricity, Li-ion battery, and
supercapacitor shown in Tables II–IV, which can be considered
as the current market level in Europe (Sweden). From (14) and
Table I, we can see that, with the weights being these prices,
the simultaneous optimal ESS sizing and power management
can be interpreted as a multiobjective optimal control problem.
Therefore, it is important to investigate how changes in these
prices influence the optimization results and the comparison
between the three different ESSs. Since the focus of the paper is
not to accurately project the prices of different onboard energy
carriers in the future (which belongs to economics area), and it
is not feasible to consider all the possibilities, a simple but use-
ful sensitivity analysis is carried out by taking four likely values
of each price into account. The prices of the diesel, Li-ion
battery, and supercapacitor for the sensitivity analysis are listed
in Table IX. Variation in electricity price is not included because
electricity is substantially cheaper than others and often steadily
regulated for recharging purposes in public transportation [17],
[55]. Because fossil fuel has been extensively analyzed to have
an overall rising price in future years [15], [55], [56], 50%,
100%, and 150% increases of the baseline diesel price are
considered. On the other hand, owing to economies of scale,
the costs of the Li-ion battery and supercapacitor will gradually
diminish [19], [50], [55]. Here, we take 25%, 50%, and 75%
decreases of the baseline price as an example. An analogous
price treatment for sensitivity analysis can be found in [57].
Instead of considering complete three-factor combinations (i.e.,
43 ), for simplicity, we examine the sensitivity of the comparison
outcome in the following cases.
1) Only one price (factor) is varying, while the others are
assigned to baseline values.
2) All the three prices are varying according to Table IX (i.e.,
Baseline–Change 1–Change 2–Change 3).
A. HEV Scenario
The total cost and ESS size in the HEV scenario, with respect
to the varying diesel price, are shown in Fig. 10. It is clear that
the increase in diesel price causes a rising total cost for all the
ESS options. More importantly, as the diesel price increases,
the cost-saving advantage of the supercapacitor-only ESS over
the battery-only ESS becomes increasingly obvious, as well
as that of the dual buffer over the supercapacitor-only ESS.
The optimal size of the battery-only ESS is enlarged with the
increased diesel price; that of the supercapacitor-only ESS first
increases and then kept the same after the diesel price reaches
2.01 C/l, since the increase in the averaged EGU efficiency is
HU et al.: THREE ELECTROCHEMICAL ENERGY BUFFERS APPLIED TO A HYBRID BUS POWERTRAIN 1201

Fig. 10. Sensitivity of ESS comparison, with respect to the diesel price, in the Fig. 12. Sensitivity of ESS comparison, with respect to the supercapacitor
HEV scenario. (a) Total cost. (b) Single buffer (battery or supercapacitor) size. price, in the HEV scenario. (a) Total cost. (b) Single buffer (battery or super-
(c) Dual buffer size. capacitor) size. (c) Dual buffer size.

Fig. 11. Sensitivity of ESS comparison, with respect to the battery price, in Fig. 13. Sensitivity of ESS comparison when all the three prices alter in the
the HEV scenario. (a) Total cost. (b) Single buffer (battery or supercapacitor) HEV scenario. (a) Total cost. (b) Single buffer (battery or supercapacitor) size.
size. (c) Dual buffer size. (c) Dual buffer size.

too small to compensate for the ESS size/cost increase in the

HEV scenario. The battery and supercapacitor sizes in the dual
buffer have a nonmonotonic alteration: when the diesel price
is not larger than 2.01 C/l, the supercapacitor size increases,
and the battery size reduces; when the diesel price is larger than
2.01 C/l, an opposite size change is noticed.
The result with respect to the varying battery price is illus-
trated in Fig. 11. It is shown that, as the battery price decreases,
the battery-only ESS has an increasingly small deviation with
the supercapacitor-only ESS and the dual buffer. When the price
is less than a certain threshold, the battery-only ESS is even
better than the supercapacitor-only ESS, but still worse than Fig. 14. Sensitivity of ESS comparison, with respect to the diesel price, in the
the dual buffer. The battery size (the battery-only ESS and the PHEV scenario. (a) Total cost. (b) Single buffer (battery or supercapacitor) size.
(c) Dual buffer size.
dual buffer) increases, while the supercapacitor size in the dual
buffer becomes smaller.
