Journal of Energy Storage 75 (2024) 109698

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Energy Storage

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

Research papers

Energy management strategy optimization for hybrid energy storage system

of tram based on competitive particle swarm algorithms
Zhenyu Zhang a, b, Xiaoqing Cheng b, *, Zongyi Xing a, *, Zihao Wang a
a
School of Automation, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing 210094, China
b
State Key Laboratory of Rail Traffic Control and Safety, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Trams with energy storage are popular for their energy efficiency and reduced operational risk. An effective
Energy management strategy energy management strategy is optimized to enable a reasonable distribution of demand power among the
Competitive particle swarm algorithm storage elements, efficient use of energy as well as enhance the service life of the hybrid energy storage system
Tram
(HESS). Thus, an energy management strategy optimization method of HESS based on a fixed power threshold is
Multiple thresholds
developed. Firstly, the energy management strategy optimization models based on single thresholds and multiple
Hybrid energy storage system
thresholds are developed. Then, the improved particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm with competing
variable weights is proposed to solve optimization models. Finally, Guangzhou Haizhu tram is used to illustrate
the performance of the developed method, the minimum charge state of the power battery under multiple
thresholds is improved by 23.36 % over that of single threshold, and the total energy consumption of the power
battery pack is reduced by 58.10 %, which shows that the energy management strategy based on multiple
thresholds has better effects in giving full play to the power supply capacity of supercapacitor and reducing the
energy consumption of power battery. Compared with other two methods, the improved PSO method has more
reliable in utilizing more energy from supercapacitor.

1. Introduction
With the development of energy storage and control technology and
their good results in the field of electric vehicles, the technology of
stored energy traction power supply has been greatly developed. Rail
transportation means have been widely used because of their excellent
characteristics such as high carrying capacity, high speed, and punctu­
ality. For energy saving and emission reduction in rail transportation,
the development of fuel cell electric locomotives based on renewable
and clean energy, power locomotives using power batteries, and new
locomotives based on various hybrid power have become new technol­
ogies and ways [1,2]. In addition, the use of energy-storage traction
power supply technology can simplify the traction power supply facil­
ities along the line, reduce the dependence of trains on the power grid,
adapt to sections where it is difficult to erect power supply contact
networks, central urban areas and areas with high landscape re­
quirements, and reduce public safety hazards. Therefore, the use of
energy-storage traction power supply technology can achieve good re­
sults in urban construction [3–5].
Tram with energy storage is the application of energy storage power
supply technology, the vehicle itself is equipped with energy storage
equipment as the power source of the whole vehicle. The characteristics
of the energy storage equipment of the tram, which is the tram power
supply system, will largely affect the performance of the whole vehicle.
Since there is still a lack of a single energy storage element with high
power density and energy density to meet the vehicle operation re­
quirements [6,7]. A common solution for on-board power supply sys­
tems is to use two or more energy storage devices in combination to
synthesize their respective advantages and optimize the energy man­
agement to meet the vehicle's operation requirements. To realize the
coordinated work of electric energy storage elements with different
characteristics, an effective power management scheme is needed so
that the demand power can be reasonably distributed among the energy
storage elements so that the performance and advantages of the hybrid
power system can be more fully utilized [8]. Therefore, the energy
management of a hybrid energy storage system (HESS) is a key issue to
be studied.
Through the application of effective energy management control
techniques, the power performance of the HESS is ensured, the power
braking energy is effectively utilized and the service life of the HESS is

* Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: xqcheng@bjtu.edu.cn (X. Cheng), xingzongyi@163.com (Z. Xing).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2023.109698
Received 8 May 2023; Received in revised form 13 October 2023; Accepted 9 November 2023
Available online 18 November 2023
2352-152X/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Z. Zhang et al.
enhanced. Meanwhile, a hybrid tram simulation model is established to
verify the effectiveness of energy management strategies. The contri­
butions of our work are as follows. Firstly, the energy management
strategy optimization models based on single threshold and multiple
thresholds are constructed by taking energy consumption of power
battery as objective function and regarding the end voltage, discharge
current and charge state as constraints. Secondly, an improved particle
swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm with competitive mechanism and
dynamic inertia weights is developed to obtain the optimal energy
management strategy. Thirdly, Guangzhou Haizhu tram is used to verify
the performance of the developed method, and the improved PSO
method is compared with other two methods to illustrate the reliability.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Some references on
energy management strategy optimization are introduced in Section 2.
Then, the energy management strategy optimization models and solu­
tion methods based on improved PSO algorithms are developed in
Section 3. In Section 4, Guangzhou Haizhu tram is used to verify the
performance of the developed method, and the results are presented.
Finally, some conclusions are made in Section 5.
2. Literature review
The energy management strategy of HESS is to reasonably allocate
the work tasks of different energy storage components, mainly including
rule-based energy management strategy, optimization-based energy
management strategy, and power prediction-based energy management
strategy.
(1) Rule-based methods
The rule-based methods include deterministic rules and fuzzy rules
[9].
Deterministic rules are mainly based on logical threshold methods, i.
e., setting a certain parameter as a threshold and comparing it with the
real-time state of the train to determine the operating state of each en­
ergy storage element. Yedavalli et al. [10] and Guo et al. [11] used
supercapacitor charge state as a fixed threshold, combined with the
vehicle demand power, to determine the power supply and recovery
state of the energy storage system, and then determined the working
state of the energy storage elements. Guo et al. [12] and Graf et al. [13]
used the maximum output power of the power battery and the maximum
input power of the supercapacitor as fixed thresholds and combined
with the vehicle demand power to determine the working state of energy
storage elements. The above fixed threshold methods are developed
based on the determination of the operating state of the train, and the
threshold values are determined by experts' experience. Fixed threshold
methods have been improved, Wang et al. [14] used the fixed power
ratio as the threshold value, optimized the original fixed power ratio,
and reduced the number of energy storage elements by considering the
energy interaction between supercapacitor and power battery under the
target function of energy storage element quality. Shen et al. [15] pro­
posed a dynamic threshold energy management strategy. For different
demand powers of the power battery in different intervals, the power
battery discharge current with the goal of minimizing the power battery
energy consumption was optimized to dynamically adjust the power
battery output power threshold value in each interval. The deterministic
rules method has the advantages of deterministic rules, practicality, and
easy implementation. It also has the disadvantage of poor adaptability
and inability to achieve optimal system energy distribution.
Fuzzy rules mainly use fuzzy control methods to fuzzify control rules
and select appropriate input variables. Gao and Gao [16] used the
available energy of power battery, supercapacitor, and vehicle demand
power as input variables. Trinh et al. [17] used the charge state of the
energy storage element and vehicle demand power as input variables.
Fuzzy rules have good adaptability, but fuzzy rules can cause large ac­
curacy errors.
2
Journal of Energy Storage 75 (2024) 109698
(2) Optimization-based methods
Optimization-based methods include global optimization and tran­
sient optimization [9].
The global optimization method is for determining the operating
conditions of the vehicle, under multiple constraints, with cost, energy
consumption, and efficiency as the optimization objectives, with charge
state of the energy storage element, and output power as the optimiza­
tion variables, using optimization algorithms for global optimization,
and the global optimization method is usually combined with the rule-
based energy management strategy. Yuan et al. [18] used the
maximum output power of each energy storage element and super­
capacitor charge state as the threshold value, and the minimum
configuration cost of energy storage elements and operational charac­
teristics index as the multi-optimization objectives, and used a multi-
objective genetic algorithm (GA) to optimize the threshold value to
achieve the optimal configuration scheme and energy management
strategy of the energy storage system. Wang et al. [19] used the energy
management strategy of dynamic power ratio to solve the optimal power
ratio using the PSO algorithm with the cost, quality, and lifetime of
energy storage components as the comprehensive optimization objec­
tives. Li et al. [20], Zhang et al. [21], and Benmouna et al. [22] regarded
the HESS loss minimization as the optimization objective, discrete the
battery charge state, and used the dynamic programming algorithm
under the constraints to obtain the optimal energy management strat­
egy. The global optimization method is developed under a defined route
and specific operating conditions and is not suitable for the case of
variable operating conditions; however, it has a good optimization effect
when used to optimize other energy management strategies.
The transient optimization method is a method to solve the optimi­
zation variables using optimization algorithms for real-time optimiza­
tion objectives. Few studies on transient optimization have been
conducted, Hu et al. [23] and Anbarasu et al. [24] used the minimum
equivalent fuel consumption as the optimization objective to change the
battery output power profile by adjusting the fuel cell output power in
real-time to achieve optimal power allocation. The real-time optimiza­
tion algorithm is less computationally intensive compared to the global
optimization algorithm and can achieve the real-time optimum, but
cannot guarantee the global optimum.
(3) Power prediction-based methods
The energy management strategy based on power prediction is to
predict the future power considering the current and future working
conditions to assign the working state of energy storage elements. Zhang
et al. [25] proposed an energy management strategy based on acceler­
ation time prediction, the maximum power available for the super­
capacitor was calculated during the vehicle acceleration time, and the
actual maximum discharge power was used as the power threshold to
allocate power battery and supercapacitor power. Peng et al. [26] pro­
posed an energy management strategy that considers the power demand
at the before and after moments. On the determined line, the power
zones are divided, the energy consumption of the before and after power
zones are estimated, and the maximum performance satisfaction rate
and the maximum energy absorption rate are used as evaluation indexes
to find the optimal target power curve. Shen et al. [27] and Xie et al.
[28] developed Markov Monte Carlo models to predict the power de­
mand and optimize the power allocation under the current moment and
the future moment to achieve the optimal objective function under the
current and future moments. The energy management strategy based on
power prediction can adapt to the changes in working conditions, but
the calculation is complex and difficult to solve, and there are still some
problems in vehicle applications.
In summary, the energy management strategies applied to trams are
mainly developed for specific lines and defined vehicles, while single
energy management strategies still have some limitations. Therefore,
Z. Zhang et al. Journal of Energy Storage 75 (2024) 109698

management strategy optimization based on a single threshold is to

optimize the single threshold value Pbmo from the perspective of the
whole operating line, and its power allocation is shown in Fig. 1. Pbmo
represents the original power threshold, and Pbmo is the optimized power
threshold. There is only one optimal fixed threshold value Pbto for the
operation interval, and Pbto is lower than Pbmo .
The operating line is regarded as the optimization interval in the
optimization of the single power threshold. At the end of the energy
supply, the minimum energy consumption of the power battery is the
optimization objective, the power battery discharge current is the
optimization control variable, and an improved PSO algorithm is used to
obtain the optimal threshold value for the energy supply phase of the
energy storage system. The optimization objective function F1 satisfies:
Fig. 1. Power allocation based on a single threshold. ( ) ( )
∑
10 10 ∫ t1
∑
minF1 (Ibk ) = min Ebk (Ibk ) = min Ubk Ibk dt (1)
k=1 k=1 t0

