PERFORMANCE SIMULATION OF PEM FUEL CELL POWERTRAINS

FOR ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES (ATVs)

MOHAMMAD ARQAM

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

PERFORMANCE SIMULATION OF PEM FUEL CELL POWERTRAINS

FOR ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES (ATVs)

MOHAMMAD ARQAM

A project report submitted in partial fulfilment of the

requirements for the award of the degree of

Master of Science (Mechanical Engineering)

Faculty of Mechanical Engineering

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

JANUARY 2017

ii

“This thesis is dedicated to my father for his endless love, support and

encouragement”

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

In the name o f Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

Praise be to Allah (S.W.T.) and His blessings be on Prophet Muhammad

(peace be upon him), his progeny and Companions. Foremost, I would like to

express my sincere gratitude to the supervisor Prof. Azhar Bin Abdul Aziz for the

continuous support of my Project study and work, for his patience, motivation,

enthusiasm, and immense knowledge. His guidance helped me in all the time of

research and writing of this thesis. I could not have imagined having a better

supervisor for project.

I would also like to extend my thanks to my beloved uncle, Prof. Abdul

Khaliq (KFUPM) who has acted in almost an unofficial supervisor role giving me

support and advice (constructive).

I’d also like to thank all my friends of UTM who have helped me to keep my

sanity. The years of fun and laugher have definitely made this period much more

eventful and special thanks have to go to M Saad Bin Arif, Fawad and Arbab, who

have always been there to support me through our various adventures.

And last but by all means not least, I would like to thank the support of my

parents and family. It’s thanks to them that I was able to come to UTM and they

were very supportive of my choice of staying in academia.

iv

ABSTRACT

Fuel cell hybrid vehicles (FCVs) including batteries and fuel cell are being

studied. In hybridisation of fuel cell the consideration of fuel economy, efficiency,

emissions and characteristics of power output are necessary. Hybridization allows

the size of the fuel cell is to be reduced by using a battery and an Ultracapacitor, and

it is beneficial when the power demand is high, like with higher loads or

acceleration, and it permits the fuel cell system to be operated more efficiently. In

association with the above, the cost of vehicle can be reduced by reducing the cost of

expensive fuel cell. When the power demand is low, the fuel cell will provides the

required power. Battery and Ultracapacitor will assist in fast start up of the fuel cell

and allows capture of the regenerative energy. This study deals with the comparison

between two powertrain strategies for the All-Terrain Vehicles (ATVs): a Fuel Cell-

Battery powertrain strategy and a Fuel Cell-Battery-Ultracapacitor powertrain

strategy. A methodology of modeling hybrid vehicle configurations with three

energy devices in Advanced Vehicle Simulator (ADVISOR) 2003 was developed.

The vehicle models, including the ATV (golf cart) physical model, the ATV Fuel

Cell (FC) system of 4.8 kW, and the power bus of the Fuel Cell-Battery-

Ultracapacitor powertrain, were programmed in MATLAB/Simulink. Large scale

simulations were run in order to find the optimized powertrain strategy. The cost

function in this study considered the acceleration performance, gradeability,

hydrogen consumption, and powertrain cost. According to the cost function, FC-BT

vehicle powertrain cost is 7% less than the cost of FC-BT-UC powertrain and 10%

less than the pure FC vehicles.

v

ABSTRAK

Fuel cell hybrid vehicles (FCVs) termasuk bateri dan sel minyak telahpun

dikaji. Didalam penghibridan sel minyak, pertimbangan terhadap ekonomi minyak,

efisiensi, pelepasan dan ciri-ciri output kuasa adalah perlu. Penghibridan

membenarkan pengecilan saiz sel minyak menggunakan satu bateri dan kapasitor dan

ia bermanfaat apabila kuasa permintaan tinggi, dengan tekanan atau pecutan yang

tinggi dan ia membenarkan sistem sel minyak untuk beroperasi dengan lebih efisien.

Berkaitan di atas, kos untuk kenderaan dapat dikurangkan dengan mengurangkan kos

sel minyak yang mahal. Apabila permintaan kuasa menjadi rendah, sel minyak akan

menyediakan kuasa. Bateri dan Ultra-kapasitor akan membantu dalam

mempercepatkan sel minyak da membenarkan penangkapan kuasa penjanaan semula.

