Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015) 802–814

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

A review on energy management system for fuel cell hybrid electric

vehicle: Issues and challenges
N. Sulaiman a,n, M.A. Hannan b,nn, A. Mohamed b, E.H. Majlan a, W.R. Wan Daud a
a
Fuel Cell Institute, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia
b
Department of Electrical, Electronics & System Engineering, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Emerging issues on fuel price and greenhouse gas emissions have attracted attention on the alternative energy
Received 21 October 2014 sources, especially in transportation sector. The transportation sector accounts for 40% of total fuel
Received in revised form consumption. Thus, an increasing number of studies have been conducted on hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs)
19 May 2015
and their energy management system (EMS). This paper focuses on reviews of EMSs for fuel cell (FC) based
Accepted 28 July 2015
HEV in combination with battery and super-capacitor, respectively. Various aspects and classifications of fuel
cell–HEV EMS are explained in this paper. Different types of FC–HEV control models and algorithms derived
Keywords: from simulation and experiment are explained in details for an analytical justification for the most optimal
Energy management system control strategy. The performances of the various combinations of FC–HEV system are summarized in the table
Control strategy
along with relevant references. This paper provides comprehensive survey of FC–HEV on their source
Fuel cell
combination, models, energy management system (EMS) etc. developed by various researchers. From the
Battery
Supercapacitor rigorous review, it is observed that the existing technologies more or less are capable to perform well;
Hybrid electric vehicle however, the reliability and the intelligent systems are still not up to the mark. Accordingly, current issues and
challenges on the FC–HEV technologies are highlighted with a brief suggestions and discussion for the progress
of future FC–HEV vehicle research. This review will hopefully lead to increasing efforts towards the
development of economic, longer lifetime, hydrogen viable, efficient electronic interface and well performed
EMS for future FC–HEV.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802
2. FC–HEV classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 803
2.1. Fuel cell–battery HEVs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 804
2.2. Fuel cell–SC HEV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805
2.3. Fuel cell–battery–SC HEV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807
3. EMS control strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809
4. Issues and challenges on FC–HEV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811
4.1. Hydrogen viability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811
4.2. Fuel cell economic impact. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812
4.3. Battery lifetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812
4.4. Power electronic interface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812
4.5. Motor integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812
4.6. Energy management system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812
5. Conclusion and suggestions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 813
Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 813
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 813