where t0 and t1 are the start and end time of power battery energy supply
in the k-th interval, Ubk , Ibk and Ebk are the end voltage, discharge current
and energy consumption of the power battery at the k-th interval, and
k = 1, 2, ⋯10.
In the iteration process, the power battery and supercapacitor should
supply energy in normal working conditions, and the constraints are
⎧
⎪
⎪ Ub.min ≤ Ub ≤ Ub.max
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ Uc.min ≤ Uc ≤ Uc.max
⎨
Ib.min ≤ Ib ≤ Ib.max
(2)
⎪
⎪ Ic.min ≤ Ic ≤ Ic.max
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ SOCmin ≤ SOC ≤ SOCmax
⎩
SOEmin ≤ SOE ≤ SOEmax
Fig. 2. Power allocation based on multiple thresholds.

the combination of different energy management strategies will be the
focus of future research, and specific combination schemes can be
determined according to the characteristics of the research objects and
research objectives.
3. Methodology
Efficient energy management is one of the key points for the energy
storage system to utilize its power supply capacity and meet the oper­
ational needs of the tram. Based on the optimal parameter configuration
of the HESS, the energy management strategy with a fixed power
threshold value is optimized from the perspective of the whole line and
multiple intervals. The energy management strategy optimization in­
cludes single threshold values and multiple threshold values.
3.1. Energy management strategy optimization
To maintain the strong range of the power battery, the energy supply
distribution of the energy storage components needs to be adjusted so
that the supercapacitor can assume more power supply to reduce the
energy consumption of the power battery and improve its state of
charge.
The energy management strategy of fixed power thresholds requires
the adjustment of power thresholds. The power supply phase requires
lowering the power threshold, i.e., lowering the output maximum power
Pbmo of the power battery. The recovery energy phase requires main­
where Ub and Uc are the end voltage of power battery and super­
capacitor, Ib and Ic are their discharge current, and SOC and SOE are
their charge state.
3.1.2. Multiple thresholds
The different line conditions cause the variation of DC bus demand
power. If the same power threshold is used for the whole line, it will
inevitably lead to differences in the power supply capacity of the
supercapacitor at each interval.
To solve the above problem, the power threshold of each interval is
optimized separately by combining the difference of DC bus demand
power among stations. Multiple thresholds Pbto exist in a whole oper­
ating line, and the power allocation is shown in Fig. 2. Each operation
interval has an optimal power threshold, Pbto1 , Pbto2 and Pbto3 represent
the optimal power threshold values of the first, second, and third in­
terval, respectively.
For the optimization of multiple power thresholds, each interval is
regarded as an optimization interval, the minimum energy consumed by
the power battery in each interval is the optimization objective, the
power battery discharge current in each interval is the optimization
control variable, and an improved PSO algorithm is used to obtain the
optimal threshold values for each interval in the energy supply stage of
the energy storage system.
In summary, the optimization objective function F2 satisfies
( ∫ t1 )
minF2 (Ibk ) = min(Ebk (Ibk ) ) = min Ubk Ibk dt (3)
t0

taining the supercapacitor charging capacity, i.e., maintaining the
maximum supercapacitor charging power Pcmi . The output maximum
power Pbmo of the power battery is obtained by multiplying the instan­
taneous terminal voltage Ub and the maximum output current Ibmo , and
the variation of terminal voltage Ub is affected by Ibmo , thus Pbmo can be
adjusted by adjusting Ibmo .
The energy storage element should be worked in the normal oper­
ating state in the multi-power threshold optimization process. The
voltage, current, and charge state should satisfy the constraints of Eq.
(2).
3.2. Solution method based on improved PSO algorithm

3.1.1. Single threshold 3.2.1. Algorithm design

The power threshold value Pbmo of the whole line is fixed. The energy The core of the energy management strategy optimization algorithm