Kajian ini berkait rapat dengan perbandingan antara dua strategi powertrain untuk

semua All-Terrain Vehicles (ATVs): satu strategi powertrain Fuel Cell-Battery dan

satu strategi powertrain Fuel Cell-Battery-Ultracapacitor. Satu metodologi tentang

konfigurasi untuk model kenderaan hybrid dengan tiga alatan tenaga telah

dibangunkan dalam Advanced Vehicle Simulator (ADVISOR) 2003. Model-model

kenderaan termasuklah model fizikal ATV (kereta golf), Sistem ATV Fuel Cell (FC)

dengan 4.8kW dan bas kuasa dengan powertrain Fuel Cell-Battery-Ultracapacitor

telah diprogramkan dalam Matlab/Simulink. Simulasi berskala besar telah dijalankan

untuk mencari strategi powertrain yang optimum. Fungsi kos dalam pengkajian ini

mempertimbangkan prestasi pecutan, gradeablility, penggunaan hydrogen dan kos

powertrain. Berkaitan fungsi kos, kos powertrain untuk kenderaan FC-BT is 7%

kurang daripada kos powertrain FC-BT-UC dan 10% kurang daripada kenderaan FC

yang asli.

vi

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

DECLARATION ii

DEDICATION iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv

ABSTRACT v

ABSTRAK vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS vii

LIST OF TABLES x

LIST OF FIGURES xi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xiv

LIST OF APPENDICES xv

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Problem Statement 3

1.3 Objectives of the Project 4

1.4 Scope of the Project 4

1.5 Flow chart of the Project 5

2 LITERATURE REVIEW 7

2.1 Introduction 7

2.2 Existing Configurations of FCEV Powertrain 7

2.3 Energy Devices in Powertrains 11

2.3.1 Fuel Cells 11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vii

2.3.1.1 Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel

Cell (PEMFC) 11

2.3.2 Batteries 12

2.3.3 Ultracapacitors 14

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 17

3.1 Introduction 17

3.2 Introduction of Advanced Vehicle Simulator

(ADVISOR) 19

3.2.1 ADVISOR 2003 19

3.2.2 ADVISOR Interface 19

3.2.3 Models in ADVISOR 20

3.3 Architecture of the ATV Powertrain 23

3.4 Vehicle Specifications 24

3.5 Component Sizing 26

3.5.1 Fuel Cell Sizing 26

3.5.2 Motor Sizing 27

3.5.3 Energy Storage System Sizing 29

3.5.3.1 Battery Sizing 30

3.5.3.2 Ultracapacitor Sizing 30

3.6 Component Modelling and Energy Management

Strategies 31

3.6.1 Modelling of Fuel Cell 31

3.6.1.1 Fuel Cell Operating Principle 31

3.6.1.2 Fuel Cell Operating Conditions 33

3.6.1.3 Fuel Cell Model in ADVISOR 33

3.6.1.4 Fuel Cell System Efficiency 34

3.6.1.5 Other Data for the Fuel Cell Model 37

3.6.1.6 Auxiliary Unit 38

3.6.2 Battery Model 39

3.6.3 Ultracapacitor Model 41

3.6.4 Energy Management Strategies 43

3.6.4.1 Fuel Cell Control 43

3.6.5 Power Bus Control 45

viii

3.6.5.1 Power Bus Control for FC-BT

System 45

3.6.5.2 Power Bus Control for FC-BT-UC

System 46

3.6.6 Transmission Shifting Strategy 51

3.7 Vehicle Models 52

4 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS 54

4.1 Introduction 54

4.2 Driving Cycles 54

4.3 Constraints on Decision Variables 56

4.4 Results Comparison of the FC-BT System and the

FC-BT-UC Systems 59

5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 67

5.1 Conclusions 67

5.2 Future Work 68

REFERENCES

Appendices A-B

69

72-93

ix

TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE

2.1 Battery performance and cost comparison Source [18] 12

2.2 Specifications of the Ni-MH battery pack [20]

2.3 Maxwell BCAP3000 specifications [22] 14

3.1 Vehicle specifications (Golf cart) 23

3.1 Vehicle specifications (Golf cart) 24

3.2 Vehicle Performance Constraints 25

3.3 Corresponding stoichiometric factors of certain currents of

the ATV FC system [28] 34

4.1 Simulation driving cycles parameters 53

4.2 Simulation variables and limits 54

4.3 Assumptions for the battery and Ultracapacitor 54

4.4 Cost(x) calculation example 55

4.5 Sum of squares ft of the currents with differenti: 57

4.6 Performance and cost comparison of the full-size vehicles 63

LIST OF TABLES

x

FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE

1.1 Project Flow Chart 5

2.1 FCEV Powertrain Layout: FC direct Supply Systems 7

2.2 FCEV Powertrain Layout: FC-BT Hybrid Systems 7

2.3 FCEV powertrain layout: FC-UC hybrid systems. 7

2.4 FCEV Powertrain layout: FC-BT-UC Hybrid Systems 7

2.5 Mark9 SSL™ PEM FC Stack 11

2.6 Complete assembly battery module 12

3.1 Schematic Flow Diagram of the Project Methodology 16

3.2 ADVISOR GUI: Vehicle Input Screen 18

3.3 ADVISOR backward facing approach 19

3.4 ADVISOR Fuel Cell Vehicle Block Diagram 20

3.5(a) FC-BT powertrain 21

3.5(b) FC-BT-UC Powertrain 22

3.6 Golf car Neighborhood Drive Cycle 23

3.7 2012 GEM eL Golf car [5] 24

3.8 Motor Characteristic Curve 26

3.9 Polarization fitted curve of a single Ballard PEM FC 30

3.10 Polarization curve of the 4.8 kW Ballard PEM FC stack 31

3.11 The FC Net Model in ADVISOR 32

3.12 FC system efficiency system efficiency vs. net FC power 34

3.13 Fuel consumption & Airflow rate vs. Stack current 35

3.14(a) Energy loss plot of the ATV with a 600W auxiliary unit 37

3.14(b) Energy loss plot of the ATV with a 200W auxiliary unit 37

3.15 Rint Model 39

LIST OF FIGURES

3.16

3.17

3.18

3.19

3.20

3.21(a)

3.21(b)

3.21(c)

3.21(d)

3.21(e)

3.22

3.23(a)

3.23(b)

4.1(a)

4.1(b)

4.1(c)

4.1(d)

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

4.10

xi

Battery Rint model in ADVISOR 39

Modified ultracapacitor model in ADVISOR 40

The empirical motor efficiency map in ADVISOR 41

Power bus of the FC-BT system 44

New power bus of the FC-BT-UC system 45

Ultracapacitor SOC history of the FC-BT-UC powertrain 47

Battery SOC history of the FC-BT powertrain. 47

Battery SOC history of the FC-BT-UC powertrain. 47

Battery current variation of the FC-BT powertrain 47

Battery current variation of the FC-BT-UC powertrain 48

Tractive forces vs. vehicle speed 49

Vehicle model of the FC-BT system in ADVISOR 50

Vehicle model of the FC-BT-UC system. 50

UDDS driving cycle 52

FTP driving cycle 52

Neighborhood electric vehicle driving cycle 1

(NEVDC1) 52

Neighborhood electric vehicle driving cycle 2

(NEVDC2) 53

Vehicle trace missed plot of the b20-ul0 vehicle with =

400 57

Battery current of the FC-BT and the FC-BT-UC vehicles

with c = 400 over NEVDC1 58

Battery current of the FC-BT and the FC-BT-UC vehicles

with f; = 600 over NEVDC 1 58

Battery current of the FC-BT and the FC-BT-UC vehicles

with l' = 800 over NEVDC 1 59

Battery current of the FC-BT and the FC-BT-UC vehicles

with ,l: = 1000 over NEVDC 1 59

Vehicle weights comparison 60

0 - 40 km/h acceleration times comparison 60

Gradeability at 15km/h comparison 61

100 km fuel consumption comparison 61

xii

4.11 Cost(x) comparison 62

xiii

ADVISOR - ADvanced VehIcle SimulatOR

ATV - All-Terrain Vehicle

ESS - Energy storage system

EV - Electric Vehicle

FC - Fuel Cell

FC-BT - Fuel Cell-Battery

FC-BT-UC - Fuel Cell-Battery-Ultracapacitor

HEV - Hybrid Electric Vehicle

IMA - Integrated Motor Assist (Honda)

IC - Internal Combustion (Engine)

Li-ion - Lithium ion

NEV - Neighborhood Electric Vehicle

NEVDC - Neighborhood Electric Vehicle Driving Cycle

Ni-MH - Nickel Metal hydride

NREL - U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Pb - Lead Acid

PEM - Proton Exchange Membrane (fuel cell)

PM - Permanent magnet (motor)

SLPM - Standard Liters per Minute

SOC - State of Charge

VW - Volkswagen

“bx-uy” - Energy storage system with number of x battery modules and

number of y Ultracapacitor cells

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

xiv

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX TITLE PAGE

A MATLAB Codes 72

B Hydrogen Economy 93

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The increasing number of vehicles on the road and the dependency on limited

non-conventional energy resources has raised questions about environmental issues

and sustainability. In developing countries like India and China automobile market is

booming, however in US and Europe the need for vehicle is increasing day by day.

