Performance comparison of two fuel cell hybrid buses with different powertrain and energy management strategies |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Department of Automotive Engineering, State Key Laboratory of Automotive Safety and Energy, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, PR China;2. Collaborative Innovation Center of Electric Vehicles in Beijing, PR China;3. Institute of Energy and Climate Research, IEK-3: Electrochemical Process Engineering, Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, 52425 Jülich, Germany;1. State Key Laboratory of Automotive Safety and Energy, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, PR China;2. Collaborative Innovation Center of Electric Vehicles, Beijing 100081, PR China;3. Institute of Energy and Climate Research, IEK-3: Electrochemical Process Engineering, Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, 52425 Jülich, Germany;1. School of Automotive Studies, Tongji University, China;2. Collaborative Innovation Center for Intelligent New Energy Vehicles, Tongji University, Shanghai, China;3. National Fuel Cell Vehicle & Powertrain System Research & Engineering Center, No. 4800, Caoan Road, Shanghai 201804, China;1. Department of Automotive Engineering, State Key Laboratory of Automotive Safety and Energy, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, PR China;2. Institute of Energy and Climate Research, IEK-3: Electrochemical Process Engineering, Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, 52425 Jülich, Germany;3. Collaborative Innovation Center of Electric Vehicles in Beijing, Beijing 100081, PR China;4. RWTH Aachen University, Modeling Electrochemical Process Engineering, 52062 Aachen, Germany;1. Center for Automotive Research, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43212, USA;2. Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43212, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | In order to assess the influences of different powertrain structures and energy management strategies on the performance of hybrid fuel cell buses (FCB), two buses (FCB A and FCB B) were constructed with a “energy hybrid structure” and “power hybrid structure”, respectively. Different energy management strategies were investigated based on analysis of the two systems. And the two buses were compared with each other in a bus cycle and constant speed testing. The Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Fuel Cell (PEMFC) in FCB A showed an advantage in fuel economy for it worked usually in the high efficient range of the PEMFC engine. The hydrogen consumption rate in the cycle testing was 7.9 kg/100 km and 9.8 kg/100 km for FCB A and FCB B, and in the 40 kmph constant speed testing it was 3.3 kg/100 km and 4.0 kg/100 km, respectively. The fuel economy could be improved when the hydrogen and air supply subsystems are optimized and controlled with an advanced algorithm. It could also benefit from a braking energy regeneration system. Compared with FCB A, the PEMFC in FCB B worked under unfavorable operation conditions because its working range was comparatively wide, and the power changing rate was relatively large from a statistical point of view, which resulted in performance recession of the PEMFC in FCB B. After a mileage of 7000 km, the output power of the PEMFC in FCB B was reduced by 10%, compared with 2.4% in FCB A. An advanced energy management strategy is necessary to split the power between the PEMFC and a battery suitable for long durability of a PEMFC. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
