Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 14–37

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

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

Hybrid power sources (HPSs) for space applications: Analysis of PEMFC/ T

Battery/SMES HPS under unknown load containing pulses
⁎
Nicu Bizona,b,
a
University of Pitesti, Faculty of Electronics, Communications and Computers Science, 1 Targu din Vale, 110040 Pitesti, Arges, Romania
b
University Politehnica of Bucharest, Doctoral School, Bucharest, Romania

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study presents a brief review of Hybrid Power Sources (HPSs) for space applications to compare the results
Space technology obtained for a HPS under unknown load containing pulses. The reliable technologies for energy sources and
Solar energy Energy Storage Systems (ESS) that can operate safety in extreme environments (very low temperature, intense
Fuel Cell radiation environments etc.) and under dynamic load demand (including load pulses) are compared based on the
Battery
targets for power and energy density, efficiency, and lifetime. The pros and cons for HPS architectures and ESS
Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage
Hybridization
topologies proposed in the literature are discussed in frame of optimization of the whole system. Two new
Optimization optimization strategies were proposed to optimally operate the Fuel Cell (FC) system based on two control loops
implemented based on the global optimization control of the boost DC-DC converter and the load-following
control of the fuel flow rate or of the air flow rate. The comparative study performed (under constant load,
dynamic load, and variable PV power) points out the advantages of one of the proposed optimization strategy in
all performance indicators. For example, the gaps compared with the reference strategy are of 1.88%, 13.61 W/
lpm, and 293 lpm for FC system efficiency, fuel consumption efficiency, and fuel economy, if the maximum load
is considered. Also, different control methods are proposed at the ESS side to mitigate the load pulses (protecting
the FC system) and regulate the DC voltage. The results obtained in this paper are discussed related to other ESS
hybridizations and control solutions reported in the literature.

1. Introduction
It is well known that the requirements and constraints for gen-
erating and storing energy are very specific for space applications due
to environmental conditions and profile requested for load demand. In
general, the load demand is unknown and has a sharp profile containing
load steps and pulses. Furthermore, the energy must be available during
the eclipse phases in orbits or on surfaces. Thus, an Energy Storage
System (ESS) (e.g. energy and power storage devices) and Auxiliary
Energy System (AES) (e.g. regenerative Fuel Cells (FC)) are necessary
[1]. Also, different power storage technologies, such as ultracapacitors
(UCs), Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage (SMES) devices, and
high-speed Fly-Wheels (FWs), were considered to design the ESS for
load pulses [2].
In recent decades, the Proton Exchange Membrane FC (PEMFC)
gained the competition with other FC types to be used into AES for
terrestrial and space applications [3]. Thus, NASA is considering up-
grading the existing alkaline FC units with PEMFC units or Regenerative
Fuel Cells (RFCs) [4]. The latter were further developed for high alti-
tude and space missions in the Low Emissions Alternative Power Project
[5]. Fuel cells have been used starting with human space missions such
as Gemini, Centaur, Apollo, and the space shuttles and lunar vehicles
[6], so NASA has gained large expertize in the safe and effective
handling of hydrogen for its optimal use in PEMFC systems. Note that

Abbreviations: AES, Auxiliary Energy System; AirFr, Air Flow rate; AFC, Alkaline Fuel Cell; AV, Average Value; BMS, Battery Management System; BTS, Base
Transceiver Stations; BoP, Balance-of-Plant; BPF, Band-Pass Filter; DBPFC, Direct borohydride–hydrogen peroxide fuel cell; DOD, Depth of Discharge; DRFC, Discrete
Regenerative Fuel Cell; EFSS, Energy Flow Split Strategies; ES, Extremum Seeking; ESS, Energy Storage System; FC, Fuel Cell; FCHPS, Fuel Cell Hybrid Power System;
FW, Flywheel; Fueleff, Fuel consumption efficiency; FuelFr, Fuel Flow rate; GES, Global Extremum Seeking; HF, High frequency; HPF, High-Pass Filter; LC, Load
Cycle; LSS, Life Support System; LF, Low Frequency; LFW, Load-Following; LPF, Low-Pass Filter; PCS, Power Condition System; PEM, Proton Exchange Membrane;
PEMFC, Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell; PMAD, Power Management And Distribution; PV, Photovoltaic; PWM, Pulse Width Modulation; RFC, Regenerative
Fuel Cell; RES, Renewable Energy Source; RTO, Real-Time Optimization; SMES, Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage; SOC, State-of-Charge; SOFC, Solid Oxide
Fuel Cell; sFF, Static Feed-Forward; FuelT, Total fuel consumption; UC, ultracapacitors; URFC, Unitized Regenerative Fuel Cell; ηsys, FC system efficiency
⁎
Correspondence address: University of Pitesti, Faculty of Electronics, Communications and Computers Science, 1 Targu din Vale, 110040 Pitesti, Arges, Romania.
E-mail address: nicu.bizon@upit.ro.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.01.044

1364-0321/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

N. Bizon
these past applications were all nonregenerative and request enough
fuel in cryogenic tanks to support the entire spatial mission because the
hydrogen production in space is not yet possible. Thus, besides the
developing the RFC systems, the components integration durability and
reliability of PEMFC system was continuously improved [7], resulting
in IEC standards for safety use of stationary [8] and portable [9] FC
power systems, and for performance indicators as well [10].
The RFC is a single system that can either work in electrolyser mode
or FC mode. Two RFC types were developed: discrete RFC (DRFC) and
unitized RFC (URFC) [11]. In a DRFC system, two separate devices are
initially used for power generation and electrolysis process and these
were integrated in one system for aerospace applications [12]. A URFC
is a single device that can operate in FC-mode and electrolyser-mode,
ensuring the dual functions of electricity and hydrogen generation [13].
So, URFC systems have a reduced mass and volume in comparison with
DRFC systems, having huge potential to be used in ESSs for different
terrestrial and space applications [14]. The overview on the URFC
technology, including the main technical issues (such as a lack of op-
erating experience at high efficiency of kW scaled URFC stacks) and the
solutions to overcome them are shown in [14]. The study presented in
[14] have shown comparable efficiency for URFC with specialized de-
vices such as PEM electrolyser and PEMFC, but the URFC efficiency for
the FC mode requires improvements by taking into account the Balance-
of-Plant (BoP) energy consumption.
Space Hybrid Power Sources (HPS) use different converters to
convert the energy flow according to load demand [16,17]. So, it is
important to develop reliable and effective HPS architectures by mod-
eling and simulation of these HPSs during the design and testing phase
[18,19].
HPSs for space applications (such as spacecrafts, spatial vehicles,
communication satellites, Life Support Systems (LSSs), extravehicular
space suit LSS etc.) are designed to comply with specific mission re-
quirements such as required service lifetime, restrictions imposed by
distance and trajectory, dynamic profile of the load demand, the level
of reliability and redundancy imposed, the range of operating tem-
perature, the size and weight limits, the overall cost, etc., which all are
finally the design parameters of an HPS [15,20–23].
As spatial HPS projects are always faced with size and weight
constraints, energy and power density are essential parameters for
choosing the ESS devices by integrating different technologies [23,24].
For example, a portable LSS for astronauts combining cooling and
power functions with the metal-hydride, fuel cell and absorption chiller
is proposed in [24]. The new LSSs provide improved safety by im-
proving the management of residual water and reducing in the same
time the hydrogen storage tank [23,24]. Thus, both energy generation
and drinking water production processes were improved.
If Renewable Energy Sources (RES) such as photovoltaic (PV) or
wind energy are available, these will be used to recharge the ESS. Space
applications are ultimate test for RES/PEMFC/ESS HPSs because here
the load profile is unknown [15,25], containing sharp load levels and
pulses, including HPSs for communication satellites [26,27] and their
Base Transceiver Stations (BTS) [28]. Thus, in this study, besides a brief
review of HPS architecture for space applications, it is proposed a RES/
PEMFC/ESS HPS under unknown load profile with pulses.
This study proposes a PV/PEMFC/ESS HPS architecture that could
be optimal solution for terrestrial autonomous applications and could
meet most of the requirements for space missions.
The main objectives and the novelty of this study are mentioned
below as follows: (i) a brief review of recent proposals related to HPSs
for space applications under unknown load in order to compare the
results obtained for HPS proposed in this paper; (ii) a brief review of the
potential energy storage devices and advanced power topologies in
order to highlight the pros and cons of the ESSs reliable for space ap-
plications under load pulses; (iii) two new optimization strategies have
been proposed to operate the PEMFC system at the optimal point by
using the feedback loops implemented based on the Global Extremum
15
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 14–37
Seeking (GES) control of the DC-DC converter (of boost type) and the
load-following (LFW) control of the fuel flow rate (FuelFr) or of the air
flow rate (AirFr); (iv) a comparative study of the two proposed opti-
mization strategies for HPS under unknown load is performed in com-
parison with a reference strategy; (v) two new current-mode control
methods are proposed on the SMES side to mitigate the load pulses,
protecting the PEMFC system; (vi) a comparative study of the methods
for DC voltage regulation is performed by analyzing where is best to
correct the reference current; three cases were considered, with voltage
regulation implemented on the control of the backup energy source (the
PEMFC system), the energy storage device (the battery), or the power
storage device.
The structure of the paper is presented as follows.
Section 2 is dedicated to HPS design requirements and challenging
targets (Section 2.1), power generation subsystems (Section 2.2), load
estimation (Section 2.3), and hybrid ESS topologies and technologies
usually used for space applications (Section 2.4). The Alkaline FC
(AFC), Solid Oxide FC (SOFC), PEMFC, and PV technologies (which can
operate in low-intensity and low temperature conditions with high ef-
ficiency) were briefly presented as potential energy sources based on
the targets for power and energy density, efficiency, and lifetime. The
ESS hybridization using energy storage devices (such as batteries, RFC,
and FW) and power storage devices (such as capacitors, UCs, SMESs,
and high speed FW) in active or semi-active topologies is briefly ana-
lyzed in Section 2.4. The challenging objectives for Power Management
And Distribution (PMAD) are highlighted in Section 2.5.
Section 3 is dedicated to RES/PEMFC/ESS Hybrid Power Source
proposed here and the first subsection presents the HPS architecture
and modeling. The power on-board needed for a space application is
arguably one of the key design requirements, so this is carefully ap-
proached in Section 3.2 to design appropriately the need of energy from
the energy sources and ESS. Control of the battery/ SMES hybrid ESS is
performed in Section 3.3 using a dynamic profile for load demand.
The optimization of the RES/PEMFC/ESS Hybrid Power Source is
analyzed in Section 4 (in first three subsections using constant load,
dynamic load, and variable RES power). The performance indicators,
such as the total fuel consumption (FuelT), the fuel consumption effi-
ciency (Fueleff ≅ PFCnet / FuelFr), and the FC system efficiency (ηsys), are
evaluated for both optimization strategies proposed here and compared
with the static Feed-Forward (sFF) control (which is considered as re-
ference). The behavior of the hybrid ESS is analyzed in the subsection
4.4 using different scenarios (with dynamic load, with load pulsed, and
with/without RES) and the results obtained are discussed in subsection
4.5. The Conclusion section ends the paper.
2. Hybrid power sources (HPSs) for space applications
HPSs must be accommodated in the narrow space of spacecraft
power system or communication satellite in order to provide required
power on the DC bus by using both energy and power storage devices to
compensate the power flow balance [29–32].
In first space applications, both primary (one discharge) and sec-
ondary (rechargeable) batteries have been used for ESS [15,25].
The power system consisting from power generation sources, ESS,
and PMAD unit requires further technological improvements to comply
with requirements of a space mission, which are as follows [32]: to
produce power systems with considerable mass and volume cuts, to
have higher efficiency in large temperature range, and to operate in
extreme environments (very low temperature, intense radiation etc.).
For example, the architecture of PV/PEMFC/ESS HPS with semi-
active ESS topology (where only power storage device is interfaced with
the DC bus using a DC-DC bidirectional converter) is shown in Fig. 1. If
both power and energy devices are interfaced with the DC bus using a
DC-DC bidirectional converter, then the PV/PEMFC/ESS HPS with ac-
tive ESS topologies is obtained (see Fig. 2) [33].
N. Bizon Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 14–37

2.1. HPS design requirements and challenging targets

HPSs are necessary for anything that requires power in missions of

space exploration, such as spacecraft, launch vehicles, landers, rovers,
LSSs, and measurement and communication equipment. For example,
the actual HPSs represents up to one third from the spacecraft's mass.
So, HPS miniaturization based on new HPS architectures is a design
goal that will improve the landing impact, increase the available space
for crew, equipment and samples, and enable the large scale use of
nanosatellites and small planetary probes as well.
Thus, HPS capability must be from tens of watts (W) to MW in order
to cover all range of space applications, but with a specific mass per
energy up to tens of kg/kWe as a challenging target. This means high
power density for actual technologies (higher than 1 kWe/kg or
3600 Wh/kg), but higher for far-term advanced technologies (when the
power density could achieving tens of kWe / kg).
Because the HPS architecture includes power generation units, ESS,
and PMAD unit, it is necessary to use efficient power converters (with
efficiency greater than 95%), and optimal energy management based on
intelligent and adaptive control loops. The challenging goals for power
converters of tens of kW are as follows: power density higher than
500 W/kg and at least 96% efficiency.
Furthermore, HPS must operate safety up to 300 °C and tolerate the
Jovian radiation levels as challenging goals for safe operation in deep
space or difficult environments of planets.
The hybridization of all subsystems is mandatory to take the ad-
vantages of different available technologies (the mature technologies or
in the testing phase), but the HPS cost must be kept within rational
limits that will further ensure an affordable life cycle requested by
specific mission.
Also, safety and reliability of the HPS must be maintained high by
Fig. 1. PV/PEMFC/ESS HPS with semi-active ESS topology.
integrating new technologies and materials. The selection of them must
comply with above mentioned requirements, which are briefly as fol-
lows: high power density of used technologies, with increased effi-
ciency, and sufficient durability, safety and reliability, as well as the
ability to feed an unknown load profile, even in a wide range of tem-
perature and radiation.