B. PHEV Scenario
The sensitivity to the supercapacitor price is given in Fig. 12.
As opposed to the case of varying battery price, the battery-only The total cost and ESS size in the PHEV scenario, with
ESS has a larger deviation with the supercapacitor-only ESS respect to the diesel price and the battery price, are shown
and the dual buffer. Furthermore, the reduced supercapacitor in Figs. 14 and 15, respectively. It is clear that the gain of
price benefits the supercapacitor-only ESS more than the dual choosing the battery-only ESS rather than the supercapacitor-
buffer. The supercapacitor size (the supercapacitor-only ESS only ESS becomes increasingly large. The improvement in the
and the dual buffer) increases, while the battery size in the dual dual buffer relative to the battery-only ESS becomes larger with
buffer becomes smaller. the increased diesel price, whereas the outcome is opposite
Fig. 13 shows the comparison result when all the three prices when the battery price decreases (see Fig. 15). After the diesel
alter in a manner shown in Table IX. Although the prices of the price reaches 2.01 C/l, further increasing the diesel price will
supercapacitor and the battery decrease, the minimal total cost not change the battery size in the dual buffer, since the increased
increases for all the three ESSs, since only the diesel energy is supercapacitor size ensures the minimum diesel consumption.
finally consumed in the HEV scenario subject to ESS charge The comparison with respect to the supercapacitor price in
sustenance, and the increased diesel price is the dominating the PHEV scenario is shown in Fig. 16. Although the reduced
factor. In this case, the sizes of all the buffers increase. supercapacitor price is favorable to the supercapacitor-only
1202 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, VOL. 15, NO. 3, JUNE 2014
Fig. 15. Sensitivity of ESS comparison, with respect to the battery price, in
the PHEV scenario. (a) Total cost. (b) Single buffer (battery or supercapacitor)
size. (c) Dual buffer size.
Fig. 16. Sensitivity of ESS comparison, with respect to the supercapacitor
price, in the PHEV scenario. (a) Total cost. (b) Single buffer (battery or
supercapacitor) size. (c) Dual buffer size.
Fig. 17. Sensitivity of ESS comparison when all the three prices alter in the
PHEV scenario. (a) Total cost. (b) Single buffer (battery or supercapacitor) size.
(c) Dual buffer size.
ESS, it still leads to substantially higher cost than the battery-
only ESS and the dual buffer. The growing superiority of the
dual buffer to the battery-only ESS is also observed.
The result of changing all the three prices in the PHEV
scenario is shown in Fig. 17. The supercapacitor-only ESS
becomes even worse, since the consequent dominant energy
source is still diesel. On the contrary, the total cost of the
battery-only ESS and the dual buffer is reduced, despite the
increased diesel price, because the vast majority of energy
consumed is electricity provided by the ESS. It is not hard to
envision that the optimization will approach a purely electric
bus, given the fact that electricity is considerably cheaper than
hydrocarbon fuel, as the ESS price continually decreases. After
Change 1, the size of the dual buffer remains fixed, since the
bus has already evolved as a purely electric bus.
VI. D ISCUSSION
Based on the assumption that the battery will last for at least
two years of operation and 100 000 km of driving, battery aging
is not considered in detail in this paper. It is, however, relevant to
briefly discuss whether battery aging would clearly point toward
either of the ESS designs by increasing the value of the bus after
the end of the studied two-year period. Known causes of battery
aging, in addition to calendar time, are high C-rates, ampere-
hour throughput, and cycling with high depth of discharge.
Focusing on the HEV, the results in Fig. 7 show that the
battery in the dual-buffer ESS uses the entire allowed SOC-
window from 40% to 60%, whereas the battery-only ESS has a
slightly smaller window from 55% to 60%. Furthermore, Fig. 7
shows that the maximum used charging and discharging battery
power is about 10% lower in the dual-buffer ESS compared
with the single-buffer ESS. Total ampere-hour throughput is
71 Ah for the battery-only ESS and 63 Ah for the dual buffer.
Since the difference in how the cells are used in the dual
buffer and in the battery-only ESS is relatively small, it is
a reasonable assumption that the battery aging and, thus, the
traveled distance between battery replacements will be similar
for both designs. If so, the battery replacement cost would
be significantly smaller for the dual buffer compared with the
battery-only ESS, which has approximately eight times larger
battery. Hence, it can be concluded that, when considering
battery aging, the competitiveness of the dual-buffer HEV is
increased, compared with the battery-only ESS.
