Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
I. I NTRODUCTION
In addition to the perception of some authors that the technical feasibility and safety of the use of FC in practical applications must still be demonstrated [2], one important factor,
i.e., the economics, is strongly affected by the proper use of
energy during operation. It is expected that a suitable energy
management policy would not only reduce the operating cost of
the vehicle but satisfy the operation restrictions of the battery
and FC as well, such that the safety and reliability of the
operation are ensured.
To provide such evidence, a variety of authors has proposed
energy management strategies (EMSs) [3][8], [14], [15], [23]
[27] and design criteria for power propulsion systems [9][13].
Most of these EMSs can be categorized as 1) optimization
based and/or 2) heuristic-rule based.
Among the optimization-based strategies, the following
works are worth noticing. In [3], the restrictions of the
optimization problem are fixed according to maximum FC
efficiency. The strategy also takes into account important restrictions on the rate of change of the FC delivered power,
which ensures that the FC does not flood nor dry. However,
as Feroldi et al. stated in [4], the operation of the cell at the
maximum-efficiency cell zone, overdimensions the size of the
cell, and its power generation is not completely exploited. On
the other hand, in [5], a two-stage energy management control
is proposed, which takes into account the FC longevity. Based
on a discrete-time model of the propulsion system, Pontryagins
minimization principle is used to reformulate a full-drivingcycle optimization problem into an instantaneous optimization
problem. The problem of computing unknown multipliers of
the objective function is solved using a statistical model over
all possible driving cycles. Geng et al. showed the feasibility of
the application through numerical simulations.
In [6], an interesting approach is presented, based on
the analytical solution of the optimization problem. Since
Tazellar et al. deal with the analytical solution, its implementation is straightforward. Moreover, this approach allows the
authors to analyze the effect of the battery efficiency on the
solution and the sensibility of this solution to parameter variations. On the other hand, in [7], two EMSs are studied: 1) an
offline strategy based on optimization and 2) an online strategy
based on fuzzy logic (semi)optimized control. Ravey et al.
showed that the (semi)optimized fuzzy logic displays a close
behavior to the offline optimized strategy, even if no predictive
action of the driving cycle is available.
Other interesting previous works dealing with optimizationbased EMSs are [21][26]. In particular, in [21], a comparative
study of the power management strategies for FC aircraft is
performed; on the other hand, [24] and [27] take into account
0018-9545 2014 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
MORALES-MORALES et al.: ON THE DESIGN OF ROBUST ENERGY MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR FCHEV
1717
Fig. 1.
Electric powertrain.
(1)
where PFC [k] > 0 and PB [k] > 0 are the power provided
by the FC and the battery bank, respectively, while B [k] =
bd [k]conv,B [k], FC [k] = FC [k]conv,FC [k]. Equation (1)
constitutes a power conservation law.
In this paper, we will assume that the power demand is known
at every (present) time and that no predictive knowledge of
the driving cycle is available. This assumption implies that the
results of the EMS are valid, even in the presence of uncertain
vehicle dynamics, since the power demand is measured.
The objective of the power management strategy is to minimize the fuel consumption by choosing an appropriate power
share among the FC and the battery bank. The hydrogen consumption (mH2 ) is proportional to the current delivered by
the fuel cell (FC) [6], [7], that is
mH2 [k] =
(2)
where IFC [k] is the current supplied by the FC (see Fig. 1), N
is the number of cells in the stack, MH2 [k] is the molar mass
of H2 , and F is the Faraday constant. That is, the minimization
problem can be formulated as follows:
2
[k]
min J = min cIFC
IFC
(3)
2
with c = (k1 N 2 MH
/4F 2 ) > 0, k1 > 0. Observe that (3) is
2
proportional to the quadratic hydrogen consumption, and it has
been chosen as a convex function of parameter IFC to guarantee the existence of the optimized solution [17]. Notice that
the problem of minimization of such objective function does
not require knowledge of the driving cycle. The minimization
problem is subjected to the following restrictions:
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
IB,max IB [k] 0
PFC [k] PFC,max 0 with PFC,max > 0
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
1718
where
a1 < 0 and b1 > 0 are the slope and the open-circuit
voltage of the linear approximation of the polarization curve.
Using (6), restriction (4) can be written as follows:
SOC[k] SOCmax c1 IB [k] 0.