n
Corresponding author.
nn
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: nasrin.sulaiman@siswa.ukm.edu.my (N. Sulaiman), hannan@eng.ukm.my (M.A. Hannan).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.132
1364-0321/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 N. Sulaiman et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015) 802–814
1. Introduction
Hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) have become a phenomenon since
the Toyota Prius and Honda Insight were introduced to the auto-
motive industry in 1997 and 1999 [1], respectively. An electric motor
power rating of 33 kW was achieved by the first-generation Prius,
with the third generation having a 60 kW power rating as compared
with the 10 kW power rating of Insight [2]. Honda hybrids only use
one electric motor and one inverter, whereas Toyota hybrids embed
two electric motors and two inverters with split power. The config-
uration of Honda is simple but has limitations in power flow and
system optimization. Meanwhile, the Toyota design is more complex
because power can be fed to the motor by the battery alone, gasoline
alone, or a combination of both battery and gasoline [3]. Such design
provides continuously variable transmission and a larger room for
electric motors because clutches are not used [1]. However, more than
25% of complaints are made against the Prius [4].
The idea of HEV started way back in early 1900s when the electric
vehicle failed to succeed in the market due to costly battery
technology and limited driving range. Differences between electric
vehicles and hybrid electric vehicles may appear rather small. How-
ever, the difference in terms of impact of each vehicle and their
controls are massively huge. An electric vehicle (EV) operates on
electric drives; consisting of batteries, electric motors and electric
generators, such as Honda EV Plus, GM EV1, and Toyota RAV4 EV. On
the other hand, a HEV operates using one electric motor and an
internal combustion engine (ICE) due to its energy source consisting
of battery and fuel, respectively [5]. The HEV reduces fossil fuel
consumption due to its operation of running on battery during low
power demand and runs on fuel only during acceleration or high load
power. Among HEV models that made its way into mass production
are Honda Insight, Toyota Prius, and recently Honda Civic Hybrid.
However, issues of pollution, global warming, and drastic rise of fuel
price, have forced automotive manufacturers to introduce fuel cell
vehicles.
Fuel cells have been attracting considerable attention for their zero
emission of greenhouse gases. Furthermore, the energy from a fuel
cell is drawn from the chemical reaction of hydrogen and oxygen from
air, which is an abundant resource. Fuel cells directly transform
chemical energy into electrical energy through an electrochemical
process [6]. A fuel cell comprises two electrodes immersed in
electrolytes and sandwiched together. Seven types of fuel cells are
available in the market: proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEMFC),
direct methanol fuel cell, alkaline fuel cell, phosphoric acid fuel cell,
molten carbonate fuel cell, solid oxide fuel cell, and microbial fuel cell
[7]. These types of fuel cells are either used commercially or in
research. Selecting the appropriate fuel cell is essential because of the
different operating temperatures and power levels produced. Cost and
efficiency are important considerations in selecting the best fuel cell.
Hydrogen can be supplied by methanol and propane from the
reformation of hydrocarbon and biological processes. This gas can also
be drawn from the electrolysis process by using an electrolyzer, which
breaks the chemical bond in water into hydrogen and oxygen and
then collects hydrogen in a gas tank [8]. Implementing renewable
energy resources, such as fuel cells, can give rise to such concerns as
efficiency, cost, and limitations. Efficiency depends on system config-
uration, design, and component selection. Moreover, the cost of a
system strongly relies on its efficiency [9]. Other limitations, such as
the relation of vehicle speed with the power required to achieve a
certain speed also need to be considered. Thus, the idea of a hybrid
fuel cell electric vehicle emerged.
HEVs have more than one power source [10], which serves an
important function in determining which power source should be
activated or drawn [11]. An energy management system (EMS)
controls the energy source to feed the electric motor. In other words,
the developed system serves as the power splitter of the energy
803
between the main source and auxiliary sources [12]. This study
considers fuel cell as the main source, with the battery and super-
capacitor (SC) as the auxiliary sources of HEVs. A battery is an
electrochemical device that consists of electrodes separated by
electrolyte to convert chemical energy into electrical energy. Several
types of batteries are available in the market. These types include lead
acid, lithium ion (Li-ion), nickel metal hydride (NiMH), alkaline nickel
cadmium, and so on. Among them, NiMH and Li-ion are the most
commonly used in electric vehicles [7].
SC is an electrochemical capacitor used to provide peak power
for short durations. The electrical characteristic of SC is similar to
that of capacitors and consists of either electrical double-layer
capacitors made of non-porous materials, such as activated carbon
[13], or pseudo-capacitors containing transition metal oxides,
nitrides, and polymers possessing relatively high surface areas.
The power electronic interface is the interconnection or integra-
tion between the energy source and the motor and usually
consists of power converters. Power converters can be a plain
inverter or DC–DC converter (also known as chopper) with an
inverter [10].
However, the main concerns on EMSs are how efficient the used
strategy or control method. Apart from that, EMS in FC–HEVs faces
some issues or challenges in its development and application. This
paper analyzes and discusses the previous methods of EMS for
FC–HEV in order to suggest the most efficient EMS for FC–HEV. The
issues and challenges of developing FC–HEV are also discussed to
provide knowledge and information to the community as a whole.
This is important for research involving future development of new
EMS or improvement of previous EMS for FC–HEV.
2. FC–HEV classifications
The FC–HEV are reviewed in terms of multiple sources of energy
that have to be managed accordingly to ensure that the energy fed to
the electric motor is sufficient as per the demand or load power. This
is because under certain conditions, energy could be drawn from the
battery or from the fuel cell or from both energy sources. In other
instances, the energy is drawn from both the fuel cell and battery, and
at certain points, the battery and SC are charged [14]. The FC–HEV
operating conditions can be related to energy required or motor
operation, such as starting, cruising, accelerating, and braking [15].
However, this study thoroughly reviews the EMS for current or
previous fuel cell HEVs and then summarizes and proposes recom-
mendations for future research or improvement.
A fuel cell vehicle fed with fuel cell alone, usually PEMFC, appears
to have constraints, such as slow dynamic properties [16]. Further-
more, the membrane electrode assembly of the PEMFC is open to
failures, such as membrane breaks, internal gas leakage, and cell
flooding/drying [17]. Moreover, PEMFCs have slow dynamic response
with respect to load changes, which shortens the service life of the
fuel cell [18]. Performance, reliability, durability, cost, fuel availability,
public satisfaction, and performance during transients [19] are essen-
tial factors in developing fuel cell electric vehicles that can compete
with the ICE vehicles that are monopolizing the streets. Thus,
automotive manufacturers started to produce fuel cell HEVs. Toyota
has produced Toyota FCHV, whereas Honda produced Honda FCX-V4
and FCX Clarity [20]. Meanwhile, Hyundai has also produced its own
fuel cell vehicle, that is, TUCSON FCEV, which embeds a fuel cell and
battery [21]. General Motors, on the other hand, released its Chevrolet
Equinox Fuel Cell Vehicle which feeds on hydrogen and battery in
2008 [22,23]. Daimler released its F-CELL B-CLASS in 2005 where else
Volkswagen released its Passat Lingyu FCEV in 2008 [24]. These FCEV
of fuel cell and battery hybrid face the limitations in battery lifetime
though, of which is the reason supercapacitors are now being
considered by many automotive manufacturers [7].
804 N. Sulaiman et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015) 802–814
Numerous studies have been conducted and published on HEVs, of
which EMS of the HEVs are reviewed in this paper. Sakka et al. [25]
reported that HEVs use two energy storage devices, one with high
energy storage capability that extends the driving distance and ano-
ther with high power reversibility that aids in acceleration and
regenerative braking. Regenerative braking is a condition in which
braking electrical energy is passed to a rechargeable battery for later
usage, unlike the common dynamic braking in which motion energy
is converted into electrical energy [26]. Numerous studies have been
conducted on fuel cell HEVs, either integrating fuel cell with battery or
SC or both, to come up with an efficient EMS. The reviews and
comparative analysis of these studies are presented in the following
sections.
2.1. Fuel cell–battery HEVs
Numerous studies have been conducted on the EMS approaches
for fuel cell–battery HEVs. A battery can provide high current to start
the motor and can serve as load limiting device that enables the fuel
cell to operate initially at low power and then progress into high-
power operation [10]. Shuang et al. [27] conducted a study on power
management strategy integrating serial regenerative braking. Power
management was performed by a controller, which consists of two
modules: (1) power distribution module to divide demand power into
DC power and battery power and (2) braking strategy module that
can be either serial or parallel. The serial braking strategy was chosen
because the serial braking strategy has a higher percentage of
regenerative energy. Simulation was performed by using Matlab/
Simulink for the China Urban Bus Driving cycle. Results revealed that
relative to the objective of minimizing power loss, the revised optimal
strategy achieved a reduction of 79%, whereas the existing optimal
strategy achieved a reduction of 60% [27]. However, the highlight of
this study was on minimizing power loss on the basis of serial
regenerative braking. Thus, the emphasis on power splitting algorithm
was not apparent. Moreover, the results only showed simulation
performance relative to the comparison between regenerative
and non-regenerative braking, as well as power loss and state of
charge (SOC) for the rule-base, existing optimal, and revised optimal
strategies.
The general block diagram for the structure of a fuel cell–battery
HEV, as illustrated by Alloui et al. [32] and Kelouwani et al. [33], is
shown in Fig. 1. The concept of the EMS involving fuel cell and battery
is that load sharing occurs between these two energy sources. The
energy is then fed to the DC bus. The DC voltage will then be fed into
an inverter to convert the DC voltage into AC voltage, which can move
the AC motor.
Li and Liu [12] reported a study on the fuel cell–battery with
combined design and power management optimization based on
fuzzy logic controller. The combined optimization power management
which implies DIRECT algorithm was simulated for three driving
cycles: Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS), Highway Fuel
Economy Test (HWFET), and New European Drive Cycle (NEDC). The
results showed highest efficiency in HWFET and highest DOH in
UDDS, and lowest efficiency in UDDS but lowest DOH in HWFET. The
low DOH is explained with less braking, thus, less battery recharging.
Unidirectional
Fuel Cell
Converter
DC
bus
Bidirectional
