IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 61, NO.
8, OCTOBER 2012
Evaluation of Energy Storage System Requirements
for Hybrid Mining Loaders
Antti Lajunen, Member, IEEE, and Jussi Suomela
AbstractThe objective of this paper is to evaluate tech-
nical requirements for electrochemical energy storage systems
(ESSs) in hybrid mining loaders. These requirements take into
account power and energy capacity, costs, life cycle, and safe-
ty-related requirements. The evaluation of the requirements is
based on the characteristics of the current energy storage tech-
nology and vehicle simulation results. The evaluation shows that
lithium-based batteries offer sufficient power and energy capacity;
meanwhile, the requirements for cost and cycle life durability
are dependent on the operating strategy and configuration of the
loader. In particular, the power-intensive duty cycle of a mining
loader can be challenging for batteries in terms of cycle life and
thermal management.
Index TermsBatteries, energy storage, mining loader, storage
requirements, ultracapacitors, work machine.
I. I NTRODUCTION
T HE development of energy storage technologies for hybrid
and electric vehicle applications has been a matter of
growing interest in recent years [1]. Currently, lithium-based
batteries can provide sufficient energy and power capacity, but
their use can be limited because of durability concerns and
high costs [2]. In heavy nonroad mobile machinery applica-
tions, technical requirements for energy storage durability and
reliability can be much more severe than in passenger vehicle
applications. Work machines, such as mining loaders, often
operate in harsh conditions, and their duty cycles are energy
and power intensive. For example, the lifetime of a battery
can be drastically shortened when there are high temperatures,
high currents, and high energy throughput [3]. Furthermore, in
professional use, work machines may be operated around the
clock; therefore, a high level of reliability is required.
During the last decade, research has been actively conducted
to define requirements for energy storage systems (ESS) and
batteries, particularly in vehicular applications [4], [5]. Using
batteries as the sole energy storage has been widely researched,
and there is a growing interest in improving the performance
characteristics of batteries for hybrid and electric vehicles [6],
[7]. A combination of two different types of energy storage
technologies, typically a battery and ultracapacitors, offers an
advantageous practical performance and reduced power de-
mands on the battery. Research has been actively carried out
Manuscript received December 1, 2011; revised March 6, 2012 and May 29,
2012; accepted June 21, 2012. Date of publication July 12, 2012; date of current
version October 12, 2012. This work was supported by the Multidisciplinary
Institute of Digitalization and Energy of Aalto University. The review of this
paper was coordinated by Prof. A. Khaligh.
A. Lajunen is with the School of Engineering, Aalto University, 00076 Aalto,
Finland (e-mail: antti.lajunen@aalto.fi).
J. Suomela is with the School of Electrical Engineering, Aalto University,
00076 Aalto, Finland (e-mail: jussi.suomela@aalto.fi).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TVT.2012.2208485
0018-9545/$31.00 2012 IEEE
3387
in this area for fuel cell vehicles [1], [8], [9], heavy hybrid
vehicles [10], [11], and for electric car applications [12], [13].
A hybrid ESS can be quite complex from the design point of
view, and it is not necessarily the most cost-effective solution.
However, it certainly offers advantages in terms of power ca-
pacity, high-current acceptance, and the extended lifetime of the
battery [14].
Very few research studies have been published in the area
of hybrid work machines and their specific impacts on ESS
requirements. In [15], a comprehensive performance analysis
was performed for a hydraulic excavator with different hybrid
topologies, but energy storage requirements were not consid-
ered, even if a cost comparison was presented. Most of the
published research work about heavy hybrid work machines is
focused on hybrid powertrain development [16], [17], control
strategy development [18], [19], or powertrain simulation [20],
[21]. It is generally known that energy storage has a very
important role in hybrid powertrain systems; therefore, it should
be one of the main research focus areas.
In this paper, the objective is to evaluate technical
requirements for electrochemical ESSs in series hybrid
loadhauldump-type underground mining loaders. This paper
is a continuation of the preliminary simulation study presented
in [22]. The impact of the ESS on the performance and cost
effectiveness of the loader is also analyzed. Lithium-ion type
batteries are used in this paper as the main energy storage
because they provide sufficient performance and because sev-
eral cell chemistries are available [1], [2]. Ultracapacitors are
evaluated as a part of a combined ESS with a battery pack.
II. R ESEARCH C ONTEXT AND M ETHOD
A. Description of the Underground Mining Loader
An important part of this paper is the simulation results that
were achieved with a hybrid-loader model. The model has been
developed in a research project at Aalto University. It is partly
based on a previously developed quasi-static series hybrid
vehicle simulation model [23], and the model has been verified
with the aid of Hardware-In-the-Loop measurements [24].
Simultaneously, a conventional loader model was developed
and validated with the data acquired in the real operating
conditions of an actual underground mining loader. The
conventional loader has a 90-kW diesel engine that delivers
power for an electronically controlled hydrostatic drive system
and work hydraulics (steering and bucket operation).