In the PHEV, the optimal battery sizes are almost equal for
the dual buffer and the battery-only ESS. Both ESSs use the
entire SOC-window with the difference that the double-buffer
ESS relies more on the supercapacitor during high charging
and discharging power, which could reduce the battery wear.
However, the difference in the battery cell utilization is not large
enough to claim that considering battery aging would clearly
benefit the competitiveness of the dual-buffer PHEV.
It is not straightforward to use the same quantitative rea-
soning as aforementioned when considering whether battery
aging would significantly increase the competitiveness of the
supercapacitor-only ESS with respect to the dual buffer. The
supercapacitor will definitely last longer than the battery and
possibly require no replacements before the bus is scrapped.
To weigh this against the 4% cost advantage of the dual-buffer
HEV (shown in Table VI), we need a detailed battery wear
model that can predict the number of replacements over the en-
tire bus lifetime. However, since battery wear characterization
and prediction is clearly out of scope in this paper, the effects of
battery wear on the competitiveness of the supercapacitor-only
ESS versus the dual buffer is left to be studied in future papers.
Since public transit buses often have a fixed route, which is
very different from passenger cars, the convex optimization and
the associated ESS comparison are for a hybrid bus powertrain
with a known driving trip operated in Gothenburg, Sweden. A
natural question arises: what would happen for very different
trips, in terms of the applicability of convex optimization and
the ESS comparison results? First, the convex-optimization-
based ESS sizing and energy control methodology also applies
to different driving cycles, which has been demonstrated in
our prior work [39]. The ESS comparison results may be only
HU et al.: THREE ELECTROCHEMICAL ENERGY BUFFERS APPLIED TO A HYBRID BUS POWERTRAIN
quantitatively different, in terms of the total cost for different
trips. However, it will not lead to qualitative change on the best
ESS option for both HEV and PHEV cases, which has been
argued and supported by several existing survey papers in the
literature [19]–[21], [27]. Our focus is on the ESS comparison
of a hybrid bus with the optimal ESS sizing and power manage-
ment in a fixed route, so that we did not consider varying routes.
The convex-optimization-based approach can be efficiently and
rapidly used, if needed, to evaluate the quantitative deviation of
the ESS comparison results for discrepant bus lines (trips).
VII. C ONCLUSION
This paper has presented a comparative analysis of three
different electrochemical energy buffers (a Li-ion battery pack,
a supercapacitor pack, and a dual buffer combining the former
two) applied to a hybrid bus powertrain in a framework of
simultaneous optimal ESS sizing and vehicle energy man-
agement. In the framework, the sum of operating cost (i.e.,
fuel/electricity consumption) and ESS cost for the bus is min-
imized, such that the ESS can serve the hybrid powertrain in
the most cost-effective manner. Convex modeling/optimization
is used to implement the framework, which is a new efficient
tool for the hybrid powertrain developers/integrators to rapidly
achieve the optimal ESS selection, dimensioning, and power
management.
Given the baseline prices of the diesel, Li-ion battery, and
supercapacitor that reflect the current market level, the com-
parison result in the HEV scenario shows that the optimized
dual buffer induces the smallest diesel consumption and the
best economy; the supercapacitor-only ESS is second best; the
Li-ion battery-only ESS is worst. Compared with the battery-
only ESS, the cost savings of the supercapacitor-only ESS
and the dual buffer are 9.9% and 13.7%, respectively. In the
PHEV scenario, the dual buffer is still most cost-effective; the
battery-only ESS is second best; the supercapacitor-only ESS
is worst. A significant cost increase relative to the battery-only
ESS implies that the supercapacitor-only ESS may not be an
appropriate option for PHEV applications. The advantage of the
dual buffer over the battery-only ESS is slight (even negligible)
in the PHEV scenario.
The impact of price variations of the diesel, Li-ion battery,
and supercapacitor on the comparison is assessed by a simple
but useful sensitivity analysis considering four possible cases.
The following outcomes are acquired.
1) When only the diesel price increases, in both the HEV
and PHEV scenarios, the advantage of the dual buffer
becomes increasingly obvious.
