Supercapacitor Energy Delivery Capability During a

Constant Power Discharge Process

Hengzhao Yang
Department of Electrical Engineering
California State University, Long Beach
Long Beach, CA 90840, USA
Email: hengzhao.yang@csulb.edu

Abstract—This paper studies the supercapacitor energy deliv-
ery capability during a constant power discharge process, which
refers to the amount of energy delivered by a supercapacitor
when a constant power load is applied. Extensive constant power
discharge experiments are conducted using three supercapac-
itor samples with different rated capacitances from different
manufacturers. The relationship between the delivered energy
and the discharge power is examined. In the upper bound case
corresponding to a fully charged supercapacitor, the delivered
energy increases when the discharge power decreases if the
discharge power is above a certain threshold, i.e., Peukert’s
law applies. When the discharge power is below the threshold,
this law does not apply anymore. In the lower bound case
corresponding to a partially charged supercapacitor, the delivered
energy peaks at a particular discharge power. These relationships
are due to the combined effects of three aspects of supercapacitor
physics: porous electrode structure, charge redistribution, and
self-discharge. This paper also compares the bounds of the
delivered energy and shows that the difference is significant.
Index Terms—Supercapacitor, energy delivery capability, con-
stant power load, charge redistribution, self-discharge.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Energy storage has been increasingly recognized as a crit-
ical asset in many applications such as smart grid, electric
vehicles, wireless sensor networks, biomedical devices, and
cyber-physical systems. For instance, 1676 operational or
announced projects totaling a rated power of 194.02 GW have
been reported to the DOE Global Energy Storage Database
as of March 2018 [1]. The significant growth of global
energy storage installation is due to the huge technical and
economic benefits introduced by a variety of applications
and use cases of these systems. In fact, 17 energy storage
applications grouped into five categories have been identified
and analyzed [2]. Energy storage technologies are different in
terms of various characteristics such as energy density, power
density, cycle life, leakage rate, and ramp rate [3]. In general,
supercapacitors and batteries are complementary technologies:
high power density, low energy density, and long cycle life for
supercapacitors versus the opposite for batteries. Depending on
the application, an energy storage system may employ a single
technology or a combination of several. For example, different
configurations of supercapacitor-based energy storage systems
[4] in which supercapacitors are employed as the sole tech-
nology or combined with batteries in hybrid systems are used
in microgrids to balance the power mismatch between source
and load [5], accommodate fast and slow power components
[6], and improve the power quality [7].
To exploit the supercapacitor technology, a comprehensive
and in-depth understanding of its characteristics at the device
level is crucial. Modeling and characterization of supercapaci-
tors have been of great interest. A variety of equivalent circuit
models have been proposed [8]–[13]. Moreover, numerous
frameworks have been developed to identify supercapacitor
parameters and estimate supercapacitor states [14]–[17]. Re-
cently, the impact of supercapacitor physics especially the
charge redistribution process on various aspects of the superca-
pacitor behavior has been investigated. Charge redistribution
is a relaxation process originated from the porous structure
of the supercapacitor electrodes. In addition to the physical
mechanisms [18] leading to charge redistribution, the effects
of this process on power management strategies in wireless
sensor networks [19], [20], supercapacitor terminal voltage
behavior [21]–[23], supercapacitor charge capacity [24]–[26],
and supercapacitor capacitance characterization methods [27]
have been extensively studied.
This paper investigates the supercapacitor energy deliv-
ery capability during a constant power discharge process.
Specifically, this paper studies the upper and lower bounds
of the amount of energy delivered by a supercapacitor when
a constant power load is applied and analyzes the underly-
ing physical mechanisms. A constant power load is present
when a power converter tightly regulates its output and a
destabilizing effect is introduced, which is usually referred to
as the negative impedance instability [28], [29]. Therefore,
a better understanding the supercapacitor behavior during
a constant power discharge process can facilitate designing
and implementing more effective and reliable energy storage
systems. This paper adopts a methodology similar to the one
established in [24], [25], which is developed to study the
effects of supercapacitor physics on the amount of charge
delivered during a constant current discharge process. This
paper also extends [23] in which a preliminary study of the
supercapacitor energy behavior is conducted.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Sec-
tions II and III examine the upper and lower bounds of the
supercapacitor energy delivered during a constant power dis-
charge process, respectively. Section IV compares the bounds.
Section V concludes this paper.

