1716

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 64, NO. 5, MAY 2015

On the Design of Robust Energy Management

Strategies for FCHEV
Josefa Morales-Morales, Ilse Cervantes, Senior Member, IEEE, and Ulises Cano-Castillo

AbstractIn this paper, we analyze the limitations that impose

the presence of uncertainty in the design of optimal energy management strategies (EMSs) for fuel cell (FC) hybrid electric vehicles. Using an electric powertrain constituted by a hydrogen FC
and a battery bank, the fuel consumption minimization problem is
analyzed in the presence of parametric uncertainty. The conditions
that ensure that the nominal optimization problem matches the
solution of the real (unknown) optimization problem are clearly
stated. By observing that the uncertainty will limit the feasible
solutions of the minimization consumption problem, supervisory
control constituted by heuristic rules is proposed to face such
limitations, resulting in a mixed optimalheuristic EMS. The effect
of the powertrain design, driving cycle, and initial conditions in
the proposed strategy is discussed. Numerical simulations provide
evidence of the advantages and features of the supervisory control
strategy.
Index TermsEnergy management, fuel economy (FE), optimal
control.

I. I NTRODUCTION

OWADAYS, fossil fuels are largely consumed for electric

generation and vehicle propulsion. It is known that current
global petroleum resources may be consumed within the next
50 years at present rates [1]. Along with fuel consumption, there
is a proportional rise of the levels of environmental pollution;
therefore, some solutions based on renewable energy have been
proposed [1][7].
Electric propulsion of vehicles constitutes an option that
is widely studied to design zero-emission transportation [1]
[7]. Electric vehicles through the use of modern electrical
storage systems (ESS) have shown their reliability and technical
feasibility [2]. However, their autonomy is limited by their storage capacity and charging time. Among known technologies,
proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs) constitute the
most suitable solution to extend vehicle autonomy with zero
emissions; furthermore, their tanks can be filled in short periods
of time, analogously to conventional vehicles.

Manuscript received December 2, 2013; revised February 13, 2014 and

May 29, 2014; accepted June 26, 2014. Date of publication July 8, 2014; date
of current version May 12, 2015. The review of this paper was coordinated by
Prof. A. Khaligh.
J. Morales-Morales and I. Cervantes are with the Applied Mathematics
Division, Institute for Scientific and Technological Research of San Luis Potos
(IPICyT), 78216 San Luis Potos, Mexico (e-mail: josefa.morales@ipicyt.edu.
mx; ilse@ipicyt.edu.mx).
U. Cano-Castillo is with the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Group, Institute for
Electrical Research (IIE), 62490 Cuernavaca, CP, Mexico (e-mail: ucano@iie.
org.mx).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TVT.2014.2336214

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

verters (conv,B , conv,FC ), and the inner efficiency of source

source , i.e.,

B
Battery
source =
FC Fuel Cell

Battery Charging
bc
B =
bd Battery Discharging

Fig. 1.

Electric powertrain.

the route preview for optimization purposes. Although these

works constitute important advances, most of them do not
account for unavoidable uncertainty in system modeling and,
of most importance, its consequences in the optimization. The
aim of this paper is along these lines.
In particular, in this paper, we analyze the effect of parametric uncertainty in the fuel consumption minimization problem
in an electric powertrain constituted of a battery bank and a
PEMFC. To the authors knowledge, this approach has not been
analyzed before in such detail. To this end, we depart from an
unknown traction model and an unknown objective function
and driving cycle, to analyze the limitations in finding the real
optimum. In particular, if the nominal value and an upper/lower
bound of the parameter uncertainty are available, the conditions
that ensure the coincidence of the nominal and real optimal
solution are stated. To overcome the limitations that inevitably
impose the design of the powertrain and the presence of uncertainty in the solution of the optimal solution, optimalheuristic
supervisory control is proposed. The proposed strategy has
the advantage of being feasible for implementation since the
optimal solution can be analytically found, and it is based on
a discrete-time description of the system. Theoretical analysis
and numerical simulations allow us to evaluate the performance
of the strategy for a variety of driving cycles, initial conditions,
and ESS/FC sizes.
This paper is organized as follows: The used models and the
uncertain optimization problem are introduced in Section II.
The computation of the optimal solution is given in Section III,
and the supervisory control and its dynamics are analyzed in
Section IV. Numerical simulations that demonstrate our theoretical findings are shown in Section V, and finally, Section VI
summarizes the main contribution of this paper and presents
some conclusions.
II. S YSTEM D ESCRIPTION AND P ROBLEM S TATEMENT
Let us consider an electric vehicle with the powertrain given
in Fig. 1. The vehicle uses energy from a PEMFC and/or from a
battery bank with the help of two dcdc links, i.e., one for each
energy source. Such configuration allows for the control of the
shared power and its rate of change.
The electric power demand of the vehicle depends on various factors: 1) mechanical factors, i.e., the vehicle dynamics
and the efficiency of the movement transmission given by
the mechanical design of the vehicle; 2) electrical factors,
i.e., the motor and driver efficiencies, the efficiency of con-