Battery
Converter
Fig. 1. Structure of fuel cell–battery HEV.
Nevertheless, in all driving cycles it was presented that the battery
SOC does not change much which shows it is not fully used. This
could extend the battery life span, but the cost is high considering cost
of battery is based on size and fixed structure. However, the DIRECT
algorithm was not elaborated and dynamic problems such as energy
starvation and anode–cathode pressure difference were ignored in
this study.
Another study on EMS for fuel cell–battery HEV was reported by
Xiao and Wang [14]. Xiao and Wang applied fuzzy control with four
operation modes on a 9 kW electric vehicle. The concept was to
calculate the total power required, considering the power negative
when braking through the acceleration and braking pedal positions
and then allocating power from the fuel cell or battery to the fuel cell
operating point and SOC. Triangular membership functions of the
variables for error or load power, battery power, fuel cell power,
recovery power, and SOC were respectively set as [
3 kW, 9 kW],
[
3 kW, 6 kW], [0 kW, 5 kW], [0 kW, 3 kW], and [0.3, 0.9] for this
control strategy [14]. Fuzzy control usually embeds IF–THEN rules, but
the rules are not visible in the report. This study focused on
interfacing the control strategy with the positioning of the accelerator
and brake pedal through the DSP320TM2812 hardware platform, but
the simulation only lasted for 15 min, and results on hardware
performance were unclear.
Meanwhile, Ouddah et al. [28] conducted a study that compared
two EMSs for another fuel cell–battery HEV. The first EMS was based
on power frequency splitting, in which the frequency decomposition
allocates the frequency components to each source. In this strategy,
the fuel cell is allocated to supply for low frequency, and the battery is
allocated to supply for high frequency. Meanwhile, the other EMS is
an optimal control strategy of which Ouddah et al. applied Pontrya-
gin's minimum principle, in which the system is represented by state
space dynamic equations. In the optimal control strategy, the battery
supplies transient energy that is not provided by the fuel cell. The
simulation that considered European Driving Cycle (ECE-15) was
performed in Matlab/Simulink by using SimPowerSystems Toolbox.
Results showed that the load power was met and that hydrogen
consumption was reduced by the optimal control strategy. However,
the study was limited to simulation, and the speed and SOC were not
monitored. Losses in power converters were also neglected.
Sundstrom and Stefanopoulou [29] reported on the optimal power
split of a fuel cell–battery HEV. The control strategy was based on
deterministic dynamic programming. The method minimizes the cost
function defined from the serial multiplication function of SOC
deviation, hydrogen consumption, and oxygen excess ratio. The
control strategy was simulated using ADVISOR simulation tool for
New York City Cycle, FTP-72, and SFTP drive cycles to represent mild,
medium, and aggressive drive cycles, respectively. However, the
simulation only focused on the effects of battery size on optimal
control performance. However, The 80 kW power and 129 km/h
system neglected energy losses in the power train, DC motor, inverter,
and DC/DC converter.
Based on a report by Xie et al. [30], the EMS for a fuel cell–battery
HEV was based on a neural network optimization algorithm. The
neural network structure was a three-layer forward structure with
three inputs: load power (PL), total load power interval time change
Inverter Motor
 N. Sulaiman et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015) 802–814
quantity (ePL), and battery SOC, as well as one output: DC output
power (PDC). Suitable coding is essential because coding is the key to
genetic algorithms. A fitness function provides information to guide
the search in the genetic algorithm and gradually approaches the
optimum parameter combination. The EMS was simulated by using
ADVISOR, a tool based on Matlab for the Urban Dynamometer Driving
Schedule (UDDS) drive cycle. Results of the comparison between fuzzy
logic and neural network showed a decrement of 7.23% in fuel
consumption, but dynamic performance was lower in the latter,
which was evident in the increase of 0.4 s in accelerating time.
Meanwhile, Karunarathne et al. [31], reported on a study of a fuel
cell–battery hybrid unmanned aerial electric vehicle which adopts
Adaptive Neuro Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) based controller, to
control the vehicle's propulsion system. This study focused on
simulation only which was performed in Matlab SimPowerSystems
toolbox and the energy management system (EMS) in Simulink. The
obtained results proved that the energy sharing is based on power
demand and SOC. However, it needs to be extended in real life
application to ensure its true performance. Alloui et al. [32], on the
other hand, reported on energy management of a fuel cell–battery
hybrid electric vehicle based on frequency separation. The simulation
was applied in urban driving European cycle using a vehicle dynamic
model of 400 W load power energy management system. However, in
the report, there was no evidence on the simulation tool.
Another study was reported by Kelouwani et al. [33] on an energy
management system (EMS) of a fuel cell–battery plug-in hybrid
electric vehicle (PHEV). The EMS applied optimal anticipatory power
splitting algorithm and expected that the study could analyze the EMS
designed in real-time. The results showed it ability of being able to
generate required optimal control signals for less hydrogen consump-
tion by 5% of fuel cell power source, preserves battery life by
maintaining it close to the minimum prescribed energy. The algorithm
requires no prior knowledge of entire driving cycle for the EMS to
trigger fuel cell operation. However, it is focused for a PHEV and the
hydrogen cost ratio influence towards the EMS was not apparent.
Benrabeh et al. [34], on the other hand, reported that the fuel cell–
battery HEV which was based on a digital current sharing method
integrated with a fuel cell interleaved boost converter (FC-IBC).
Performance of the vehicle was simulated in Matlab/Simulink for
Standard Driving Cycle in steady-state and dynamic conditions of the
HEV. The obtained results showed that the current for both inductors
were the same. The report mentioned that the objective of the paper
was to minimize size and harmonic content; however, there was no
evidence from the results presented in the report. In a report by Xiao
et al. [35], a fuel cell–battery hybrid electric vehicle EMS is applied
fuzzy logic with four operational modes. The vehicle was modeled
and simulated using ADVISOR; of which the vehicle was modeled
based on 25 kW fuel cell, 12 V battery and 75 kW motor, and with DC
voltage 308 V, performed 88.5 km/h acceleration speed. Unfortu-
nately, the EMS was not described thoroughly.
Based on these reviews above, it is obvious that having fuel cell
with battery improves the fuel cell electric vehicle. However, batteries
have longer charging time, and the life cycle depends on operating
temperature and the number of discharge cycles [16]. Thus, some
studies have examined fuel cell–SC HEVs, as explained in the next
chapter. Detail studies on EMS for fuel cell–battery HEVs are shown
in Table 1.
2.2. Fuel cell–SC HEV
Super-capacitor (SC) is characterized by high power density and
fast transient response which makes it preferable energy storage for
vehicular applications for short instances and be recharged in short
period of time [36]. The combination of fast transient response of SC
with slow transient response of fuel cell is absolutely a practical
alternative to improve the efficiency and performance of HEVs. This
805
hybridization also has a longer life cycle and high frequency rate of
charging and discharging [16]. These features make SC suitable for
hybridization with fuel cell as an energy source for HEVs. Thus, more
studies have been conducted on fuel cell–SC HEVs. Some previous
works on the EMS for fuel cell–SC HEVs are reviewed and summar-
ized in the following paragraphs.
Thounthong et al.[20] demonstrated the performance of a fuel
cell–SC energy system for an electric vehicle using differential
flatness controls and proved that this system can circumvent the
fuel cell fast transition, thus reducing the fuel cell stack stress.
Theoretically, this reduction indirectly extends the lifetime. Two
parallel boost converters with interleaving switching technique
were adopted to minimize output current ripple. However, the
study only considered a small-scale 500 W, 50 A, 292 F, 30 V
proton exchange membrane fuel cell [20].
A general block diagram for the structure of a fuel cell–SC HEV,
as illustrated by Thounthong et al. and Rodatz et al., is shown in
Fig. 2. The operation is similar to that of the previous system, in
which energy is shared between the fuel cell and SC, with either
one or both of the energies being drawn and fed into the DC bus.
The DC voltage is then inverted via an inverter from DC voltage
into AC voltage, which will then be useful for the AC motor.
Tani et al. [37] conducted a study on an EMS for a fuel
cell–ultracapacitor (UC) HEV. The strategy implemented in the
study was based on the concept of bidirectional load power
sharing using the new European drive cycle (NEDC) with poly-
nomial control technique. The polynomial control technique was
compared with a PI controller, which is more robust and has better
disturbance rejection. The expectations were that the EMS could
allocate the fuel cell average power and fluctuating power of the
ultracapacitor (UC). Results showed that the fuel cell fed constant
DC voltage and current, whereas the SC was the main contributor
to the DC bus. However, the system had a limitation, that is,
fluctuations in the resultant graphs, which can be attributed to the
sensors for data acquisition used in the system.
Another study on fuel cell–UC HEVs was reported by Uzunoglu
and Alam [38], who applied a wavelet-based load-sharing algo-
rithm. The UC used in this study consists of a string of 75 units of
2.5V, 2700F UCs connected in series to fulfill the requirement of
matching the PEMFC voltage of 188V. The idea of integrating a fuel
cell with UC was to enable the UC to aid the fuel cell during
acceleration or peak power demand and to ensure that the UC is
recovered during deceleration or braking. The study considered
charging the UC from the fuel cell system when the UC bank SOC
decreases below 20%. However, in the simulation, the UC bank SOC
never decreased to below 20% [37]. The simulation results showed
that the output voltage was low when the output power was high,
and the variation of DC load voltage was in the required range.
However, the study lacks real-time application.
Meanwhile, Efstathiou et al. [39] reported on a study of a fuel
cell–UC HEV. The study was conducted to integrate the EMS with a
variable transmission gearbox. The EMS applied a control program
consisting of two fuzzy logic controllers (FLCs). The main FLC has four
inputs such as road inclination, UC SOC (UC–SOC), hydrogen level
(H2L), average velocity, and three outputs, namely, rotational speed,
power required by fuel cell (FC-power), and power required by UC,
respectively. The second FLC has three input variables, namely,
UC–SOC, H2L, output current, and one output variable that is the
percentage of the fuel cell current. The study embedded an appro-
priate generic rule to the FLC, and the vehicle performance was
assessed specifically in terms of the hydrogen consumption and speed
of the vehicle between the use of a constant 1/13 gear ratio and
continuous variable transmission (CVT) at a range of 1/17–1/10 [38].
The vehicle was tested for zero-inclination track and real track for
both constant gearbox and CVT. The vehicle demonstrated lower
hydrogen consumption when using CVT without affecting the desired
806 N. Sulaiman et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015) 802–814