3
Z. Zhang et al.
Fig. 3. Flow chart of energy management strategy algorithm design.
is: within the determined optimization interval, the particles that satisfy
the constraints are selected and entered into the optimization solution
algorithm to iteratively solve the problem until the end of the iteration
condition is satisfied, and the optimal discharge current and the corre­
sponding optimal power threshold value of the power battery are ob­
tained. The flow chart of the algorithm design is shown in Fig. 3, and the
specific steps are as follows.
Step 1: Determine the optimization interval. For global optimization,
the whole line is used as the optimization interval; for local opti­
mization, each interval is used as the optimization interval,
respectively.
Step 2: Initialize the particles. The current fixed step ΔIb is deter­
mined, and the power battery discharge current value Ibjt
is regarded
as the particle position Xi , satisfying:
⎧ t
⎨ Ibj = Ibmo − jΔIb
⎪ the winning and losing particles are obtained by comparing the fitness
1 , j = 1, 2, ⋯, N (4)
⎪
⎩ ΔIb = (Ibmo − Ib.min )
N losing particles are updated by using the winning particles. The
t
where Ibj is the power battery current value of the j-th particle at the t-th
iteration; N is the number of particles; ΔIb is the current fixed step; Ibmo
4
Journal of Energy Storage 75 (2024) 109698
and Ib.min are the maximum and minimum values of power battery
discharge current, respectively.
Step 3: Power supply simulation of the energy storage element. The
power Ptbj of each particle is regarded as the power threshold value
and the power supply simulation is carried out with the power supply
of the power battery and supercapacitor.
Step 4: Particle processing. Judge whether the voltage, current, and
SOC of the energy storage element satisfy the constraints of Eq. (2), if
the particles satisfy the constraints, they are regarded as valid par­
ticles and retained; if the particles do not satisfy the constraints, they
are regarded as invalid particles and rejected.
Step 5: Input the valid particles, use the improved PSO algorithm to
obtain the optimal particles and output them.
Step 6: Determine whether the end condition is satisfied. The same
optimal fitness value is reached m times in a row or the maximum
number of iterations is reached n as the end condition, otherwise,
skip to step 3.
3.2.2. Solution method
Under the objective of minimizing the energy consumption of the
power battery, the power battery discharge current is solved iteratively
to determine the optimal power threshold value. For such a single
objective and single control variable problem, the solution method can
adopt the PSO algorithm. The PSO algorithm has a strong global search
capability and fast convergence speed when solving simple single-
objective problems, but for complex single-objective problems with
large amounts of data, the particle swarm algorithm has two problems
[29–31]: slow convergence speed and easy to fall into local optimal
solutions.
The operation efficiency of energy management strategy optimiza­
tion algorithm is closely related to the simulation of energy storage
element power supply and the speed of solving the solution method.
From the viewpoint of running time, the simulation time for power
supply of energy storage components is much longer than the solution
time, but the convergence speed of the algorithm directly determines the
number of power supply simulations that need to be performed subse­
quently, so to improve the operating efficiency, the convergence speed
of the optimization solving algorithm must be accelerated. In addition,
the initial particles with fixed step ΔIb and graded differences ensure the
diversity of the initial particles and reduce the probability of falling into
the local optimal solution. However, the number of particles is reduced
and the diversity of the population is weakened due to the elimination of
invalid particles, there is still a possibility of falling into local optimum
during the iterative process.
An improved PSO algorithm based on the competitive variation of
weights is developed to improve the convergence speed and avoid fall­
ing into the local optimal solution, which adds particle competition
mechanism and dynamic inertia weights.
(1) Particle competition mechanism
In the classical PSO algorithm, the update of particle velocity Vit+1
and position Xit+1 depends on the optimal solution Pbestit of individuals
and the optimal solution Gbestt of population. When Pbestit and Gbestt of
the particles are similar, all particles will move to the position, which
destroys the particle diversity and falls into the local optimal solution.
To address this issue, Pbestit and Gbest t are eliminated and the compe­
tition mechanism is added. Pairs of particles are randomly selected, and
values. The winning particles directly enter the next iteration and the
competition mechanism allows each particle to guide the population
update, which can maintain the diversity of the population and avoid
falling into local optimal solutions [32,33]. In addition, the effect of the
Z. Zhang et al. Journal of Energy Storage 75 (2024) 109698