978-1-5090-6684-1/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE 1958

 TABLE I 32
S UPERCAPACITOR S AMPLES .
31

Sample 1 2 3 30
Manufacturer Eaton AVX Maxwell

Energy (J)
29
Model HV10302R7106R SCCV60B107MRB BCAP0350
CR (F) 10 100 350 28

VR (V) 2.7 2.7 2.7

27

3 26

2.5 25 −3 −2 −1 0
10 10 10 10
Power (W)
2
(a)
Voltage (V)

300
1.5

290
1
280
0.5

Energy (J)
270

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 260
Time (s) 4
x 10
250
Fig. 1. Upper bound case: a 1 W constant power discharge experiment for
240
supercapacitor sample 2.
230 −2 −1 0 1
10 10 10 10
Power (W)

II. U PPER B OUND OF D ELIVERED E NERGY (b)

1070
A. Experiments and Results
1060
As revealed in [24], [25], the upper bound of the super- 1050
capacitor charge delivered during a constant current discharge 1040
process is reached when the supercapacitor is first conditioned
Energy (J)

1030
by a long time constant voltage charge phase to ensure that 1020
it is fully charged. Similarly, the upper bound of the energy 1010
delivered during a constant power discharge process can be 1000
measured by discharging a fully charged supercapacitor. To 990
study the supercapacitor energy delivery capability, the three 980 −2 −1 0 1
samples listed in Table I are tested using an automated Maccor 10 10
Power (W)
10 10

Model 4304 tester at room temperature. The rated capacitance (c)

and rated voltage of the samples are denoted as CR and VR ,
respectively.
Depending on the supercapacitor sample specifications and
the supercapacitor tester capabilities, a set of constant power
discharge experiments is performed for each sample. For
instance, Fig. 1 shows the measured terminal voltage when
the constant discharge power is 1 W for sample 2. During
this experiment, the supercapacitor is first conditioned by
ten charging-redistribution-discharging cycles to minimize the
effect of residual charge. It is then charged by a constant
voltage source of 2.7 V for 3 hours, which is designed to fully
charge the supercapacitor. After that, a 1 W constant discharge
power is applied and the supercapacitor is discharged to
1.35 V, which is a typical minimum operating voltage for
supercapacitors. Taking 2.7 V as the initial voltage and 1.35
V as the cutoff voltage, the energy delivered during this
experiment is E = P t = 1 × 271.08 = 271.08 J.
The discharge power is swept to examine its impact on
the delivery energy. The highest power level is determined
based on the maximum continuous current specified in the
supercapacitor datasheet and the minimum terminal voltage
Fig. 2. Upper bound case: relationship between delivered energy and
discharge power. (a) Sample 1. (b) Sample 2. (c) Sample 3.
during the experiment. For sample 2, the highest power is
therefore 13.5 W: Pmax = Imax Vmin = 10 × 1.35 = 13.5 W.
This maximum value is scaled down as follows: 6.75, 1.35,
0.675, 0.135, 0.0675, 0.0135, and 0.00675 W. Together with
13.5 and 1 W, nine power levels are swept, as shown in Fig.
2(b). Similarly, the discharge power is swept for samples 1
and 3, as shown in Figs. 2(a) and 2(c), respectively.
The following observations can be made based on Fig. 2.
First, the relationship between the delivered energy and the
discharge power is similar for the three samples, which is
partitioned into two pieces: Peukert’s law applies when the
discharge power is above a certain threshold and does not
apply anymore when the discharge power is below the thresh-
old. Originally developed for lead-acid batteries, Peukert’s law
[30] states that the delivered charge of a battery depends on
the discharge current: the larger the discharge current, the less