China rushed past Japan to become worlds number two vehicle market after the

United States [1]. The first National Household Travel Survey of the 21st century

shows that the average of 1.9 personal vehicles is available to US household

although the driver per household is 1.8 percent [1]. This market trend shows that the

number of vehicles on the roads throughout the world is going to increase on a daily

basis.

The conventional energy supply system is causing the pollution of the

environment on the expense of depleting fossil fuel. This pollution includes

emissions of GHGs and other harmful chemicals. The excessive emission of GHGs

causing depletion of ozone layer of the atmosphere thereby increasing the

temperature of the atmosphere. The combustion of hydrocarbon fuels in IC engines

releases CO2 and water. Apart from this combustion products contain NOx, CO,

unburned hydrocarbons. It may ultimately cause smog, acid rain and degradation of

monuments. Carbon monoxide is poisonous to human being, it affects the mental

ability of the human being [2, 3]. Hence all of these pollutants pollute the atmosphere

and affecting the human beings in an adverse manner. The United States committed

2

to reducing the GHGs intensity by 18 percent over the 10 year period from 2002 to

2012 [1].

The conventional vehicle operating on ICE was developed in late 1800’s

which are running on gasoline and diesel. It is obvious that the increase in the

number of vehicles increases the world oil consumption. In order to reduce the

consumption of oil, hefty money and more efforts have been put together to improve

the fuel economy and reduce the GHG emissions. However this concept may not be

good to meet the energy requirement and the emission control in the near future.

One of the possible solutions to meet the energy requirement and emission

crises is the use of alternative fuel in place of the conventional fuels. The alternative

fuel is defined as any available non-conventional energy source such as methanol,

ethanol, chemically stored energy (batteries and fuel cells), Biomass, hydrogen, non­

fossil methane [2]. Another possible solution is the development of non-conventional

vehicle technologies such as electric vehicle, hybrid vehicles and fuel cell vehicles

[2].

Electric vehicles are those vehicles which use an electric motor for traction

and batteries, ultra-capacitor, supercapacitor as their corresponding energy sources.

The electric vehicle has many advantages over the conventional ICE vehicles such as

absence of emissions, higher efficiency and smooth operation. The range of

operation is the greatest concern regarding electric vehicles. The operation range per

battery charge of electric vehicle is less competitive than ICE due to the low energy

content of the batteries as compare to the high energy content of the gasoline [2].

Another problem associated with the EVs is recharging, these things make it

inconvenient for long distance travel.

Hybrid vehicles are those vehicles which have two or more energy resources

in order to propel the vehicle. These sources are normally ICE, an ESS (energy

storage system), an electric motor, etc. The combination of motor and ICE makes it

hybrid electric vehicle. A HEV includes the advantage of both electric and ICE

vehicles and somehow eliminates the disadvantages of both the engines up to a

3

certain extent but the complication in designing the power train configuration is

another issue associated with HEVs. The vehicles reduce the emissions but do not

eliminate them completely because whenever there is a combustion there should be

some emissions.

Fuel cell vehicles are those which incorporate the alternative fuel technology

and non-conventional propulsion technology. Hydrogen is used as the fuel and an

electric motor propels the vehicle. In today’s automotive industry most of the

research focuses on the development of FCVs [4]. The most demanding need of the

current scenario is clean, green, efficient and environmentally friendly transport

system. The current progress in Hybrid and fuel cell vehicle can be seen as a new age

of the automobile technology [2]. In the next two decade it is expected that the fuel

cell and hybrid vehicle will capture the market due to the fact that they are able to

deliver the same functionality at a higher fuel economy and low emissions [2, 4].

All-terrain vehicles (ATVs) defined by the American National Standard

Institute (ANSI) are those that design for off road use, travels on low pressure tyres

with a seat that straddled by the operator along with the handle bar for steering

control. ATVs are designed to handle a wider variety of terrain than other vehicles.