and finally, 3) driving conditions. That is, for a given vehicle,

the road conditions, the motor characteristics, and the driver
requirements fix at every time, a time-varying power demand
that must be satisfied by the powertrain. Hence, in Fig. 1,
we have
B [k] + PFC [k]
FC [k]
Pload [k] = PB [k]

(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] =

N MH2 IFC [k]

2F

(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:

SOC[k] SOCmax 0 with SOCmax 1

SOCmin SOC[k] 0 with SOCmin > 0

(4)
(5)

SOC[k + 1] + c1 IB [k] = SOC[k] with c1 > 0

IB [k] IB,max 0 with IB,max > 0

(6)
(7)

IB,max IB [k] 0
PFC [k] PFC,max 0 with PFC,max > 0

(8)
(9)

PFC,min PFC [k] 0 with PFC,min > 0

PFC [k] PFC,max 0 with PFC,max > 0

(10)
(11)

PFC,min PFC [k] 0 with PFC,min < 0

(12)

1718

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 64, NO. 5, MAY 2015

The criteria used when designing the BoP of an FC also

include avoiding the power plant system to go to the masstransfer-limited region, as the system may reach a limiting
current that may decrease the performance of the FC power
plant, taking it to off-specification conditions [29], [30]. Based
on such arguments, it is reasonable to exclude mass-transferlimited and activation zones from the FC operation, and therefore, FC power can be expressed as


(13)
a1 IFC [k] + b1
PFC [k] = IFC [k]VFC [k] = IFC [k] 

Fig. 2. Schematics of a typical PEMFC polarization curve.

where SOC[k] is the state of charge (SOC) of the battery bank,

PFC [k] is the power supplied by the FC, and PFC [k] is the
rate of change on PFC [k]. Notice that a discrete time k is used to
describe the time evolution of the system. Observe that since the
restrictions must be satisfied at every k > 0, 1) they can be seen
also as terminal restrictions, and 2) they can be consistently
time shifted without detriment.
Furthermore, restrictions (4) and (5) constitute restrictions
over battery SOC, such that the battery cannot be depleted beyond SOCmin or charged beyond SOCmax , whereas restriction
(6) relates the battery current with the battery SOC and constitutes a discrete version of the Coulomb counting model where
c1 = (T /C)[=]A1 , with T as the discretization rate and
C as the capacity of the battery (usually given in Ah). Equation
(6) constitutes a dynamical restriction given by the battery inner
dynamics, since it defines the admissible trajectories of the
battery SOC. Restrictions (7) and (8) are restrictions over the
current battery such that the current cannot exceed an absolute
maximum. Restrictions (9) and (10) constitute the limits of
the operating power range for the FC, whereas (11) and (12)
constitute the limits of the FCs power change rate.
To express restrictions (4)(12) as a function of IFC , consider
the following arguments. The polarization curve is used to
express the voltage of the FC as a function of the its current
[i.e., VFC = g(IFC )] [28]. In general, a polarization curve is
comprised of three regions (see Fig. 2). In the first region, at
low currents and high voltages, current losses are related with
the required energy to initialize the reaction (activation zone
or open-circuit zone). In the second region, current losses are
mainly attributed to the ohmic resistance of the electrolyte resistivity and the external resistance of electrodes and connections
(linear or ohmic region). In the third region, located at high
currents and low voltages, the behavior is limited by the mass
transfer rate (mass-transfer-limited zone).
An FC is normally comprised of an FC stack, which is
actually the power plant, plus the auxiliary components that
integrate the balance of plant (BoP). Such components consume
a certain amount of current to operate, which can be supplied
either by the FC or from an auxiliary battery. In the first
case, current consumption typically moves the voltage of the
FC away from the open-circuit value. Additionally, the powerconditioning stage also draws some current from the FC before
it is delivered to the load with an additional voltage shift from
open circuit.