Table 1
Summary table of EMS for fuel cell–battery HEV.

Author EMS method/control strategy Simulation/ DC SOC Max Max Advantage Disadvantage
hardware bus speed power

Li and Liu [12] DIRECT algorithm based on Fuzzy logic Simulation: – 0.6– 30 m/s 30 kW Simulation shows highest Simulation tool was
control unknown tool 0.65 efficiency in HWFET not clear, dynamic
(UDDS, HWFET, problems were
NEDC drive cycles) ignored
Xiao and Wang Operational mode strategy (4 modes) Simulation: 300 V 0.67– 88.5 km/ 25 kW Effective braking energy Simulation only
[14] ADVISOR (UDDS 0.71 h recovery
cycle)
Xie et al. [15] Multi model control based on fuzzy Simulation: 300 V 0.64– 80 km/h 40 kW Fuel consumption per Simulation only
supervised rule Matlab/Simulink, 0.68 hundred km was lesser 7.2%
ADVISOR (UDDS, than fuzzy
EPA drive cycles)
He et al. [21] Comparison of 3 control strategies (FC Simulation: 450 V 0.55 90 km/h 40 kW Simulation comparison of Experimental setup
output power oriented, FCE loading and Matlab/Simulink three control strategies – based on one control
unloading, instantaneous power Hardware: Hybrid optimization strategy best strategy only
distribution optimization) bus for lowest hydrogen usage
Shuang et al. Comparison of 3 control strategies (rule- Simulation: – 0.5 60 km/h 130 kW Simulation focuses on Simulation only, focus
[27] based, existing-optimal, revised- Matlab/Simulink minimizing power loss on minimizing power
optimal) (China Urban Bus loss only
Drive Cycle)
Ouddah et al. Comparison of 2 strategies (power Simulation: 60 V – – 2 kW DC bus voltage is more Simulation only,
[28] frequency splitting, optimal control Matlab/Simulink smoothly regulated in losses in power
strategy – Pontryagin's minimum SimPowerSystem optimal control converter neglected
principle) (ECE-15 drive
cycle)
Sundstrom Optimal control strategy using Simulation: – 0.6 129 km/h 80 kW Comparison of results show Simulation only, focus
and Deterministic Dynamic Programming ADVISOR that hybridization is on performance with
Stefanopou- beneficial for mild drive battery size only,
lou [29] cycles energy losses
neglected
Karunarathne Adaptive Fuzzy Inference System Simulation: – 0.5 1200 rpm 2 kW Simulation results showed Simulation only
et al. [31] (ANFIS) Matlab/Simulink motor torque varying from
SimPowerSystem 2 N m to 5 N m in 0.1 s
Alloui et al. Frequency separation method using PI Simulation: 400 V – 50 km/h 8 kW Results showed DC bus Simulation tool was
[32] regulator unknown tool voltage smoothly regulated not clear
(European drive at 400 V
cycle)
Kelouwani Anticipatory Power Splitting Algorithm Simulation: – – o 40 m/s 4 kW Optimal energy Simulation tool was
et al. [33] unknown tool management system was not clear, for plug-in
(US06, NEDC, J1015 proven effective HEV
drive cycles)
Benrabeh et al. Digital current sharing method (4 Simulation: – 0.48– 120 km/h 60 kW Results showed regenerative Simulation only
[34] operating modes) Matlab/Simulink 0.5 energy was more in urban
(Standard Drive drive cycle
Cycle)
Xiao et al. [35] Fuzzy logic control (4 operating modes) Simulation: – 0.6– 88.5 km/ 75 kW Simulation gave efficiency of Fuzzy logic rules were
Matlab/Simulink 0.7 h fuel cell as 56% and battery not visible
as 80%

Unidirectional
Fuel Cell
Converter

DC
Inverter Motor
bus
Bidirectional
Supercapacitor
Converter

Fig. 2. Structure of fuel cell–SC HEV.

speed. However, the study only focused on hydrogen consumption
and not on the power feed.
Rodatz et al. [40] also reported on the EMS of a fuel cell–SC HEV.
The study aimed to construct an HEV with optimization in real-time
operation. Thus, two constraints have to be considered, namely, the
lack or very limited knowledge of future driving conditions and the
sustainability of reversible energy source charge. Optimization is
merely about cost function, fuel energy use, and variations of stored
reversible energy. The control variable of this HEV is a power split
factor that determines the power path between fuel cell and SC or
that charges the SC. Simulations were performed in VP-SIM, a vehicle
simulator programmed in Matlab/Simulink for driving cycles, namely,
NEDC, Federal Urban Driving Schedule, and Federal Highway Driving
Schedule. After implementing a supervisory equivalent fuel consump-
tion minimization strategy (ECMS) controller, the results were com-
pared with the control variable. Less hydrogen was used and more
 N. Sulaiman et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015) 802–814 807

power was fed to fuel cell system when the applying supervisory
ECMS controller. However, the limitation was that the parallel supply
of reactant gases caused the system to be unstable when power was
above 30 kW. Thus, the power was limited to 27 kW to control the
acceleration rate of the vehicle. Other limitations were constraints in
the transient behavior and that the low SC efficiency at low voltage.
Thus, the voltage was maintained at 180 V.
Another report on fuel cell–SC EMS was made by Ates et al. [41].
The EMS applied wavelet-Adaptive Linear Neuron (ADALINE), one of
the artificial neural network methods. The wavelet-ADALINE network
utilizes multi-level Haar wavelet transform wherein the simulation
was performed using SimPowerSystems Toolbox in Matlab/Simulink
for UDDS. In the study, the UDDS power demand was decomposed
into high-frequency and low-frequency components. The first half
was used as perception, whereas the other half was used for testing in
the ADALINE controller. Although the results of the study showed the
fulfillment of power demand, this work was only limited to a
simulation. Thus, real-time application is required to prove vehicle
performance. Moreover, the results did not show the vehicle speed,
but showed the hydrogen consumption instead. Zheng et al. [42] also
reported a study on a fuel cell–SC HEV based on Adaptive Optimal
Control Algorithm (AOCA) EMS. The control strategy embeds neural
network computation for the formulation of lead and lag judgment
network, and was tested on fuel cell-lithium ion capacitor Hybrid
Power System (FHPS). Results showed that supercapacitor reduced the
hydrogen consumption by 18.3% compared to using fuel cell only.
However, the FHPS were not extensively described and simulation
tool of the EMS model was not enough evident.
However, based on review, it is said that SC is not a source of
high energy density. Thus, some studies have combined fuel cell,
battery, and SC as energy sources for HEV. This combination is
discussed in the next chapter. Studies on the EMS for fuel cell–SC
HEVs are shown in Table 2.
2.3. Fuel cell–battery–SC HEV
HEVs with a secondary energy source, such as battery and SC,
are designed to provide power for short durations of peak power
demand, such as during driving uphill or acceleration. Good
acceleration requires both high power density and high energy
density [10]. Thus, having both battery and SC is essential because
the SC has high power density and low energy density, whereas
the battery has low power density and high energy density,
respectively [16]. In this system, the energy is shared among the
fuel cell, battery, and/or SC with the energy drawn from one, two,
or even three energy sources. The drawn energy is then fed into
the DC bus and into the inverter, where the energy is converted
from DC voltage to AC voltage. The AC voltage will then be able to
move the AC motor. Research on fuel cell–battery–SC HEVs is in
progress, and the EMS is discussed in this chapter.
Hannan et al.[11], in his report, presented an EMS for light
electric vehicles, which also integrated the fuel cell, battery, and
SC, respectively. The EMS utilized a PI regulator, which classifies
the vehicular operation into 7 logic states based on 3 input
conditions of pedal offset (PO), power duration load (PD), and
battery capacity (BC), respectively. The results of the vehicle speed
were compared with that of the battery source only, multiple
sources (fuel cell–battery–SC), and ECE-47 test drive cycle; the
HEV displayed 94% efficiency compared with a battery-only
system, which demonstrated 84.9% efficiency, but only when the
vehicle drove uphill. However, the study was limited to simulation

Table 2
Summary of EMS for fuel cell-supercapacitor HEV.