Table 1 smaller inertia weight w is used to perform a better local search; for
Parameter settings. particles far from the population optimal solution, a larger inertia
Parameters Values weight w is used to perform a better global search. Considering the
distance of the particles from the population optimal solution, the
Vmax 2
Vmin − 2 dynamically changing inertia weight wd satisfies [35]:
wmax 0.8 ( t )
wmin 0.3
Li − Lti.min (wmax − wmin )
wd = wmin − ( t ) (6)
c1 , c 2 1 Li.max − Lti.min
Maximum iteration number n 80
Consecutive iteration number of optimal fitness value m 5 where Lti is the distance between the i-st particle and Gbest t in the t-th
Population number N 7
Current fixed step ΔIb 5
iteration; Lti.min and Lti.max are the minimum and maximum values of Lti ,
α, β 0.4, 0.6 respectively; i is the particle number and satisfies i = 1, 2, ⋯N.
The inertia weight wn decreases with the iteration number t in­
creases, and the integrated inertia weight w is composed of wd and wn ,
Table 2 and satisfies
Basic parameters of energy storage elements. {
w = αwd + βwn
(7)
Parameters Values α+β=1
SOCmax 90 %
SOCmin 30 % where α and β are constants.
SOEmax 100 % The following steps of the improved PSO algorithm are presented.
SOEmin 25 %
Ibmin − 68A
Step 1: Input the effective particles and determine the number N of
Ibmax 35A
Icmin − 450A effective particles.
Ibmax 450A Step 2: Determine the fitness function. F1 and F2 are the fitness
functions of single threshold and multiple thresholds, respectively.
Step 3: Calculate the particle fitness value. Under the corresponding
population position average is considered to maintain the global search
power threshold value of each particle, the energy consumption of
capability when updating the velocity of the failed particles.
the power battery is calculated during the power supply simulation,
For a population consisting of N particles, two particles are randomly
i.e., the fitness value.
assigned to form a pair, and the assigned particles are withdrawn from
Step 4: Randomly assign particle pairs and rule the winning and
the population to be paired. If N is an even number, N/2 pairs are
losing particles. Two particles are randomly assigned to form a
formed; if N is an odd number, a particle is randomly taken from the N −
particle pair and the fitness values of two particles are compared. The
1 previous paired particles, and (N + 1)/2 pairs are formed [34]. The
particle with a smaller fitness value is the winning particle and the
energy consumption of the power battery is used as the fitness function.
particle with a larger fitness value is the losing particle.
The particle with a smaller fitness value is used as the winning particle
Step 5: Update the particle velocity and position. The inertia weight
and the particle with a larger fitness value is used as the losing particle.
w is changed by Eq. (7), and then the velocity and position of the
For each iteration process, the winning and losing particles satisfy
winning and losing particles are updated by Eq. (5).
the following requirements.
Step 6: Exit the optimization solving algorithm and output the
⎧
⎪ particles.
⎪
⎪ t+1 t
⎪
⎪ VW,k = wVW,k
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ t+1
XW,k = wXW,kt 4. Results
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ( ) ( )
⎨ V t+1 = wV t + c r X t − X t t t
L,k L,k 1 1 W,k L,k + c2 r2 X − XL,k
(5) Guangzhou Haizhu tram is used to verify the performance of the
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
t+1
XL,k t
= XL,k t+1
+ VL,k developed method [30]. Assume that the HESS has an optimal config­
⎪
⎪
⎪ uration of energy storage elements, Nbs = 221, Nbp = 10, Ncs = 125, and
⎪
⎪ Vmin ≤ Vit+1 ≤ Vmax
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ Ncp = 10. The whole line and each interval are taken as the optimization
⎪ Xmin ≤ Xit+1 ≤ Xmax
⎩ intervals, and the optimal discharge current is finally obtained. The
parameter settings of the developed algorithm are shown in Table 1 and
t
where VW,k t
and XW,k are velocity and position of the winning particle in the parameters of energy storage elements are shown in Table 2.
t
the t-th iteration of the k-th pair; VL,k t
and XL,k are the velocity and po­ Taking the energy management strategy optimization based on a
single threshold value as an example, the iterative solutions based on the
sition of the losing particle; Xt is the average position of the population classical PSO algorithm and the improved PSO algorithm are used
in the t-th iteration; k is the particle pair number, when N is an even respectively, and their corresponding iterative changes of the optimal
number, then k = 1, 2, ⋯N/2, when N is an odd number, then k = 1, 2, discharge current are shown in Fig. 4. The optimal discharge current
⋯(N + 1)/2. converges to 23.98A under both two algorithms. Compared with the
classical PSO algorithm, the improved PSO algorithm has a better search
(2) Dynamic inertia weights capability at the beginning of the iteration. At the end of the iteration, it
has a faster convergence rate.
If the particle swarm searches for the optimal solution at the For the energy management strategy optimization based on single
beginning of the iteration, a larger inertia weight w will cause the swarm threshold and multiple thresholds, the improved PSO algorithm is used
to jump around the optimal solution at a larger speed, which slows down to obtain the optimal discharge current of the power battery from the
the convergence speed; if the swarm diversity decreases at the end of the perspective of the whole line and each interval, as shown in Fig. 5. For
iteration, a smaller inertia weight w will cause the swarm to fall into a the whole line, the power battery discharge current is fixed at 35A
local optimal solution. The distance between particles and the popula­ before optimization; under the energy management strategy with the
tion optimal solution Gbestt is calculated and used as the basis for single threshold, the optimal power battery discharge current is 23.98A,
determining w. For particles close to the population optimal solution, a

5
Z. Zhang et al. Journal of Energy Storage 75 (2024) 109698

Fig. 4. The iterative process of optimal discharge current.

and the discharge current value is significantly lower compared with

Fig. 5. Optimal discharge current
different strategies.
that before optimization; for each interval, the optimal power battery
discharge current is dynamically changing under the energy manage­
ment strategy with multiple thresholds. Compared with the single
threshold, the current values in the first interval are equal, while the
current values in the other intervals are lower, especially in the fourth,
fifth, eighth, and tenth intervals. The optimal power battery discharge
current is 0A, indicating that the power battery does not work in the
fourth interval.
Under the optimal discharge current corresponding to the power
threshold value, the energy storage element works according to the two
energy management strategies, and the electrical quantity change curve
is obtained, as shown in Figs. 6-10.
The supply power curve of the energy storage element is shown in
Fig. 6. The power battery and supercapacitor curves can fully satisfy the
DC bus demand after superposition under both optimization strategies.
For the whole operation line, the single optimization threshold value is
fixed, while the multiple threshold values change dynamically in each
interval. The maximum discharge power of the power battery is reduced
and the supply power of the supercapacitor is increased under the single
of power battery under three optimization threshold, i.e., the power threshold of the whole line is
reduced. Under the multiple thresholds, the power threshold is lower in
all other intervals except in the first interval, which is equal to the single
threshold, especially in the fourth, fifth, eighth, and tenth intervals,
where it is reduced to 0. It indicates that both two optimization

Fig. 6. Power supply curve of energy storage elements.