(14)
2
a1 FC [k]IFC
[k] b1 FC [k]IFC [k]
Pload [k] +
(15)
B [k]VB [k]
(16)
(17)
with
(SOC[k] SOCmax ) B [k]VB [k]
c1
(SOCmin SOC[k]) B [k]VB [k]
g2 = + Pload [k] +
c1
g1 = Pload [k] +
(18)
(19)
with
q1 = + Pload [k] IB,max VB [k]
B [k]
B [k]
q2 = Pload [k] IB,max VB [k]
Analogously, restrictions (9)(12) can be rewritten as
follows:
2
a1 IFC
[k] + b1 IFC [k] PF,max [k] 0
2
a1 IFC [k] b1 IFC [k] + PFC,min [k] 0
(20)
(21)
(22)
MORALES-MORALES et al.: ON THE DESIGN OF ROBUST ENERGY MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR FCHEV
where
h1
h
h (IFC [k]; [k]) = 2
h3
h4
(23)
with
h1
h2
h3
h4
2
= 2 [k]4 [k]IFC
[k] 3 4 IFC [k] + Pload [k] Lmax [k]
2
= 2 [k]4 [k]IFC
[k] + 3 4 IFC [k]Pload [k]Lmin [k]
2
= 2 [k]IFC [k] + 3 [k]IFC [k] 6 [k]
2
= 2 [k]IFC
[k] 3 [k]IFC [k] + 7 [k]
T
PFC,max [k], PFC, min [k]) , Lmin [k] = min{((SOCmin
SOC[k])5 [k]VB [k]/1 ), IB, max VB [k]5 }, and denotes
element-wise inequality. Notice that parameters [k] may be
time varying. Moreover, since the FC provides (real) current,
then 32 [k] > 42 [k]5 [k], which means that both solutions are
real (the case 32 [k] < 42 [k]5 [k] has no physical meaning).
Since FC power displays a quadratic behavior, the same power
can be obtained with two different currents (see Fig. 2). In this
paper, the high-current solution will not be used since such
currents allow the cell to work in the mass-transfer-limited
zone, and as previously stated, this zone is avoided because,
usually, the cell floods, thus leading to an FC malfunction. Let
hj be the elements of h(IFC [k]; [k]). To ensure that h1 has real
solutions, it is necessary that 32 [k]4 [k] 42 [k](Pload [k]
FC [k]/4
a1 [k] Pload [k]
Lmax [k]), which means that b21 [k]
Lmax [k], which constitutes a design-related restriction for the
FC and the battery.
Let us denote the nominal value of the parameter vector
[k] as and let the maximum allowable uncertainty bound
as max . The restrictions
h (IFC [k]; ) 0
(24)
constitute the nominal value of restrictions (27). Let us denote as the uncertain fuel consumption minimization problem
(UFCMP) the minimization of (3) subjected to (27) and as the
nominal fuel consumption minimization problem (NFCMP) the
minimization of (3) subjected to (24).
2
[k] + 3 [k]4 IFC [k].
Pload (1 [k]) = 2 [k]4 [k]IFC
1 This
(25)
(26)
A. Problem Statement
Consider a vehicle with a traction system given as in Fig. 1.
Problem 1. Compute the solution of the NFCMP, and establish
conditions for this solution to match the solution of the
UFCMP.
Problem 2. Establish the limitations that the parametric uncertainty imposes upon the solution of the NFCMP.
Remark 1: Our choice of objective function was performed
by noticing that the minimum fuel consumption that can be obtained is actually using the objective function (3), since adding
more positive terms,1 such as, for example, equivalent consumption terms, i.e., K(SOC[k] SOCref )2 , has the effect
of shifting the minimum by a proportional amount. Moreover,
1719
f ([k]; [k]) =
Lmax [k]
Pload [k]
min [k]
[k] PLload
[k]
Pload [k]
Pload [k]
[k]
[k] 1
[k]
(27)
(28)
(29)
(30)
where uncertain and nom are the feasible sets of the real and
nominal restrictions. Notice that it is reasonable to assume the
existence of such sets; otherwise, the solutions of the nominal
1720
only when the battery attains its minimum level (recall that
curves A, B, C, and D are time varying). Notice also that if
the SOC level is high, the solution [k] = 1 (the unconstrained
solution) may be feasible. Once curve D is reached for a low
value of SOC, the only choice is to use the FC as the sole energy
source, and the fuel cannot be economized.