2.2. Power generation subsystems

The subsystem of power generation could include radioisotope

power generators, PV arrays, FC systems, and fission and fusion nuclear
reactors [32,34], as well as energy scavenging (or energy harvesting)
techniques [35] to obtain power from other sources (e.g., waste liquids,
waste heat utilization etc.) [23]. The latter is already integrated into the
power generation units.
The radioisotope, fusion and fission energy sources are quite ex-
pensive in comparison with PV array and FC system. Furthermore, the
Carnot efficiency limits the specific power of a fission system at max-
imum operating temperature. Anyway, these energy generation solu-
tions remain good candidates for deep space missions.
In this study, the PV arrays and PEMFC system are considered as
power generation subsystems.

2.2.1. Fuel Cell (FC) systems

FC candidates are the ones who use oxygen (O2) and hydrogen (H2)
or methane (CH4) as fuels, such as: Alkaline Fuel Cells (AFCs), Solid
Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFCs), and PEMFCs [32]. The fuels will be obtained
by electrolysis process using a RFC system.
The above FC systems have specific power and power density in
range of 50–100 We/kg and 500–1000 Wh/kg, including tank and fuel
needed, and ensure a reliable operation for up to 5000 h, but with an
efficiency lower than 50%. The target for performance of FC systems
are as follows: specific power and power density higher than 130 We/kg
Fig. 2. PV/PEMFC/ESS HPS with active ESS topology.
and 2000 Wh/kg (including tank and fuel needed), and lifetime and
efficiency higher than 10,000 h and 70%.

16
N. Bizon
On the DC bus of the PV/PEMFC/ESS HPS shown in Fig. 1 (or
Fig. 2), the power flow balance can be written as below:
dudc
CDC udc = pFC + pESS + pPV − pload
dt (1)
where CDC is the filtering capacitor of the DC voltage (udc), pFC is the FC
net power, and pESS = pESS-P + pESS-E, pPV and pLoad are the ESS power,
the PV power, and the load power requested on the DC bus.
The average value (AV) written for the power flow balance (1) will
be given by (2):
0 = PFC (AV ) + PESS (AV ) + PPV (AV ) − Pload (AV ) (2)
So, since that the load-following (LFW) control of PDC(AV) =
PLoad(AV) - PPV(AV) is used, then the AV of the ESS power will be almost
zero (3):
PESS (AV ) ≅ 0 (3)
Thus, the size of the ESS could be minimized because the ESS de-
vices will compensate dynamically the sharp changes and pulses from
the load profile.
FC systems generally ensures the load demand when solar power is
unavailable, but here, considering (3) due to the LFW control, the FC
power (P`FC = PFC / ηboost) will generate the AV of requested energy on
the DC bus (PDC(AV)).
PDC (AV )
P′FC =
ηboost (4)
where ηboost is the AV of energy efficiency of the boost converter (the
DC-DC power converter which interfaces the FC system with DC bus in
Figs. 1 and 2).
PDC(AV) may be obtained by low-pass filtering of the pDC =
pload−pPV, the difference of load power and PV power, but other fil-
tering techniques could be used as well [36].
This means that ESS will be used only for dynamic compensation of
the power flow balance (1), and the battery's capacity (from the ESS)
could be reduced appropriately. This advantage means an increased
specific energy of the HPSs used for space application (because the
actual batteries have the specific energy of 100 Wh / kg, with target for
next years of 200 Wh / kg, but much less than that of the FC system)
[32].
It is known that time response of the FC stack is higher than the time
response of the boost converter or other power converter used to in-
terface the FC system, as well as the pDC profile [37]. Consequently,
high-voltage capacitors on DC bus (CDC) and power storage devices on
the ESS, such as ultracapacitors (UCs), SMES, or high-speed FW, will
quickly compensate the power flow balance (1). Therefore, the response
time of FC system and dynamic of the pDC profile will set the shape and
level of the power pulses that will be sustained (charged/discharged) by
the power storage device. Besides other advantages, the PEMFC system
has the shortest response time comparing with both AFC and SOFC
technologies, so PEMFC was used for NASA space applications (con-
ducted between 1960 and 2011) and could be a good candidate for next
missions, considering the improvements obtained in meantime
[15,25,32].
In next sections, the AFC, SOFC, and PEMFC actual technologies will
be briefly presented as potential candidates for space applications,
considering the following targets for next products: power higher than
5 kW and 50 kW for mobile and stationary applications, both with
specific power higher than 130 W/kg, more than 75% efficiency and a
lifetime of 10,000 h at least [32,38,39].
2.2.1.1. Alkaline Fuel Cell (AFC). The AFC was the last FC used on the
Space Shuttle Orbiter, generating 2–12 kWe and using pumps and
separators to safe manage the water flow [15].
The specific power is now of 50 W/kg, the efficiency up to 70% and
the lifetime is limited to 5000 h due to leakage of the caustic potassium
17
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 14–37
hydroxide (KOH) electrolyte. Because the alkaline separator requires
asbestos, which is now unavailable, other advanced proton and alkaline
(OH-) exchange membranes are under test to obtain very high effi-
ciency FC (having efficiency of 80%) [32,38,39].
2.2.1.2. Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFCs). CH4-air solid oxide fuel cell
(SOFC) systems are now commercially available for terrestrial
applications [40,41], but integrated SOFC systems for space
applications are not yet built [32]. These are still in the testing phase,
but the results shown that could be potential candidates for missions on
planetary surfaces to establish sustainable outposts due to ability to
directly process residual propellants from landers and fuels, which are
generated from in-situ resource utilization systems. Integrated systems
for space applications are not yet built. Furthermore, high-temperature
(700–1000 °C) SOFCs enable high compatibility with fuel reformed
from such hydrocarbons as natural gas, reliable operation under
thermal transients during the on-off cycles, and a better heat
rejection per unit mass [32]. The specific power is now of 100 W/kg,
the efficiency up to 50% and the lifetime is limited to 3000 h
[32,38,39].
2.2.1.3. Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells (PEMFCs). Due to
availability of hydrogen as a fuel, PEMFC systems are intensively
used for terrestrial applications (mobile applications [41–43] or
stationary applications [44] up to 400 kWe). PEMFC systems use pure
hydrogen and air (rather than to use corrosive pure oxygen) to generate
energy and expel product water (which is clean and drinkable).
The specific power is now of 100 W/kg, the efficiency higher than
50% (but up to 70%) and the lifetime of the PEM membrane is limited
to 5000 h due to variable hydration and heat effects [32,38,39].
PEMFC can also be utilized as Uninterrupted Power Supply or AES
unit in stationary RES/ESS HPSs. The PEMFC is operated here to use the
in-situ fuel production. Obviously, the space applications also need
hydrogen and oxygen stored in tanks or fuel that is generated in-situ
production units. Hydrogen and oxygen production in space by means
of electrolysis as part of a RFC system is likely to become the best
method candidate, besides the utilization of nuclear power [32]. Be-
cause the methane pyrolysis is currently at low technological readiness,
oxygen generation (e.q. for LSSs on the International Space Station) by
water electrolysis is a state-of-the-art technology, and hydrogen is a by-
product that can be then stored either physically (compressed hydrogen
in tanks, liquid or cryogenic-compressed) or chemically (bonded hy-
drogen in sorbents, metal hydrides, chemical hydrides or graphite nano-
fibers) [45–47].
The high-performance cryo-coolers could be good candidate for
long-term space missions, but for short space missions of few weeks the
HPS may be based on primary (nonregenerative) PEMFC [48,49].
Research on other technologies candidate for FC membrane elec-
trode assembly (MEA) such as MEA based on graphene oxide, which
uses nano-filtration for high performance separation processes, is al-
ready in testing phase [50].
PEMFC can be supplied with hydrogen and oxygen using as source
the sodium borohydride (NaBH4) and the hydrogen peroxide (H2O2),
but new developed direct borohydride–hydrogen peroxide FCs
(DBPFCs) could solve such problems associated with PEMFCs [51].
However, DBPFCs need to be further improved to become a competitive
energy source for space missions [13,32].
2.2.2. PV arrays
Photovoltaic panels for space applications must have a specific
power and efficiency higher than 100 W/kg and 50%, lifetime at least
one year under acid attack, intense Jovian radiation, and at high tem-
perature [32]. The actual PV panels using triple-junction solar cells can
reach conversion efficiency around 31, 34% and 41% under the space
spectrum, the standard 1 sun global spectrum, and the concentrated
sunlight [52,53]. Simulations show that 70% conversion efficiency
N. Bizon Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 14–37

could be obtained with multijunction solar cell, allowing for efficiency

of the concentrated photovoltaics module to be over 50% [54], but all
these technologies are still in testing phase for space application [32].
New technologies for PV system are recently developed that can
operate in low-intensity and low temperature conditions with high ef-
ficiency, being candidate solutions for space missions farther from the
sun (because it is known that the PV power decreases with the square of
the distance to the Sun). For example, PV efficiency of carbon nanotube
conductive coatings on III-V PV cells and full-spectrum hybrid solar-
thermal systems could be up to and higher than 50%, but these tech-
nologies are under testing phase [32].
Because these technologies are very costly (up to $1000/W), ad-
vanced technologies that can reduce the cost are of high interest.
The communication satellites and fly space missions usually request
PV arrays that can generate up to 10 kWe, but power requested by
electric propulsion spacecraft and LSS on the International Space
Station is much higher, being up to 100 kWe [32]. So, the estimation of
load demand (power on-board needed) for a space vehicle or stationary
base is arguably one of the key design requirements [55].

2.3. Load estimation

The HPS enables the safe operating of all equipment for scientific
activities, including for propulsion and communication, and LSS if is the
case. The load demand has increased from few watts up to hundreds of
kW for manned missions. If small power is requested, this can be as-
sured with small PV panels and batteries, but for a higher power de-
mand it is necessary to use multiple PV arrays balanced with PEMFC
and ESS during its orbiting period [15]. FC systems with PEMFC and/or
RFC units will provide energy for primary shuttle operations and LSS as
well as energy for other equipment and spacecraft in the storage bay.
PEMFC systems are similar to primary batteries in that the delivered
energy is limited to the fuel and oxidant from cryogenic tanks [46,47],
but RFC systems open new way to optimally manage the available
energy and water considering load demand and existing constrains
[14].
Load demands of tens of kW or less will mandatory request the use
of FC systems, because the battery technologies will not be effective any
longer [38,39].
Also, it is known that there are different telecommunication sa-
tellites as size and power, using different orbits and different fre-
Fig. 3. ESS topologies.
quencies, which transmit very different types of signals and operate
based on HPSs appropriately designed according to their purpose
[26,27]. In the same measure, different BTSs exist as well [28]. A PMAD.
communication satellite or a BTS can use the PV energy excepting the
eclipses (periods during which this is shadowed by the earth) or ex- 2.4. Energy Storage System (ESS)
cepting the nights and cloudy days, respectively.
In this study, the load demand for PV/PEMFC/ESS HPS was esti- The batteries, regenerative fuel cells, and flywheels are usually used
mated for a medium sized BTS, but this solution can be redesigned for as energy storage devices in ESS for space applications. The hy-
other load demand profile. The advantage of reduced size of ESS re- bridization of ESS with power storage devices is a mature storage so-
mains, being a control feature of FC system that follows PDC(AV). lution for terrestrial applications such as the smart grids integrating
Anyway, the ESS is necessary to compensate the power flow balance RES [59,60], and other stationary [61] and transport applications
(1), but hybridization of FC system has other advantages as follows: the [62,63].
FC system efficiency increase, and stability and reliability of the FC
system are sufficient high for space applications by using hybrid FC/ESS 2.4.1. Hybrid ESS topologies
systems. The hybrid ESS topologies can efficiently provide power and op-
Parallel UC hybridization has advantages for pulse load, but the erate safely in space temperature and intense radiation with sufficient
ripple FC current could be higher (for example, the ripple is about 3.6 A lifetime, and significant size reductions and high specific energy.
/ 10 A × 100 = 36% in [56]) than admissible limits (which must to be Furthermore, hybridization of ESS can avoid some of the battery ESS
up to 5% for low frequency (LF) power ripple [16,17]). Thus, appro- disadvantages related to operation, maintenance, and potential en-
priate methods must be used to mitigate the LF ripple by spreading it in vironmental hazards [30,63–65].
a large band of frequencies [57,58]. In general, hybrid ESS topologies use active or semi-active topology
So, hybrid ESS with semi-active or active topologies are usually in comparison with passive topology due to their flexibility and per-
used, even if this hybrid approach requests a supplementary cost due to formance (Fig. 3).
use of one bidirectional power converter or two such converters, and The energy and power storage devices for space applications are in
appropriate control circuitry of the Power Condition System (PCS) from short presented in the following two sections.

