Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
I.
INTRODUCTION
Fuel cell based vehicles has become a solid alternative to
internal combustion engines vehicles, due to their growing
reliability and autonomy [1]-[3], in spite of the necessary
design of power conditioning systems which deals with the
fuel cell slow dynamic response, load dependant output
voltage, unidirectional power flow and other operating
features such as very long startup times, high temperature
startup, and overshooted and/or overdamped transient
responses [4]-[6]. For this kind of vehicles, the main technical
targets are the improvement of maximum speed, accelerations,
autonomy, cost and durability [7]. On the other hand, the
propulsion system size and mass must be as smaller as
possible, in order to fulfill automotive requirements. As a
consequence of this mass reduction, the fuel consumption is
also reduced and therefore the autonomy is increased. The size
and mass reduction apply to the overall propulsion system, in
which have been considered: fuel cell stack and hydrogen tank
(but nor the auxiliary components neither the hydrogen fuel),
dc/dc converters, and energy storage devices (supercapacitors
and batteries).
Depending on the number, location and kind of both the
power converters and the energy storage devices, as well as
the control strategy and the regenerative braking, there is a
wide range of possibilities in the propulsion system design [8][14]. Therefore, the selection of the propulsion system of a
fuel cell based vehicle is a complex task that has a strong
impact on the overall mass, cost, volume, efficiency,
autonomy, etc. The most suitable power distribution
architecture is closely related to the applied driving profile.
Roughly there are three main types of driving cycles: urban
390
2B
Fuel cell
Fuel cell
DC/DC
DC/DC
1C1
Load
DC/DC
Bidirectional
Fuel cell
Load
DC/DC
Bidirectional
Battery
Load
Supercapacitors
Battery
1C2
2C
Fuel cell
Fuel cell
DC/DC
DC/DC
3C
Load
Fuel cell
DC/DC
Load
Load
DC/DC
DC/DC
Bidirectional
Supercapacitors
DC/DC
Supercapacitors
Supercapacitors
1BC
3BC
Fuel cell
DC/DC
DC/DC
Load
Fuel cell
Battery
Fuel cell
2BC
DC/DC
DC/DC
Bidirectional
Load
Battery
Supercapacitors
DC/DC
Bidirectional
DC/DC
Bidirectional
Supercapacitors
Supercapacitors
1C1 means:
1 C 1
Nomenclature:
Number of converters
Secondary sources
Discriminates among diferent
(0, 1, 2, 3)
(Battery (B), Supercapacitor (C)) architectures with the same subsystems
Fig. 1: Power distribution architectures based on fuel cell, supercapacitors and batteries analyzed.
391
Load
Battery
a)
400
Power (kW)
40
30
b)
20
10
0
10
40
80
120
160
200
240
280
320
360
400
Time (s)
Fig 4.a) EUDC driving profile, and b) power demand under EUDC profile.
a)
200
Time (s)
20
Power (kW)
15
10
b)
5
0
5
10
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Time (s)
a)
400
Power (kW)
20
15
10
b)
5
0
5
10
40
80
120
160
200
Time (s)
240
280
320
360
400
392
Only supercapacitor
0.6
0.4
0.2
Linf
Lupp
6.3kW
2.4kW
0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Only battery
Only battery
0.8
Only supercapacitor
Linf
Lupp
9.6kW
9
11.1kW
10
11
0
12
a)
b)
EUDCL
EUDC
140
Only battery
0.6
0.4
Linf
0.2
Lupp
14.8kW
0
12
14
Only supercapacitor
120
0.8
100
a)
60
40
20
0
20.2kW
16
18
20
80
1B
0
22
ECE15
c)
140
Fig. 5. In per unit battery mass evolution, along with the maximum power
delivered by the fuel cell, a) ECE15 cycle, b) EUDCL cycle, c) EUDC cycle.
120
40
20
Weight(kg)
0
1B
1BC
1C2
Cost ()
600
500
ECE15
400
EUDCL
300
EUDC
ECE15
200
c)
100
0
0B
1B
3C
450
Volume (l)
400
300
250
ECE15
200
EUDCL
150
EUDC
0
3C
Cost ()
12000
10000
8000
ECE15
6000
EUDCL
1C2
EUDC
4000
1BC
50
14000
EUDC
Fig. 7. a) Mass, b) volume, and, c) cost for EUDC cycle, ECE15 cycle and
EUDCL cycle, respectively.
100
EUDCL
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1B
350
c)
EUDC
80
700
b)
EUDCL
60
800
a)
1C2
100
b)
Fig. 6 shows the optimal mass, volume and cost for each
driving profile and each propulsion system topology evaluated
in their proper power range.
900
1BC
Volume (l)
2000
0
0B 1B 2B 1BC 2BC 3BC 1C1 1C2 2C 3C
393
volume and cost [15] (see Fig. 8). It can be observed in Fig. 8
that the power limits of the range in which each type of
propulsion system is recommended, Linf and Lupp , are shifted
to the left. This displacement is due to the increase of the fuel
cell delivered energy when a minimum delivered power PFCmin
is considered; and therefore, the power range in which battery
based architectures are recommended is reduced. Then, less
energy storage capacity is needed.
Per unit battery mass
a)
Linf =2.4kW
0.8
0W
30
200W
400W
20
40
10
PFCmin 0kW
Linf =2.2kW
0.8
0
1B
1BC
1C2
Volume (l)
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
45
40
35
30
PFCmin 0kW
0
Power (kW)
Lupp
Power (kW)
6.4kW
b)
PFCmin 0.2kW
a)
Lupp
5.6kW
25
0W
20
200W
15
400W
10
5
0
1B
b)
1BC
1C2
Cost ()
PFCmin 0kW
Linf =1.8kW
0.8
1200
1000
PFCmin 0.2kW
c)
0.6
800
0W
600
200W
400W
400
0.4
200
0.2
0
PFCmin 0.4kW
0
Power (kW)
1B
Lupp
5kW
1BC
1C2
Fig. 9. Fuel cell minimum power impact over propulsion systems, a) mass,
b) volume and c) cost.
c)
Fig. 8. Fuel cell minimum power impact over the in per unit battery mass,
a) minimum delivered power of 0W, b) minimum delivered power of 200W
and c) minimum delivered power of 400W.
160
Mass (kg)
PFCmin = 0W
144
128
PFCmin = 400W
112
96
32
80
64
Battery
48
52,4kg
Converters
FC
9kg 10,4kg
16
0
47,4kg
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
Fig.10 Battery, fuel cell system and dc/dc converter mass evolution, as a
function of the maximum power delivered by the fuel cell, corresponding to
propulsion system 1B.
394
395