The research work was carried out by means of different sim-
ulation studies and a comprehensive analysis of the simulation
results. Fig. 1 shows the schematic component-level layout of
the hybrid loader that was modeled [25]. The hybrid system can
use three different power sources: a genset (enginegenerator),
3388 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 61, NO. 8, OCTOBER 2012
a battery pack, and an ultracapacitor unit. The battery pack and
ultracapacitors are connected to a dc link by dc/dc converters.
The front and rear electric drives and the electric drive for the
work hydraulics are powered from the dc link. The drive system
is electromechanical; in it, a two-mode transmission is placed
between the electric drive and the final drive in the front and
rear axles. The loader has a work hydraulic system in which
hoist cylinders and a dump cylinder are used for loading and
dumping the bucket.
The hybrid-loader model allows different ESS configurations
to be used and different energy management strategies. Three
different kinds of ESS configurations can be used: 1) one
battery pack; 2) two or more similar battery packs in parallel
or in series; and 3) a combination of one or more battery packs
and an ultracapacitor unit. The loader model can operate in
dieselelectric mode (without using energy storage), hybrid
mode, and electric mode. These model functionalities allow
different configurations of the ESS and strategic choices for
operation to be investigated, such as state-of-charge (SOC)
sustaining and depleting (plug-in hybrid) energy management
strategies. The simulations were carried out in a typical duty
cycle of the loader, which is about 700 m long and has eight
distinct phases of operation [22].
B. Energy Storage Modeling
The hybrid-loader simulation model was further developed
during this paper, particularly the ESS and hybrid system
control. With the aid of battery measurements, it was possible
to verify the performance of the battery model. Moreover, a
thermal model for the battery was developed that took the
cooling power requirement into account.
The battery model is based on the model developed for
the ADVISOR vehicle simulator software [26]. The original
internal resistance model was further developed to correspond
to the structure of the lithium-ion batteries used in this paper.
Two battery chemistries were used: lithium cobalt (Kokam) and
lithium titanate (Altairnano). The battery model was param-
eterized according to the data provided by the manufacturer.
The Kokam battery module was measured in laboratory con-
ditions to generate verification data for the battery model. The
simulated battery performance corresponded relatively well to
the measured performance. A thermal model, based on the
construction of the Kokam module, was developed for the
battery. The thermal parameters of the module were defined
on the basis of the measured temperature in different loading
conditions. The battery model has an air cooling system.
C. Evaluation Parameters
The required technical performance of the ESS is based on
the power and energy needed in a typical duty cycle of an under-
ground mining loader. The required power and energy capacity
of the ESS was then evaluated in relation to the performance
of the conventional loader. U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium
(USABC) has defined battery life-cycle requirement targets,
which are used here as a reference for life-cycle evaluations.
Even if those targets are defined for passenger vehicles, it is
assumed here that similar life-cycle requirements would also
be applicable for heavy hybrid mobile machine applications.
For cost estimations, currently commercially available ultraca-
TABLE I
PARAMETERS FOR C OST C ALCULATION
pacitors and lithium-ion batteries are used as the reference, but
predictions of future costs are also taken into account [2].
Table I shows the different parameters for cost and payback
calculation. Safety-related requirements are evaluated with re-
spect to the power loading demands imposed on the ESS.
The payback time for the hybrid system cost (including ESS)
was defined for three different battery cost scenarios: 1) $1500;
2) $1000; and 3) $500 per kilowatthour. Equation (1) was used
to define the work that needed to be done with the hybrid loader
to amortize the higher costs. The amount of work wHYB was
defined in terms of tons of material moved in the duty cycle
CESS + CCONV (fHYB 1)
wHYB = (1)
Cop_CONV Cop_HYB
where CESS is the initial costs of the ESS and Cop_CON V
and Cop_HY B are the operating costs for 1 t of material
moved for conventional and hybrid loaders, respectively. In this
evaluation, the operating costs are only based on the diesel and
electricity consumption.
III. H YBRID M INING L OADER D ESIGN
A. Design Parameters of the Mining Loader
The design of a hybrid powertrain for mobile machinery is a
complex task. One of the most challenging areas is the dimen-
sioning of the different components in the hybrid powertrain,
and particularly the dimensioning of the ESS [16]. Overdimen-
sioning of the engine or the fuel tank has not been a major
challenge in terms of costs and the expected lifetime of the
components. In the case of an ESS, incorrect dimensioning can
lead to, e.g., an unexpectedly short life, reduced performance,
or increased costs. The design of any hybrid system should
result in a compromise solution where the design targets are
in optimal balance. In the case of a work machine, such as an
underground mining loader, four principal design targets can be
defined:
performance
efficiency (energy and work efficiency)
costs (initial and operating costs)
reliability and safety (lifecycle durability)
In this context, the performance of the loader is defined as
its ability to work when important factors are: torque at low
speeds, controllability, driving speed, and operational availabil-
ity (e.g., delay resulting from the charging of the battery from
an external energy source).