18
N. Bizon
2.4.2. Energy storage devices
Energy storage devices are needed for stationary (LSS bases) and
mobile (rovers) space applications. If RFCs are used in long-term ex-
ploration missions and high energy satellites for Earth observation and
communications due to the energy densities higher than 500 Wh/kg,
the batteries are first candidates for short-term missions even if the
energy densities is smaller than 150 Wh/kg for current Li–ion-battery
systems [32]. Therefore, PEMFC and RFC systems will not be used for
small satellite, even if FC systems have higher energy densities than the
batteries [26].
2.4.2.1. Batteries. There are many battery technologies from which one
can be chosen and evaluated based on terrestrial applications needs and
performance requirements such as follows: lead acid (which are used
for high pulse applications that requires very low costs, so it is not a
potential technology for space applications), nickel metal (which has
twice energy density in comparison with lead acid technology, being
used for today and past space applications), sodium-based batteries
(which are used for very high temperatures applications, having about
the same level of the energy density with the nickel-based batteries),
and lithium-ion (which has twice energy density in comparison with
nickel technology, so it won the competition, being used into ESSs for
both terrestrial and space applications) [20,63–66].
The most used cathode chemistries and anode materials are based
on graphite and both hard and soft carbons [67–71]. The used energy
management strategy sets the performance of large-scale lithium-ion
(Li-ion) battery [72–75].
Li-ion battery must operate at extreme temperatures, from
−150–450 °C, and depth of discharge (DOD) lower than 30% or up to
90% for outer or inner planet missions. The main technological chal-
lenges for Li-ion batteries are obtaining of higher energy density than
1000 Wh/kg, high-voltage and conductive electrolytes with safe cap-
abilities related to the flame retardant and overcharge protection, and
high lifetime [32]. For example, 2600 Wh/kg energy density has ob-
tained for Li-sulfur batteries (LSBs), which means that is ten times
higher than those of the Li-ion batteries, but the technology is still
under testing phase for space applications [32,75]. While the specific
energy is major objective for any battery, to comply it with other
mission requirements mentioned above, different technology are re-
searched for very low- or high temperature Li-ion batteries and high-
reliability batteries (with lifetime higher than 15 years) that maintain
high energy density required for each specific mission.
Because the energy density of the RFCs is three times higher in
comparison with Li-ion batteries [14], air-based RFCs are used for
terrestrial applications [10–12] and the RFC could be a good candidate
for mobile space applications, even if higher complexity is added to the
PCS [10,32].
2.4.2.2. Regenerative Fuel Cells (RFCs). Because the air is not available
for space applications [32], the RFC must to recycle oxygen [14]. The
RFC systems must be designed for zero gravity up to high gravity levels
(during launch operations) and also for optimal thermal and water
management in vacuum conditions.
Both the PEM and the solid oxide RFC technologies are candidates
for space applications and the prototypes tested have demonstrated the
viability of these technologies. The targets for high reliability RFCs are
1500 Wh/kg specific energy, 70% efficiency, and lifetime of 10,000 h.
So, the research is focused to design such RFCs by developing high-
efficiency fuel cells and electrolyzers, and improving the thermal and
water management subsystems operating in vacuum conditions [32].
2.4.3. Power storage devices
Considering the PV/PEMFC/ESS HPS with active or semi-active ESS
topologies shown in Fig. 3, the hybridization of ESS with power storage
devices is necessary in case of pulsed load [32].
19
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 14–37
2.4.3.1. Capacitors. Capacitors are best candidates for space
applications (such as communications satellites) where is required to
compensate high power pulses at low temperatures [26,46,56]. The
main technological challenges for ultracapacitors are to improve the
specific energy and power over wide operating temperature (−60 °C to
+300 °C) and radiation (higher than 100 Wh/kg and 10,000 W/kg,
respectively), to reduce the equivalent series resistance, and to obtain a
capacity of hundreds of mF at 1500 V voltage in a small sized volume
(less than 1 cm3) [17,32].
2.4.3.2. High-speed Flywheels (FW). The main technological challenges
for high-speed FW are to store energy for LSSs in range of kWh to MWh,
with at least 2700 Wh/kg specific energy higher and 20 years lifetime
by using carbon nanofiber rotors, advanced generators, and
superconducting magnetic bearings [32,76]. Replacing momentum
wheels and batteries, the FW reduces the mass of the integrated
system [76]. This technology is under testing phase, being reported
stationary prototypes (of about 25 Wh/kg specific energy; see for
example, the Japan prototype with 100 kWh storage capacity and
weight of 4 t, 133 kWh pack of the University of Texas at Austin, NASA
ground-tested units etc. [77]) and mobile applications with specific
energy in range 3–7 Wh/kg [78]. The main issue in any high-speed FW
is the carbon composite [79].
SMES and FW devices have a low self-discharge rate compared with
any ESS device and can quickly and repeatedly deliver the energy
stored [29,80]. So, the SMES devices were used for high-tech ESS [81]
and have recently attracted the attention of the specialists in the field of
space applications [82].
2.4.3.3. Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage (SMES) devices. The
Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage (SMES) devices were used in
terrestrial applications such as energy storage, power energy system
stability, uninterruptible power supply, and RES integration in smart
grids [83–85]. The SMES can compensate the pulse load in a Shunt
Active Power Filter topology, maintain power system stability based on
droop control algorithm [86]. The high-temperature SMES in pulsed
power supply for high-power electric thruster [82], and for military and
high-tech applications is shown in [87,88].
The methodology to design the battery / SMES ESS is proposed in
[89,90] and will be used in this study as well, but a new control is
proposed here for PCS to sustain the load pulses with unknown levels
and shapes, and regenerative load if is the case.
Note that among others requirements, the choosing of any of these
devices mentioned before will mainly depend on load power profile and
mission duration. In general, both are unknown, but both of which can
be estimated at least from statistical point of view.
Besides the power generation and ESS, the energy management and
control from PMAD is a critical unit that must be designed appro-
priately based on power flow balance (1) and other control objectives
and constraints [91].
2.5. Power Management and Distribution (PMAD)
The challenging objectives for PMAD are as follows: design of an
effective energy management, and intelligent and adaptive control for
autonomous and safe operation of the space system without commu-
nication from base station on the Earth, on ground of planet, or in the
mother station; use of sensors with wireless connections that are able to
operate in space environment (high radiation and range of extreme
temperatures); high-fidelity system tests for verification and validation
of all units as state of operation compared with the original mission
tasks and targets [32]. It is obviously that this requires real-time sys-
tems to evaluate the state variables and then to perform advanced
control [71].
The sensors and control algorithms developed for terrestrial Smart
Grid technologies could be applied for space applications after testing
N. Bizon
and validation [41]. As it is known, the Smart Grids is a complex
system, with many sources, ESS and loads interconnected via power
system, which requires reliable, effective and advanced power flow
strategies and intelligent control algorithms [31,44,92]. The design of
intelligent PMAD is a challenging task which requires research and
future developments of equipment for future space missions. The im-
plementation of the artificial intelligence concepts in PMAD and fault
detection, isolation, and recovery units will allow systems' autonomy
and on-board decision making, reducing the risks of misconduct, lack of
communication with base station, and finally the failure of mission
[92].
Space applications must be inspired from terrestrial proposals (in-
cluding biomimetic applications) as preliminary test of operation and
then validated based on space standards [93–95]. Therefore, here is
proposed a RES/PEMFC/ESS HPSs for a medium-sized Base Transceiver
Station, which could supply with energy a communication satellite or
space rover as well, after it passed the space specific standards.
3. Proposed RES/PEMFC/ESS hybrid power source
The medium-sized BTS considered in this study has peak power
(short impulse at the start-up of the air conditioner or other high power
equipment) less than 8 kW, and normally the power demand has a stairs
profile type, containing power pulses (requested during communication
phases and other required operations) and LF ripple (as effect of normal
operation of the inverter on DC bus) as well. So, the load demand (pload
profile) will be modeled here as in Fig. 4, using (5):
pload = pload1 + pload2 + pload3 (5)
where pload1, pload2, and pload3 are the load demand with stairs profile,
pulses, and LF ripple.
For example, pload1, pload2, and pload3 profiles are shown in Fig. 5
during 12 s of simulation (including zooms). The LF ripple is obtained
Fig. 4. The diagram of the equivalent load on DC bus.
20
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 14–37
by superposition of three rectified sinusoidal signals of frequency f0,
3f0, and 5f0, where f0 = 50 Hz, and 450 W peak amplitude. Besides the
LF ripple, in order to test the capability of SMES converter control to
mitigate the pulses, two patterns are used for the pulses: one is shown in
Fig. 5 and the other will be presented later. The first pattern contains
one power pulse (with 0.0225 s width and power level of 800 W), and
two more short and small pulses (one positive and other negative with
power of 40 W and both with 0.1 s width). The second pattern will also
contains one short power pulse, but the power of positive and negative
pulses is of 400 W instead of 40 W in order to test the filters used to
generate the reference currents for control loops of the power con-
verters from ESS.
The dynamic load with stair type profile (step-up and step-down
stairs represented in top plot from Fig. 5) has Pload1(AV) = 6 kW, but the
average value will be changed in range of 2–6 kW, without overloading
the 6 kW / 45 V PEMFC used (with maximum FC power of 8 kW).
PEMFC systems are used in last decades for automotive, airplanes,
submarines and space vehicles due to recent improvements in perfor-
mance and safe use [96,97]. Most of PEMFC hybridizations proposed
are based on battery ESS with a Battery Management System (BMS) that
will keep the battery State-of-Charge (SOC) into imposed range,
avoiding overcharging the battery during the charging phases with the
extra power generated by the PEMFC and RES (pload < pFC+ pRES) and
deep DOD during discharging phases when is lack of power on DC bus
(pload > pFC+ pRES) [98–100].
A review of the proposed RES/PEMFC/ESS HPS architectures is
presented in [98], including standard control methods. A review of the
advanced control methods is made in [99], where an adaptive control is
proposed for AirFr.
BMS proposed in [100] is quite simple and practical for dynamic
load with stair type profile, but it is unpractical for load power pulses
because uses switching of two relays controlled by a state diagram
N. Bizon
Fig. 5. The load profiles: dynamic load with stair type profile (top), pulses (middle), and LF ripple (bottom).
designed for PV/FC/Battery HPS of unmanned aerial vehicles.
Most of BMSs used for RES/PEMFC/ESS HPS architectures proposed
in the literature are based on charging / discharging cycles of the
battery to sustain the power flow balance (1). So, it is obvious that the
battery lifetime will decrease. The BMS proposed here operates the
battery in charge sustaining mode based on proposed LFW control for
the PEMFC system. This concept of LFW control for the PEMFC system
was previously proposed, with RES [33] and without RES [101,102], by
using a semi-active battery / UC hybrid ESS topology with feedback
loop to stabilize the voltage on DC bus at VDC(ref) based on UC stack
power. This approach need to oversize the UC stack in order to regulate
DC bus voltage under dynamic load and to maintain the voltage ripple
low. If not, the high ripple on DC bus (where the batteries stack is di-
rectly connected) means a high ripple of the battery power as well,
21
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 14–37
reducing the battery lifetime.
But even if a tight voltage regulation can be achieved with low
voltage ripple on DC bus, the bidirectional converter tied to UC has
poor utilization factor. Thus, a reconfigurable FC/UC HPS architecture
is proposed in [101], which improves the utilization factor of the UC
converter and uses a flow chart for energy management algorithm to
ensure a controlled power flows from the FC and UC stacks to the dy-
namic load with stair type profile and voltage regulation on output DC
bus. The issues of this proposals are as follows: high capacity are re-
quested for UC stack for power pulsed that must be sustained only by
UC stack; high spikes on FC current can be observed in experimental
results (at start and end of mode 3), which could damage the FC stack
(by starvation phenomena); the state diagram designed could generate
different sequences of the operating modes that were not studied for
N. Bizon
Fig. 6. The diagram of the RES/PEMFC/ESS HPS using the Fuel-LFW/Boost-GES-RTO strategy.
FC/UC HPS operating under standard and unknown load cycles.
Anyway, the conclusion of this study is that would be helpful to be used
an ESS with more storage devices compared with ESS with single sto-
rage device if the requirements for performance and safe are more re-
strictive.
Therefore, an RES/FC/ESS HPS with active Battery / SMES hybrid
ESS topology is proposed here. The Real-Time Optimization (RTO) al-
gorithm designed ensures the voltage regulation on DC bus, the op-
eration in charge sustaining mode for battery (so a reduced capacity
and an extended lifetime for battery will result), the load demand for
any type of load cycle (which includes pulses and LF ripples), and the
efficient operation of the PEMFC system.
3.1. The HPS architecture and modeling
The architecture of RES/PEMFC/ESS HPS using the Fuel-LF/Boost-
GES-RTO strategy is presented in Fig. 6 (with the switches SW1, SW2,
and SW3 as it is shown in Fig. 6). In this case the LWF control is applied
to FuelFr and AirFr is controlled by the FC current, which will find
under a RTO algorithm (such as the GES algorithm used here) the op-
timal value Iref (where the optimization function implemented is
22
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 14–37
maximum).
The Air-LFW/Boost-GES-RTO strategy is obtained considering both
switches SW1 and SW2 in the upper positions, and switch SW3 remains
in the same position. In this case, the LWF control can optimally control
the both AirFr and FuelFr inputs by the FC current. To compare the
results obtained with both Boost-GES-RTO strategies, the sFF control
strategy will be used as reference. The sFF-control strategy is obtained
considering the switches SW1 and SW2 in position of sFF control, and
SW3 in LFW position to follow the load demand. Thus, the sFF-control
strategy will not use the GES-based optimization loop to control the
AirFr and FuelFr in Boost-GES-RTO strategies proposed in this paper.
The PEMFC model used here is the 6 kW / 45 V PEMFC default
model from the library of Matlab-Simulink®. This model is a detailed
model including the dynamical part, which is used in other studies as
well [99,102], being a model with sufficient accuracy, as it is reported
in [103]. The FC time constant was set to 0.1 s. A DC-DC unidirectional
boost converter boosts the FC voltage to VDC ≅ VDC(ref) = 200 V. The
boost DC-DC converter is controlled by a hysteretic controller, which
has the inputs IFC and IrefLFW. The last signal (IrefLFW) is generated by
LFW control block (see Fig. 7) or by the GES control block (see Fig. 8;
the latter being used only in Boost-GES-RTO strategies).
Fig. 7. The diagram of the load-following (LFW) con-
trol.
N. Bizon Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 14–37

Fig. 8. The diagram of the GES control.