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)

From (1) and (13), we have

IB [k] =

2
a1 FC [k]IFC
[k] b1 FC [k]IFC [k]
Pload [k] + 
(15)
B [k]VB [k]

where VB [k] is the battery voltage. Therefore, using (14) and

(15), the SOC restrictions can be rewritten as
2

a1 FC [k]IFC
[k] + b1 FC [k]IFC [k] + g1 0
2

a1 FC [k]IFC [k] b1 FC [k]IFC [k] + g2 0

(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] +

whereas restriction (7) becomes

2

a1 FC [k]IFC
[k] b1 FC [k]IFC [k] + q1 0
2

a1 FC [k]IFC [k] + b1 FC [k]IFC [k] + q2 0

(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)

where PFC,min [k] = max{PFC,min , PFC [k1] + PFC,min },

and PFC,max [k] = min{PFC,max , PFC [k 1] + PFC,max }.
To see clearly the derivation of (20) and (21), let us consider (11); when such restriction is active, it can be rewritten as PFC [k] = PFC [k 1] + PFC,max = 0; however, since
PFC [k] cannot be larger than PFC,max , the lower of both would
be the active restriction PFC,max [k] = min{PFC,max , PFC [k
1] + PFC,max }. Using the same procedure, a lower restriction
of the power demand can be derived. Restrictions (16)(21) can
also be rewritten as
h (IFC [k]; [k]) 0

(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]

with Lmax [k] = max{((SOC[k]SOCmax )5 [k]VB [k]/1 ),

a1 [k], b1 [k], FC [k], B [k],
IB,max VB [k]5 }, = (c1 [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).

as long as the objective function has terms that include a state

deviation from a reference, there exist conditions (i.e., when the
reference is achieved) where the objective function is reduced
to that previously given. In Section II-A, we will see that one
of the effects of parametric uncertainty is that of further restricting the set where the optimization is possible; if additional
terms were used to formulate the optimization problem under
uncertainty, the results would necessarily be more restricted.
Therefore, the pertinence of the optimization problem under
uncertainty may not be evident. In Section V, we provide
evidence that for some objective functions, the optimization
problem formulation with uncertainty is totally pointless.
III. S OLUTION OF THE N OMINAL F UEL C ONSUMPTION
M INIMIZATION P ROBLEM AND THE
U NCERTAIN O PTIMIZATION P ROBLEM
As a first step in analyzing the role of the parametric
uncertainty in the optimization problem, let us consider the
unconstrained minimization problem of (3). In this case, it is
clear that the solution of the uncertain and certain cases is the
same, since the parameter uncertainty only appears multiplying
the objective function. That is, the objective function will have a
minimum at IFC [k] = 0 (i.e., the fuel consumption is null) irrespective of the value of parameter c. In other words, multiplying
uncertainty has no effect on the unconstrained optimization
problem as long as it occurs in the objective function and the
sign is preserved. However, the restrictions are strongly affected
by uncertain terms. To clarify these statements, let us define the
following variables from (1):
B [k] = [k]Pload [k]
PB [k]
FC [k] = (1 [k]) Pload [k]
PFC [k]

2
[k] + 3 [k]4 IFC [k].
Pload (1 [k]) = 2 [k]4 [k]IFC

Using these equations, it is possible to simplify (22) and (23) as

f ([k]; [k]) 0
where

1 This

is to conserve the convexity property of the objective function.