1959
 ! % ' +
,! ,% ,' ,+
,-
"#"!$ "#&! !!#()$ %')#$
*! *% *' *+
)" !& ( +
Fig. 3. A five-branch RC ladder circuit model for 100 F supercapacitors.
the delivered charge, which can be written as
I k t = Q0 ,
where Q0 is the nominal charge capacity rated at a certain
discharge current, I is the actual discharge current, t is the
actual discharge time, and k is the Peukert constant. As
shown in [23], this law can also be used to characterize the
supercapacitor energy delivery capability during a constant
power discharge process:
P k t = E0 ,
where E0 is the nominal energy delivered at a certain discharge
power. This paper develops [23] and reveals that Peukert’s law
is applicable only when the discharge power is within a certain
range. Second, the discharge power threshold above which
Peukert’s law applies varies with the supercapacitor sample:
0.00675 W for sample 1, 0.0135 W for sample 2, and 0.09 W
for sample 3. In general, the peaking power increases as the su-
percapacitor capacitance increases. A systematic investigation
is being conducted to examine the dependence of the peaking
power on various factors including the supercapacitor ratings,
terminal voltage, operating temperature, and aging condition.
B. Effects of Supercapacitor Physics
To illustrate the effects of supercapacitor physics on its
energy delivery capability, the five-branch RC ladder circuit
model for 100 F supercapacitors shown in Fig. 3 is analyzed,
which is conceived in [25] to investigate the impact of superca-
pacitor physics on the charge delivered during a constant cur-
rent discharge process. The supercapacitor terminal voltage is
denoted as VT . The five RC branches (R1 through C5 ) capture
the distributed nature of the supercapacitor capacitance and
resistance, which is a result of the porous electrode structure
and also the origin of the charge redistribution process. The
parallel leakage resistor R6 models the self-discharge behavior.
It should be noted that this model is only constructed to capture
the supercapacitor physics: porous electrode structure, charge
redistribution, and self-discharge. Therefore, the component
values are assumed with certain arbitrariness and they are not
determined by characterizing the 100 F supercapacitor sample
2 listed in Table I. The procedure of selecting the component
values is elaborated in [25]. In particular, the component
values are tuned to generate time constants that can be used
to characterize the supercapacitor behavior on various time
scales: τ1 = 1.05, τ2 = 10,Pτ3 = 100, τ4 = 1000, and
i
τ5 = 10000 s, where τi = Ci k=1 Rk .
This model is simulated using LTspice. The initial voltages
of the five branch capacitors are set to be 2.7 V and the dis-
charge power is swept. Fig. 4 plots the simulated relationship
$ 280
,$
+)$"
260
*$
&
% !"""" 240
Energy (J)
220
200
180
160
(1) 140
10
−2 −1
10
0
10 10
1
Power (W)
Fig. 4. Upper bound case: simulated relationship between delivered energy
and discharge power.
between the delivered energy and the discharge power, which
is consistent with the experimental results shown in Fig. 2.
(2) Specifically, Peukert’s law applies when the discharge power
decreases from 27 to 0.02 W and does not apply anymore
when the discharge power decreases from 0.02 to 0.00338 W.
The effects of supercapacitor physics on the delivered
energy pattern can be illustrated using the simulation results
shown in Fig. 5. The supercapacitor terminal and branch
capacitor voltages are extracted from two simulations: the
discharge power is 1.35 and 0.00675 W in Figs. 5(a) and 5(b),
respectively. Consistent with [25], three aspects of supercapac-
itor physics contribute to the delivered energy pattern: porous
electrode structure, charge redistribution, and self-discharge.
Due to the distributed nature of the supercapacitor capacitance
and resistance, a slower RC branch with a larger time constant
will be accessed during the extended discharge phase when
a lower discharge power is applied, which means that slow
branch capacitors are more deeply discharged and therefore
more energy is delivered during this process. In the meantime,
since the supercapacitor is fully charged at the beginning of
the constant power discharge process, charge is redistributed
from slow branches to fast branches, which decelerates the
voltage drop in fast branches and extends the discharge phase.
Therefore, charge redistribution also results in an increase in
the delivered energy when the discharge power is lower. On
the other hand, when a sufficiently low discharge power is
applied, the discharge phase is significantly extended and self-
discharge leads to a noticeable energy loss, which ultimately
results in a drop in the delivered energy.
III. L OWER B OUND OF D ELIVERED E NERGY
A. Experiments and Results
The lower bound of the delivered energy is achieved when
the supercapacitor is only partially charged to the desired volt-
age using the largest possible current specified in the superca-
pacitor datasheet. For example, Fig. 6 shows a 1 W experiment
for sample 2. Similar to the upper bound experiment shown in
Fig. 1, this lower bound experiment also includes three phases.
In fact, the first and third phases use the same settings as those
in Fig. 1: ten charging-redistribution-discharging cycles and a
1 W constant power discharge process, respectively. During
1960
 2.8 23