The LFW control block implements (4), with PDC(AV) obtained by a where P′FC and Pcm are the FC power generated and the air compressor
low-pass filtering (LPF) of the pDC = pload -pPV. The AV efficiency of the power.
boost DC-DC converter was set at 95% and the saturation block limits The Pcm power can be estimated using (9) [104]:
the range of FC current.
Pcm = Icm⋅Vcm = (a2⋅AirFr 2 + a1⋅AirFr + a0)⋅(b1⋅IFC + b0) (9)
The GES control block will implement (6):
y = f (v1, v2), yN = kNy⋅y (6a) where the coefficients are [104]: a0 = 0.6, a1 = 0.04, a2
= −0.00003231, b0 = 0.9987, and b1 = 46.02.
• •
yf = −ωh⋅yf + ωh⋅yN , yHPF = yN − yf , yBPF = −ωl⋅yBPF + ωl⋅yHPF The inputs FuelFr and AirFr are estimated based on (10) using the
(6b)
reference currents Iref(H2) and Iref(O2):
yDM = yBPF ⋅sd, sd = sin(ωt ), (6c) 60000⋅R⋅(273 + θ)⋅NC⋅Iref (H 2)
•
FuelFr =
yInt = yDM 2F ⋅(101325⋅Pf (H 2) )⋅(Uf (H 2)/100)⋅(xH 2 /100) (10a)
(6d)

1 60000⋅R⋅(273 + θ)⋅NC⋅⋅Iref (O2)

Gd = yMV , yMV =
Td
⋅ ∫ yBPF dt (6e)
AirFr =
4F ⋅(101325⋅Pf (O2) )⋅(Uf (O2)/100)⋅(yO2 /100) (10b)
yM = Gd (6f) where the constants and parameters are all defined in [104].
The FuelFr and AirFr can be selected as control variables of the FC
p1 = k1⋅yInt , k1 = γsd⋅ω (6g) power using the fuel and air regulators (10) and the reference currents
p2 = k2⋅yM ⋅sd (6h) Iref(H2) and Iref(O2) selected by switches SW1 and SW2 in order to im-
plement one of the Boost-GES-RTO strategies or the sFF control
p3 = Am ⋅sd (6i) strategy.
The proposed GES control will search the optimum (the maximum
IrefGES = kNp⋅(p1 + p2 + p3 ), (6j) value) of the optimization function f [105], optimizing the operation of
The switch SW3 is used to select the reference currents: IrefGES in the PEMFC system: low fuel consumption at high efficiency operation of
Boost-GES-RTO strategies and IrefLFW in sFF control strategy. the PEMFC system. The PEMFC safety operation will be ensured by
The normalization gains are set to kNy = 1/YMax and kNp= IFC(rated) including a slope limiters in both air and fuel regulators. Furthermore,
/ 2, where IFC(rated) and YMax are the rated FC current and the maximum these regulators will ensure the oxygen and hydrogen stoichiometry
estimated for the optimization function. The optimization function f within admissible range.
used in this study is defined to increase the FC system efficiency and An interesting LQR/LQG control of oxygen stoichiometry is pro-
reduce the total fuel consumption [102] by maximizing: posed in [106]. An optimal control for AirFr is proposed in [107] to
maximize the FC net power. The FC net power is maximized using time
knet⋅PFCnet + kfuel⋅Fueleff = f (x , AirFr , FuelFr , PLoad ) (7a) delay control of AirFr [108]. Control of AirFr proposed in [109] could
subject to: increase the PEMFC life time. Nonlinear control (such as the second
order sliding mode control proposed in [110]), adaptive control [98],
x ̇ = g (x , AirFr , FuelFr , PLoad ), x ∈ X (7b) and ES control (such as the load governor strategy based on ES control
where the weighting coefficients are knet= 0.5, kfuel= 25, and x, g, and proposed in [111]) are proposed as advanced control variants in the
PLoad are the state vector, the dynamics function of the FC system, and literature.
the disturbance input. The performance indicators used in this study are In this study, the GES control is proposed as an advanced control of
the FC net power (PFCnet), the FC system efficiency (ηsys), the fuel air flow rate or fuel flow rate. One of the fueling rates is optimized by
consumption efficiency (Fueleff ≅ PFCnet / FuelFr), and the total fuel GES control, the other is LFW controlled. Note that LFW control is
consumption (FuelT), being defined by (8): different than the methods of intrusive and non-intrusive load mon-
itoring of loads analyzed in [112].
′ − Pcm
PFCnet ≅ PFC (8a) Due to LFW control, the boost DC-DC converter will supply the DC
PFCnet bus with
ηsys =
PFC (8b) ′
PDC (AV ) = ηboost PFC (11)
P This value is evaluated as AV value of output power of the boost
Fuelefft = FCnet
FuelFr (8c) converter to be compared with the PDC(LPF), which is estimated by the
LPF from the LFW block (see Fig. 7), having as input the pDC power
FuelT = ∫ FuelFr (t ) dt (8d) (12):

23
N. Bizon Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 14–37

Fig. 9. The diagram of the Battery/SMES hybrid ESS.

pDC = pload − pPV (12) simulation's results show that this value may be lower (less than 0.1F).
Thus, considering (3), the AV power exchanged by ESS will be al- During the pulse, the SMES current varies from ISMES - ΔISMES to
most zero, which means that the battery operates in charge-sustaining ISMES + ΔISMES, and can store the energy (18):
mode if no other control conditions (such as the DC voltage regulation) 2 2
1 ΔISMES ⎞ ΔI
will be implemented for it: ΔELsmes = 2
⋅LSMES ⋅ISMES ⋅⎡ ⎛
⎢ 1 + ISMES
⎜ − ⎛1 − SMES ⎞ ⎤
⎟ ⎜ ⎟

2 ⎣⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ISMES ⎠ ⎥
⎦ (18)
PBAT (AV ) ≅ 0 (13)
If ΔELsmes ≅ ΔEload , then the value of the SMES inductance will be
3.2. ESS design given by (19):

2⋅ΔEload
The ESS block represented in Fig. 6 implements the diagram of the LSMES =
ΔISMES 2 ΔISMES 2
Battery/SMES hybrid ESS detailed in Fig. 9.
The load 2 may contain many individual pulses, which can appear
2
ISMES ⋅⎡
⎣
(1 + ISMES
−) (1 − ISMES )⎦ ⎤
(19)
for ncycle(i) – times during a load cycle considered. If the amplitude and
LSMES = 112 mH is obtained for the SMES inductance considering in
duration of each pulse(i) are ΔPload(i) and Δtload(i), then the energy of
(13) the same values of the load pulse, and ISMES = 500 A (the max-
pulse(i) is given by (14):
imum value) and ΔISMES= 2.5% ISMES = 12.5 A.
ΔEpulse (i) = ΔPload (i)⋅Δtload (i)⋅ncycles (i) (14) The value of 100 mH will be used first for the LSMES, but then the
inductance was reduced to LSMES = 10 mH to see if the SMES still
So, the energy of load 2 during a load cycle considered is (15)
supplies/stores the power pulses.
ΔEload = ∑ ΔPload (i)⋅Δtload (i)⋅ncycles (i) The SMES is modeled using a 100 mH/0 Ω inductance from Matlab
i (15) & Simulink ® toolboxes. The shape of the current Ipulse is controled by
signal PWMsmes applied to an asymmetric full-bridge DC-DC converter.
The capacitor on DC bus (CDC) will be discharged or charged if the
The voltage on the capacitor CDC is initially set to VDC= 200 V and
pulse is of consumption type or regenerative type. Limiting the voltage
the battery voltage was chosen of Vbat= 100 V. So, 100 Ah/100 V li-
ripple at ± ΔVDC, the charging energy will be (16):
thium-ion battery from Matlab & Simulink ® toolboxes was chosen, with
2 2
1 2 ⎡⎛ ΔVDC ⎞ ΔVDC ⎞ ⎤ 80% initial SOC and the other values set to the default values.
ΔECdc = ⋅CDC⋅VDC ⋅⎢ 1 + ⎜ − ⎛1 −
⎟ ⎜ ⎟

2 ⎣⎝ VDC ⎠ ⎝ VDC ⎠ ⎥⎦ (16)

The battery's capacity (CBat) was estimated for same energy pulses
and ΔVbat = 15%Vbat.
If ΔECdc ≅ ΔEload , then the value of the capacitance CDC will be given If ΔEBat ≅ ΔEload , then the value of the capacity of battery CBat will
by (17): be given by (20):
2⋅ΔEload
CDC ≅ ΔPload⋅ncycles⋅Tcycle (Bat )
ΔVDC 2 ΔVDC 2 CBat =
2 ⎡
VDC ⋅
⎣
( 1+ VDC ) (− 1− VDC )⎦ ⎤
(17) ΔVBat (20)

The value obtained for the capacitance is CDC = 1.1667 F con-
sidering VDC= 200 V and voltage ripple of ΔVDC= 1,5% VDC = 3 V for
only one type of pulse in (15) with the following parameters: ΔPload
= 4Pload = 400 W, Δtload = 1% Tcycle = 3,5 ms, and ncycle= 1000.
The value of 1F will be used first for the capacitor CDC, but the
The battery's power flow to DC bus is controled by signal PWMbat
via the half-bridge DC-DC converter. The 10 mH/0.01 Ω inductance
(LBat) will operate the half-bridge DC-DC converter in continuous-cur-
rent mode, considering DBat = VDC / VBat = 0.5 (the duty cycle), ΔIbat
= 20%Ibat, Ibat < Ibat(max)= 100 A, and fmin = 250 kHz in (21):

24
N. Bizon Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 14–37

Fig. 10. The BMS diagram of control for the hybrid ESS.

VDC⋅(1 − DBat ) (HF) noise in the SMES converter control loop. The cut-off frequency of
LBat =
2⋅fmin ⋅ΔIBat (21) the LPFSMES is set at 1000 Hz in order to not mitigate the LF ripple
considered (pload3) and to not distort the pulses too much (pload2).
The pulses and LF ripples could be mitigated by appropriate com-
3.3. ESS control mand of the SMES power converter based on the errors ePulse = IPulse(ref)
− IPulse(LPF), where IPulse(LPF) is the output of the LPFPulse (with the cut-
The ESS control proposed in the literature is based on the Energy off frequency of 1000 Hz):
Flow Split Strategies (EFSS) [113–115] such as rules-based control
[116], filtering-based control [117], and AI-based control [118,119]. IPulse (LPF ) = LPFPulse (Ipulse ) (24)
The rule based control proposed in [116] uses rules tables to calculate
IPulse is the current that supply (or is generated by) the SMES power
the weighting parameters and select the operation modes. The filtering-
converter (see Fig. 10). If,
based control is simple and efficient to separate the power in LPF and
HPF frequency bands [117]. ePulse = 0 (25)
Most of proposed hybrid ESS are based on batteries and ultra-
then, considering (23a) and (24):
capacitors as energy and power storage devices. In comparison with
different energy storing applications based on Battery/UC ESS, only few Pload2 + Pload3
IPulse ≅
papers report the use of SMES as power storage device VDC (26)
[29,64,83,89,90,120–122]. In this study a Battery/SMES ESS is pro-
posed to mitigate the load pulses or the LF ripple on DC bus in order to Two control methods were implemented: one is based on the
protect the PEMFC system. The BMS diagram of control for the hybrid Proportional-Integral (PI) controller and the Pulse Width Modulation
ESS is presented in Fig. 10. (PWM) generator, and other is based on hysteresis current-mode con-
The EFSS filtering-based control is implemented here considering troller.
the BPFSMES and LPFBat to generate the reference currents IPulse(ref) and It was observed that both control methods can ensure (25) with
IBat(ref) using as inputs Pload and dP given by (5) and (22): sufficient precision.
So, the control method implemented for battery power converter
dP = pESS = pload − pFC − pPV (22) uses a hysteresis current-mode controller based on the errors eBat =
I′Bat(ref) – IBat, where
So, the reference currents IPulse(ref) and IBat(ref) will be given by (23):
IPulse (ref ) = BPFSMES (Pload/ VDC ) ′ (ref ) = IBat (ref ) − VDC (correction)
IBat (27)
(23a)

IBat (ref ) = LPFBat (dP /VDC ) VDC(correction) is the PI correction of the battery reference current
(23b)
(23b) based on the voltage errors eVdc = VDC−VDC(ref), if SW4 is on
The BPFSMES is used instead of HPFSMES to filter the high frequency position shown in Fig. 10, or VDC(correction) = 0 if SW4 is switched to

25
N. Bizon Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 14–37

Fig. 11. Searching of the optimal point for FC/Battery/SMES HPS under 6 kW load by using Air-LFW/Boost-GES-RTO strategy.