Author EMS method/control strategy Simulation/hardware DC SOC Max Max Advantage Disadvantage
bus speed power

Thountong Comparison PI controller and Simulation: Matlab/ 42 V – – 720 W DC bus voltage of 42 V was of good Only showed simulation
et al. [20] differential flatness control Simulink convergence from flatness control results, simulation results
Hardware: dSPACE did not consider speed
DS1103 performance
Tani et al. Bidirectional load power Simulation: Matlab/ 47 V – 150 rad/s 1 kW Results showed and Semiconductor and
[37] sharing (polynomial control Simulink (NEDC drive experimentally verified that wiring losses ignored,
technique) cycle) ultracapacitors provide the fluctuation from sensors,
Hardware: dynamic components or transient reduced experimental
PICI8F4431 current scale
Uzunoglu Wavelet-based load sharing Simulation: Matlab/ 188 V – 56.7 mph 60 kW Results show how reliable an UC in Simulation only
and Alam algorithm Simulink providing rapid switching of
[38] SimPowerSystem, positive and negative terminal
ADVISOR (UDDS voltage
drive cycle)
Efstathiou Two fuzzy logic controllers to Hardware: VIA EPIA- – – 10 m/s – Continuous variable transmission Study was focused on
et al. [39] gear box system (constant P700-10 Pico-ITX main showed less 5% usage of hydrogen gear box system
gear ratio and continuous board than constant gear performance
variable transmission)
Rodatz Supervisory ECMS controller Simulation: VP-SIM 340 V 0.25– 120 km/ 60 kW ECMS showed 2% to 6.5% Fuel cell voltage unstable
et al. [40] with ECMS algorithm (based on Matlab/ 0.8 h improvement in fuel efficiency above 30 kW, efficiency
Simulink) (NEDC, of FC is low at low voltage
FUDS, FHDS drive
cycles)
Hardware: Hy. Power
experimental vehicle
Ates et al. Wavelet ADALINE method Simulation: Matlab/ 188 V 0.65– – 60 kW DC load voltage was maintained at Simulation only
[41] (ANN based method) Simulink 0.75 188 V, UC supplies charging and
SimPowerSystem discharging power demand
(UDDS drive cycle) fluctuations successfully
Zheng et al. Adaptive optimal control Simulation: unknown – 0.35– – 100 kW Results showed that the sedan Simulation tool was not
[42] algorithm based on neural tool 0.95 using FC-UC hybrid source clear
network consumes less 18.3% to 33.7%
hydrogen than FC alone
808 N. Sulaiman et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015) 802–814
only, and the charging and discharging performances of the
battery and SC were not evident. In addition, the study was tested
only at a short distance, and a short duration of 120 s.
Garcia et al. [43] reported on control strategies for high-power
HEVs and extensively explained the control strategies for fuel cell–
battery–SC HEVs. In the report, most common control strategies were
compared and elaborated. These strategies include operation mode
control, cascade control, fuzzy logic control, equivalent consumption
minimization strategy control, and predictive control, respectively.
The control strategies were analyzed by comparing their perfor-
mances on a 400 kW rated powertrain. The report showed that the
equivalent consumption minimization strategy control demonstrates
the lowest hydrogen consumption and the simplest control strategy.
Meanwhile, fuzzy logic and predictive control were among the most
complex control strategies. The study by Garcia provided a conclusive
contribution as regards the comparison and analysis of common
energy system control strategies for a fuel cell–battery–SC HEV.
However, this study was only comparative in nature.
Meanwhile, Martinez et al. [44] reported another study on the
fuel cell–battery–SC electric vehicle EMS. The strategy utilizes
fuzzy logic to control the energy, where the slow dynamics of the
fuel cell and the SOC of the SC are considered. The maximal control
structure and practical control structure of the energetic macro-
scopic representation testing of the performance of this system
was done via an electrical chain component evaluation vehicle
testbed. However, in Martinez's [44], a battery is used as the main
source of energy, while the fuel cell and SC are additional sources.
The strategy is that when the SOC of the battery is greater than the
reference value, the fuel cell and SC will feed less energy, and vice
versa. However, the fuzzy logic strategy was changed into the
type-2 fuzzy logic approach because of the limitations of the type-
1 that was used in this study.
Another study by Schaltz and Rasmussen [45] comparing 10 cases
of the fuel cell, battery, and/or SC connections. In the 10 cases, the
energy source of the connections in Cases 1–6 was from the fuel cell
and either the battery or the SC. The utilization of all three energy
sources was only evident in Cases 7–10. Considering that the fuel cell
is the primary energy source in these 10 cases, the energy manage-
ment strategy switches the input energy between the battery and the
SC. When both battery and SC are used, the battery feeds energy,
which is determined by a low-pass filter, but with a higher bandwidth
than that of the fuel cell. The short-term peak power during
acceleration and braking was fed into the SCs. Based on the results
of the comparison done on the volume, mass, efficiency, and days of
operation to the rated FC power for all the 10 cases, Cases 7–10
evidently demonstrated lower volumes, lower masses, higher effi-
ciencies, and higher operating days to the rated FC power. These
results prove that the fuel cell, battery, and SC connections would
provide not only a lower volume and mass, and a higher efficiency,
but these connections will also provide a longer service life for the
battery. However, the current study was merely based on the com-
parison of the performances of the 10 connections of the HEV only.
In a report by Yu et al. [46], a fuel cell–battery–SC HEV power
allocation strategy was proposed through simulations done in the
Matlab/Simulink software. Interestingly, the power control was
separated into two, the fuel cell–battery and the battery-SC. The
blocks were simulated in the Matlab/Simulink software and
integrated with a certain algorithm, which allows the system to
draw energy from the fuel cell, battery, or SC based on the power
demand and the SOC condition of the battery and SC. The SOC of
both the battery and SC was set, thus, that of the battery was
between 40% and 90%, whereas that of the SC was within 25–100%
[46]. However, the current study was only concerned on sizing and
monitoring urban and highway driving, both of which were flat
roads. Thus, driving uphill was not considered. The report shows
that based on the simulated results, the vehicle could reach almost
129 km per hour.
Meanwhile, Paladini et al. [47] reported a study on a HEV
powered by a fuel cell–battery–SC. The vehicle in Paladini's study,
which embedded a PEMFC, nickel metal hydride battery, and
Maxwell SC, was targeted to achieve an optimized HEV. The
energy management to switch between the fuel cell, battery, or
SC was simply using the ECoS code and traction control strategy,
which was simulated using the Matlab/Simulink software. The
optimization of the system, which applied the Pareto front, was
tested on four driving cycles, namely, the NEDC, UDDS, High Way
Fuel Economy Test, and Japanese driving schedule (10–15). Based
on the results reported, the system was evidently optimum on the
NEDC, where there was only a 6.75 g/km hydrogen fuel consump-
tion. However, the report focused more on the comparison of the
driving cycle testing and did not elaborate on the EMS.
Another study on the fuel cell–battery–SC HEV was reported by
Zandi et al. [48], where an EMS based on flatness control
technique (FCT) and fuzzy logic control (FLC) was introduced.
The concept was that the FCT would control the energy source
between the fuel cell and the energy storage system (ESS), which
comprises a battery and a SC that has two control variables, the
power of converter and the power of ESS. The FLC was used to
control the power share between the battery and the SC. More-
over, the FLC operates in three modes (normal, overload, and
recovery mode) and has three input variables, the SC voltage,
battery voltage, and output load power; however, only one output
variable, which is the percentage of power, was shared between
the battery and the SC. The results of the control algorithm, as
tested through the dSPACE hardware, showed that the control
strategy was able to perform in different operating modes, but the
load power observed was limited to 780W.
Furthermore, Li et al. [49] reported a study that compared a
fuel cell–battery (FCþ B) and a fuel cell–battery–SC (FCþ Bþ SC)
EMS for HEV based on fuzzy logic. On the one hand, the FC þB
system had 4 driving modes, namely: (1) starting, (2) fuel cell
driving and battery charging, (3) fuel cell and battery combined
driving, and (4) regenerative braking. On the other hand, the
FC þB þSC system had 5 driving modes to cater to the fuel cell,
battery, and SC combined driving mode. Fuzzy logic, which used
IF–THEN rules, was embedded in both hybrid configurations,
where the fuzzy reasoning rules and defuzzification were per-
formed by using the Mamdani Inference Method and the centroid
method, respectively. Individual Simulink models of the fuel cell,
battery, and SC were modeled in the Simulink and tested in
ADVISOR, while considering 4 standard cycle conditions: (1) UDDS,
(2) Highway Fuel Economy Test, (3) Urban Schedule 06, and
(4) Economic Commission for Europe and Extra Urban Driving
Cycle. The performances of both configurations were competi-
tively close, but the FC þ B þSC showed a better acceleration rate
and lower hydrogen consumption. The study, however, was only a
simulation, thus, more evidence of real-time application is needed.
Meanwhile, Matopan et al. [50] reported on a research about an
EMS for a fuel cell–battery–SC HEV, which compared five different
control strategies: (1) state machine control strategy, (2) rule-based
fuzzy logic strategy, (3) classical PI control strategy, (4) frequency
decoupling and fuzzy logic strategy, and (5) equivalent consump-
tion minimization strategy (ECMS). The simulations were per-
formed via Matlab/Simulink using the SimPowerSystems toolbox,
and the simulations were also tested in real-time through LabVIEW
on NI-PXI 8108, which illustrated a DC bus voltage of 280 V, as rated
[50]. The research for a 15 kW fuel cell–battery–SC HEV generated
results for all the strategies, focusing on the hydrogen consumption
and stress analysis of each strategy; however, there was no evident
analysis on speed and load power fulfillment.
 N. Sulaiman et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015) 802–814 809