2.6 22

2.4
21
2.2
Voltage (V)

Energy (J)
20
2
VT 19
1.8
V1
V2 18
1.6
V3
1.4 V4
17
V5

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 16 −3 −2 −1 0

Time (s) 10 10 10 10
Power (W)
(a)
(a)
2.8
VT 210
2.6 V1
V2 205
2.4
V3
2.2 V4 200
V5
Voltage (V)

Energy (J)
195
1.8
190
1.6

1.4 185

1.2 180

1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 175 −2 −1 0 1
Time (s) x 10
4 10 10 10 10
Power (W)
(b)
(b)
940
Fig. 5. Upper bound case: simulated terminal and branch capacitor voltages.
(a) Discharge power is 1.35 W. (b) Discharge power is 0.00675 W. 930

3 920

910
Energy (J)

2.5
900

2 890
Voltage (V)

1.5 880

870
1
860 −2 −1 0 1
10 10 10 10
0.5 Power (W)

(c)
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Time (s) 4
x 10 Fig. 7. Lower bound case: relationship between delivered energy and
discharge power. (a) Sample 1. (b) Sample 2. (c) Sample 3.
Fig. 6. Lower bound case: a 1 W constant power discharge experiment for
supercapacitor sample 2.

power range is narrower compared to those in the upper bound

the second phase, the supercapacitor is first discharged by a case. For sample 2, the delivered energy increases from 233.01
constant voltage source of 0.01 V for 3 hours to approximate to 293.15 J when the discharge power decreases from 13.5
the ideal initial condition that the supercapacitor is completely to 0.0135 W in the upper bound case. On the other hand,
depleted. It is then charged by a constant current source of 10 the delivered energy only increases from 194.67 to 206.64 J
A to 2.7 V. After that, the third phase begins and a 1 W when the discharge power decreases from 13.5 to 1.35 W in
constant discharge power is applied. The delivered energy is the lower bound case. As for the second piece of the delivered
205.17 J during this experiment. energy pattern in the lower bound case, the drop rate of the
The results for all samples are plotted in Fig. 7. Again, delivered energy is higher and the discharge power range is
the delivered energy pattern is similar for the three samples, wider. For sample 2, the delivered energy decreases from
which is partitioned into two pieces: the delivered energy 206.64 to 176.74 J when the discharge power decreases from
first increases and then decreases when the discharge power 1.35 to 0.00675 W in the lower bound case while it decreases
decreases, i.e., the delivered energy peaks at a particular from 293.15 to 292.78 J when the discharge power decreases
discharge power. If the discharge power is relatively high, from 0.0135 to 0.00675 W in the upper bound case. Moreover,
the delivered energy increases when the discharge power de- the discharge power leading to the peaking delivered energy
creases. However, the increase rate is lower and the discharge varies with the supercapacitor sample: 1 W for sample 1, 1.35