2) When only the battery price decreases, in the HEV sce-
nario, the battery-only ESS has a smaller deviation from
the supercapacitor-only ESS and the dual buffer. When
the price reduces to a certain threshold, the battery-only
ESS becomes even better than the supercapacitor-only
ESS, but still worse than the dual buffer. In the PHEV sce-
nario, the gain of using the battery-only ESS rather than
the supercapacitor-only ESS, however, becomes larger.
The advantage of the dual buffer over the battery-only
ESS becomes indiscernible.
1203
3) When only the supercapacitor price decreases, in the
HEV scenario, the battery-only ESS has an enlarged
difference from the supercapacitor-only ESS and the
dual buffer; the superiority of the dual buffer to the
supercapacitor-only ESS becomes smaller (still visible).
The supercapacitor-only ESS, in the PHEV scenario, be-
comes better, but still substantially worse than the battery-
only ESS and the dual buffer; a growing advantage of the
dual buffer over the battery-only ESS is found.
4) When 1) to 3) happen simultaneously, the dual buffer
outperforms the other two ESSs more clearly in the HEV
scenario. In the PHEV scenario, however, the dual buffer
has a negligible advantage over the battery-only ESS.
It can be concluded that the dual buffer with the optimal size
and power management is the preferable choice for the hybrid
bus powertrain. In contrast, its superiority in the HEV scenario
is more prominent; the difference between the dual buffer
and the battery-only ESS in the PHEV scenario is relatively
small. The proposed convex-programming-based comparison
framework and the achieved comparison results are based on a
system-level hybrid powertrain optimization, which is valuable
to the initial exploration and assessment of vehicle design (the
implications of some local components, such as power elec-
tronics and battery aging, are often modeled using simplifying
assumptions at that stage).
R EFERENCES
[1] A. G. Boulanger, A. C. Chu, S. Maxx, and D. L. Waltz, “Vehicle electri-
fication: Status and issues,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 99, no. 6, pp. 1116–1138,
Jun. 2011.
[2] A. Emadi, “Transportation 2.0,” IEEE Power Energy Mag., vol. 9, no. 4,
pp. 18–29, Jul./Aug. 2011.
[3] W. Su, H. Rahimi-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.
[4] D. MacKay, Sustainable Energy: Without the Hot Air. Cambridge, U.K.:
UIT Cambridge, 2009.
[5] R. A. Waraich, M. D. Galus, C. Dobler, M. Balmer, G. Andersson, and
K. W. Axhausen, “Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and smart grid: Investi-
gations based on a microsimulation,” Transp. Res. C, Emerging Technol.,
vol. 28, pp. 74–86, Mar. 2013.
[6] S. Chu and A. Majumdar, “Opportunities and challenges for a sustainable
energy future,” Nature, vol. 488, no. 7411, pp. 294–303, Aug. 2012.
[7] X. He and J. W. Hodgson, “Modeling and simulation for hybrid electric
vehicles. II. Simulation,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 3, no. 4,
pp. 244–251, Dec. 2002.
[8] C.-C. Lin, H. Peng, J. W. Grizzle, and J.-M. Kang, “Power management
strategy for a parallel hybrid electric truck,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst.
Technol., vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 839–849, Nov. 2003.
[9] L. Johannesson, M. Åsbogård, and B. Egardt, “Assessing the potential of
predictive control for hybrid vehicle powertrains using stochastic dynamic
programming,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 71–83,
Mar. 2007.
[10] K. Li, T. Chen, Y. Luo, and J. Wang, “Intelligent environment-friendly
vehicles: Concept and case studies,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst.,
vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 318–328, Mar. 2012.
[11] S. Stockar, V. Marano, M. Canova, G. Rizzoni, and L. Guzzella, “Energy-
optimal control of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles for real-world driv-
ing cycles,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 60, no. 7, pp. 2949–2962,
Sep. 2011.
[12] C. Zhang and A. Vahidi, “Route preview in energy management of plug-
in hybrid vehicles,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 20, no. 2,
pp. 546–553, Mar. 2012.
[13] 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.
1204 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, VOL. 15, NO. 3, JUNE 2014
[14] M. S. Whittingham, “History, evolution, and future status of energy stor-
age,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 100, Special Centennial, pp. 1518–1534, May 2012.