(25)
(26)

where 0 [k] 1. Equations (25) and (26) mean that if [k] = 1,

all the power required by the load is provided by the battery, and
if [k] = 0, all the power is provided by the FC; therefore

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]

[k] + 1 6 [k]4 [k]

Pload [k]

[k] 1 + 7 [k]4 [k]

Pload [k]

[k]

[k] 1
[k]

(27)

(28)

Assume the existence of the following two sets:

uncertain = {[k]|f ([k]; [k]) 0}
nom = {[k]|f ([k]; ) 0}

(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

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 64, NO. 5, MAY 2015

Fig. 4. Election of the nominal value of parameters to satisfy real (unknown)

restrictions.

Fig. 3. Optimization restrictions for SOC[k] = SOCmax . The feasible

region is constituted by the set that simultaneously satisfies all restrictions
(shaded region).

and uncertain constrained minimization problems do not exist.

Let us denote such solutions as min and min , respectively.
Let us compute the solution of the NFCMP ( min ). The
relative simplicity of the problem allows us to illustrate the
solution as a function of the power demand Pload [k], since its
solution must belong to the optimization feasible set, that is, the
set where all the restrictions are satisfied.
In view of (28), the restrictions of both the battery and the
FC are dynamical, i.e., changing at every instantk. Letfi , i = 1,
. . . , 6, be the elements of (28). The active restrictions f1 =
0 and f2 = 0 are [k] = (Lmax [k]/Pload [k]) and [k] =
Lmin [k]/Pload [k], which depend on SOC[k] and IB,max . Both
equations are plotted in Fig. 3 as curves A and B, respectively,
for SOC[k] = SOCmax . The larger the SOC level and IB,max ,
the larger [k] is allowed for a given current demand. This
means that as battery discharges, the maximum allowable value
of [k] decreases, and more fuel is consumed since the battery
is less used. Restrictions f3 = 0 and f4 = 0 are depicted by
curves D and C, respectively, whereas the dotted line represents
the actual discharging battery curve (dynamical). Observe that
the solution of the nominal optimization problem is only feasible in the shaded region, where restrictions from the battery and
the FC are satisfied. Since the solution of the restricted problem
is coincident with the boundary of the feasible set, the solution
must be at the boundary having the largest value of [k], as
the fuel consumption decreases as [k] increases. That is, the
solution is the curve of the minimum FC power restriction (f4 ),
and for the low SOC level, it is given by restriction (f2 ).
An advantage of the given analysis is that the solution of
the optimization problem (NFCMP) can be directly observed
in Fig. 3, that is, the solution moves along line C (minimum
FC power) until the discharge curve of the battery intersects
line C, for a low SOC value. At this point, the power split
moves along the SOC or current battery restriction, until it
intersects the curve of the maximum FC power (curve D). In
Fig. 3, it is also possible to observe the existence of a maximum
power demand Popt,max for which power share is feasible. The
distance Popt,max PFC,max FC [k] depends on battery SOC
and the maximum current that can be discharged. In general,
Popt,max PFC,max FC [k], being Popt,max = PFC,max FC [k]

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)

Such bounds are shown in Fig. 4. Now, let us define the

following sets:
(34)
nom = {[k]|nom,min [k] nom,max }
nom = {[k] = nom,max [k] = nom,min } (35)
with
max,min real,max max,max
min,min real,min min,max .