Remark 2: The solution of the optimization problem can
be computed offline, and its implementation is identical to
a heuristic EMS. That is, every time the feasible region is
different from the null set, the solution exists, and as previously
stated, it is given by restriction (f4 = 0) or (f2 = 0).
A. Connections With the Solution of the UFCMP
At this point, the solution of the NFCMP min has been
found; however, it is still not clear if min will satisfy the real
restrictions (27); that is, two questions remain open: 1) When
are the solutions of the NFCMP and UFCMP the same? (i.e.,
min = min ); 2) How can the nominal parameter vector be
chosen to satisfy the (uncertain) real restrictions?
To answer these questions, let
nom = {[k]|f ([k]; ) = 0} .
(31)
/
Remark 3: uncertain nom , min nom , and min
nom are necessary conditions for the solutions of NFCMP
and UFCMP to coincide.
To see clearly the result in Remark 3, let us recall that is
scalar; therefore, restrictions (27) can be reduced to maximum
and minimum restrictions over a scalar. In other words, from
(27) and the minimum and maximum bounds of the uncertainty,
it is possible to find the following sets derived from the continuity of (27):
uncertain = {[k]|real,min [k] real,max }
uncertain = {[k] = real,max [k] = real,min }
(32)
(33)
(36)
(37)
MORALES-MORALES et al.: ON THE DESIGN OF ROBUST ENERGY MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR FCHEV
1721
(38)
(39)
1722
TABLE I
M ODES OF THE S UPERVISORY C ONTROL
V. S IMULATION R ESULTS
The objective of this section is to evaluate the robustness and
performance of the proposed supervisory control. In particular,
our objectives are to show that 1) the prevalence of optimization
leads to significant fuel economies along with the satisfaction
of the operation restrictions of the FC and the ESS; 2) the
incidence of optimization greatly depends on the size of the
feasible region, which, in turn, depends on the driving cycle,
the initial conditions, and the powertrain design; and 3) the
uncertainty adversely affects the incidence of the optimization,
since the feasible region is always narrower to guarantee the
satisfaction of the real operation restrictions.
To achieve our objectives, simulations in a vehicle system
with the following parameters are performed: PFC,min = 0 W,
PFC,max = 2800 W, PFC,lim = 3000 W,
a1 = 0.25 V/A, b1 =
80 V, c = 1 (i.e., recall that c is the parameter of the objective function), SOCmin = 0.25, SOCmax = 1, PFC,min =
1500 W, PFC,max = 1500 W, FC = 0.59, bc = bd =
0.99, conv,B = conv,FC = 0.91. The battery specifications
correspond to model U 24 12XP in [31], with IB,max =
150 A. To easily illustrate the reduction of the feasible set on
a single driving cycle, we use a series array of nine batteries
of C = 110 Ah, each one giving an equivalent capacity of
C = 12.2 Ah (i.e., c1 = 0.0811/A) with the same restriction on
the maximum current. A discrete time k is used with a sample
time of 1 s; that is, the elapsed time corresponds to the discrete
time in seconds.
Four driving cycles are used for comparison purposes: two
urban cycles, namely, City II and Urban Dynamometer Driving
Schedule (UDDS); a semiurban cycle, namely, New European
Driving Cycle (NEDC); and finally, a highway cycle, namely,
Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedule (HWFET) [20].
As a first step in analyzing the supervisory control, we
implement the algorithm shown in Fig. 5. At every discrete
ns
mH
k=0
2 ,F C
(40)
MORALES-MORALES et al.: ON THE DESIGN OF ROBUST ENERGY MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR FCHEV
Fig. 7.
1723
PFC,max PFC,max , P FC,min +PFC,min ,
FC +
FC for
(PFC,min FC ) and
FC
FC for (PFC,max FC ), where x
is
the estimated value of x.
A. Time Evolution
The time evolution of the proposed strategy can be observed
in Fig. 7, where the fuel consumption and the battery SOC can
be observed as a function of uncertainty [scenarios (i) and (ii)]
for the City II driving cycle and SOC[0] = 1. In this figure, the
driving cycle and the corresponding current load can also be
observed.