Table 1 4. Results
The Air-LFW/Boost-GES RTO strategy applied to FC/battery/SMES HPS at
different Pload1. The simulation results without RESs (PRES = 0) and without DC
Pload1 IFC1A FuelFr1A AirFr1A PFCnet1A ηsys1A Fueleff1A FuelT1A voltage regulation (by using VDC(correction) = 0) are shown in next two
[kW] [A] [lpm] [lpm] [W] [%] [W/lpm] [l] section for constant and dynamic load in order to compare the perfor-
mance of the Boost-GES-RTO strategies.
2 57.78 22.07 105.1 2513 92.32 113.2 52.49
3 82.52 31.58 159.7 3494 90.61 109.6 73.01
4 85.37 32.53 192.3 3928 90.3 120.2 74.85 4.1. Constant load
5 112.7 42.87 254.5 4612 88.59 111.9 98.5
6 130.3 49.04 312.3 5206 86.98 106.7 117.8 The pload1 is a constant load if switch SW6 is respective position
7 161.8 60.76 388.3 5876 85.05 97.96 136.6
(constant load) in Fig. 4. The noise added to it is given by pload2, and
8 162.4 60.89 441.8 5861 84.18 97.36 137.4
pload3 shown in Fig. 5 and Fig. 11 (the second plot). Fig. 11 represents
the searching of the optimal point for FC/Battery/SMES HPS under a
0 V. In both cases, (13) is ensured during the stationary regimes. 6 kW load by using Air-LFW/Boost-GES-RTO strategy.
Considering [114], the proportional gains of the PI controllers for The structure of the plots is as follows: first two plots represent the
DC voltage error (eVdc) and pulse current error (ePulse) are 5 and 1, and load components; the variation of the DC voltage (VDC) around the
the integral gains are 1 for both PI controllers. The hysteresis value was reference VDC(ref) = 200 V is represented in the 3rd plot (the voltage
chosen 0.1 A for both hysteresis current-mode controllers. drop is about 14 V during startup without DC voltage regulation (by
using VDC(correction) = 0), but then the DC voltage fluctuates around
reference due to the battery's operation in charge-sustaining mode; the
battery's power (pBat) is represented in 4th plot (it is observed that

26
N. Bizon Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 14–37

Fig. 12. Searching of the optimal point for FC/Battery/SMES HPS under 6 kW load by using Fuel-LFW/Boost-GES-RTO strategy.

Table 2 Table 3
The Fuel-LFW/Boost-GES RTO strategy applied to FC/Battery/SMES HPS at The sFF control applied to FC/Battery/SMES HPS at different Pload1.
different Pload1.
Pload1 IFC3 FuelFr3 AirFr3 PFCnet3 ηsys3 Fueleff3 FuelT3
Pload1 IFC2A FuelFr2A AirFr2A PFCnet2A ηsys2A Fueleff2A FuelT2A [kW] [A] [lpm] [lpm] [W] [%] [W/lpm] [l]
[kW] [A] [lpm] [lpm] [W] [%] [W/lpm] [l]
2 36.62 14.58 85.52 1935 93.15 135.7 34.02
2 44.59 16.11 101.3 2111 92.36 131.9 38.6 3 58.95 24.05 144.2 2991 91.55 126.2 56.3
3 67.12 24.86 156.1 3119 90.82 124 59 4 82.62 31.65 189.2 3773 90.25 119.9 74.88
4 92.4 34.04 212 3992 90.08 116.5 80.83 5 108.1 41.45 248.1 4632 88.51 111.5 98.6
5 120.2 44.15 272.6 4798 88.39 108.6 104.5 6 138.9 53.25 318.1 5441 86.57 102.6 125.58
6 139.6 52.59 314.3 5475 86.94 104.8 124.5 7 173 67.5 404.6 6178 84.19 91.9 158.34
7 172.4 65.74 392.3 6306 84.95 95.62 153.3 8 220.6 82.8 496.2 6912 82.3 83.75 196
8 208.5 79.91 473.9 6977 83.14 87.12 181.6

′
PFC PDC (AV )
Iref (O2) = =
battery ensure the power balance (1) until the PEMFC will generate the VFC ηboost VFC (28)
requested power by the load, but then PBat(AV) ≅ 0).
The FuelFr (represented in the 6th plot) is controlled by the FC The performance indicators (8) are also shown in Fig. 11: the total
current (represented in the 5th plot), so both signals have the same fuel consumption (FuelT) in the 7th plot, the fuel consumption effi-
shape. The FC current follows the reference current IrefGES (6j), ciency (Fueleff ≅ PFCnet / FuelFr) in the 9th plot, and the FC system
searching the maximum of the optimization function f (7a). Due to the efficiency (ηsys) in the last plot.
LFW control (4), the reference current Iref(O2) will follow the load de- The results of simulations for different levels of constant load Pload1
mand on DC bus based on (28) (see the AirFr shown in the 8th plot): are summarized in Table 1.

27
N. Bizon Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 14–37

Table 4
The performance indicators difference for Air-LFW/Boost-GES RTO strategy compared to sFF control.
Pload1 ΔPFCnet=PFCnet1A-PFCnet3 Δηsys= ηsys1A-ηsys3 ΔFueleff=Fueleff1A-Fueleff3 ΔFuelT1A=FuelT1A-FuelT3 60·ΔFuelT1A/ 12
[kW] [W] [%] [W/lpm] [l] [lpm]

2 578 − 0.83 − 22.5 18.47 92.35

3 503 − 0.94 − 16.6 16.71 83.55
4 155 0.05 0.3 − 0.03 − 0.15
5 − 20 0.08 0.4 − 0.1 − 0.5
6 − 235 0.41 4.1 − 7.78 − 38.9
7 − 302 0.86 6.06 − 21.74 − 108.7
8 − 1051 1.88 13.61 − 58.6 − 293

Table 5
The performance indicators difference for Fuel-LFW/Boost-GES RTO strategy compared to sFF control.
Pload1 ΔPFCnet=PFCnet2A-PFCnet3 Δηsys= ηsys2A-ηsys3 ΔFueleff=Fueleff2A-Fueleff3 ΔFuelT2A=FuelT2A-FuelT3 60·ΔFuelT2A/12
[kW] [W] [%] [W/lpm] [l] [lpm]

2 176 − 0.79 − 3.8 4.58 22.9

3 128 − 0.73 − 2.2 2.7 13.5
4 219 − 0.17 − 3.4 5.95 29.75
5 166 − 0.12 − 2.9 5.9 29.5
6 34 0.37 2.2 − 1.08 − 5.4
7 128 0.76 3.72 − 5.04 − 25.2
8 65 0.84 3.37 − 14.4 − 72

Fig. 13. The difference in Fueleff (see Tables 4 and 5) using the Boost-GES-RTO
strategy with Air-LF (♦) and Fuel-LF (■) compared to sFF control.
Fig. 15. The difference in FuelT (see Tables 4 and 5) using the Boost-GES-RTO
strategy with Air-LF (♦) and Fuel-LF (■) compared to sFF control.

Fig. 14. The difference in ηsys (see in Tables 4 and 5) using the Boost-GES-RTO
strategy with Air-LF (♦) and Fuel-LF (■) compared to sFF control.

Then, the Fuel-LF/Boost-GES-RTO strategy is analyzed. Fig. 12 re-

presents the searching of the optimal point for FC/Battery/SMES HPS
under the same 6 kW load by using Fuel-LF/Boost-GES-RTO strategy in Fig. 16. The optimal points position for the Boost-GES RTO strategies with Air-
order to compare the results. The structure of the plots of Fig. 12 is the LF ( ) and Fuel-LF ( ) compared to sFF control ( ).
same as of Fig. 11.
The DC voltage (VDC) varies around the reference VDC(ref)= 200 V

28
N. Bizon Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 14–37

Table 6
Fuel economy for the Air-LFW/Boost-GES-RTO compared to sFF control.
Pload1(AV) sFF-RTO strategy Air-LF/Boost-GES RTO strategy ΔFuelT2A(LC)=FuelT2A(LC)-FuelT3(LC) 60·ΔFuelT2A(LC)/12

IFC3(AV) FuelFr3(AV) AirFr3(AV) FuelT3(LC) IFC2A(AV) FuelFr2A(AV) AirFr2A(AV) FuelT2A(LC)

[kW] [A] [lpm] [lpm] [l] [A] [lpm] [lpm] [l] [l] [lpm]

2 26.07 10.39 62.86 34.52 46.83 17.6 79.65 49.33 14.81 74.05
3 43.92 16.39 97.59 54.23 63.55 24.05 117.5 64.49 10.26 51.3
4 57.23 22.42 134.2 75.96 78.81 29.7 154.4 82 6.04 30.2
5 73.38 28.99 173.3 100.4 79.25 30.43 179.1 96.79 − 3.61 − 18.05
6 90.1 36 215.3 129.1 99.16 37.28 221.5 109.9 − 19.2 − 96
6.25 104.2 40.53 244 149 104.7 39.42 233.6 112.1 − 36.9 − 184.5

Table 7
Fuel economy for the Fuel-LFW/Boost-GES-RTO compared to sFF control.
Pload1(AV) sFF-RTO strategy Fuel-LF/Boost-GES RTO strategy ΔFuelT1A(LC)=FuelT1A(LC)-FuelT3(LC) 60·ΔFuelT1A(LC)/12

IFC3(AV) FuelFr3(AV) AirFr3(AV) FuelT3(LC) IFC1A(AV) FuelFr1A(AV) AirFr1A(AV) FuelT1A(LC)

[kW] [A] [lpm] [lpm] [l] [A] [lpm] [lpm] [l] [l] [lpm]

2 26.07 10.39 62.86 34.52 34.01 12.03 77.71 38.43 3.91 19.55
3 43.92 16.39 97.59 54.23 48.6 18.09 113.3 58.09 3.86 19.3
4 57.23 22.42 134.2 75.96 65.62 24.38 152.1 79.21 3.25 16.25
5 73.38 28.99 173.3 100.4 85.78 31.5 196 103.2 2.8 14
6 90.1 36 215.3 129.1 107.4 39.02 242.6 125.9 − 3.2 − 16
6.25 104.2 40.53 244 149 110.8 40.81 252 132.4 − 16.6 − 83

searching the maximum of the optimization function f (7a).

Fig. 17. Fuel (see Tables 6 and 7) for the Boost-GES RTO strategy with Air-LF
(♦) and Fuel-LF (■) compared to sFF control.
(see the 3rd plot) in the same manner as shown in Fig. 11, having a
voltage drop of about 14 V during startup if the DC voltage regulation
by using VDC(correction) is not used. The battery's power (pBat) have the
same variation as shown in Fig. 11 (see the 4rd plot) due to the battery's
operation in charge-sustaining mode that results from the power bal-
ance (1). Minor differences appear in shapes of signals related to ESS
behavior because the same ESS control is used in both Boost-GES-RTO
strategies. But different control loops are used for each Boost-GES-RTO
strategy.
In case of the Fuel-LF/Boost-GES-RTO strategy, the LFW control (4)
is applied to the reference current Iref(H2):
′
PFC PDC (AV )
Iref (H 2) = =
VFC ηboost VFC
so the FuelFr (represented in the 6th plot) will follow the load demand
on DC bus based on (29).
The AirFr (represented in the 8th plot) is controlled by the FC
current (represented in the 5th plot), so both signals have the same
shape. The FC current follows the reference current IrefGES (6j),
Thus, the performance indicators (8) are a bit different, being re-
presented in Fig. 11 (the total fuel consumption (FuelT) in the 7th plot,
the fuel consumption efficiency (Fueleff ≅ PFCnet / FuelFr) in the 9th
plot, and the FC system efficiency (ηsys) in the last plot) and summar-
ized in Table 2 for different levels of constant load Pload1.
The sFF control was chosen as reference strategy to control the FC/
Battery/SMES HPS due to its frequent use in different applications re-
ported in the literature [35–41], including the commercial ones
[37,38]. The results obtained are summarized in Table 3 for different
levels of constant load demand (Pload1).
The performance indicators difference using the data from Tables 1
and 2 for Boost-GES RTO strategies compared to sFF control (Table 3)
are computed in Tables 4 and 5.
The gaps in performance indicators shown in Tables 4 and 5 are
represented in Fig. 13 (Fueleff), Fig. 14 (ηsys), and Fig. 15 (FuelT). The
following conclusions result from analysis of these results:
– In range of load demand from 3.8 kW up to 8 kW, the Air-LFW/
Boost-GES RTO strategy compared to Fuel-LFW/Boost-GES RTO
strategy gives better results in all performance indicators;
– For light load (up to 3.8 kW), the sFF control compared to both
Boost-GES RTO strategies gives better results in all performance
indicators.
– In range of load power from 4 kW up to 8 kW, the Air-LFW/Boost-
GES RTO strategy compared to sFF control gives better results in all
performance indicators; furthermore, the differences in all perfor-
mance indicators increase with the level of the load power.
The position of optimal points for Boost-GES RTO strategies com-
pared to sFF strategy are presented in the phase plane of the control
variables FuelFr and AirFr based on data from Tables 1–3 (see Fig. 16).
This illustrates that optimization function is a dynamic surface de-
(29) pending by controllable variables FuelFr and AirFr in the control loops
of each strategy considered here. Note that even if the positions of
optimal points are close one to another, the values obtained for per-
formance indicators may be very different [105] due to dynamic sur-
face that depends by process's inputs and used strategy [123,124].