(36)
(37)

Notice that uncertain nom = is a necessary condition

for min = min ; otherwise, the solutions may belong to two

MORALES-MORALES et al.: ON THE DESIGN OF ROBUST ENERGY MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR FCHEV

1721

different and disconnected sets. If

nom,max = max,min
nom,min = min,max

(38)
(39)

then uncertain nom (see Fig. 4). Now, recall from

Section III that the solution of the optimization problem resides
at the boundary of the feasible set, that is, min uncertain
while min nom . This means that as long as the uncertainty exists, the solutions of the UFCMP and NFCMP will
not match. Moreover, there exists a maximum uncertainty
bound such that the optimization is worthy (i.e., nom,max <
nom,min ); beyond this limit, the feasible region is null. This
point is illustrated in Section V.
In other words, since the solution of the optimization problem lies along the curve of minimum power of the FC, the
solutions of UFCMP and NFCMP never coincide; therefore,
the best that it can be obtained from the EMS is to satisfy the
restrictions of the real (uncertain) system, while guaranteeing
a minimum fuel saving for such scenario. At this point, two
observations are in order: First, the solution of the NFCMP
will depend on the bounds of the parametric uncertainty,
particularly that of the minimum power of the FC and the
battery parameters, as seen in Section III. Second, (38) and (39)
must be satisfied by the nominal parameters to satisfy the real
(uncertain) restrictions. That is, the nominal parameters must
 + or =
 , where
 is
be chosen as either =
the estimated parameter, such that (38) and (39) are satisfied.
Equations (38) and (39) constitute the worst case of uncertainty,
and therefore, the real restrictions are satisfied (see Fig. 4). In
view of these facts, the word robust for an optimal-based EMS
must be understood as a guarantee to obtaining minimum fuel
saving, for a given uncertain parameter scenario.
Remark 4: Due to uncertainty, the real operation restrictions
(24) [alternately, (23)] naturally impose limitations on the EMS,
such that optimization cannot be directly applied outside the
feasible region. Therefore, in this paper, we propose the use
of supervisory control constituted of optimization and heuristic
rules (see Section IV) that allow the operation of the powertrain, even when optimization is not possible. This situation
is remarkably different from the no-uncertainty case, where
the use of heuristic rules may not be necessary. The EMS is
summarized in the flowcharts in Figs. 5 and 6.
IV. S UPERVISORY C ONTROL
In view of the results in Section III, the design of the propulsion system inherently limits the optimized values of . The
larger ESS capacity, larger IB,max , and smaller PFC,min , the
larger the feasible region, and the more fuel is economized. This
point is illustrated in Section V. Moreover, in view of Remark 4,
a heuristic-based strategy is proposed for the cases where
optimization is not possible. The modes of the supervisory
control proposed are stated in Table I.
In this table, Paux is the power consumed by the auxiliary
systems of the BoP of the FC, = 1 (PFC,max FC /Pload ),
reg accounts for the regeneration mode, and drop accounts
for the energy-dropping mode (i.e., when the energy from

Fig. 5. Proposed EMS.

Fig. 6. Supervisory control structure.

regenerative braking cannot be stored and the excess must be

dropped); moreover, PFC,lim is the upper limit of safe operation
of the FC. Notice that in Modes 5, 8, and 9, the power balance
may not be satisfied since the energy is dropped or may not be
enough to satisfy the load.
The supervisory control has nine operation modes with
switching conditions also stated in Table I. Notice that
1) Mode 0 is required to prevent FC from operating in the
activation zone, as stated in Section II and that 2) Mode 1
is the solution of the unconstrained real optimization problem
(i.e., mH2 = 0); it has been designed this way to reduce the
fuel consumption. Most of the fuel savings that come from the
use of the heuristic rules are due to this mode of operation.
3) Modes 2, 4, and 6 are emergency operation modes designed
to provide power under extreme circumstances; the operation
of the vehicle in these modes is not desirable, but it may be
necessary to provide operation. 4) The supervisory control is
well defined, since no concurrence of modes can be given and
since a control action is always specified for any Pload .
Moreover, the stability of the supervisory control is guaranteed by the following facts: 1) No chattering can occur given

1722

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 64, NO. 5, MAY 2015

TABLE I
M ODES OF THE S UPERVISORY C ONTROL

the discrete-time nature of the control; 2) the values of [k] are

upper and lower bounded; and 3) the rate of change of [k] is
also upper and lower bounded. Facts 2) and 3) guarantee that the
trajectories described by the supervisory control are positively
invariant in 0 [k] 1.

time k, computation of the power bounds PFC,min and PFC,max

must be performed depending on power demand. To evaluate
the performance of the EMS, let us define the fuel economy
(FE) as follows:
FE =