1961
 140 3
VT
V1
135 2.5
V2
V3
130 2 V4
V5

Voltage (V)
Energy (J)

125 1.5

120 1

115 0.5

110 0
−2 −1 0 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
10 10 10 10 Time (s)
Power (W)
(a)
Fig. 8. Lower bound case: simulated relationship between delivered energy 3
and discharge power. VT
V1
2.5
V2
V3
2 V4
W for sample 2, and 1.8 W for sample 3. The discharge power V5

Voltage (V)
at which the delivered energy peaks shifts to a larger value in 1.5

the lower bound case. The dependence of the peaking power 1

in the lower bound case is also being investigated.
0.5

B. Effects of Supercapacitor Physics 0

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000
Time (s)
The model shown in Fig. 3 is simulated to illustrate the
effects of supercapacitor physics on the delivered energy (b)
pattern in the lower bound case. The initial voltages of the five Fig. 9. Lower bound case: simulated terminal and branch capacitor voltages.
branch capacitors are set to be 0 V. First, a constant current (a) Discharge power is 1.35 W. (b) Discharge power is 0.00675 W.
source of 10 A is applied and the supercapacitor terminal
50
voltage reaches 2.7 V at 20.3 s. After that, this source is Sample 1
45 Sample 2
removed and a constant power load is applied. Fig. 8 shows
Normalized Energy Difference (%)

Sample 3
40
the simulated relationship between the delivered energy and
35
the discharge power, which is consistent with the experimental
30
results shown in Fig. 7. Specifically, the delivered energy peaks
25
at 139.38 J when the discharge power is 3 W and decreases
20
when the discharge power deviates from 3 W.
15
The effects of supercapacitor physics can be illustrated
10
using the simulation results shown in Fig. 9. After the 10
5 −3
A constant current charge process, the supercapacitor is only 10 10
−2
10
−1 0
10
1
10
Power (W)
partially charged: the five branch capacitor voltages V1 − V5
are 2.550, 1.471, 0.116, 0.001, and 0.000 V at the end of Fig. 10. Difference between upper and lower bounds of delivered energy.
this process. When a discharge power is applied, charge is
first extracted from C1 . Although V1 drops continuously, it
is still greater than V2 − V5 during the early stage of the IV. C OMPARISONS OF D ELIVERED E NERGY B OUNDS
discharge process and charge is therefore transferred from
C1 to C2 − C5 . As the discharge process continues, the This section compares the bounds of the delivered energy
charge redistribution direction is reversed during the late stage. by quantifying the difference between them as follows:
Therefore, different from the upper bound case in which Emax − Emin
charge redistribution is unidirectional (i.e., from slow branches δE = × 100%, (3)
ER
to fast branches), charge redistribution is bidirectional in the
lower bound case. When a sufficiently low discharge power where Emax is the upper bound and Emin is the lower bound.
is applied, the discharge time is significantly extended and In (3), ER is the delivered energy calculated using the rated
self-discharge contributes to a drop in the delivered energy. capacitance CR :
Therefore, the delivered energy decreases when the discharge ER = 0.5CR V12 − 0.5CR V22 , (4)
power decreases from the peaking value, which explains the
second piece of the delivered energy pattern. As for the where V1 = 2.7 V and V2 = 1.35 V. The difference between
first piece in which the delivered energy increases when the the upper and lower bounds is normalized to compare the
discharge power decreases, the mechanisms are similar to results for the three supercapacitor samples with different rated
those in the upper bound case. capacitances. The results are shown in Fig. 10.