29
N. Bizon
Fig. 18. Searching of optimal points by using Air-LFW/Boost-GES RTO strategy for RES/FC/Battery/SMES HPS under 6 kW AV-LC.
4.2. Variable load
The pload1 is a variable load if switch SW6 is on position shown in
Fig. 4. Also, the noise added to it is given by pload2, and pload3 shown in
Fig. 5 and Fig. 11 (the second plot).
The findings for constant load must also be verified for a dynamic
load with stairs profile (pload1) having the levels and the AV value
(Pload1(AV)) mentioned the same as in [33] for further comparison of the
results obtained with different RTO strategies.
For dynamic load, only FuelT performance indicator can give re-
levant information about the Boost-GES-RTO strategies compared to
sFF strategy. The simulations have been performed and the results are
presented in Tables 6 and 7. The gaps in FuelT performance indicator
shown in Tables 6 and 7 are represented in Fig. 17.
The following conclusions result from analysis of these results:
– In range of load power from 4.3 kW up 8 kW, the fuel economy is
higher for Air-LFW/Boost-GES RTO strategy compared to Fuel-LFW/
Boost-GES RTO strategy;
– For light load (up to 4.6 kW), the fuel economy is higher for sFF
strategy compared to Air-LFW/Boost-GES RTO strategy.
– In range of load power from 4.6 kW up 8 kW, the fuel economy is
higher for Air-LFW/Boost-GES RTO strategy compared to sFF
30
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 14–37
strategy; furthermore, the fuel economy increases with the level of
the load power.
Therefore, the Air-LFW/Boost-GES RTO strategy will be considered
below to be tested with a variable profile of RESs (which can be
available), but still without DC voltage regulation.
4.3. Dynamic load and variable RES power
The simulation results in case of variable RES power and dynamic
profile of load demand is shown in Fig. 18 for the Air-LFW/Boost -GES-
RTO strategy. The profiles of the RES power and dynamic load (pload1)
are represented in first two plots of Fig. 18. The rest of the plots are as
follows: the variation of the DC voltage (VDC) around the reference
VDC(ref)= 200 V is represented in the 3rd plot (in addition to voltage
drop of about 14 V during startup, others voltage variations of max-
imum 5 V can be observed due to changes in both RES and load power
profiles; anyway the DC voltage still fluctuates around reference due to
the battery's operation in charge-sustaining mode); the shape of the
battery's power (pBat) represented in 4th plot confirm this mode of
operation (PBat(AV) ≅ 0).
The FuelFr (represented in the 6th plot) follows the FC current
(represented in the 5th plot) due to (28), but AirFr (represented in the
N. Bizon
a
Fig. 19. The behavior of the Battery/SMES hybrid ESS under the two patterns of pulses by using Air-LFW/Boost-GES-RTO strategy, hysteresis current-mode con-
troller for both SMES and battery power converters, and DC voltage regulation. (a) Under the first pattern of pulses considered. (b) Under the second pattern of pulses
considered.
8th plot) follows the load demand on DC bus based on (27). The shapes
of the RES power profile can be identified in the AirFr variation.
The performance indicators (8) are also shown in Fig. 18: the total
fuel consumption (FuelT) in the 7th plot, the fuel consumption effi-
ciency (Fueleff ≅ PFCnet / FuelFr) in the 9th plot, and the FC system
efficiency (ηsys) in the last plot. A fair comparison of the RTO strategies
for RES/PEMFC/ESS HPS can be made if the fuel economy is compared
under same test conditions (related to load cycle, RES profile etc.)
[31,33,125–127]. This comparison was made for Boost-GES RTO stra-
tegies proposed here, and the results obtained confirm the superiority of
the Air-LF/Boost-GES RTO strategy (but the results are not shown here
because is outside of the goal of this study). It will be interesting to
compare in next study the Air-LF/Boost-GES RTO strategy proposed
here with others RTO strategy proposed in [33,102,105] based on LFW
control and GES control (one or two GES control loops) but different
applied to controllable inputs.
In this study the mitigation of load pulses and LF load ripples will be
analyzed considering the hysteresis current-mode control for both
battery and SMES power converters. Thus, the behavior of the Battery/
SMES ESS with voltage regulation of the DC voltage, and mitigation
control of the load pulses and LF load ripples will be analyzed below.
Note that the mitigation effect could be observed on the DC voltage
presented in previous Figs. (11 and 12), as only very small voltage sag
during the pulse, but the performance of mitigation will be shown in
31
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 14–37
next section considering the error ePulse (25)
4.4. Battery/SMES ESS behavior
The mitigation control will use the hysteresis current-mode control,
but the PI control is also tested here (even if this is not recommended to
track a sinusoidal (alternative)) reference due to error in both magni-
tude and phase parameters [31,35,57,58,125,128], but some improved
schemes are reported recently for both controllers [129–131] to avoid
their disadvantages [125]. The hysteresis controller generates directly
the PWM commands (without a PWM generator that is mandatory for
PI controller), but the switching frequency varies in a large band,
generating harmonics in frequency band considered (21). The LPF for
Ipulse (LPF_Pulse in Fig. 10) is designed to filter these HF harmonics.
Besides the LF load ripple pload3 (a superposition of three rectified
sinusoidal signals of frequency f0, 3f0, and 5f0, where f0 = 50 Hz), two
patterns are used for the load pulses (see Fig. 19a and b) to test the
capability of SMES convertor control to mitigate the pulses. Fig. 19 il-
lustrates the behavior of the Battery/SMES hybrid ESS under the pulses
shown in the last plot of Fig. 19 by using Air-LF/Boost-GES-RTO
strategy, hysteresis current-mode controller for both SMES and battery
power converters, and DC voltage regulation.
The first pattern (see Fig. 19a) contains one power pulse (with
0.0225 s width and power level of 800 W), and two more short and
N. Bizon Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 14–37

b
Fig. 19. (continued)

small pulses (one positive and other negative with power of 40 W, but SMES can compensate these changes in load demand pDC, but also short
both with 0.1 s width). The second pattern (see Fig. 19a) will also load pulses and LF load ripples.
contains the short power pulse, but the power of positive and negative
pulses is now of 400 W (instead of 40 W). ESMES = ∫ pSMES dt (30)
The structure of plots for Fig. 19a and b are the same and minor
The mitigation process of short load pulses and LF load ripples will
differences can be observed between the shapes of same signals: the DC
be better shown in Figs. 20–22. Figs. 20 and 21 represent the behavior
voltage regulation is represented in first plot (the use of VDC(correction)
of ESS for the first and second pattern of the pulses during the startup
for battery reference current (23b) based on PI correction of the voltage
phase (Fig. 20a and Fig. 21a), the pulse (Fig. 20b and Fig. 21b), and the
errors, eVdc = VDC - VDC(ref), reduces the voltage sag during startup at
LF ripple (Fig. 20c and Fig. 21c) by using hysteresis current-mode
less than 0.8 V compared with 14 V without DC voltage regulation); the
controller to generate the commands for the SMES power converter.
SMES current is represented in second plot, and the SMES power and
The structure of the plots is the same for both Figs. 20 and 21.
remaining SMES energy (30) are represented in 6th and 7th plots; the
Fig. 20a and Fig. 21a represent the signals during the startup phase:
battery current is represented in 4th plot, and the battery power and the
the reference current IPulse(ref) (in the first plot), the pulse (IPulse) gen-
battery SOC are represented in 5th and 8th plot (the battery supply the
erated by the SMES converter (in the second plot), and the errors ePulse
DC bus with energy to regulate the DC voltage and sustain the power
= IPulse(ref) - IPulse(LPF) (in the 3rd plot), where IPulse(LPF) is given by (24).
flow balance (1) during changes in load or RES power).
Fig. 20b and Fig. 21b represent the same signals during the phase of
In fact, the both energy and power storage devices compensate
a load pulse and Fig. 20c and Fig. 21c represent the same signals during
dynamically the power flow balance on the DC bus during changes in
the phase of a load LF ripple. It is observed that the pulse (IPulse) sup-
load demand pDC (12). The shape (30) of the SMES energy shows that
plied (or generated) by the SMES converter can follow the reference

32
N. Bizon Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 14–37

c
Fig. 20. The generation of the Ipulse considering the first pattern of pulses (using Air-LFW/Boost-GES-RTO strategy and hysteresis current-mode controller for SMES
power converter). (a) The startup phase. (b) Zoom of the pulse. (c) Zoom of the LF ripple.

current IPulse(ref) with peak error ePulse less than 0.5 A. Also, the battery
current will follow the reference current I′Bat(ref) with peak error eBat =
I′Bat(ref) – IBat less than 1 A. This error generates a HF power ripple with
level less than 100 W and 200 W, which will be filtered by the capacitor
on DC bus (CDC). The DC voltage in Fig. 19 has no HF ripple.
To compare the results using the same structure of plots as Figs. 20
and 21, Fig. 22 represents the generation of the Ipulse considering the
second pulse pattern and the PI controller to command the SMES power
converter.
4.5. Discussion
Thus, based on the results obtained and reported in the literature,
the main problem remains at ESS level [113–119] in choosing the
simplest strategy to generate the reference currents IPulse(ref) and IBat(ref)
(23), which seems to be one that is based on filtering [117]. The cut-off
frequency of the sharing filters LPFFC and HPFSMES was chosen here of
0.1 Hz. The value of this sharing frequency is important in sizing the
power storage device without support of the battery in ensuring the
power flow balance (1) [117]. A lower value will better mitigate the LF
ripple from the reference current for the FC system (ILF(ref)), but the
response time of the LPFFC increase as well. So, a faster type for the
LPFFC must be used [117].
Other problem is where the DC voltage regulation will be performed
as correction (VDC(correction)) of the reference current: on the control side
of the PEMFC system, the battery, or the power storage device (UC or

33
N. Bizon Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 14–37

c
Fig. 21. The generation of the Ipulse considering the second pattern of pulses (using Air-LFW/Boost-GES-RTO strategy and hysteresis current-mode controller for
SMES power converter). (a) The startup phase. (b) Zoom of the pulses. (c) Zoom of the LF ripple.

SMES). The DC voltage regulation was tested here at the FC control side as
For example, in FC/UC HPS analyzed in [117], the DC voltage well considering the same time response for FC and battery converters.
regulation was performed at both FC control and UC control sides, but The results obtained are less good due to use of slope limiters for the
the results are commented only from point of view of power sharing fueling rate flows.
between the FC and UC.
The results shown in [33,132] for FC/UC HPS with DC voltage
5. Conclusion
regulation at the UC control side have shown that the battery power
results more noisy than the shape obtained here, where the DC voltage
The HPS architectures and the ESS topologies proposed in the lit-
regulation is performed at the battery control side. Anyway, the control
erature are discussed here in frame of the space applications, where
cannot be implemented here at the SMES control side because the SMES
extreme environments (very low temperature, intense radiation en-
control is designed to mitigate the load pulses and the correction of the
vironments etc.) and dynamic load demand (including load pulses) are
IPulse(ref)will deteriorate the mitigation control performance.
standard test conditions. The potential energy sources (including FC