In a report by Liu et al. [51], a fuel cell–battery–SC HEV
optimization was based on the configuration of the series and
parallel stack of fuel cell and battery using rule-based energy system.
Despite it mentioning the system includes SC, there were not any
descriptions on SC in the report. Moreover, it focused on optimization
only hence the EMS was not elaborated. The research works
conducted on fuel cell–battery–SC HEV are shown in Table 3.
3. EMS control strategies
Based on the previous research, quite a number of control
strategies have been studied and even simulated and analyzed. Some
of these strategies were mentioned in previous research or have even
been tested as being embedded in a hardware or real vehicle
application. The control strategies are discussed in this chapter
starting with fuzzy logic where most of the EMS adopted simulation
based on fuzzy logic controllers. As an example, the study by Li and
Liu [12] was at simulation level, but the simulation tool was not
mentioned. Li et al. [49] and Xie et al. [15] who were studied on EMS
adopting fuzzy logic with a maximum speed of 160 km/h, and a fuzzy
supervised rule with 80 km/h, but only at simulation level. However,
Efstathiou et al. [39], Martinez et al. [44], Zandi et al. [48] and Xiao
et al. [35] tested their EMS on hardware, but there is still room for
improvement because Xiao's [35] hardware results were not visible.
Zandi's [48] EMS was tested for 100 s only, Martinez's [44] results
generated a very low result of only 20 km/h real-time drive, and
Efstathiou's [39] study was only done to monitor the hydrogen
consumption in different gearboxes, respectively.
Fuzzy logic EMS are based on IF–THEN rules and membership
functions, which define certain situations and conditions that would
enable either one or two energy sources between the main and the
auxiliary energy sources. Membership functions would resemble the
difference between the target and the measured value in percentage,
which is usually labeled as Negative High, Negative Low, Zero, Positive
Low, and Positive High [52]. Designing fuzzy logic requires different

Table 3
Summary table of EMS for fuel cell–battery–SC HEV.

Author EMS method/control strategy Simulation/ DC SOC SOC Max Max Advantage Disadvantage
hardware bus (B) (SC) speed power

Hannan Operational mode control (7 Simulation: 120 V – – 47 km/h o 3 kW Better performance is seen in multi- Simulation only,
et al. [11] operational states) Matlab/Simulink source system compared with BEV short duration
(ECE-47 test drive especially when accelerating test
cycle)
Garcia et al. Comparison of 5 control Simulation: 750 V 0.65 0.65– 50 km/h 400 kW Comparison results showed ECMS Focused on fuzzy
[43] strategies (operational mode, Matlab/Simulink 0.85 giving lowest hydrogen mass logic control only,
cascade control, fuzzy logic, SimPowerSystem consumption of 3.82 kg generated
equivalent consumption Hardware: Urbos 3 400 kW but
minimization strategy, (urban street demand power
predictive control) railway) showed 500 kW
Martinez Type-1 fuzzy logic controller Hardware: ECCE 560 V 0.9 0.6– 20 km/h 40 kW Energetic Macroscopic Simulation only
et al. [44] vehicle (electrical 0.97 Representation of the vehicle is even though
chain component applied in this research mentioned on
evaluation) hardware
Schaltz and Comparison of 10 configuration Simulation not 42 V 0.6 0.4– – 6 kW Simulation of 10 configurations Simulation tool
Rasmus- of fuel cell, battery, and/or clear 0.95 showed that FC-B-SC system reduces was not clear
sen [45] supercapacitor mass and volume and extends
lifetime of system
Yu et al. Comparison of optimal control Simulation: 300 V 0.4– 0.1– 80 mph 100 kW Energy cost compared between Simulation only,
[46] strategies with thermostatic Matlab/Simulink 1.0 1.0 (129 km/ optimal and thermostatic control gradient/slope
control strategy (UDDS, US06 drive h) shows lower cost in optimal control not considered
cycles) strategy
Paladini Traction control strategy using Simulation: 48 V 0.6– 0.21– – 60 kW Fuel consumption for all four drive Simulation only,
et al. [47] simulation code ECoS Matlab/Simulink 0.81 0.76 cycles stating lowest at 1015 drive focused on fuel
(NEDC, UDDS, cycle with 37 g, battery showed less consumption and
HWFET, 1015 drive percentage of usage for all cycles storage
cycles) enabling battery longer lifetime utilization only
Zandi et al. Flatness control technique and Simulation: 42– – – – 780 W SC and battery has power sharing Tested for 100 s
[48] fuzzy logic control Matlab/Simulink 48 V coefficients carried out by FLC only, cable
Hardware: dSPACE inductance and
and PC test bench capacitor serial
resistance
neglected
Simulation:
Li et al. [49] Comparison of fuzzy logic in fuel – 0.4– – 160 km/ 40 kW Results showed better performance Simulation only
Matlab/Simulink,
cell–battery (FC-B) and fuel cell– 0.8 h of FCþB þ UC with 58.7 m distance in
ADVISOR (UDDS,
battery-supercapacitor (FC-B-SC) 5s and 16.9 s to reach 400 m
HEV HWFET, US06,
ECEþ EUDC drive
cycles)
Matopan Comparison of control strategies Simulation: 280 V 0.5– – – o 12 kW Classical PI control shows lowest Focused on
et al. [50] (state machine control, rule- Matlab/Simulink 0.7 hydrogen consumption of 235 g and hydrogen
based fuzzy logic, classical PI, SimPowerSystem second lowest battery stress (22), consumption and
frequency de-coupling þ fuzzy Hardware: NI- state machine control giving highest stress analysis
logic, ECMS) PXI8108 overall efficiency of 80.72% and only
lowest battery stress (21.91)
Liu et al. Simple-rule based strategy Simulation: 300 V – – 120 km/ 58 kW Determine the optimum size or Focus on sizing
[51] Matlab/Simulink h parameter for the vehicle only
Pro@design
810 N. Sulaiman et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015) 802–814
Fig. 3. Fuzzy logic EMS (a) block diagram, (b) membership functions, and (c) fuzzy logic rules [50].
processes of fuzzification, rules (IF–THEN), and defuzzification [53]. An
example of the block diagram, membership functions, and logic rules
of the fuzzy logic EMS are shown in Fig. 3(a)–(c), respectively [49].
Fuzzy logic EMS is evidently reliable and capable of increasing
efficiency based on the reduced usage of fuel when using fuzzy logic
controllers [39,52].
Rule-based fuzzy logic control strategies have been reported by
Shuang et al. [27] and Liu et al. [51], at maximum speeds of 60 km/h
and 120 km/h operating condition. However, both of the EMS were
only simulated and not tested even in real-time driving cycle. Some of
the EMS method or control strategies have conducted in operational
mode or state machine control as explained in Azidin et al. [13], Xiao
et al. [14], and Benrabeh et al. [34], respectively. However, the study
was only simulated; thus, hardware or real-time testing is needed to
verify the validity of the simulation results. Xiao and Wang [14] and
Benrabeh et al. [34] both reported on 4 operational modes with
maximum speeds of 88.5 km/h and 120 km/h, respectively, whereas
Azidin et al.[13] reported on an EMS with 7 operational states or
modes. The operational mode controller determines the fuel cell
reference power, of which the operation mode is then defined based
on the input parameters available.
As an example, based on the demanded load power and battery or
SC SOC, the operational mode is defined and the reference power is
determined. The specification of the operational mode differs from
one designer to another, thus, the output power energy sources would
totally depend on the operational mode of specification [44]. The
report by Azidin and Hannan proved the effectiveness of the EMS
embedding the 7 operational states as simulated in Matlab/Simulink
[54]. The example of a block diagram and operational states of the
operational mode controller is shown in Fig. 4. An EMS with PI
controllers were embedded in a study conducted by Thounthong et al.
[20] to compare between the PI controller and the differential flatness
control. They proved that the differential flatness control showed a
better DC voltage regulation compared to the PI controller. Meanwhile,
a report by Jiang et al. [18] mentioned that the EMS being controlled
via PI controller was reliable and feasible with an efficiency of about
57%, as shown in the simulation results.
The optimal control strategy or equivalent consumption minimiza-
tion strategy (ECMS) is another type of EMS, which focuses on
calculating the optimal FC power to minimize the hydrogen con-
sumption of the HEV [42]. ECMS usually embed formulations of
mathematical equations into the system. Sundstrom and Stefanopou-
lou [29], Yu et al. [46], Tritschler et al. [55], Zheng et al. [56] have
studied and reported the simulated results of the load sharing
between energy sources. Tritschler et al.[55] reported on a comparison
of the EMS rule-based strategy, gliding average strategy, and ECMS
 N. Sulaiman et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015) 802–814 811

SOCbat Pfc(opt)
Operation Mode Control
Pm
(OMC)
Paux
Pbat(ideal)