6
Z. Zhang et al.
Fig. 7. SOC curves for the supply of energy storage elements.
Fig. 8. Power consumption curve of energy storage elements.
strategies can meet the DC bus demand power, and the power threshold
value is significantly reduced compared with that before optimization.
The charge state curves for the power supply of the energy storage
elements are shown in Fig. 7. The power battery charge state decreases
continuously with the increase of supply distance, while the super­
capacitor charge state in each interval first supply decreases, then re­
covers the braking energy back up, and charges to full charge at the
station. For the whole operation line, the power battery charge state
changes as follows: under the single threshold, it decreases from 90 % to
50.42 %, which is higher than the lowest power battery charge state
(33.12 %) before optimization, and the optimized power battery charge
state is obviously improved; under the multiple thresholds, it decreases
from 90 % to 73.78 %. In the fourth, fifth, eighth, and tenth intervals, the
charge state remains unchanged and the power battery charge state is
further improved compared to the single threshold.
The minimum supercapacitor charge state in each interval under the
two optimization strategies is shown in Table 3. In the first interval, the
7
Journal of Energy Storage 75 (2024) 109698
minimum charge states of the supercapacitor under the two strategies
are equal and both reach the allowable discharge limit (25 %). In the
other intervals, the minimum charge state of the supercapacitor under
the multiple thresholds is lower, which indicates that the supercapacitor
discharges more deeply and has more power supply capability.
The power consumption curves of the energy storage elements are
shown in Fig. 8. From the perspective of the whole operation line, the
power consumption curve of the power battery monoblock is flatter
under the multiple thresholds, and the power consumption is smaller at
the end of the power supply. The power consumption curves of the
supercapacitor monoblock are similar under the two optimization stra­
tegies, and the power consumption of the two strategies is identical in
the first interval. In the other intervals, the maximum power consump­
tion of the supercapacitor under multiple thresholds is significantly
larger. It indicates that the supercapacitor takes on more power supply
tasks and plays a larger power supply capacity under multiple
thresholds.
Z. Zhang et al. Journal of Energy Storage 75 (2024) 109698

Fig. 9. Supply current curves of energy storage elements.

Fig. 10. Supply voltage curves of energy storage elements.

Table 3 Table 4
Minimum charge state of supercapacitor under two optimization strategies. Comparison of electrical parameters.
Intervals Single threshold Multiple thresholds Electrical parameters Single Multiple
threshold thresholds
1 25.00 % 25.00 %
2 48.26 % 34.38 % Minimum charge state of power battery 50.42 % 73.78 %
3 48.81 % 31.68 % Minimum charge state of supercapacitor 25 % 25 %
4 50.47 % 33.51 % Average minimum charge state of 42.97 % 31.87 %
5 50.64 % 33.48 % supercapacitor
6 41.16 % 25.11 % Total energy consumption of power battery 17.54 kWh 7.35 kWh
7 29.20 % 25.05 % pack
8 56.98 % 45.43 % Total energy consumption of supercapacitor 33.34 kWh 43.53 kWh
9 25.62 % 25.01 % bank
10 53.55 % 40.00 %

supercapacitor power supply stage, the supercapacitor discharging

Supply current curves of energy storage elements are shown in Fig. 9. current is obviously larger and close to the allowable limit (450A) under
For the supercapacitor current, in the supercapacitor charging stage, the multiple thresholds.
charging current of both strategies is similar and close to the limit; in the The supply voltage curves of energy storage elements are shown in

8
Z. Zhang et al. Journal of Energy Storage 75 (2024) 109698

(a) Power battery SOC under single threshold (b) Power battery SOC under multiple thresholds

(c) Minimum SOE of supercapacitor under single threshold (d) Minimum SOE of supercapacitor under multiple thresholds

(e) Energy consumption of power battery under single threshold (f) Energy consumption of power battery under multiple thresholds

Fig. 11. Comparative results of the three methods.

Fig. 10. The end voltage of the power battery monoblock decreases as
the supply distance increases, and comparing the two optimization
strategies, the end voltage changes more slowly and the end voltage
reduction is smaller for the multiple thresholds. The end voltages of
supercapacitors have similar trends under the two optimization strate­
gies. Except for the first, seventh, and ninth intervals which are basically
the same, the minimum value of end voltage is smaller under the mul­
tiple thresholds in all other intervals. Combining the voltages and cur­
rents, it shows that the energy storage element works in normal
conditions under both two optimization strategies, and the
supercapacitor discharge capacity is greater under the multiple
thresholds.
The electrical parameters under the two optimization strategies are
compared in Table 4. The average minimum charge state of the super­
capacitor is the average value of the minimum charge state of the
supercapacitor in 10 intervals. Comparing the two optimization strate­
gies, at the end of the power supply, under the multiple thresholds, the
minimum charge state of the power battery is improved by 23.36 %, and
the total energy consumption of the power battery pack is reduced by
58.10 %, and the average minimum charge state of supercapacitor is

