A Comparative Study of Energy Management Schemes for a Fuel-Cell Hybrid Emergency Power System of More-Electric Aircraft
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a comparative analysis of different energy management schemes for a fuel-cell-based emergency power system of a more-electric aircraft. The fuel-cell hybrid system considered in this paper consists of fuel cells, lithium-ion batteries, and supercapacitors, along with associated dc/dc and dc/ac converters. The energy management schemes addressed are state of the art and are most commonly used energy management techniques in fuel-cell vehicle applications, and they include the following: the state machine control strategy, the rule-based fuzzy logic strategy, the classical proportional–integral control strategy, the frequency decoupling/fuzzy logic control strategy, and the equivalent consumption minimization strategy. The main criteria for performance comparison are the hydrogen consumption, the state of charges of the batteries/supercapacitors, and the overall system efficiency. Moreover, the stresses on each energy source, which impact their life cycle, are measured using a new approach based on the wavelet transform of their instantaneous power. A simulation model and an experimental test bench are developed to validate all analysis and performances.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".