The current study focuses on golf cart (ATV). As the name suggest, Golf cart

applications are not limited to the golf driving range, but the same vehicles have

substantial demand at the malls, airports, hospital so and so forth. The standard golf

cart holds two to four people and their clubs [5].

1.2 Problem Statement

Fuel cell hybrid vehicles (FCVs) including batteries and fuel cell is being

studied. In hybridisation of fuel cell the consideration of fuel economy, efficiency,

emissions and characteristics of power output are necessary. Hybridization allows the

size of the fuel cell is to be reduced by using a battery and an Ultracapacitor, and it is

beneficial when the power demand is high, like with higher loads or acceleration, and

it permits the fuel cell system to be operated more efficiently. In association with the

4

above, the cost of vehicle can be reduced by reducing the cost of expensive fuel cell.

When the power demand is low, the fuel cell will provides the required power.

Battery will assist in fast start up of the fuel cell and allows capture of the

regenerative energy. This study deals with the comparison between two powertrain

strategies for All-Terrain vehicle (Golf cart): Fuel cell-Battery and a Fuel cell-

Battery-Ultracapacitor powertrain strategy. A methodology of modelling hybrid

vehicle configurations with three energy devices in ADVISOR, 2003 has developed.

The ATV physical model, the FC system and the power bus of the FC-BT-UC

powertrain were programmed in MATLAB/Simulink. The models then applied to the

simulation and comparison of the powertrain strategy. The cost function in this study

considered the hydrogen consumption, gradeability, acceleration performance and

powertrain cost.

1.3 Objectives of the Project

1. To undertake a computer simulation using an existing simulation tool to build

up hybrid FC powertrain models. Simulate the performance of each hybrid

powertrain and verify the feasibility of the hybrid FC power systems for

specific driving cycles.

2. Carry out comparison between two powertrain configurations by using

simulation results of acceleration time, gradeability, and fuel economy.

3. Determine an energy system strategy for the ATV based on comparison.

1.4 Scope of the Project

• Literature review

• Component sizing for each ESS to achieve the desired vehicle

performance

• ATV(Golf cart) general features, operations, and drive features

5

• Development of power distribution strategies for each powertrain

based on power, energy, efficiency of both battery and Ultracapacitor

• Provide a complete system recommendation necessary for

implementing the powertrain for ATV(Golf cart)

1.5 Flow chart of the Project

This section describes the schematic flow diagram of the project progress in

order to get the desired outcomes.

6

Figure 1.1 Project Flow Chart

REFERENCES

1. Jean, J., Simulation o f a hydrogen fueled hybrid vehicle using powertrain

system analysis toolkit, 2009, Texas Tech University.

2. Ehsani, M., Y. Gao, and A. Emadi, Modern electric, hybrid electric, and fu e l

cell vehicles: fundamentals, theory, and design. 2009: CRC press.

3. Ferguson, C.R. and A.T. Kirkpatrick, Internal combustion engines: applied

thermosciences. 2015: John Wiley & Sons.

4. Miller, J., P. Nicastri, and S. Zarei. The automobile power supply in the 21st

century. in Proc. Power Systems World Conf. Expo. 1998.

5. Alam, M., G olf Car Application Based Performance Analysis o f a Generic

Neighborhood Fuel Cell Vehicle (NFCV) Powertrain. Advances in

Automobile Engineering, 2014. 3(1): p. 1.

6. Bernard, Jerome, and Sebastien Delprat. "Fuel-cell hybrid powertrain:

toward minimization of hydrogen consumption." IEEE transaction on

vehicular technology 58 (2009): 3168-3176.

7. Ferreira, Andre, and P. Jose. "Energy management fuzzy logic supervisory

for electric vehicle power supplies system." IEEE transactions on power

electronics 23 (2008): 107-115.

8. Gao, Wenzhong. "Performance comparison of a fuel cell-battery hybrid

powertrain and a fuel cell-ultracapacitor hybrid powertrain." IEEE

transactions on vehiclular technology 54 (2005): 846-855.

9. Pede, G. and A. Iacobazzi. "FC vehicle hybridisation: an affordable solution

for an energy-efficient FC powered drive train." Journal o f power sources

125 (2004): 280-291.

10. Bauman, Jennifer. "A comparative study of fuel-cell-battery, fuel-cell-

ultracapacitor, and fuel-cell-battery-ultracapacitor vehicles." IEEE

transactions on vehicular technology 57 (2008): 760-769.