9
Z. Zhang et al.
reduced by 11.10 %, and the total energy consumption of supercapacitor
pack is improved by 30.56 %. Therefore, the energy management
strategy optimization based on multiple thresholds has a more obvious
effect in reducing power battery energy consumption and exploiting the
power supply capacity of supercapacitors.
In addition, the optimal energy management strategy obtained by
improved PSO methods is compared with those of GA [18] and PSO [19]
methods, and the comparative results of the three methods are shown in
Fig. 11. Then, some conclusions are provided as follows.
Firstly, the improved PSO method improves the minimum charge
state of power battery. Under the single threshold, the minimum charge
states of power battery obtained by GA, PSO, and improved PSO
methods are 41.13 %, 41.62 %, and 50.42 % (Fig. 11(a)), all higher than
before optimization. Under multiple thresholds, the minimum charge
states of the three methods are 72.00 %, 72.31 %, and 73.78 % (Fig. 11
(b)), respectively. Both single threshold and multiple thresholds, the
improved PSO method has better performance of power battery than GA
and PSO methods.
Secondly, the improved PSO method can more effectively utilize the
power supply capacity of supercapacitors. Under the single threshold,
the average supercapacitor minimum charge state of all the 10 intervals
obtained by the three methods are 47.56 %, 47.60 %, and 42.97 %
(Fig. 11(c)). Under multiple thresholds, the average supercapacitor
minimum charge states by the three methods are 35.27 %, 35.31 %, and
31.87 % (Fig. 11(d)). Both single threshold and multiple thresholds, the
improved PSO method enables supercapacitors to provide more energy
for tram operation.
Thirdly, the improved PSO method decreases the energy consump­
tion of the power battery. Under the single threshold, the total energy
consumption of power batteries by the three methods is 35,303 J, 34946
J, and 28,590 J (Fig. 11(e)). Under the single threshold, the total energy
consumption by the three methods is 13,234 J, 13240 J, and 11,980 J
(Fig. 11(f)). Both the two thresholds, the improved PSO method makes
power battery supply less energy for tram operation.
5. Conclusions
This paper presents an energy management strategy optimization
method of HESS based on a fixed power threshold. The innovations of
this paper are provided as follows.
Firstly, to address the problem of energy management strategy
optimization with a fixed power threshold, the threshold values are
optimized from the perspective of the whole line and each interval, and
the energy management strategy optimization models based on the
single threshold and multiple thresholds are constructed by taking en­
ergy consumption of power battery as objective function and regarding
the end voltage, discharge current and charge state as constraints.
Secondly, the competitive PSO algorithm with dynamic inertia
weights has a faster convergence rate and can maintain the diversity of
the swarm population, which is developed to solve optimization models,
and the energy management strategy optimization algorithm is
designed.
Thirdly, Guangzhou Haizhu tram is used to illustrate the perfor­
mance of the developed method. The results show that the optimal en­
ergy management strategy based on multiple thresholds has better
effects than single threshold in giving full play to the power supply ca­
pacity of supercapacitor and reducing the energy consumption of power
battery. The minimum charge state of the power battery under multiple
thresholds is improved by 23.36 % over that of single threshold, and the
total energy consumption of the power battery pack is reduced by 58.10
%. Meanwhile, comparing with GA and PSO methods, the improved PSO
method effectively improves the minimum charge state of power bat­
tery, utilizes more energy from supercapacitors, and decreases the en­
ergy consumption of the power battery.
10
Journal of Energy Storage 75 (2024) 109698
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Zhenyu Zhang: Methodology, Software, Visualization, Writing –
original draft. Xiaoqing Cheng: Data curation, Writing – original draft.
Zongyi Xing: Supervision, Writing – review & editing. Zihao Wang:
Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing – original draft.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (No. 52302436) and the State Key Laboratory of Rail Traffic
Control and Safety (Contract No. RCS2023K004), Beijing Jiaotong
University.
References
[1] M. Steczek, W. Jefimowski, T. Maciołek, S. Barański, Analysis of energy losses in
the novel distributed power supply system for trams, IEEE Trans. Transp.
Electrification 9 (1) (2022) 1498–1508.
[2] Z. Xing, Z. Zhang, J. Guo, Y. Qin, L. Jia, Rail train operation energy-saving
optimization based on improved brute-force search, Appl. Energy 330 (2023),
120345.
[3] J.J. Mwambeleko, T. Kulworawanichpong, Supercapacitor and accelerating
contact lines hybrid tram system, J. Energy Storage 44 (2021), 103277.
[4] J.J. Mwambeleko, T. Hayasaka, T. Kulworawanichpong, Enhancing conventional
battery and contact line hybrid tram system with accelerating contact lines, IET
Electr. Syst. Transp. 10 (1) (2020) 105–115.
[5] Z. Zhang, H. Zhang, L. Zhou, Zero-carbon measure prioritization for sustainable
freight transport using interval 2 tuple linguistic decision approaches, Appl. Soft
Comput. 132 (2023), 109864.
[6] Y. Wang, L. Wang, M. Li, Z. Chen, A review of key issues for control and
management in battery and ultra-capacitor hybrid energy storage systems,
ETransportation 4 (2020), 100064.
[7] Z. Zhang, H. Zhang, L. Zhou, Y. Qin, L. Jia, Incomplete Pythagorean fuzzy
preference relation for subway station safety management during COVID-19
pandemic, Expert Syst. Appl. 119445 (2022).
[8] W. Yang, J. Ruan, J. Yang, N. Zhang, Investigation of integrated uninterrupted dual