34
N. Bizon
Fig. 22. The generation of the Ipulse considering the second pattern of pulses (and using Air-LFW/Boost-GES-RTO strategy and PI controller for SMES power
converter).
systems and PV array) and the reliable technologies for HPS and hybrid
ESS are also discussed here in frame of the performance (power and
energy density, efficiency, and lifetime) for space applications and fu-
ture targets.
The optimization strategies proposed to optimally operate the Fuel
Cell (FC) system using two control loops implemented based on the
global optimization control of the boost DC-DC converter and the LFW
control of the FuelFr or the AirFr are analyzed for constant load, dy-
namic load, and without RES power.
The main findings for constant load are: (1) Air-LFW/Boost-GES
RTO strategy compared to Fuel-LFW/Boost-GES RTO strategy gives
better results for all performance indicators in range of load power from
3.8 kW up 8 kW; (2) Air-LFW/Boost-GES RTO strategy compared to sFF
strategy (the reference strategy) gives better results across all perfor-
mance indicators; (3) the positions of optimal points are close one to
another, but the values obtained for performance indicators are very
different due to dynamic of the optimization surface; (4) the gaps across
all performance indicators increase with the level of the load power. For
example, if the maximum load is considered, the gaps compared with
the reference strategy are of 1.88%, 13.61 W/lpm, and 293 lpm for FC
system efficiency, fuel consumption efficiency, and fuel economy.
The main findings for dynamic load are: (1) the fuel economy is
higher for Air-LFW/Boost-GES RTO strategy compared to Fuel-LFW/
Boost-GES RTO strategy in range of load power from 4.3 kW up 8 kW;
the fuel economy is higher for Air-LFW/Boost-GES RTO strategy com-
pared to sFF strategy in range of load power from 4.6 kW up 8 kW; (3)
fuel economy increase with the level of the load power.
The robustness of the Air-LFW/Boost-GES RTO strategy is tested for
dynamic load and variable RES power. Also, the control of the battery/
SMES hybrid ESS is analyzed in different scenarios.
The mitigation control of the load pulses and LF load ripples based
on hysteresis current-mode control and PI controller with PWM gen-
erator is proposed for the SMES power converter. The pulse (IPulse)
supplied (or generated) by the SMES converter follows (with a peak
error less than 0.5 A) the reference current IPulse(ref), based on sharing
method in frequency band of the load profile. Different load pulses are
used to test the performance of mitigation control proposed at the ESS
side to protect the PEMFC system.
The DC voltage regulation was implemented here on the control
side of the PEMFC system and the battery considering the same time
response for the PEMFC and battery converters. The best results are
obtained in first case because the slope limiters of the fueling rate flows
used for safe operation of the PEMFC system increase the time response
in the voltage regulation loop. For example, without the DC voltage
regulation, the voltage drop is of about 14 V during startup, but this can
be reduced at less than 0.8 V if the DC voltage regulation is im-
plemented.
35
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 14–37
The results obtained here have been discussed compared to other
HPS architectures, ESS hybridizations and control solutions reported in
the literature.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by a grant of the Ministry of National
Education and Scientific Research, Romania (167STAR) within RDI
Program for Space Technology and Advanced Research - STAR, project
number 167/2017: “Concept Development of an Energy Storage Unit
Using High Temperature Superconducting Coil for Spacecraft Power
Systems (SMESinSpace)”.
References
[1] Belz S. A synergetic use of hydrogen and fuel cells in human space flight power
systems. Acta Astronaut 2016;121:323–31.
[2] (a) Summerer L. Thinking tomorrows' space – research trends of the ESA advanced
concepts team 2002–2012. Acta Astronaut 2014;95:242–59;
(b) Bhogilla SS, Ito H, Kato A, Nakano A. Research and development of a la-
boratory scale totalized hydrogen energy utilization system. Int J Hydrog Energy
2016;41:1224–36.
[3] Frischauf N. Hydrogen-fueled spacecraft and other space applications of hydrogen.
In: Subramani Angelo Basile, Veziroglu T Nejat, editors. Compendium of hydrogen
energy: hydrogen production and purification. Woodhead Publishing; 2015. p.
87–107 [chapter 5].
[4] NASA. Summary: space applications of hydrogen and fuel cells. 2015〈http://www.
nasa.gov/topics/technology/hydrogen/hydrogen_2009.html〉 [Accessed in
January 2018].
[5] Gruntman M. Blazing the trail: the early history of spacecraft and rocketry. Reston,
USA: AIAA (The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics); 2004.
[6] Wang J. System integration, durability and reliability of fuel cells: challenges and
solutions. Appl Energy 2017;189:460–79.
[7] IEC 62282-3-100. Fuel cell technologies - Part 3-100: Stationary fuel cell power
systems – Safety; 2012.
[8] IEC 62282-IEC 625. Fuel cell technologies - Part 5-100: Portable fuel cell power
systems - Safety; 2015.
[9] IEC 62282-3-200. Fuel cell technologies – Part 3-200: Stationary fuel cell power
systems – Performance test methods; 2015.
[10] Barbir F, Molter T, Dalton L. Efficiency and weight trade-off analysis of re-
generative fuel cells as energy storage for aerospace applications. Int J Hydrog
Energy 2005;30:351–7.
[11] Andrews J, Doddathimmaiah AK. Regenerative fuel cells. In: Gasik M, editor. Fuel
cell materials. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing; 2008.
[12] Doddathimmaiah AK, Andrews J. Theory, modelling and performance measure-
ment of unitised regenerative fuel cells. Int J Hydrog Energy 2009;34:8157–70.
[13] Oh TH. Design specifications of direct borohydride–hydrogen peroxide fuel cell
system for space missions. Aerosp Sci Technol 2016;58:511–7.
[14] Paul P, Andrews J. PEM unitised reversible/regenerative hydrogen fuel cell sys-
tems: state of the art and technical challenges. Renew Sust Energ Rev
2017;79:585–99.
[15] Bizon N. Effective mitigation of the load pulses by controlling the battery/SMES
hybrid energy storage system. Appl Energy 2018;229:459–73.
[16] Emadi A, Williamson SS. Status review of power electronic converters for fuel cell
applications. J Power Electron 2002;1(2):133–44.
[17] Bizon N, Mazare AG, Ionescu LM, Enescu FM. Optimization of the proton exchange
membrane fuel cell hybrid power system for residential buildings. Energ Convers
N. Bizon
Manag 2018;163:22–37.
[18] Bizon N. Energy efficiency for the multiport power converters architectures of
series and parallel hybrid power source type used in plug-in/V2G fuel cell vehicles.
Appl Energy 2013;102:726–34.
[19] Bizon N. Energy efficiency of multiport power converters used in Plug-In/V2G fuel
cell vehicles. Appl Energy 2012;96:431–43.
[20] Zhou H, Li YZ, Wang SN, Zhou GD. Performance of extravehicular space suit life
support system based on cooling-heat-power integration. J Aerosp Power
2014;29(3):541–8.
[21] ESA Telecommunications & Integrated Applications. 2017. 〈http://www.esa.int/
Our_Activities/Telecommunications_Integrated_Applications〉, [Accessed in
January 2018].
[22] Vasko CA, Adriaensen M, Bretel A, Duvaux-Bechon I, Giannopapa CG. Space assets,
technology and services in support of energy policy. Acta Astronaut
2017;138:295–300.
[23] Elitzur S, Rosen V, Gany A. Combined energy production and waste management
in manned spacecraft utilizing on-demand hydrogen production and fuel cells.
Acta Astronaut 2016;128:580–3.
[24] Wang S, Li Y, Li YZ, Peng X, Mao Y. Exergy based parametric analysis of a cooling
and power co-generation system for the life support system of extravehicular
spacesuits. Renew Energ 2018;115:1209–19.
[25] Patel MR. Spacecraft power systems. Boca Raton, USA: CRC Press; 2004.
[26] Shimizu T, Underwood C. Super-capacitor energy storage for micro-satellites:
feasibility and potential mission applications. Acta Astronaut 2013;85:138–54.
[27] Cabrières B, Alby F, Cazaux C. Satellite end of life constraints: technical and or-
ganisational solutions. Acta Astronaut 2012;73:212–20.
[28] Da HS, Tan CW, Yatim AHM, Lau KY. Feasibility analysis of hybrid photovoltaic/
battery/fuel cell energy system for an indigenous residence in East Malaysia.
Renew Sust Energ Rev 2017;76:1332–47.
[29] Ali MH, Wu B, Dougal RA. An overview of SMES applications in power and energy
systems. IEEE Trans Sustain Energy 2010;1(1):38–47.
[30] Hannana MA, Hoque MM, Mohamed A, Ayob A. Review of energy storage systems
for electric vehicle applications: issues and challenges. Renew Sust Energ Rev
2017;69:771–89.
[31] Bizon N, Tabatabaei NM, Shayeghi H, editors. Analysis, Control and Optimal
Operations in Hybrid Power Systems - Advanced Techniques and Applications for
Linear and Nonlinear Systems. Springer; 2013.
[32] NASA. Technology Roadmaps - TA 3: Space Power and Energy Storage, 〈https://
www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/2015_nasa_technology_roadmaps_
ta_3_space_power_energy_storage_final.pdf〉, [Accessed in January 2018].
[33] Bizon N. Real-time optimization strategy for fuel cell hybrid power sources with
load-following control of the fuel or air flow. Energ Convers Manag
2018;157:13–27.
[34] Buden D. Space nuclear fission electric power systems. Lakewood, USA: Polaris
Books; 2011.
[35] Bizon N, Tabatabaei NM, Blaabjerg F, Erol Kurt E, editors. Energy harvesting and
energy efficiency: technology, methods and applications. NY, USA: Springer
International Publishing; 2017.
[36] Erdinç O, Vural B, Uzunoglu M. A wavelet-fuzzy logic based energy management
strategy for a fuel cell/battery/ultra-capacitor hybrid vehicular power system. J
Power Sources 2009;194:369–80.
[37] Gou B, Na WK, Diong B. Fuel Cells: modeling, control, and applications. Boca
Raton, USA: CRC Press; 2010.
[38] Stolten D, Samsun RC, Garland N. Fuel Cells: data, facts, and figures. Weinheim,
Germany: Wiley; 2016.
[39] Sasaki K, Li HW, Hayashi A. Hydrogen energy engineering: a Japanese perspective.
NY, USA: Springer International Publishing; 2016.
[40] Nehrir MH, Wang C. Modeling and control of Fuel Cells: distributed generation
applications. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley; 2009.
[41] Bizon N, Dascalescu L, Tabatabaei NM, editors. Autonomous vehicles: intelligent
transport systems and smart technologies. USA: Nova Science Publishers Inc.;
2014.
[42] Frischauf N, Acosta-Iborra B, Harskamp F, Moretto P, Thomas Malkow T, Michel
Honselaar M, Steen M, Hovland H, Hufenbach B, Schautz M, Wittig M, Soucek A.
The hydrogen value chain: applying the automotive role model of the hydrogen
economy in the aerospace sector to increase performance and reduce costs. Acta
Astronaut 2013;88:8–24.
[43] Thomas CE. Hydrogen-powered fuel cell electric vehicles compared to the alter-
natives, 2015. 〈http://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=214〉
[Accessed in January 2018].
[44] Obara S. Fuel Cell micro-grids. NY, USA: Springer International Publishing; 2009.
[45] Hwang HT, Varma A. Hydrogen storage for fuel cell vehicles. Curr Opin Chem Eng
5. 2014. p. 42–8.
[46] Eftekhari A, Fang B. Electrochemical hydrogen storage: opportunities for fuel
storage, batteries, fuel cells, and supercapacitors. Int J Hydrog Energy
2017;42:25143–65.
[47] Klebanoff L. Hydrogen storage technology: materials and applications. Boca Raton,
USA: CRC Press; 2012.
[48] Sone Y. A 100-W class regenerative fuel cell system for lunar and planetary mis-
sions. J Power Sour 2011;196:9076–80.
[49] Kim T, Kwon S. Design and development of a fuel cell-powered small un-manned
aircraft. Int J Hydrog Energy 2012;37:615–22.
[50] Farooqui UR, Ahmad AL, Hamid NA. Graphene oxide: a promising membrane
material for fuel cells. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2018;82:714–33.
[51] Oh TH, Jang B, Kwon S. Performance evaluation of direct borohydride–hydrogen
peroxide fuel cells with electrocatalysts supported on multiwalled carbon
36
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 14–37
nanotubes. Energy 2014;76:911–9.
[52] Nguyen BM, Hoffman D, Huang EK-wei, Bogdanov S, Delaunay PY, Razeghi M,
Tidrow MZ. Current-matched triple-junction solar cell reaching 41.1% conversion
efficiency under concentrated sunlight. Appl Phys Lett 2009;94(22):223504.
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3148326.
[53] Gutera W, Schöne J, Philipps SP, Steiner M, Siefer G, Wekkeli A, Welser E, Oliva E,
Bett AW, Frank F. Current-matched triple-junction solar cell reaching 41.1%
conversion efficiency under concentrated sunlight. Appl Phys Lett 2009;94(22).
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3148341.
[54] Leite MS, Woo RL, Munday JN, Hong WD, Mesropian S, Law DC, Atwater HA.
Towards an optimized all lattice-matched InAlAs/InGaAsP/InGaAs multijunction
solar cell with efficiency > 50%. Appl Phys Lett 2013;102(3). https://doi.org/10.
1063/1.4758300.
[55] Summerer L, Ongaro F. Advanced space technology for 21st century energy sys-
tems: solar power from space. In: Proceedings of 2nd international conference on
recent advances in space technologies (RAST), 2005 doi: 10.1109/RAST.2005.
1512527.
[56] Shin D, Lee K, Chang N. Fuel economy analysis of fuel cell and supercapacitor
hybrid systems. Int J Hydrog Energy 2016;41:1381–90.