70

11. Sapienza, C. "Batteries analysis for FC-hybrid powertrain optimization."

International Journal o f hydrogen energy 33 (2008): 3230-3234.

12. Wipke, Keith, Matthew Cuddy, and Steven Burch. "ADVISOR 2.1: A user-

friendly advanced powertrain simulation using a combined

backward/forward approach." IEEE transactions on vehicular technology

(1999): 1751-1761.

13. K. Minjin and Young-Jun Sohn. "Fuzzy control based engine sizing

optimization for a fuel cell/battery hybrid mini-bus." Journal o f powerer

sources 178 (2008): 706-710.

14. Burke, Andrew. "Batteries and ultracapacitors for electric, hybrid, and fuel

cell vehicles." Proceedings o f the IEEE 95 (2007): 806-820.

15. Bauman, Jennifer. "A comparative study of fuel-cell-battery, fuel-cell-

ultracapacitor, and fuel-cell-battery-ultracapacitor vehicles." IEEE

transactions on vehicular technology 57 (2008): 760-769.

16. Mierlo, Joeri Van, Peter Bossche, and Gaston Naggetto. "Models of energy

sources for EV and HEV: fuel cells, batteries, ultracapacitors, flywheels and

engine-generators." Journal o f power sources 128 (2004): 76-89.

17. Iqbal Husain. 2003. Alternative Energy Sources. In Electric and hybrid

vehicles: design fundamentals, 81-94. Florida: CRC Press, LLC.

18. Battery space.com. 2007. "Comparison between NiMH, Lead Acid and Li-

Ion Battery at Similar Energy Level (360Wh)." (accessed October 26,

2009). Available at www.batteryspace.com/prod-specs/ComparisonPoly.pdf

19. Sears, Jesse. 2009. “Lithium Ion Vs. Ni-Mh Battery. ” Available at

www.ehow.com/about_5415114_lithium-ion-vs-nimh-battery.html

20. Insight Central: Honda Insight Forum. 2008. (accessed October 26, 2009).

Available at http://www.insightcentral.net/encyclopedia/enbattery.html

21. M. Ehsani, Y. Gao, S.E. Gay, and A. Emadi. 2010. Energy Storage. In

Modern Electric, Hybrid Electric, and Fuel Cell Vehicles: Fundamentals,

Theory, and Design, 299-332. Florida: Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.

22. Maxwell.com. 2007. "MC Energy Series BOOSTCAP Ultracapacitors."

(accessedFebruary28,2010).Availableatwww.maxwell.com/pdf/uc/datashee

ts/eol/MC_Cell_Energy_1009323_rev3.pdf

23. Lin, B., Conceptual design and modeling o f a fu e l cell scooter fo r urban

Asia. Journal of Power Sources, 2000. 86(1): p. 202-213.

71

24. Abd El Monem, A., A.M. Azmy, and S. Mahmoud, Dynamic Modelling o f

Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells fo r Electric Vehicle Applications.

Journal of Petroleum & Environmental Biotechnology, 2014.

25. Xiao, D., et al. Modeling and simulation fo r g o lf fu e l cell electric vehicle

control system. in Engineering and Technology (S-CET), 2012 Spring

Congress on. 2012. IEEE.

26. A. Brooker et al., ADVISOR Documentation (2002): National Renewable

Energy Lab., Apr. 30, 2002.

27. O’Hayre Ryan, Suk-Won Cha, Whitney Colella, and Fritz B. Prinz. 2006.

Fuel cell performance. In Fuel cell fundamental, 3-19. New Jersey: John

Wiley & Sons, INC

28. “Mark9 SSL™ Product Manual and Integration Guide.” (2006). Canada:

Ballard Power Systems Inc.

29. O’Hayre Ryan, Suk-Won Cha, Whitney Colella, and Fritz B. Prinz. 2006.

Fuel cell thermodynamics. In Fuel cell fundamental, 23-58. New Jersey:

John Wiley & Sons, INC

30. J. Van Mierlo, P. Van den Bossche, and G. Maggetto, “Models of energy

sources for EV and HEV: fuel cells, batteries, ultracapacitors, flywheels and

engine-generators.” Journal o f power sources (2003): 76-89

31. Rosario, Leon C. 2007. Power and energy management of multiple energy

storage systems in electric vehicles. PhD thesis, Cranfield University.

32. James Larminie and John Lowry. 2003. Electric machines and their

controllers. In Electric vehicle technology explained, 143-152. New Jersey:

John Wiley & Sons, INC