Notice the effect of the regenerative braking that charges
the battery in some stages. Moreover, observe that the current
demand is asymmetric in the charging and discharging process
of the battery, since the efficiency of the sources is different at
these stages. In these simulations, the FC-to-battery charging
process is not present since such scenario is not optimal (more
energy is dropped in the FC-to-battery charging process than
that in the direct use of the FC due to converter and battery efficiencies). If such charging operation regime is desired, it can be
defined as a part of the heuristic rules of the supervisory control.
Observe that the optimal process will inevitably lead to the
consumption of battery energy to a minimum level since any
fuel saving comes from battery usage. It is known that the
use of the equivalent fuel consumption term in the objective
function can be used to prevent battery depletion. However,
since all fuel savings are the product of ESS utilization, such
term has an adverse effect on the FE, as shown in Fig. 8. The
equivalent fuel consumption term shifts the optimal point by
an amount that is proportional to the difference between the
Fig. 8. Comparison of the FE for the proposed case and the equivalent fuel
consumption case at PFC,min = 1030 W. The relative weight among the terms
is the constant K.
1724
Fig. 9. Time evolution of the size of the feasible region and current sharing as function of uncertainty for the City II driving cycle and SOC[0] = 1. IB,max =
100 A is used to easily visualize the effect of this current restriction on the use of the FC.
Fig. 10. (Left) Time evolution of the size of the feasible region for the City II driving cycle and SOC[0] = 0.26. (Right) Incidence of optimization in the
supervisory control as a function of battery SOC.
Drastic differences of the battery current upon the uncertainty cannot be displayed in Fig. 7 due to the following
reasons: 1) For high SOC levels, the uncertainty that affects
the most is that of the FC (see Section III). 2) In contrast to
the no-uncertainty case, the EMS is constituted of both optimal
and heuristic rules. Since the heuristic rules are not model
based, it is unaffected by the uncertainty. Finally, 3) when the
current battery restriction is active, the only information needed
is the FC parameters and the battery current limitation [see (18)
and (19)]. The given arguments also explain the insensitivity of
the response of the EMS to uncertainty on the right-hand side
in Fig. 10 for SOC(0) = 1. Even if some system behavior may
be intuitive for optimization-based strategies, the size of the
feasible set (which is time varying) must be used to determine
which is active to correctly interpret the results.
MORALES-MORALES et al.: ON THE DESIGN OF ROBUST ENERGY MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR FCHEV
1725
Fig. 11. (Top) FE and average as a function of PFC,min and uncertainty bounds. (Bottom) Optimization incidence as a function of PFC,min for City II
driving cycle and SOC[0] = 1.
1726
Fig. 14. FE and size of the feasible region as a function of PFC,min and uncertainty bounds.
MORALES-MORALES et al.: ON THE DESIGN OF ROBUST ENERGY MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR FCHEV
driving cycles are used (see Fig. 13). In Fig. 14, it is possible
to observe the FE and average (SOC = 1) for such driving
cycles. The lower FE is obtained by HWFET, which is a
highway driving cycle. Such fact is expected since the FE is
limited by the capacity of the battery and the virtual absence of
regenerative braking. Notice that the size of the feasible region
decreases as PFC,min increases, which limits the incidence of
optimization. The FE rise of about PFC,min [1000, 2500] W
for scenarios (i) and (ii) is due to a corresponding rise in the
usage of heuristic rules (i.e., average = 0). This fact can also
be observed for the UDDS and NEDC driving cycles. Finally,
the highest FE of these three driving cycles is obtained by the
NEDC; notice that this case also coincides with the largest
feasible region of that displayed in Fig. 14. In this figure, it
is clear that the utilization of optimization is only worthy for
combination of powertrain designs and driving cycle scenarios.