1962
 The following observations can be made. First, the differ-
ence between the bounds is significant for all samples. The
maximum difference is observed for sample 1 at 0.00675 W:
47.9% or 13.08 J while the minimum is observed for sample
3 at 18 W: 7.6% or 72.72 J. Second, the difference depends
on the discharge power. In general, a lower discharge power
results in a greater difference. For sample 2, the difference
decreases from 42.4% to 14.0% when the discharge power
increases from 0.00675 to 13.5 W. For sample 1, the difference
peaks at 47.9% at 0.00675 W and decreases to 11.0% at 1.35
W. Although the difference also decreases when the discharge
power decreases, the drop is minimal: 47.6% at 0.00135 W.
A similar observation holds for sample 3.
V. C ONCLUSION
This paper examines the supercapacitor energy delivery ca-
pability during a constant power discharge process. The upper
and lower bounds of the delivered energy are investigated.
In the upper bound case, Peukert’s law applies when the
discharge power is above a certain threshold and does not
apply anymore if the discharge power is below the threshold.
In the lower bound case, the delivered energy peaks at a
particular discharge power and decreases when the discharge
power deviates from this value. The effects of three aspects of
supercapacitor physics on the delivered energy are illustrated:
porous electrode structure, charge redistribution, and self-
discharge. Finally, comparisons of the bounds show that the
difference is significant for the three samples examined.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported in part by the National Institute of
General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health
under Award 5UL1GM118979-04 and in part by California
State University, Long Beach under the ORSP, RSCA, and
TRANSPORT programs.
R EFERENCES
[1] The DOE Global Energy Storage Database. [Online]. Available:
http://www.energystorageexchange.org/projects
[2] J. Eyer and G. Corey. Energy storage for the electricity grid:
Benefits and market potential assessment guide. [Online]. Available:
http://www.sandia.gov/ess/publications/SAND2010-0815.pdf
[3] M. Farhadi and O. Mohammed, “Energy storage technologies for
high-power applications,” IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications,
vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 1953–1961, 2016.
[4] H. Yang, “A review of supercapacitor-based energy storage systems
for microgrid applications,” in Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Power
& Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM 2018), 2018, pp. 1–5.
[5] H. Kanchev, D. Lu, F. Colas, V. Lazarov, and B. Francois, “Energy
management and operational planning of a microgrid with a PV-based
active generator for smart grid applications,” IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Electronics, vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 4583–4592, 2011.
[6] Y. Gu, W. Li, and X. He, “Frequency-coordinating virtual impedance for
autonomous power management of DC microgrid,” IEEE Transactions
on Power Electronics, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 2328–2337, 2015.
[7] Q. Xu, J. Xiao, X. Hu, P. Wang, and M. Y. Lee, “A decentralized power
management strategy for hybrid energy storage system with autonomous
bus voltage restoration and state-of-charge recovery,” IEEE Transactions
on Industrial Electronics, vol. 64, no. 9, pp. 7098–7108, 2017.
[8] L. Zubieta and R. Bonert, “Characterization of double-layer capacitors
for power electronics applications,” IEEE Transactions on Industry
Applications, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 199–205, 2000.
1963
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[9] S. Buller, E. Karden, D. Kok, and R. W. D. Doncker, “Modeling the
dynamic behavior of supercapacitors using impedance spectroscopy,”
IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 1622–
1626, 2002.
[10] Y. Diab, P. Venet, H. Gualous, and G. Rojat, “Self-discharge charac-
terization and modeling of electrochemical capacitor used for power
electronics applications,” IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics,
vol. 24, pp. 510–517, 2009.