[15] X. Zhang and C. Mi, Vehicle Power Management-Modeling, Control and
Optimization. New York, NY, USA: Springer-Verlag, 2011.
[16] C.-S. Ernst, A. Hackbarth, R. Madlener, B. Lunz, D. U. Sauer, and
L. Eckstein, “Battery sizing for serial plug-in hybrid electric vehicles:
A model-based economic analysis for Germany,” Energy Policy, vol. 39,
no. 10, pp. 5871–5882, Oct. 2011.
[17] N. Murgovski, “Optimal powertrain dimensioning and potential assess-
ment of hybrid electric vehicles,” Ph.D. dissertation, Chalmers Univ.
Technol., Gothenburg, Sweden, 2012.
[18] E. Karden, S. Ploumen, B. Fricke, T. Miller, and K. Snyder, “Energy
storage devices for future hybrid electric vehicles,” J. Power Sources,
vol. 168, no. 1, pp. 2–11, May 2007.
[19] S. M. Lukic, J. Cao, R. C. Bansal, F. Rodriguez, and A. Emadi, “Energy
storage systems for automotive applications,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 2258–2267, Jun. 2008.
[20] S. Vazquez, S. M. Lukic, E. Galvan, L. G. Franquelo, and J. M. Carrasco,
“Energy storage systems for transport and grid applications,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron., vol. 57, no. 12, pp. 3881–3895, Dec. 2010.
[21] A. Khaligh and Z. Li, “Battery, ultracapacitor, fuel cell, and hybrid energy
storage systems for electric, hybrid electric, fuel cell, and plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles: State of the art,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 59,
no. 6, pp. 2806–2814, Jul. 2010.
[22] A. Burke, “Ultracapacitors: Why, how, and where is the technology,”
J. Power Sources, vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 37–50, Nov. 2000.
[23] A. Burke and M. Miller, “The power capability of ultracapacitors and
lithium batteries for electric and hybrid vehicle applications,” J. Power
Sources, vol. 196, no. 1, pp. 514–522, Jan. 2011.
[24] E. Schaltz, A. Khaligh, and P. O. Rasmussen, “Influence of battery/
ultracapacitor energy-storage sizing on battery lifetime in a fuel cell hy-
brid electric vehicle,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 3882–
3891, Oct. 2009.
[25] M. Ehsani, Y. Gao, and A. Emadi, Modern Electric, Hybrid Electric, and
Fuel Cell Vehicles: Fundamentals, Theory, and Design, 2nd ed. Boca
Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press, 2009.
[26] C. Mi, M. A. Masrur, and D. Gao, Hybrid Electric Vehicles—Principles
and Applications with Practical Perspectives. Hoboken, NJ, USA:
Wiley, 2011.
[27] A. Burke, “Batteries and ultracapacitors for electric, hybrid, and fuel cell
vehicles,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 95, no. 4, pp. 806–820, Apr. 2007.
[28] A. Burke, M. Miller, and H. Zhao, “Lithium batteries and ultracapacitors
alone and in combination in hybrid vehicles: Fuel economy and battery
stress reduction advantages,” presented at the Proc. 25th World Bat-
tery, Hybrid Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symp. Exhib., Shenzhen, China,
Nov. 5–9, 2010, Paper EVS-25.
[29] R. T. Doucette and M. D. McCulloch, “A comparison of high-speed
flywheels, batteries, and ultracapacitors on the bases of cost and fuel
economy as the energy storage system in a fuel cell based hybrid electric
vehicle,” J. Power Sources, vol. 196, no. 3, pp. 1163–1170, Feb. 2011.
[30] A. Sciarretta, M. Back, and L. Guzzella, “Optimal control of parallel
hybrid electric vehicles,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 12,
no. 3, pp. 352–363, May 2004.
[31] L. Guzzella and A. Sciarretta, Vehicle Propulsion Systems—Introduction
to Modeling and Optimization, 3rd ed. Berlin, Germany: Springer-
Verlag, 2013.
[32] P. Pisu and G. Rizzoni, “A comparative study of supervisory control strate-
gies for hybrid electric vehicles,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol.,
vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 506–518, May 2007.
[33] L. Serrao, S. Onori, and G. Rizzoni, “A comparative analysis of energy
management strategies for hybrid electric vehicles,” Trans. ASME, J. Dyn.