Psc,discharge Pbat,discharge
-
SOCsc,ref PI + Pbat(opt)
+
Psc,charge Pbat,charge
SOCsc

State Super capacitor Fuel Cell Battery Condition

1 0 0 0 Off operation / safety features

2 0 0 1 BC is High, PD is Low, and PO is Low

3 0 1 0 BC is Low, PD is Low, and PO is Low

4 0 1 1 BC is High, PD is High, and PO is Low

- 1 0 0 - (Not possible)

5 1 0 1 BC is High, PD is Low, and PO is High

6 1 1 0 BC is Low, PD is Low, and PO is High

7 1 1 1 BC is High, PD is High, and PO is High

Fig. 4. Operational mode controller EMS (a) block diagram [43] and (b) operational states [11].

simulated in Matlab/Simulink, and proved that the ECMS showed the
best performance in fuel consumption reduction and fuel cell peak
power demand reduction. Ouddah et al. [28] even compared the
optimal control strategy, which used the Pontryagin's minimum pri-
nciple to power frequency splitting, and the results proved that the
optimal control strategy used less hydrogen, which was better
compared to power frequency splitting. Zheng et al. [42] proved that
the EMS of fuel cell–SC HEV embedding optimal control strategy,
which was reported as the Adaptive Optimal Control Algorithm,
consumed hydrogen as high as 89.9% when compared with a fuel
cell electric vehicle, and the system efficiently distributes the power
load and captures the regenerative electricity during rapid speed
fluctuations. Fig. 5 shows an example of the block diagram for the
ECMS EMS.
Furthermore, Uzunoglu and Alam [38] and Ates et al. [41] reported
on the wavelet-based frequency decoupling strategy load sharing
algorithm, which displays simulation results that shows the reliability
of the EMS, but were not extended to a real-time application. Other
EMS include frequency separation method as reported by Alloui et al.
[32], polynomial control as studied by Tani et al. [37], anticipatory
algorithm by Kelouwani et al. [33], and supervisory ECMS as discussed
by Rodatz et al. [40]. Among these EMS, only Rodatz and Tani
extended their research to real-time application or hardware testing.
Rodatz showed the results of the reliability of the ECMS algorithm in
the EMS with a maximum speed of 120 km/h [40].
4. Issues and challenges on FC–HEV
Developing a HEV, especially when more than two energy sources
are involved, needs more considerations. There are several main
components of the HEV, which affect the reliability and efficiency of
the EMS. However, several issues need to be addressed to overcome
the challenges on the reliability and efficiency of the HEV EMS. The
issues and challenges with these components are discussed in the
following sub-sections and divided into the following categories.
Pload Pfc*
X Ifc*
ECMS
/
SOC
η Vfc
Fig. 5. Block diagram for ECMS EMS [50].
4.1. Hydrogen viability
Hydrogen, being popular due to its high energy content by weight,
has its' own limitations or issues that have to be considered and
discussed prior to development of fuel cell hybrid electric vehicles.
Among the biggest considerations is the complex infrastructure which
includes hydrogen production, hydrogen storage, hydrogen transpor-
tation, environmental impacts of hydrogen, and hydrogen infrastruc-
ture cost [57]. Firstly, regarding hydrogen production, it is currently
being produced via steam reforming of natural gas because it is the
cheapest method of about $1.50/kg for mass production of hydrogen.
Where else, hydrogen can be produced by more environmental
friendly methods such as electrolysis of water using electricity from
solar, hydropower and wind technology or using photochemical [58].
It has been reported that capital cost of PEM electrolysis has been
reduced from $385/kW in 2007 to $171/kW in 2012 (for 1500 kg/day
hydrogen production) [59]. This shows that with growth in demand,
the fuel cell vehicle infrastructure would reduce in cost. As per
hydrogen storage, it has been reported that the gravimetric and
volumetric capacities have increased 50% since 2007 [60]. Storing
hydrogen is another issue since it must be liquefied or compressed to
be safely and conveniently loaded or installed in a vehicle [61].
However, General Motor has proven that a fuel cell vehicle is safe
as its 100 Chevrolet Equinox Fuel Cell has been in the market since
2008 [23].
Based on report on hydrogen production cost if using electrolysis,
the cost would have to consider a system with water reactant delivery
management system, oxygen gas management system, hydrogen gas
management system, and electrolyzer stacks. Apart from that, the cost
812 N. Sulaiman et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015) 802–814
would also consist of capital cost, operating cost and replacement cost.
The costing has been reported to provide guidance and information
for researchers or public for the development of hydrogen fuel
infrastructure [59]. Considering hydrogen delivered by pipeline or
tanker trucks to the hydrogen refueling stations, or in more general;
the infrastructure, is a possible transformation with some modifica-
tions to the current infrastructure. There have been reports providing
guidance and information on the requirements of hydrogen vehicle
infrastructure [62,63]. The infrastructure of hydrogen fuel stations for
fuel cell vehicles are expected to improve in future due to the fact that
in 2009, seven of the top automobile manufacturers (General Motors,
Honda, Hyundai-Kia, Renault-Nissan, Toyota, Daimler, Ford) signed a
joint letter of understanding. Among of the content was to urge the
setup of hydrogen infrastructure by 2015 especially for Europe,
Germany, and then extending it to US, Japan and Korea. The hydrogen
infrastructure has already been in place since it has been reported that
there were 227 hydrogen stations installed in 2011 [24].
4.2. Fuel cell economic impact
Despite the environmental advantage of fuel cell hybrid electric
vehicles, having almost zero-emission of greenhouse gasses [5], the
application of fuel cells in vehicles can still be improved, especially on
its efficiency, or technologies and policies related to costs. The well-to-
wheels (WTW) efficiency of a fuel cell vehicle has been reported as
only 14.2% [64]. In another report mentioned the WTW efficiency, FC–
PHEV for an example, considering grid electricity (53%), electrolysis
(72%), fuel cell (55%), battery charging and discharging (96%), power
control circuit and motor (80%), producing overall efficiency of only
14% [65]. Numerous research works have being conducted on
improvement of fuel cell efficiency for vehicles. Amongst them are
studies on improving electrode efficiency by controlling Nafion
ionomer volume in PEMFC and using multi-metallic anode catalysts
in PEM electrolyzer without affecting the performance or even
improving its efficiency [66,67].
Cost problems with the fuel cell stack can be solved by
increasing the power density, reducing dependence on the plati-
num loading in electrodes, and increasing the production volume.
The fuel cells commonly used for fuel cell vehicles are PEMFCs
because these fuel cells are efficient, compact, and have a quick
start. It is expected that the cost of fuel cell vehicles itself will
decrease, because in 2011, ten Japan oil and energy companies
signed a memorandum of understanding in the effort of reducing
FCEV manufacturing cost [24]. The price of transportation fuel cell
has shown decline since 2002 with the price of $275/kW to $47/
kW as in 2012 [68]. This comparison of 10 year duration shows a
reduction of almost 83%. It is mostly possible that the aim of
Department of Energy to lower the fuel cell cost to $30/kW as
achievable.
4.3. Battery lifetime
As mentioned previously, there are many types of batteries in the
market, however, the most commonly used in electric vehicles would
be the NiMH and Li-ion batteries [7]. On one hand, NiMH batteries are
considered environmentally safe, low maintenance, has a high power
and energy density, and considerably cheap. On the other hand, Li-ion
batteries, are light, compact, have more energy storage than the
NiMH, but have a wide range of operational temperatures and there
are concerns regarding the availability of materials. The use of
batteries in fuel cell HEVs is necessary because the batteries provide
the energy storage for regenerative braking [10]. However, the service
life of the battery, which depends on the SOC and depth of discharge,
shall be thoroughly analyzed prior to application. There should be a
good compromise between the cost and the technical performance
when selecting batteries [18].
4.4. Power electronic interface
The energy management, with three different energy sources,
the fuel cell produces low DC voltage by adjusting the fuel cell to a
level with the DC bus voltage by a suitable DC–DC converter [69].
Hence, power electronic interface is needed in a FC–HEV. However,
considerations have to be made prior to its development such as
open circuit faults draw increments of fuel cell stack ripple
currents and add more stress to inductors. The possible malfunc-
tions include driver failure, incorrect gate voltage, damage of
device, high voltage, or current and transients [17]. The fuel cell
system needs to boost the DC–DC converter and the storage device
needs the bidirectional DC–DC converter [20]. By contrast, if the
battery rating voltage does not tally with the DC bus voltage, a DC–
DC converter is still needed to interface the low-voltage batteries
with the higher-voltage fuel cell-powered DC bus [70]. DC–DC
converters for fuel cells should be able to buck or boost voltages in
one direction only because there is no charging of fuel cells.
Meanwhile, DC–DC converters for the battery and SC should be
able to buck and boost voltages for the charging and discharging
mode. Hence, buck–boost converters are usually used for the
battery and SC [44].
4.5. Motor integration
The motor would be the actuator for the conversion of electrical
energy into kinetic energy. The motor can either be an AC or a DC
motor depending on the input power fed into the machine. Among
the common motors used for electric vehicles are induction motors,
permanent magnet brushless motors, and switched reluctance mot-
ors. Switched reluctance motors have a simple and rugged cons-
truction, simple control, and high speed. However, this motor type is
noisy and has lower efficiency compared to permanent magnet
motors. Induction motors are reliable because of the ability to operate
in hostile environments with a simple construction and low main-
tenance and cost, but this motor type also has a lower efficiency
compare to permanent magnet motors. Permanent magnet brushless
DC motors efficiently dissipate heat to its surrounding areas and
unlikely to suffer manufacturing defects or overheating, thus, this
motor type has a higher efficiency and is mostly used in electric
vehicles [71]. However, permanent magnet brushless DC motors are
expensive, and the mechanical strength does not encourage large
torques in motors [72]. Another type of motor used is the direct
current brushless motor, but this motor type requires the driver to
change the phase of the electric converter output energy via an
inverter [73].
4.6. Energy management system
In a vehicle energy system with a hybrid or a combination of
multiple energy sources, managing the power flow and meeting the
high expectations of the market are crucial. The challenge is on the
configuration and controller design because of the complexity and
difficulty resulting from the integration requirement among the other
existing systems in the vehicle [74]. Power distribution among various
components becomes more challenging when the EMsS are expected
to minimize the hydrogen consumption and increase the life expec-
tancy of the fuel cell, which pertains to the optimization of design.
Researchers have been expected to consider the limiting SOC, support
the fuel cell during high loads, and save the optimum energy during
regenerative braking [75]. Power splits have become the main concern
also because of problems such as the frequent charge from the fuel
cell to the battery and fluctuations of the fuel cell output power, which
will affect the performance and service life of the battery and fuel cell
[76]. There are continuous studies on energy management, some of
them are simple, but lacking in adaptability, while the others are able
 N. Sulaiman et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015) 802–814
to solve the optimal control, but not yet proven to be optimizing for
any arbitrary drive cycles [77]. Furthermore, most of the previous
research works were limited to computer simulation only [78]. Thus,
the EMS still needs to be further explored and developed in terms of
hardware or real-time applications to ensure the reliability of a fuel
cell HEV.
5. Conclusion and suggestions
There are so many things that to be considered in developing a fuel
cell hybrid electric vehicle. The HEV consists of traction or motor,
motor control, inverter and dc converters, energy management system
and not forgetting fuel or energy sources. In this paper, fuel cell,
battery and supercapacitor were among the energy sources consid-
ered. Each part or subsystem of the HEV has to be properly analyzed
and integrated in order to produce a reliably efficient vehicle. Apart
from the fuel cell vehicle itself, not to forget the cost and infrastructure
that should come along with the production of the vehicles, consider-
ing use of hydrogen fuel: hydrogen production, storage, delivery, and
refueling stations. It has been discussed though that the transforma-
tion to hydrogen fuel is possible with the modification of current
infrastructure. Previously reported was also the statistics showing the
reduction in fuel cell vehicle infrastructure. Despite that, collaboration
or joint letter of understanding was also evident in the effort of
making hydrogen infrastructure most possibly soon.
Focusing on the objective of this paper, numerous studies have
been discussed on the reports of the EMS for fuel cell HEV. However,
most of the studies were conducted only through simulation and
there are insufficient research involving real time applications or real
life testing of the EMS. In particular, EMS such as fuzzy logic or
operational state strategy, which is actually simple rule-based EMS, is
simple, but not impressive when tested on hardware. This observation
is not surprising when looking into all the considerations during the
development of a HEV, especially when involving a fuel cell, battery,
and SC, aside from the fuel cell size and efficiency, hydrogen con-
sumption and storage, battery and capacitor SOC, DC–DC converters
efficiency, inverter harmonics, and motor rotational losses. Further-
more, the EMS should be reliable and feasible, and based on the
reviews made; the following are suggestions for the control strategy
for the EMS in HEV:
i) Embeds the optimal control strategy or the equivalent con-
sumption minimization strategy because it resembles the most
outstanding strategy
ii) Has the ability to minimize hydrogen consumption without
affecting the power load distribution and fulfillment
iii) Tested on hardware or in a real-time application, with a
deliberately acceptable speed range.
The suggestions made would be such interesting and remark-
able contributions to embed into the equivalent consumption
minimization strategy EMS in all fuel cell HEVs.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by the Grant LRGS/2013-UKM/TP/01
under Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
References