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

[k] mH2 [k]

100%
mH2 ,F C [k]

2 ,F C

(40)

where the summation is performed over the entire driving cycle

for comparison purposes since instantaneous fuel saving does
not necessarily imply a good performance for the entire cycle,
i.e., ns is the total number of samples of the driving cycle, and
mH2 ,F C [k] is the hydrogen consumed by the vehicle if only
the FC were used to provide the power. The FE term previously
defined is different from that used by vehicle producers or
the Environmental Protection Agency. The given FE definition
intends to measure the fuel savings from an extreme scenario,
where the FC provides all the power, i.e., where the battery bank
is depleted (see [19]).
Finally, let us point out the following. Three scenarios of
c1 , 2 =
uncertainty are analyzed. Scenario (i) 1 = 0.1


FC , 5 = 0.1
B , 6 =
0.1
a1 , 3 = 0.1b1 , 4 = 0.1
 is the estimated
0.1PFC,max , 7 = 0.1PFC,min , where x
value of x (i.e., the uncertainty bound constitutes 10% of
c1 , 2 =
the estimated value). Scenario (ii) 1 = 0.2


FC , 5 = 0.2
B , 6 =
0.2
a1 , 3 = 0.2b1 , 4 = 0.2
0.2PFC,max , 7 = 0.2PFC,min (i.e., the uncertainty bound
constitutes 20% of the estimated value) and the no-uncertainty
case. The uncertainty scenarios were chosen as follows. First,
we estimated the larger parameter variation within the set of
parameters under wide operation conditions, which based on
experiments, such estimation was of 19.8% (the parameter
corresponds to the slope of the polarization curve). Then, we
chose scenarios (i) and (ii) as possible (but arbitrary) cases of
uncertainty for the parameters , according to our experiments.
The effect of the parameters PFC,max [k] and PFC,min [k] on
the FE can be better observed in Section V-D and E, where
the effects of the powertrain design and the driving cycles are
analyzed. The nominal parameters that satisfy (38) and (39)


a1 + a1 , b1 + b1 , 
 
B ,
are the following: 
c1 c1 , 
B

MORALES-MORALES et al.: ON THE DESIGN OF ROBUST ENERGY MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR FCHEV

Fig. 7.

1723

Time evolution of the EMS for City II driving cycle; SOC[0] = 1.



PFC,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.

current SOC and the reference value (SOCref ). In Fig. 8, J1

is the objective function (3), whereas J2 = (SOC SOCref )2
is the equivalent fuel consumption of the battery, as defined
in [18]. In Fig. 8, it is shown how the FE is reduced with
the inclusion of the equivalent fuel consumption term, even
for the no-uncertainty case. Hence, if such a term was used
to formulate the optimization problem under uncertainty, the
results would necessarily be more restricted (i.e., the FE would
be smaller). For some values of K (the gain of the equivalent
consumption term), the optimization problem formulation with
uncertainty is totally pointless.
Finally, observe in Fig. 7 that larger uncertainty bounds result
in an increased fuel consumption; this is due to the more strict
restrictions that must satisfy the optimization problem.

1724

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 64, NO. 5, MAY 2015

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.

B. Size of the Feasible Region

As discussed in Section II-A, since [k] is a scalar, the
feasible region is an interval; therefore, the length of such an
interval is denoted as [k]. Such an amount is a measure of
the size of the feasible region and provides us with information
about the convenience of the optimization usage. In Fig. 9, it is
possible to observe the time evolution of [k] as a function of
the uncertainty bound. It can be observed that as the uncertainty
bounds increase, the feasible region decreases. This behavior
leads us to infer the existence of a maximum uncertainty bound
that makes worthy the optimization process. Notice that the
restriction of the maximum current of the battery leads to an
increment of the use of FC; the current peaks of the FC are
naturally limited by FC restrictions related with the maximum
and minimum rate of change of the FC power (11) and (12).

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.

Fig. 12. FE as a function of PFC,min , different battery capacities and

different current restrictions for City II driving cycle SOC[0] = 1.

