4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Research on energy management strategy of fuel cell-battery-supercapacitor passenger vehicle

期刊

ENERGY REPORTS
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 1339-1349

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.egyr.2021.11.244

关键词

Supercapacitor; Energy management strategy; Dynamic allocation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51805387, 51775395]
  2. State's Key Project of Research and Development Plan [2018YFB0105301]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [WUT: 2021CG005]
  4. 111 Project, China [B17034]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study optimized the energy management strategy for passenger vehicles that adopt the hybrid energy form of the fuel cell, battery, and supercapacitor. The optimized strategy utilizes the power output of the fuel cell more efficiently, reducing energy loss and improving the performance and hydrogen consumption of the vehicles.
The energy management strategy of passenger vehicles that adopts the hybrid energy form of the fuel cell, battery and supercapacitor was complicated. Traditional power following-logic threshold filtering strategy could better use the power directly output by fuel cell(FC) and reduce the loss of charge and discharge. In some power ranges, the energy produced by the fuel cell lagged behind the demand power. In response to this problem, the power following-logic threshold filtering strategy is optimized based on dynamic allocation. According to the parameters of the vehicle, Simulink/Powertrain was used to build a power system model to verify the effectiveness of the current strategy under urban dynamometer driving schedule (UDDS) and then compared with the traditional control strategy. The optimized energy management strategy decreases hydrogen consumption by 1.9%; the proportion of power above 10 kW is reduced by about 20%; the battery end state of charge (SOC) values under the control strategy before and after the improvement are 51.64 and 50.91, respectively. (C) 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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

4.6
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