input transmission and hybrid energy storage system for electric vehicles, Appl.
Energy 262 (2020), 114446.
[9] S.F. Tie, C.W. Tan, A review of energy sources and energy management system in
electric vehicles, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 20 (2013) 82–102.
[10] K. Yedavalli, L. Guo, D.S. Zinger, Simple control system for a switcher locomotive
hybrid fuel cell power system, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 47 (6) (2011) 2384–2390.
[11] L. Guo, K. Yedavalli, D. Zinger, Design and modeling of power system for a fuel cell
hybrid switcher locomotive, Energy Convers. Manag. 52 (2) (2011) 1406–1413.
[12] Y. Guo, X. Dai, K. Jermsittiparsert, N. Razmjooy, An optimal configuration for a
battery and PEM fuel cell-based hybrid energy system using developed Krill herd
optimization algorithm for locomotive application, Energy Rep. 6 (2020) 885–894.
[13] T. Graf, R. Fonk, J. Schröter, P. Hoenicke, C. Bauer, J. Kallo, C. Willich,
Investigation of a fuel cell hybrid system with a new modular test bench approach
for all electric hybrid power train systems, J. Energy Storage 56 (2022), 105999.
[14] X. Wang, Y. Luo, B. Qin, L. Guo, Power allocation strategy for urban rail HESS
based on deep reinforcement learning sequential decision optimization, IEEE
Trans. Transp. Electrification 9 (2) (2023) 2693–2710.
[15] Y. Shen, P. Cui, X. Wang, X. Han, Y.X. Wang, Variable structure battery-based fuel
cell hybrid power system and its incremental fuzzy logic energy management
strategy, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 45 (21) (2020) 12130–12142.
[16] F. Gao, X. Gao, Hyper-spherical search optimized fuzzy logic control considering
operating conditions for hybrid tram, IEEE Access 10 (2022) 65925–65935.
[17] H.A. Trinh, H.V.A. Truong, K.K. Ahn, Development of fuzzy-adaptive control based
energy management strategy for PEM fuel cell hybrid tramway system, Appl. Sci.
12 (8) (2022) 3880.
[18] Y. Yuan, M. Chen, J. Wang, W. Yu, B. Shen, A novel hybrid energy management
strategy of a diesel-electric hybrid ship based on dynamic programing and model
predictive control, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part M: J. Eng. Marit. Environ.
14750902211068931 (2022).
Z. Zhang et al.
[19] Y. Wang, Z. Yang, F. Lin, X. An, H. Zhou, X. Fang, A hybrid energy management
strategy based on line prediction and condition analysis for the hybrid energy
storage system of tram, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 56 (2) (2020) 1793–1803.
[20] Q. Li, B. Su, Y. Pu, Y. Han, T. Wang, L. Yin, W. Chen, A state machine control based
on equivalent consumption minimization for fuel cell/supercapacitor hybrid
tramway, IEEE Trans. Transp. Electrification 5 (2) (2019) 552–564.
[21] G. Zhang, Q. Li, W. Chen, X. Meng, H. Deng, A coupled power-voltage equilibrium
strategy based on droop control for fuel cell/battery/supercapacitor hybrid
tramway, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 44 (35) (2019) 19370–19383.
[22] A. Benmouna, M. Becherif, L. Boulon, C. Dépature, H.S. Ramadan, Efficient
experimental energy management operating for FC/battery/SC vehicles via hybrid
artificial neural networks-passivity based control, Renew. Energy 178 (2021)
1291–1302.
[23] X. Hu, C. Zou, X. Tang, T. Liu, L. Hu, Cost-optimal energy management of hybrid
electric vehicles using fuel cell/battery health-aware predictive control, IEEE
Trans. Power Electron. 35 (1) (2019) 382–392.
[24] A. Anbarasu, T.Q. Dinh, S. Sengupta, Novel enhancement of energy management in
fuel cell hybrid electric vehicle by an advanced dynamic model predictive control,
Energy Convers. Manag. 267 (2022), 115883.
[25] Z. Zhang, H. He, J. Guo, R. Han, Velocity prediction and profile optimization based
real-time energy management strategy for plug-in hybrid electric buses, Appl.
Energy 280 (2020), 116001.
[26] H. Peng, H. Cao, S. Dirkes, Z. Chen, K. Deng, J. Gottschalk, K. Hameyer, Validation
of robustness and fuel efficiency of a universal model-based energy management
strategy for fuel cell hybrid trains: from analytical derivation via simulation to
measurement on test bench, Energy Convers. Manag. 229 (2021), 113734.
11
Journal of Energy Storage 75 (2024) 109698
[27] D. Shen, C.C. Lim, P. Shi, P. Bujlo, Energy management of fuel cell hybrid vehicle
based on partially observable Markov decision process, IEEE Trans. Control Syst.
Technol. 28 (2) (2018) 318–330.
[28] S. Xie, H. He, J. Peng, An energy management strategy based on stochastic model
predictive control for plug-in hybrid electric buses, Appl. Energy 196 (2017)
279–288.
[29] X. Cai, H. Qiu, L. Gao, C. Jiang, X. Shao, An efficient surrogate-assisted particle
swarm optimization algorithm for high-dimensional expensive problems, Knowl.-
Based Syst. 184 (2019), 104901.
[30] Z. Xing, J. Zhu, Z. Zhang, Y. Qin, L. Jia, Energy consumption optimization of
tramway operation based on improved PSO algorithm, Energy 258 (2022),
124848.
[31] Z. Zhang, X. Cheng, Z. Xing, Z. Wang, Y. Qin, Optimal sizing of battery-
supercapacitor energy storage systems for trams using improved PSO algorithm,
J. Energy Storage 73 (2023), 108962.
[32] K. Liu, X. Wang, Z. Qu, Train operation strategy optimization based on a double-
population genetic particle swarm optimization algorithm, Energies 12 (13) (2019)
2518.
[33] C. Huang, X. Zhou, X. Ran, Y. Liu, W. Deng, W. Deng, Co-evolutionary competitive
swarm optimizer with three-phase for large-scale complex optimization problem,
Inf. Sci. 619 (2023) 2–18.
[34] X. Xue, P.W. Tsai, Integrating energy smart grid’s ontologies through multi-
objective particle swarm optimization algorithm with competitive mechanism,
Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 53 (2022), 102442.
[35] S. Wang, G. Liu, M. Gao, S. Cao, A. Guo, J. Wang, Heterogeneous comprehensive
learning and dynamic multi-swarm particle swarm optimizer with two mutation
operators, Inf. Sci. 540 (2020) 175–201.