Syst. Meas. Control, vol. 133, no. 3, pp. 031012-1–031012-9, Mar. 2011.
[34] P. Elbert, S. Ebbesen, and L. Guzzella, “Economic viability of battery
load-leveling in hybrid electric vehicles using supercapacitors,” in Proc.
Int. Sci. Conf. RHEVE, Rueil-Malmaison, France, Dec. 6/7, 2011, pp. 1–8.
[35] E. Tara, S. Shahidinejad, S. Filizadeh, and E. Bibeau, “Battery storage
sizing in a retrofitted plug-in hybrid electric vehicle,” IEEE Trans. Veh.
Technol., vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 2786–2794, Jul. 2010.
[36] M. J. Kim and H. Peng, “Power management and design optimization
of fuel cell/battery hybrid vehicles,” J. Power Sources, vol. 165, no. 2,
pp. 819–832, Mar. 2007.
[37] S. Ebbesen, C. Dönitz, and L. Guzzella, “Particle swarm optimization
for hybrid electric drive-train sizing,” Int. J. Veh. Des., vol. 58, no. 2–4,
pp. 181–199, Jun. 2012.
[38] N. Murgovski, L. Johannesson, J. Sjöberg, and B. Egardt, “Component
sizing of a plug-in hybrid electric powertrain via convex optimization,”
Mechatronics, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 106–120, Feb. 2012.
[39] M. Pourabdollah, N. Murgovski, A. Grauers, and B. Egardt, “Optimal
sizing of a parallel PHEV powertrain,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 62,
no. 6, pp. 2469–2480, Jul. 2013.
[40] N. Murgovski, L. Johannesson, and J. Sjöberg, “Engine on/off control for
dimensioning hybrid electric powertrains via convex optimization,” IEEE
Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 62, no. 7, pp. 2949–2962, Sep. 2013.
[41] X. Hu, N. Murgovski, L. Johannesson, and B. Egardt, “Energy efficiency
analysis of a series plug-in hybrid electric bus with different energy man-
agement strategies and battery sizes,” Appl. Energy, vol. 111, pp. 1001–
1009, Nov. 2013.
[42] N. Murgovski, L. Johannesson, and J. Sjöberg, “Convex modeling of
energy buffers in power control applications,” in Proc. IFAC Workshop
E-CoSM Powertrain, Rueil-Malmaison, France, Oct. 23–25, 2012,
pp. 92–99.
[43] S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization. Cambridge, U.K.:
Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004.
[44] S. Moura, D. S. Callaway, H. K. Fathy, and J. L. Stein, “Tradeoffs be-
tween battery energy capacity and stochastic optimal power management
in plug-in hybrid electric vehicles,” J. Power Sources, vol. 195, no. 9,
pp. 2979–2988, May 2010.
[45] S. Moura, J. L. Stein, and H. K. Fathy, “Battery-health conscious power
management in plug-in hybrid electric vehicles via electrochemical mod-
eling and stochastic control,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 21,
no. 3, pp. 679–694, May 2013.
[46] B. G. Pollet, I. Staffell, and J. Shang, “Current status of hybrid, battery and
fuel cell electric vehicles: From electrochemistry to market prospects,”
Electrochim. Acta, vol. 84, pp. 235–249, Dec. 2012.
[47] T. J. Knipe, L. Gaillac, and J. Aargueta, “100 000-mile evaluation of the
Toyota RAV4 EV,” Southern California Edison, Elect. Veh. Tech. Center,
Rosemead, CA, USA, 2003.
[48] Accessed by May 2010 M. Grant and S. Boyd, CVX: Matlab software for
disciplined convex programming, Accessed by May 2010.
[49] Y. Labit, D. Peaucelle, and D. Henrion, “SeDuMi interface 1.02: A tool for
solving LMI problems with SeDuMi,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Comput.
Aided Control Syst. Des., Glasgow, U.K., Sep. 18–20, 2002, pp. 272–277.
[50] T. Mayer, D. Kreyenberg, J. Wind, and F. Braun, “Feasibility study of
2020 target costs for PEM fuel cells and lithium-ion batteries: A two-
factor experience curve approach,” Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, vol. 37,
no. 19, pp. 14 463–14 474, Oct. 2012.
