4.8 Article

Optimal adaptation of equivalent factor of equivalent consumption minimization strategy for fuel cell hybrid electric vehicles under active state inequality constraints

期刊

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
卷 267, 期 -, 页码 491-502

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.05.067

关键词

Energy management strategy; Equivalent consumption minimization strategy; Equivalent factor adaptation; State inequality constraint; Dynamic programming; Fuel cell hybrid electric vehicle

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant - Korea Government (MSIP) [2010-0028680]
  2. BK21 Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Among existing energy management strategies (EMSs) for fuel cell hybrid electric vehicles (FCHEV), the equivalent consumption minimization strategy (ECMS) is often considered as a practical approach because it can be implemented in real-time, while achieving near-optimal performance. However, under real-world driving conditions with uncertainties such as hilly roads, both near-optimality and charge-sustenance of ECMS are not guaranteed unless the equivalent factor (EF) is optimally adjusted in real-time. In this paper, a methodology of extracting the globally optimal EF trajectory from dynamic programming (DP) solution is proposed for the design of EF adaptation strategies. In order to illustrate the performance and process of the extraction method, a FCHEV energy management problem under hilly road conditions is investigated as a case study. The main goal is to learn how EF should be adjusted and the impact of EF adaptation on fuel economy under several hilly road cases. Using the extraction method, the DP-based EF is computed, and its performance is compared with those of Pontryagin's minimum principle (PMP) and conventional ECMS. The results show that the optimal EF adaptation significantly improves fuel economy when the battery SoC constraint becomes active, and thus EF must be properly adjusted under severely hilly road conditions. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据