[1] Burress T, Campbell S. Benchmarking EV and HEV power electronics and
electric machines. In: Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE Transportation Electrifica-
tion Conference and Expo (ITEC); 2013. p. 1–6.
813
[2] Kano Y, Inoue Y, Sanada M. Current specifications of vehicle motors. In:
Proceeedings of the 2013 IEEE ECCE Asia downunder (ECCE Asia); 2013. p.
136–40.
[3] Kelly KJ, Mihalic M, Zolot M. Battery usage and thermal performance of the
toyota prius and honda insight during chassis dynamometer testing. In:
Proceedings of the 17th annual battery conference on applications and
advances; 2002. p. 247–52.
[4] Ahsan K. Understanding trends of car recalls. In:Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE
international conference on industrial engineering and engineering manage-
ment; 2010. p. 1123–7.
[5] Erjavec J, Arias J. Hybrid, electric and fuel-cell vehicles. United States of
America: Thomson Delmar Learning; 2007.
[6] Ehsani M, Gao Y, Emadi A. Modern electric, hybrid electric and fuel cell
vehicles: fundamentals, theory and design. 2nd edition. United States of
America: CRC Press; 2010.
[7] Pollet BG, Staffell I, Shang JL. Current status of hybrid, battery and fuel cell
electric vehicles: from electrochemistry to market prospects. Electrochem
Acta 2012;84:235–49.
[8] Ali DM, Salman SK. A comprehensive review of the fuel cells technology and
hydrogen economy. In: Proceedings of the 41st international universities
power engineering conference; 2006.
[9] Barbir F. PEM fuel cells: theory and practice. United States of America:
Academic Press; 2012.
[10] Livint G, Horga V, Ratoi M, Albu M. Control of hybrid electrical vehicles.
electric vehicles – modelling and simulation. Croatia: InTech; 2011.
[11] Hannan MA, Azidin FA, Mohamed A. Multi-sources model and control
algorithm of an energy management system for light electric vehicles. Energy
Convers Manag 2012;62:123–30.
[12] Li C-Y, Liu G-P. Optimal fuzzy power control and management of fuel cell–
battery hybrid vehicles. J Power Sources 2009;192:525–33.
[13] Azidin FA, Hannan MA, Mohamed A. Renewable energy technologies and
hybrid electric vehicle challenges. Prz Elektrotech 2013:100–6.
[14] Xiao D, Wang Q. The research of energy management strategy for fuel cell
hybrid vehicle. In: Proceedings of the international conference on industrial
control and electronics engineering; 2012. p. 931–34.
[15] Xie C-J, Quan S-H, Chen Q-H. Control strategy of hybrid power system for fuel
cell electric vehicle based on neural network optimization. In: Proceedings of
the IEEE international conference on automation and logistics; 2008. p. 753–7.
[16] Hannan MA, Azidin FA, Mohamed A. Hybrid electric vehicles and their
challenges: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;29:135–50.
[17] Guilbert D Mohammadi A, Gaillard A, N'Diaye A, Djerdir A. Interactions
between fuel cell and DC/DC converter for fuel cell electric vehicle applica-
tions: influence of faults. In: Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the
IEEE Industrial Electronics Society (IECON 2013); 2013. p. 912–7.
[18] Jiang Z-L, Chen WR, Qu ZJ, Dai CH, Chen ZL. Energy management for a fuel cell
hybrid vehicle. In: Proceedings of the power and energy engineering con-
ference; 2010. p. 1–6.
[19] El-Monem AAA, Azmy AM, Mahmoud SA. Performance analysis of polymer
electrolyte membrane fuel cells for electric vehicle applications. In: Proceed-
ings of the 2013 IEEE grenoble powertech (POWERTECH); 2013. p. 1–6.
[20] Thounthong P, Pierfedereci S, Martin J-P, Hinaje M, Davat B. Modelling and
control of fuel cell-supercapacitor hybrid source based on differential flatness
control. IEEE Trans Veh Technol 2010;59(6):2700–10.
[21] He H, Zhang Y, Wan F. Control strategies design for a fuel cell hybrid electric
vehicle. In: Proceedings of the IEEE vehicle power and propulsion conference
(VPPC); 2008.
[22] Emergency response guide: chevrolet equinox fuel cell. GM Service Technical
College. General Motors Corporation; 2007.
[23] Berman B. 〈http://www.hybridcars.com/chevrolet-equinox-fuel-cell/〉; 2009.
[24] Fuel cell electric vehicles: the road ahead. Fuel Cell Today; 2013.
[25] Sakka MA, Mierlo JV, Gualos H. DC/DC converters for electric vehicles. Electric
vehicles – modelling and simulations; 2011.
[26] Larminie J, Dicks A. Delivering fuel cell power. In: Fuel cell systems explained.
2nd edition. United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons; 2003. p. 331–67.
[27] Shuang Y, Junzhi Z, Lifang W. Power management strategy with regenerative
braking for fuel cell hybrid electric vehicle. In: Proceedings of the Asia-pacific
power and energy engineering conference; 2009. p. 1–4.
[28] Ouddah N, Boukhnifer M, Raisemche A. Two control energy management
schemes for electrical hybrid vehicle. In: Proceedings of the 10th international
multi-conference on systems, signals & devices; 2013.
[29] Sundstro ̈ m O, Stefanopoulou A. Optimal power split in fuel cell hybrid electric
vehicle with different battery sizes, drive cycles, and objectives. In: Proceed-
ings of the international conference on control applications; 2006. p. 1681–8.
[30] Xie CJ, Quan SH, Chen QH. Multiple model control for hybrid power system of
fuel cell electric vehicle. In: Proceedings of the IEEE vehicle power and
propulsion conference (VPPC); 2008.
[31] Karunarathne L, Economou JT, Knowles K. Model based power and energy
management system for pem fuel cell li-ion battery driven propulsion system.
In: Proceedings of the 5th IET international conference on power electronics,
machines and drives; 2010.
[32] Alloui H, Becherif M, Marouani K. Modelling and frequency separation energy
management of fuel cell–battery hybrid sources system for hybrid electric
vehicle. In: Proceedings of the 21st mediterranean conference on control &
automation (MED); 2013. p. 646–51.
814 N. Sulaiman et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015) 802–814
[33] Kelouwani S, Agbossou K, Dubé Y, Boulon L. Fuel cell plug-in hybrid electric
vehicle anticipatory and real-time blended-mode energy management for
battery life preservation. J Power Sources 2013;221:406–18.
[34] Benrabeh A, Khoucha F, Herizi O, Benbouzid MEH, Kheloui A. FC/battery
power management for electric vehicle based interleaved dc-dc boost con-
verter topology. In: Proceedings of the 15th european conference on power
electronics and applications; 2013.
[35] Xiao D, Qi W, Jin H, Fang J. Modeling and simulation for golf fuel cell electric
vehicle control system. In: Proceedings of the 2012 spring congress on
engineering and technology (SCET); 2012. p. 1–4.
[36] Yu A, Chabot V, Zhang J. Electrochemical supercapacitors for energy storage
and delivery: fundamentals and applications. United States of America: CRC
Press; 2013.
[37] Tani A, Camara MB, Dakyo B, Azzouz Y. DC/DC and DC/AC converters control
for hybrid electric vehicles energy management-ultracapacitors and fuel cell.
IEEE Trans Ind Inf 2013;9(2):686–96.
[38] Uzunoglu M, Alam MS. Modeling and analysis of an FC/UC Hybrid vehicular
power system using a novel-wavelet-based load sharing algorithm. IEEE Trans
Energy Convers 2008;23(1):263–70.
[39] Efstathiou DS, Petrou AK, Spanoudakis P, Tsourveloudis NC, Valavanis KP.
Recent advances on the energy management of a hybrid electric vehicle. In:
Proceedings of the 20th mediterranean conference on control & automation
(MED); 2012. p. 896–901.
[40] Rodatz P, Paganelli G, Sciarretta A, Guzzella L. Optimal power management of
an experimental fuel cell-supercapacitor-powered hybrid vehicle. Control Eng
Pract 2005;13:41–53.
[41] Ates Y, Uzunoglu M, Erdinc O, Vural B. A Wavelet-ADALINE network based
load sharing and control algorithm for a FC/UC hybrid vehicular power system.
In: Proceedings of the 2009 international conference on clean electrical
power; 2009. p. 591–94.
[42] Zheng CH, Lee CM, Huang YC, Lin W-S. Adaptive optimal control algorithm for
maturing energy management strategy in fuel–cell/Li-ion- capacitor hybrid
electric vehicles. In: Proceedings of the 2013 9th Asian control conference
(ACC); 2013. p. 1–7.
[43] Garcia P, Torreglosa JP, Fernandez LM, Jurado F. Control strategies for high-
power electric vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cell, battery and capacitor.
Expert Syst Appl 2013;40:4791–804.
[44] Martinez JS, Hissel D, Pera M-C, Amiet M. Practical control structure and
energy management of a testbed hybrid electric vehicle. IEEE TransVeh
Technol 2011;60(9):4139–52.
[45] Schaltz E, Rasmussen PO. Design and comparison of power systems for a fuel
cell hybrid electric vehicle. In: Proceedings of the IEEE industry applications
society annual meeting; 2008. p. 1–8.
[46] Yu Z, Zinger D, Bose A. An innovative optimal power allocation strategy for
fuel cell, battery and supercapacitor hybrid electric vehicle. J Power Sources
2011;196:2351–9.
[47] Paladini V, Donateo T, Ad Risi, Laforgia D. Super-capacitors fuel-cell hybrid
electric vehicle optimization and control strategy development. Energy Con-
vers Manag 2007;48:3001–8.
[48] Zandi M, Payman A, Martin J-P, Pierfederici S, Davat B, Meibody-Tabar F.
Energy management of a fuel cell-supercapacitor/battery power source for
electric vehicular applications. IEEE Trans Veh Technol 2011;60(2):433–43.
[49] Li Q, Chen W, Li Y, Liu S, Huang J. Energy management strategy for fuel cell–
battery-ultracapacitor hybrid vehicle based on fuzzy logic. Electr Power
Energy Syst 2012;43:514–25.
[50] Motapon SN, Dessaint L-A, Al-Haddad K. A comparative study of energy
management schemes for a fuel–cell hybrid emergency power system of
more-electric aircraft. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 2014;61(3):1320–34.
[51] Liu X, Diallo D, Marchand C. Design methodology of fuel cell electric vehicle
power system. In: Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on
electrical machines; 2008. p. 1181–6.
[52] Hao RC, Kwok TC, Kim FT, Chung HS-H. Energy management of hybrid vehicles
using artificial intelligence. In: Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 2nd global
conference on consumer electronics (GCCE); 2013. p. 65–7.
[53] Mallouh MA, Surgenor B, Dash P, McInnes L. Performance evaluation and
tuning of a fuzzy control strategy for a fuel cell hybrid electric auto rickshaw.
In: Proceedings of the 2012 American control conference. Fairmont Queen
Elizabeth, Montreal, Canada; 2012. p. 1321–6.
[54] Azidin FA, Hannan MA. Harvesting solar and energy management system for
light electric vehicles (LEVs). In: Proceedings of the 2012 international
conference on renewable energy research and applications (ICRERA); 2012.
p. 1–6.
[55] Tritschler PJ, Bacha S, Rulliere E, Husson G. Energy management strategies for
an embedded fuel cell system on agricultural vehicles. In: Proceedings of the
XIX international conference on electrical machines – ICEM 2010. Rome; 2010.
p. 1–6.
[56] Zheng C, Xu G, Zhou Y. Economic influence of prolonging fuel cell stack
lifetime of fuel cell hybrid vehicles based on optimal control theory. Energy
Convers Congr Expo 2013:673–6.
[57] The Hydrogen Economy. The hydrogen economy and sustainable develop-
ment. United Nations Environment Programme; 2006.
[58] Lipman T. An overview of hydrogen production and storage systems with
renewable hydrogen case studies. A clean energy state alliance report; 2011.
[59] Ainscough C, Peterson D, Miller E. Hydrogen production cost from PEM
electrolysis. DOE hydrogen and fuel cells program record; 2014.
[60] Chu S. Report of the hydrogen production expert panel: a subcommittee of the
hydrogen & fuel cell technical advisory committee. United States of America:
United States Department of Energy; 2013.
[61] Delucchi MA, Lipman TE. Lifetime cost of battery, fuel cell and plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles. In: Gianfranco Pistoia, editor. Electric and hybrid vehicles:
power sources, models, sustainability, infrastructure and the market. United
Kingdom: Elsevier; 2010.
[62] Qin N, Brooker P, Srinivasan S. Hydrogen fueling stations infrastructure.
United States of America: Electric Vehicle Transportation Center; 2014.
[63] Ogden J, Yang C, Nicholas M, Fulton L. Next STEPS white paper: the hydrogen
transition. United States of America: UC Davis Institute of Transportation
Studies; 2014.
[64] Williamson SS, Lukic SM, Emadi A. Comprehensive drive train efficiency
analysis of hybrid electric and fuel cell vehicles based on motor-controller
efficiency modeling. IEEE Trans Power Electron 2006;21(3):730–40.
[65] Wu D, Williamson SS. A novel design and feasibility analysis of a fuel cell plug-
in hybrid electric vehicle. In: Proceedings of the IEEE vehicle power and
propulsion conference (VPPC); 2008. p. 1–5.
[66] Bonifacio RN, Neto AO, Linardi M. Influence of the relative volumes between
catalyst and Nafion ionomer in the catalyst layer efficiency. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2014;39:14680–9.
[67] Kokoh KB, Mayousse E, Napporn TW, Servat K, Guillet N, Soyez E, et al.
Efficient multi-metallic anode catalysts in a PEM water electrolyzer. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2014;39:1924–31.
[68] 2012 Fuel cell technologies market report. US Department of Energy; 2013.
[69] Nikzad MR, Radan A. Accurate loss modelling of fuel cell boost converter and
traction inverter for efficiency calculation in fuel cell-battery hybrid vehicles.
In: Proceedings of the 1st power electronic and drive systems & technologies
conference; 2010. p. 218–23.
[70] Rathore AK, Prasanna UR. Novel snubberless bidirectional ZCS/ZVS Current-
Fed Half-Bridge Isolated DC/DC converter for fuel cell vehicles. In: Proceedings
of the 37th annual conference on ieee industrial electronics society; 2011. p.
3033–8.
[71] Lungoci CM, Georgescu M, Calin MD. Electrical motor types for vehicle
propulsion. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on optimiza-
tion of electrical and electronic equipment (OPTIM); 2012. p. 635–40.
[72] Grilo N, Sousa DM, Roque A. AC motors for application in a commercial electric
vehicle: designing aspects. In: Proceedings of the 16th IEEE mediterranean
electrotechnical conference (MELECON); 2012. p. 277–80.
[73] Liu V-T, Hong J-W, Tseng K-C. Power converter design for a fuel cell electric
vehicle. In: Proceedings of the 5th IEEE conference on industrial electronics
and applications; 2010. p. 510–5.
[74] Thanapalan K, Zhang F., Premier, G. Maddy J., and Guwy A. Energy manage-
ment effects of integrating regenerative braking into a renewable hydrogen
vehicle. In: Proceedings of the UKACC international conference on control
(CONTROL); 2012. p. 924–8.
[75] Hemi H, Ghouili J, Cheriti A. A real time energy management for electrical
vehicle using combination of rule-based and ECMS. In: Proceedings of the IEEE
electrical and power energy conference (EPEC); 2013. p. 1–6.
[76] Yang Y-P, Guan R-M. Hybrid fuel cell powertrain for a powered wheelchair
driven by rim motors. In: Proceedings of the international conference on
power engineering, energy and electrical drives (POWERENG). Spain; 2011. p.
1–6.
[77] Lv Y, Yuan H, Liu Y, Wang Q. Fuzzy logic based energy management strategy of
battery-ultracapacitor composite power supply for HEV. In: Proceedings of the
first international conference on pervasive computing, signal processing and
applications (PCSPA); 2010. p. 1209–14.
[78] Zheng CH, Lin WS. Self-optimizing energy management strategy for fuel–cell/
ultracapacitor hybrid vehicles. In: Proceedings of the international conference
on connected vehicles and expo (ICCVE); 2013. p. 87–93.