VI. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, the role of uncertainty in an optimization-based
EMS has been analyzed. It is stated that in the presence of
bounded uncertainty, the restrictions of the system may be satisfied; however, inevitable differences between the solutions of
NFCMP and UFCMP arise. The conditions for this discrepancy
of solutions are clearly stated. Moreover, it is stated that to face
the limitations that naturally arise in the constrained optimization problem, supervisory control is proposed, which is both optimal and heuristic. The incidence of optimization relies on the
size of the feasible region. It is shown that even if the FE for the
optimization and heuristic cases can be comparable for some
initial conditions, that obtained with optimization is the only
one that guarantees the satisfaction of FC and battery operation
conditions. Moreover, the powertrain design plays a crucial role
in the incidence of optimization, making optimization worthless
for some cases. Finally, since the solutions of the NFCMP and
UFCMP never coincide, it can only be ensured that the real
restrictions are satisfied by the solution of the nominal minimization problem, provided that the nominal gamma vector is
chosen to satisfy some conditions. Therefore, robustness of an
optimal-based EMS means that minimum fuel saving can be
guaranteed for a given uncertain parameter scenario.
R EFERENCES
[1] A. Khaligh and Z. Li, Battery, ultracapacitor, fuel cell, and hybrid energy
storage systems for electric, hybrid electric, fuel cell and plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles: State of art, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 59, no. 6,
pp. 28062814, Jul. 2010.
[2] A. Emadi, K. Rajashekara, S. S. Williamson, and S. M. Lukic, Topological overview of hybrid electric and fuel cell vehicular power system
architectures and configurations, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 54,
no. 3, pp. 763770, May 2005.
[3] D. Feroldi, M. Serra, and J. Riera, Energy management strategies based
on efficiency map for fuel cell hybrid vehicles, J. Power Sources,
vol. 190, no. 2, pp. 387401, May 2009.
[4] D. Feroldi, M. Serra, and J. Riera, Design analysis of fuel-cell hybrid
system oriented to automotive applications, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.,
vol. 58, no. 9, pp. 47204729, Nov. 2009.
[5] B. Geng, J. K. Mills, and D. Sung, Two-stage energy management
control of fuel cell plug-in hybrid electric vehicles considering fuel cell
longevity, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 498508,
Feb. 2012.
1727
[6] E. Tazellar, B. Veenhuizen, P. van den Bosch, and M. Grimminck, Analytical solution of the energy management for fuel cell hybrid propulsion
systems, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 19861998,
Jun. 2012.
[7] A. Ravey, B. Blunier, and A. Miraoui, Control strategies for fuel cell
based hybrid electric vehicles: From offline to online and experimental results, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 61, no. 6, pp. 24522457,
Jul. 2012.
[8] S. Kelouwani, N. Henao, K. Agbossou, Y. Dube, and L. Boulon, Twolayer energy-management architecture for a fuel cell HEV using road trip
information, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 61, no. 9, pp. 38513864,
Nov. 2012.
[9] W. Na, T. Park, T. Kim, and S. Kwak, Light fuel-cell hybrid electric vehicles based on predictive controllers, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 60,
no. 1, pp. 8997, Jan. 2011.
[10] E. Schaltz, A. Khalilgh, and P. O. Rasmussen, Influence of battery/
ultracapacitor energy-storage sizing on battery lifetime in a fuel cell hybrid electric vehicle, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 3882
3891, Oct. 2009.
[11] S. S. Williamson and A. Emadi, Comparative assesment of hybrid electric and fuel cell vehicles based on comprehensive well-to-wheels efficiency analysis, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 856862,
May 2005.
[12] C. C. Chan, A. Bouscayrol, and K. Chen, Electric, hybrid and fuel cell
vehicles: Architectures and modeling, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 59,
no. 2, pp. 589598, Feb. 2010.
[13] A. Ravey, N. Watrin, B. Blunier, D. Bouquain, and A. Miraoui, Energysource-sizing methodology for hybrid fuel cell vehicles based on statistical description of driving cycles, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 60,
no. 9, pp. 41464174, Nov. 2011.
[14] P. Thounthoung, V. Chunkag, P. Sethakul, B. Davat, and M. Hinaje,
Comparative study of fuel cell vehicle hybridization with battery or
supercapacitor storage device, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 58, no. 8,
pp. 38923904, Oct. 2009.
[15] Y. Wu and H. Gao, Optimization of fuel cell and supercapacitor for fuel
cell electric vehicles, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 1748
1755, Nov. 2006.
[16] I. Cervantes, J. Morales-Morales, I. A. Diaz-Diaz, and A. MendozaTorres, Switched control for power management in hybrid propulsion
schemes, in Proc. IEEE Veh. Power Propulsion Conf., Chicago, IL, USA,
2011, pp. 16.