C. Effect of the Initial Conditions

As previously discussed, the size of the feasible region
depends on the initial conditions of the battery SOC as well. In
Fig. 10 (left), the time evolution of the size of the feasible region
for the City II driving cycle and SOC[0] = 0.26 is displayed
(SOCmin = 0.25). It can be observed that the size is considerably smaller than that displayed in Fig. 9 since for some
instants, [k] = 0. This behavior induces an adverse effect
on the incidence of optimization in the supervisory control.
The incidence of optimization is the number of times that the
optimization is used in the whole driving cycle or, equivalently,
the number of times that the size of the feasible region is

Fig. 13. Driving cycles.

different from the null set. In other words, as the battery

becomes depleted, the optimization process is not worthy.
D. Effect of the Powertrain Design
It has been established that the incidence of the optimization
depends on the size of the feasible region, but there exists also

1726

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 64, NO. 5, MAY 2015

Fig. 14. FE and size of the feasible region as a function of PFC,min and uncertainty bounds.

a correspondence between the prevalence of the optimization

with the design of the powertrain. To clarify this statement, let
us define the average feasible region as the arithmetic average
of [k] along the driving cycle (average ). Fig. 11 shows the
FE, the average size of the feasible region, and the incidence of
optimization as a function of the FC size (PFC,min ). It can be
observed that as PFC,min becomes larger, the incidence of the
optimization decreases, making the optimization worthy only
for low values PFC,min (this is also true for other driving cycles
as we will see later in Section V-E). Notice that the decrement
of optimization incidence implies a corresponding increment in
the incidence of the heuristic rules. Observe that fuel savings
can be obtained for both optimization and heuristic rules;
however, in contrast to optimization, the use of heuristic rules
may imply a critical operation of the FC, since no guarantee
exists for the satisfaction of the operation restrictions (e.g.,
Modes 2, 4, and 6 in Table I, which are emergency operation
modes).
On the other hand, the size of the battery has also a significant
effect on the FE. In general, slower dynamics (i.e., large values
of battery capacity C) lead to increased fuel economies in the

optimization process; this is due to the availability of battery

energy. As C decreases (i.e., c1 decreases), the feasible region
becomes smaller, and the FE decreases, as shown in Fig. 12.
In this figure, the capacities were obtained using a serial array
of nine batteries of capacities C = 110 Ah and C = 138 Ah,
respectively, which nominally have a maximum current restriction of IB,max = 150 A. Notice that the same phenomenon of
obtaining lower fuel economies is present at the same battery
capacity but with the presence of a more astringent maximum
current restriction of the battery (see Fig. 12).
E. Effect of the Driving Cycle
It is known that the powertrain of the vehicle has to be
designed according to the expected driving cycle. In particular,
for optimization purposes, such a design must be thought to
obtain a reasonable large feasible set. The parameters of the
powertrain in the previous sections correspond to a design for
the City II power demand; then, some differences in the FE
are expected for other driving cycles. Here, we explore the
differences on the FE when the HWFET, UDDS, and NEDC

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

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 64, NO. 5, MAY 2015

[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.

Ilse Cervantes (AM03SM07) received the Ph.D.

degree in applied mathematics and control from the
Universidad Autnoma Metropolitana, Mexico City,
Mexico.
She is currently an Associate Professor with the
Institute for Scientific and Technological Research of
San Luis Potos (IPICyT), San Luis Potos, Mexico.
She is the author/coauthor of more than 100 journal
and conference papers. Her current interests include
control applications to vehicular systems and hybrid
control.
Dr. Cervantes has served as the Editor-in-Chief for the Mathematical Problems in Engineering Special Issue on Control, Analysis and Modelling of Vehicular Systems (2014) and an Associate Editor for the IEEE T RANSACTIONS
ON P OWER E LECTRONICS Special Issue on Transportation Electrification and
Vehicle Systems (2013) and the IEEE J OURNAL OF E MERGING AND S E LECTED T OPICS IN P OWER E LECTRONICS Special Issue on Transportation
Electrification.

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.