Data‐Driven Prediction of Li‐Ion Battery and PEM Fuel Cell Performance Degradations for Balanced Optimal Energy Management of Electrified Propulsion Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the increasing pace of commercialization, the proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) system‐powered fuel cell electric vehicles/vessels (FCEVs) present a highly efficient, zero tailpipe emission propulsion solution. A battery energy storage system (BESS) is normally integrated with the PEMFC system to improve its performance, energy efficiency and operational life. However, both the PEMFC system and the BESS suffer from relatively short operation life and high replacement costs. Optimal energy management strategies (EMSs) become essential to improve their working conditions, thus extending their working life based on their distinct performance degradation behaviours and achieving the minimum lifecycle costs (LCCs). Extending from the present static modelling approach, this research introduces three new methods for dynamically updating the performance and degradation models of lithium‐ion (Li‐ion) batteries and PEMFCs using real‐time operation data of a fuel cell–battery hybrid electric propulsion system. The combined methods more accurately capture the performance and capability of each specific fuel cell hybrid propulsion system’s BESS and PEMFC system. This enables precise performance tracking, degradation assessment and optimal energy management. A new integrated approach to the hybrid electric propulsion system’s component sizing design optimization and optimal energy management is introduced using these new modelling schemes, minimizing the LCC by balancing the propulsion system performance, fuel economy and the BESS and PEMFC system degradations. These modelling and optimization methods are applied to a medium‐sized vehicle and passenger ferry to produce the optimal fuel cell–battery hybrid propulsion system design and EMS to strike the best balance between fuel efficiency and the PEMFC and BESS operation life.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".