[17] M. A. Hanson, On sufficiency of the KuhnTucker conditions, J. Math.
Anal. Appl., vol. 80, no. 2, pp. 545550, Apr. 1981.
[18] B. Geng, J. K. Mills, and D. Sun, Energy management control of
microturbine-powered plug-in hybrid electric vehicles using the telemetry
equivalent consumption minimization strategy, IEEE Trans. Vehicular
Technology, vol. 60, no. 9, pp. 42384248, Nov. 2011.
[19] J. Bernard, S. Delprat, F. N. Bchi, and T. M. Guerra, Fuelcell hybrid powertrain: Toward minimization of hydrogen consumption, IEEE
Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 58, no. 7, pp. 31683176, Sep. 2009.
[20] (Accessed Jun. 2013). [Online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/nvfel/
testing/dynamometer.htm
[21] S. N. Motapon, L. A. Dessaint, and K. Al-Haddad, A comparative study
of energy management schemes for a fuel-cell hybrid emergency power
system of more-electric aircraft, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 61,
no. 3, pp. 13201334, Mar. 2014.
[22] F. Ciccarelli, A. Del Pizzo, and D. Iannuzzi, Improvement of energy
efficiency in light railway vehicles based on power management control
of wayside lithium-ion capacitor storage, IEEE Trans. Power Electron.,
vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 275286, Jan. 2014.
[23] Y. L. Murphey et al., Intelligent hybrid vehicle power control Part II:
Online intelligent energy management, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.,
vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 6979, Jan. 2013.
[24] F. A. Bender, M. Kaszynski, and O. Sawodny, Drive cycle prediction and
energy management optimization for hybrid hydraulic vehicles, IEEE
Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 62, no. 8, pp. 35813592, Oct. 2013.
[25] D. Kum, H. Peng, and N. K. Bucknor, Optimal energy and catalyst
temperature management of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles for minimum
fuel consumption and tail-pipe emissions, IEEE Trans. Control Syst.
Technol., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 1426, Jan. 2013.
[26] H. Borhan et al., MPC-based energy management of a power-split hybrid electric vehicle, IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 20, no. 3,
pp. 593603, May 2012.
[27] C. Zhang and A. Vahidi, Route preview in energy management of plugin hybrid vehicles, IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 20, no. 2,
pp. 546553, Mar. 2012.
1728
[28] J. Larminie and A. Dicks, Fuel Cell Systems Explained, 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, Apr. 2003.
[29] Z. Qi, Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells. Boca Raton, FL, USA:
CRC, 2013, ser. Electrochemical Energy Storage and Conversion.
[30] J. T. Pukrushpan, A. G. Stefanopoulou, and H. Peng, Control of Fuel Cell
Power Systems: Principles, Modeling, Analysis and Feedback Design (Advances in Industrial Control). New York, NY, USA: Springer-Verlag,
2005.
[31] Valence U-Charge XP Battery Modules Datasheet, Aug. 2012. [Online].
Available: www.valence.com
Josefa Morales-Morales received the Masters degree in electronic engineering from the National
Center for Research and Technological Development
(CENIDET), Cuernavaca, Mexico, in 2009. She is
currently working toward the Ph.D. degree with the
Institute for Scientific and Technological Research of
San Luis Potos (IPICyT), San Luis Potos, Mexico,
in the area of applied mathematics at the option of
dynamic systems.
Her areas of interest include the control of linear
and nonlinear systems, system modeling and simulation, observers design, hybrid systems, and renewable energy.
Ulises Cano-Castillo received the degree (with honors) from the National Autonomous University of
Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico, and the D.Phil. degree from Oxford University, Oxford, U.K., where
he worked on electrochemical techniques applied to
the study of advanced materials.
He was second Vice President of the international
consortium Fuelcell Propulsion Institute and a Cofounder and former President of the Mexican Hydrogen Society. He represents Mexico in the Advanced
Fuel Cells Agreement of the International Energy
Agency, where he is also a member of the Executive Committee. He is
the founder and coordinator of the Hydrogen and Fuel Cells R&D group at
the Instituto de Investigaciones Elctricas, where he has been working on
electrochemical energy conversion systems for more than 25 years.
Dr. Cano-Castillo is a Chemical Metallurgy Engineer.