[11] V. Sedlakova, J. Sikula, J. Majzner, P. Sedlak, T. Kuparowitz, B. Buer-
gler, and P. Vasina, “Supercapacitor equivalent electrical circuit model
based on charges redistribution by diffusion,” Journal of Power Sources,
vol. 286, pp. 58–65, 2015.
[12] A. Szewczyk, J. Sikula, V. Sedlakova, J. Majzner, P. Sedlak, and
T. Kuparowitz, “Voltage dependence of supercapacitor capacitance,”
Metrology and Measurement Systems, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 403–411, 2016.
[13] H. Yang and Y. Zhang, “Characterization of supercapacitor models
for analyzing supercapacitors connected to constant power elements,”
Journal of Power Sources, vol. 312, pp. 165–171, 2016.
[14] A. Nadeau, M. Hassanalieragh, G. Sharma, and T. Soyata, “Energy
awareness for supercapacitors using Kalman filter state-of-charge track-
ing,” Journal of Power Sources, vol. 296, pp. 383–391, 2015.
[15] L. Zhang, Z. Wang, F. Sun, and D. G. Dorrell, “Online parameter
identification of ultracapacitor models using the extended Kalman filter,”
Energies, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 3204–3217, 2014.
[16] N. Reichbach and A. Kuperman, “Recursive-least-squares-based real-
time estimation of supercapacitor parameters,” IEEE Transactions on
Energy Conversion, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 810–812, 2016.
[17] H. Chaoui and H. Gualous, “Online lifetime estimation of supercapaci-
tors,” IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 7199–
7206, 2017.
[18] J. W. Graydon, M. Panjehshahi, and D. W. Kirk, “Charge redistribution
and ionic mobility in the micropores of supercapacitors,” Journal of
Power Sources, vol. 245, pp. 822–829, 2014.
[19] H. Yang and Y. Zhang, “A task scheduling algorithm based on superca-
pacitor charge redistribution and energy harvesting for wireless sensor
nodes,” Journal of Energy Storage, vol. 6, pp. 186–194, 2016.
[20] H. Yang and Y. Zhang, “Power management in supercapacitor-based
wireless sensor nodes,” in Supercapacitor Design and Applications.
InTech, 2016, ch. 9, pp. 165–179.
[21] H. Yang, “Analysis of supercapacitor charge redistribution through
constant power experiments,” in Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Power
& Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM 2017), 2017, pp. 1–5.
[22] H. Yang, “Bounds of supercapacitor open-circuit voltage change after
constant power experiments,” in Proceedings of the 10th Electrical
Energy Storage Applications and Technologies (EESAT 2017), 2017, pp.
1–5.
[23] H. Yang, “Impact of charge redistribution on delivered energy of
supercapacitors with constant power loads,” in Proceedings of the 2018
IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition (APEC
2018), 2018, pp. 2686–2690.
[24] H. Yang, “Estimation of supercapacitor charge capacity bounds consid-
ering charge redistribution,” IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics,
vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 6980–6993, 2018.
[25] H. Yang, “Effects of supercapacitor physics on its charge capacity,” IEEE
Transactions on Power Electronics, p. in press, 2018.
[26] H. Yang, “A study of Peukert’s law for supercapacitor discharge time
prediction,” in Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Power & Energy Society
General Meeting (PESGM 2018), 2018, pp. 1–5.
[27] H. Yang, “A revisit to supercapacitor capacitance measurement method
1A of IEC 62391-1,” in Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Energy Conver-
sion Congress and Exposition (ECCE 2018), 2018, p. in press.
[28] A. Kwasinski and C. N. Onwuchekwa, “Dynamic behavior and stabiliza-
tion of DC microgrids with instantaneous constant-power loads,” IEEE
Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 822–834, 2011.
[29] A. M. Rahimi and A. Emadi, “Active damping in DC/DC power
electronic converters: A novel method to overcome the problems of
constant power loads,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics,
vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 1428–1439, 2009.
[30] D. Doerffel and S. A. Sharkh, “A critical review of using the Peuk-
ert equation for determining the remaining capacity of lead-acid and
lithium-ion batteries,” Journal of Power Sources, vol. 155, no. 2, pp.
395–400, 2006.