[51] Accessed Jul. 2010. [Online]. Available: http://www.houseofbatteries.
com/documents/VL45E.pdf
[52] Accessed Jul. 2010. [Online]. Available: http://www.maxwell.com/
products/ultracapacitors/docs/datasheet_k2_series_1015370.pdf
[53] D. Rotenberg, A. Vahidi, and I. Kolmanovsky, “Ultracapacitor assisted
powertrains: Modeling, control, sizing, and the impact on fuel econ-
omy,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 576–589,
May 2011.
[54] L. Gaines and R. Cuenca, “Costs of lithium-ion batteries for vehicles,”
Center Transp. Res. Argonne Nat. Lab., U.S. Dept. Energy, Argonne, IL,
Tech. Rep., 2000.
[55] “Technology roadmap: Electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles,” IEA,
Paris, France, Tech. Rep., 2011.
[56] A. Dreher and T. Krieger, “Diesel price convergence and mineral oil
taxation in Europe,” Appl. Econ., vol. 42, no. 15, pp. 1955–1961,
Jun. 2010.
[57] S. Ebbesen and L. Guzzella, “Trade-off between fuel economy and battery
life for hybrid electric vehicles,” in Proc. ASME Dyn. Syst. Control Conf.,
Arlington, VA, USA, Oct. 31/Nov. 2, 2011, pp. 217–223.
Xiaosong Hu (S’11–M’13) received the Ph.D. de-
gree in automotive engineering from Beijing Institute
of Technology, Beijing, China, in 2012.
Between 2010 and 2012, he did scientific research
and completed the Ph.D. dissertation in the Automo-
tive Research Center, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, MI, USA. He is currently a Postdoctoral Re-
searcher with the Swedish Hybrid Vehicle Center and
the Department of Signals and Systems, Chalmers
University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden. His
research interests include optimal control and dimen-
sioning of electrified powertrains and modeling and management of energy
storage systems.
Dr. Hu was a recipient of the Beijing Best Ph.D. Dissertation Award in 2013.
HU et al.: THREE ELECTROCHEMICAL ENERGY BUFFERS APPLIED TO A HYBRID BUS POWERTRAIN
Nikolce Murgovski received the M.Sc. degree in
software engineering from University West, Troll-
hättan, Sweden, in 2007 and the M.Sc. degree in
applied physics and the Ph.D. degree in signals and
systems from Chalmers University of Technology,
Gothenburg, Sweden, in 2007 and 2012, respectively.
He is currently a Postdoctoral Researcher with
the Department of Signals and Systems, Chalmers
University of Technology. His research activities
include optimal control and sizing of automotive
powertrains.
Lars Mårdh Johannesson (M’12) received the
M.Sc. degree in automation and mechatronics and
the Ph.D. degree in automatic control from Chalmers
University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, in
2004 and 2009, respectively.
Since 2011, he has been with the Electromobility
Group, Viktoria Swedish ICT, Gothenburg, Sweden,
working with research on powertrain control within
the Chalmers Energy Initiative. His main research in-
terests include optimal control of hybrid and plug-in
hybrid electric vehicles, control of auxiliary systems
in trucks, active cell balancing, and system studies of hybrid vehicles.
1205
Bo Egardt (SM’90–F’03) received the M.Sc. degree
in electrical engineering and the Ph.D. degree in
automatic control from Lund Institute of Technology,
Lund, Sweden, in 1974 and 1979, respectively.
During 1980, he was a Research Associate with
the Information Systems Laboratory, Stanford, CA,
USA. From 1981 to 1989, he was with Asea Brown
Boveri (ABB), where he was heavily involved in
the introduction of adaptive control in the process
industry. Since 1989, he has been a Professor with
Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg,
Sweden, where he is the Head of the Automatic Control Group. He is also the
Head of the Group of Systems and Control with the Swedish Hybrid Vehicle
Center, Chalmers University of Technology. His main areas of interest include
system identification, adaptive and optimal control, and applications of control
in the automotive area.
Dr. Egardt is a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering
Sciences. He is also a member of the editorial board for the International
Journal of Adaptive Control and Signal Processing. He has been an Associate
Editor of the IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON C ONTROL S YSTEMS T ECHNOLOGY
and of the European Journal of Control.