[57] Bizon N. Nonlinear control of fuel cell hybrid power sources: part II –current
control. Appl Energy 2011;88(7):2574–91.
[58] Bizon N. Nonlinear control of fuel cell hybrid power sources: part I –voltage
control. Appl Energy 2011;88(7):2559–73.
[59] Olabi AG. Renewable energy and energy storage systems. Energy 2017;136:1–6.
[60] Penthia T, Panda AK, Sarangi SK. Implementing dynamic evolution control ap-
proach for DC-link voltage regulation of superconducting magnetic energy storage
system. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2018;95:275–86.
[61] Elsisi M, Soliman M, Aboelela MAS, Mansour W. Optimal design of model pre-
dictive control with superconducting magnetic energy storage for load frequency
control of nonlinear hydrothermal power system using bat inspired algorithm. J
Energy Storage 2017;12:311–8.
[62] Hemmati R, Saboori H. Emergence of hybrid energy storage systems in renewable
energy and transport applications – a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev
2016;65:11–23.
[63] Wang H, Wang Q, Baozan Hu B. A review of developments in energy storage
systems for hybrid excavators. Autom Constr 2017;80:1–10.
[64] Li J, Gee AM, Zhang M, Yuan W. Analysis of battery lifetime extension in a SMES-
battery hybrid energy storage system using a novel battery lifetime model. Energy
2015;86:175–85.
[65] Guneya MS, Tepe Y. Classification and assessment of energy storage systems.
Renew Sust Energ Rev 2017;75:1187–97.
[66] Sarasketa-Zabala E, Martinez-Laserna E, Berecibar M, Gandiaga I, Rodriguez-
Martinez LM, Villarreal I. Realistic lifetime prediction approach for Li-ion bat-
teries. Appl Energy 2016;162:839–52.
[67] Reddy T. Linden's handbook of batteries. 4th edition McGraw-Hill Education;
2010.
[68] Julien C, Mauger A, Vijh A, Zaghib K. Lithium batteries – science and technology.
Springer; 2016.
[69] Warner J. The handbook of lithium-ion battery pack design – chemistry, compo-
nents, types and terminology. Elsevier Science; 2015.
[70] Li W, Zeng L, Wu Y, Yu Y. Nanostructured electrode materials for lithium-ion and
sodium-ion batteries via electrospinning. Sci China Mater 2016;59(4):287–321.
[71] Zhang C, Wei YL, Cao PF, Lin MC. Energy storage system: current studies on
batteries and power condition system. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2017. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.10.030.
[72] Shah K, Balsara N, Banerjee S, Chintapalli M, Cocco AP, Chiu WKS, Lahiri I, Martha
S, Mistry A, Mukherjee PP, Ramadesigan V, Sharma CS, Subramanian VR, Mitra S,
Jain A. State of the art and future research needs for multiscale analysis of Li-Ion
cells. J Electrochem En Conv Stor 2017;14(2).
[73] Sarasketa-Zabala E, Martinez-Laserna E, Berecibar M, Gandiaga I, Rodriguez-
Martinez LM, Villarreal I. Realistic lifetime prediction approach for Li-ion bat-
teries. Appl Energy 2016;162:839–52.
[74] Tao L, Ma J, Cheng Y, Noktehdan A, Chong J, Lu C. A review of stochastic battery
models and health management. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2017;80:716–32.
[75] Mukherjee R, Krishnan R, Lu TM, Koratkar N. Nanostructured electrodes for high-
power lithium ion batteries. Nano Energy 2012;1(4):518–33.
[76] NASA. Flywheel Program 2015. 〈https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/portal/pdf/
flywheel.pdf〉 [Accessed in January 2018].
[77] Hedlund M, Lundin J, de Santiago J, Abrahamsson J, Bernhoff H. Flywheel energy
storage for automotive applications. Energies 2015;8:10636–63.
[78] Wang B. Current Flywheels moving to Superconducting flywheels using carbon
fiber or carbon nanotubes; 2017. 〈https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/01/uk-
building-38-million-combat-laser.html〉 [Accessed in January 2018].
[79] Ha SK, Kim MH, Han SC, Sung TH. Design and spin test of a hybrid composite
flywheel rotor with a split type hub. J Compos Mater 2006;40:2113–30.
[80] Jin JX. HTS energy storage techniques for use in distributed generation systems.
Phys C: Supercond Appl 2007;460–462(Part 2):1449–50.
[81] Gubser DU. Superconductivity research and development: department of defense
perspective. Appl Supercond 1995;3(1–3):157–61.
[82] Shawyer R. Second generation EmDrive propulsion applied to SSTO launcher and
interstellar probe. Acta Astronaut 2015;116:166–74.
[83] Yang J, Zhang L, Wang X, Chen L, Chen Y. The impact of SFCL and SMES in-
tegration on the distance relay. Phys C: Supercond Appl 2016;530:151–9.
[84] Kangarlu MF, Pahlavani MRA. Cascaded multilevel converter based super-
conducting magnetic energy storage system for frequency control. Energy
2014;70:504–13.
N. Bizon
[85] Dong L, Xu Q, Lu F, Nie X, He Y, Wang Y, Yan Z. Simulation and experimental
investigation of a high-Temperature superconducting inductive pulsed power
supply with time delay effect of the secondary side. Phys C: Supercond Appl
2017;541:16–21.
[86] Li J, Yang Q, Robinson R, Liang F, Zhang M, Yuan Y. Design and test of a new
droop control algorithm for a SMES/battery hybrid energy storage system. Energy
2017;118:1110–22.
[87] Mcnab IR. Developments in pulsed power technology. IEEE Trans Magn
2001;37(1):375–8.
[88] Akiyama H, Sakugawa T, Namihira T, Takaki K, Minamitani Y, Shimomura N.
Industrial applications of pulsed power technology. IEEE Trans Fundam Mater
2007;14(5):1051–64.
[89] Chaine S, Tripathy M. Design of an optimal SMES for automatic generation control
of two-area thermal power system using Cuckoo search algorithm. J Electr Syst
Inform Technol 2016;2(1):1–13.
[90] Panda AK, Penthia T. Design and modeling of SMES based SAPF for pulsed power
load demands. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2017;92:114–24.
[91] Tabatabaei NM, Bizon N, Aghbolaghi AJ, Blaabjerg F, editors. Fundamentals and
contemporary issues of reactive power control in AC power systems. Springer;
2017.
[92] Girimonte D, Izzo D. Artificial intelligence for space applications. In: Schuster AJ,
editor. Intelligent computing everywhere. NY, USA: Springer International
Publishing; 2007. p. 235–53 [chapter12].
[93] ISO. Space systems and operations. 〈https://www.iso.org/ics/49.140/x/〉,
[Accessed in January 2018].
[94] European Cooperation for Space Standardization, ISO/TC 20/SC 14, 〈https://
www.iso.org/committee/46614.html〉, [Accessed in January 2018].
[95] American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Space Systems and Vehicles,
〈https://arc.aiaa.org/page/standards〉, [Accessed in January 2018].
[96] Zhongfu T, Chen Z, Pingkuo L, Reed B, Jiayao Z. Focus on fuel cell systems in
China. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2015;47:912–23.
[97] Luo Y, Jiao K. Cold start of proton exchange membrane fuel cell. Prog Energy
Combust Sci 2018;64:29–61.
[98] Das V, Padmanaban S, Venkitusamy K, Selvamuthukumaran R, Blaabjerg F, Siano
P. Recent advances and challenges of fuel cell based power system architectures
and control – a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2017;73:10–8.
[99] Han J, Yu S, Yi S. Adaptive control for robust air flow management in an auto-
motive fuel cell system. Appl Energy 2017;190:73–83.
[100] Gang BG, Kim H, Kwon S. Ground simulation of a hybrid power strategy using fuel
cells and solar cells for high-endurance unmanned aerial vehicles. Energy
2017;141:1547–54.
[101] Latha K, Umamaheswari B, Chaitanya K, Rajalakshmi N, Dhathathreyan KS. A
novel reconfigurable hybrid system for fuel cell system. Int J Hydrog Energy
2015;40:14963–77.
[102] Bizon N. Optimal operation of fuel cell / wind turbine hybrid power system under
turbulent wind and variable load. Appl Energy 2018;212:196–209.
[103] Vasilyev A, Andrews J, Jackson LM, Dunnett SJ, Davies B. Component-based
modelling of PEM fuel cells with bond graphs. Int J Hydrog Energy
2017;42(49):29406–21.
[104] Ramos-Paja CA, Spagnuolo G, Petrone G, Emilio Mamarelis M. A perturbation
strategy for fuel consumption minimization in polymer electrolyte membrane fuel
cells: analysis, design and FPGA implementation. Appl Energy 2014;119:21–32.
[105] Bizon N. Energy optimization of fuel cell system by using global extremum Seeking
algorithm. Appl Energy 2017;206:458–74.
[106] Nikezhadi A, Fantova MA, Kunusch C, Martinez CO. Design and implementation of
LQR/LQG strategies for oxygen stoichiometry control in PEM fuel cells based
systems. J Power Sources 2011;196(9):4277–82.
[107] Beirami H, Shabestari AZ, Zerafat MM. Optimal PID plus fuzzy controller design
for a PEM fuel cell air feed system using the self-adaptive differential evolution
algorithm. Int J Hydrog Energy 2015;40:9422–34.
[108] Wang YZ, Xuan DJ, Kim YB. Design and experimental implementation of time
delay control for air supply in a polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell system. Int
J Hydrog Energy 2013;38:13381–92.
[109] Zhou N, Yang C, Tucker D, Pezzini P, Traverso A. Transfer function development
for control of cathode airflow transients in fuel cell gas turbine hybrid systems. Int
J Hydrog Energy 2015;40(4):1967–79.
37
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 14–37
[110] Kunusch C, Puleston PF, Mayosky MA, Fridman L. Experimental results applying
second order sliding mode control to a PEM fuel cell based system. Control Eng
Pract 2013;21(5):719–26.
[111] Laghrouche S, Matraji I, Ahmed FS, Jemei S, Wack M. Load governor based on
constrained extremum seeking for PEM fuel cell oxygen starvation and compressor
surge protection. Int J Hydrog Energy 2013;38(33):14314–22.
[112] Abubakar I, Khalid SN, Mustafa MW, Shareef H, Mustapha M. Application of load
monitoring in appliances' energy management – a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev
2017;67:235–45.
[113] Li Q, Yang H, Han Y, Li M, Chen W. A state machine strategy based on droop
control for an energy management system of PEMFC - battery - supercapacitor
hybrid tramway. Int J Hydrog Energy 2016;41:16148–59.
[114] Bendjedia B, Rizoug N, Boukhnifer M, Bouchafaa F. Hybrid fuel cell/battery source
sizing and energy management for automotive applications. IFAC Pap
2017;50(1):4745–50.
[115] Santucci A, Sorniotti A, Lekakou C. Power split strategies for hybrid energy storage
systems for vehicular applications. J Power Sour 2014;258:395–407.
[116] Gokce K, Ozdemir A. A rule based power split strategy for battery/ultracapacitor
energy storage systems in hybrid electric vehicles. Int J Electrochem Sci
2016;11:1228–46.
[117] Turpin C, Morin B, Bru E, Rallieres O, Roboam X, Sareni B, Arregui GA, Roux N.
Power for aircraft emergencies – a hybrid proton-exchange membrane H2/O2 fuel
cell and ultracapacitor system. IEEE Electr Mag 2017;5(4):72–85. https://doi.org/
10.1109/MELE.2017.2758879.
[118] Wu J, Wang X, Li L, Qin C, Du Y. Hierarchical control strategy with battery aging
consideration for hybrid electric vehicle regenerative braking control. Energy
2018;145:301–12.
[119] Chong LW, Wong YW, Rajkumar RK, Isa D. An optimal control strategy for stan-
dalone PV system with battery-supercapacitor hybrid energy storage system. J
Power Sour 2016;331:553–65.
[120] Ise T, Kita M, Taguchi A. A hybrid energy storage with a SMES and secondary
battery. IEEE Trans Appl Supercond 2005;15(2):1915.
[121] Trevisani L, Morandi A, Negrini F, Ribani PL, Fabbri M. Cryogenic fuel-cooled
SMES for hybrid vehicle application. IEEE Trans Appl Supercond
2009;19(3):2008.
[122] Cansi A, Faydaci C, Qureshi MT, Usta O, McGuiness DT. Integration of a
SMES–battery-based hybrid energy storage system into microgrids. J Supercond
Nov Magn 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10948-017-4338-4.
[123] Bizon N. Global extremum seeking control of the power generated by a photo-
voltaic array under partially shaded conditions. Energ Convers Manag
2016;109:71–85.
[124] Bizon N. Global Maximum Power Point Tracking (GMPPT) of photovoltaic array
using the Extremum Seeking Control (ESC): a review and a new GMPPT ESC
scheme. Renew Sust Energy Rev 2016;57:524–39.
[125] Monfared M, Golestan S. Control strategies for single-phase grid integration of
small-scale renewable energy sources: a review. Renew Sust Energy Rev
2012;16:4982–93.
[126] Bizon N, Radut M, Oproescu M. Energy control strategies for the fuel cell hybrid
power source under unknown load profile. Energy 2015;86:31–41.
[127] Bizon N, Oproescu M, Raceanu M. Efficient energy control strategies for a stan-
dalone renewable/fuel cell hybrid power source. Energ Convers Manag
2015;90:93–110.
[128] Bizon N. A new topology of fuel cell hybrid power source for efficient operation
and high reliability. J Power Sources 2011;96(6):3260–70.
[129] Athari H, Niroomand M, Ataei M. Review and classification of control systems in
grid-tied inverters. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2017;72:1167–76.
[130] Pavković D, Lobrović M, Hrgetić M, Komljenović A. A design of cascade control
system and adaptive load compensator for battery/ultracapacitor hybrid energy
storage-based direct current microgrid. Energ Convers Manag 2016;114:154–67.
[131] Syed AH, Abido MA. New enhanced performance robust control design scheme for
grid-connected VSI. Control Eng Pract 2016;53:92–108.
[132] Bizon N, Lopez-Guede JM, Erol Kurt, Thounthong P, Mazare AG, Ionescu LM, Iana
G. Hydrogen economy of the fuel cell hybrid power system optimized by air flow
control to mitigate the effect of the uncertainty about available renewable power
and load dynamics. Energy Convers Manag 2019;179:152–65.