B. Characteristics of Electrochemical Energy Storage
The ESS in a hybrid powertrain has a significant im-
pact on all the aforementioned design targets of the loader.
LAJUNEN AND SUOMELA: EVALUATION OF ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS FOR HYBRID MINING LOADERS
Fig. 1. Component-level layout of the hybrid-loader simulation model (GENSET = enginegenerator, AUX = auxiliary devices, AC/DC = ac/dc converter,
DC/DC = dc/dc converter, BR = brake resistor, UCAP = ultracapacitors, BATT = battery, FD = final drive, ED = electric drive, TX = transmission, and
HP = hydraulic pump).
TABLE II
P RINCIPAL T ECHNICAL DATA OF THE H YBRID L OADER
Currently, there is good knowledge about the performance of
electrochemical storage in terms of power and energy capacity,
and efficiency [5], [27]. However, estimations of the cost of
battery packs for heavy hybrid systems differ somewhat on
a large scale because of the current small production series
and the ongoing development of battery technologies [2].
Precise estimations of life-cycle durability can be quite hard
to make because of the lack of experience under real operating
conditions of the recently developed energy storage technolo-
gies. As mentioned in [3], full cycling use of a lithium-ion
battery increases cell impedance and reduces usable energy
capacity. Moreover, these kinds of aging effects are complex
and are not likely to be similar for different lithium-ion battery
chemistries.
Safety is obviously a very important concern in underground
mining, where no safety-related compromises can be accepted.
For example, in a closed environment, fire cannot be allowed
in any conditions. This limits the choice of battery chemistries
away from those that are vulnerable to thermal runaway. In
general, the ambient conditions for underground vehicles can
be quite different than for terrestrial vehicles, which generates
additional requirements. However, the ambient conditions are
more likely to impact on energy storage safety, packaging, cool-
ing, ventilation, and electric system integration requirements.
These impacts of ambient conditions on ESSs are considered
here to be indirect and are therefore excluded from this paper.
C. Configuration of the Hybrid-Loader Model
The original dimensioning for the hybrid-loader model is
based on the measured duty cycle and the performance of
the conventional loader. This dimensioning is described in our
previous research [25]. Table II presents the principal technical
data for the hybrid-loader model. The original design was
only for the charge-depleting (CD) (plug-in) hybrid; here, the
charge-sustaining (CS) hybrid configuration was also defined.
Different configuration options were defined for the battery
pack. These options were constructed from Kokam 40- and
100-Ah cells and Altairnano 50-Ah cells. The Kokam module
has seven cells with nominal voltage of 25.9 V, and the Al-
3389
TABLE III
BATTERY C ELL C HARACTERISTICS
TABLE IV
KOKAM AND A LTAIRNANO BATTERY PACK C ONFIGURATION DATA
tairnano module has ten cells with a nominal voltage of 23 V.
Table III summarizes the cell characteristics of the two battery
types, and Table IV presents detailed technical information on
each generated battery pack configuration.
The weight and volume calculations of the battery pack
options are based on the actual module and pack dimensions.
The maximum power values in Table IV are calculated on the
basis of the continuous current and the nominal voltage of the
battery.
A Maxwell Boostcap BMOD0018-P390 was used as the
ultracapacitor unit. The operating voltage of the unit is 390 V,
and its maximum continuous current is 150 A. The weight of
the unit is 165 kg, and its volume is about 240 L.
IV. C ONFIGURATION OF S IMULATIONS
Different hybrid-loader configurations in terms of ESSs were
generated for the simulations. These configurations, together
with the battery characteristics, are described in Table V. Simu-
lations were carried out with two control strategies: CS and CD.
The use of the CD strategy (plug-in hybrid) requires the battery
to be charged from an external energy source after the battery
is depleted to its lower limit of SOC. The depth of discharge
(DOD) was 70% of the total energy of the battery pack. To
have an equal comparison of the different plug-in hybrid-loader
options, the duty cycle duration was kept the same for all of
them. As for the CS strategy, this was not necessary because
3390 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 61, NO. 8, OCTOBER 2012
TABLE V
H YBRID -L OADER S IMULATION C ONFIGURATIONS
the SOC of the battery is kept high (70%) all the time, which
guarantees equal operation. The first configuration of both
strategies, CS1 and CD1, has a combined ESS with a battery
pack and an ultracapacitor unit. The power and energy values
in parentheses in Table V correspond to the ultracapacitor.
Several simulation cases were performed to generate exten-
sive data for evaluating the ESS requirements in detail. The
following list summarizes these different simulation cases with
descriptions.
Reference: Reference simulation with nominal current
limits of battery pack, as stated in Table III.
High power: Simulation with elevated charge current
limit (4C) for the Kokam battery pack.
Double battery: Two identical battery packs in parallel.
The CD strategy with 45-kW genset.
Fast recharge: Fast recharge of battery pack from external
energy source (normal recharge: 1C, fast recharge: 4C, or
maximum power of 200 kW)
The aforementioned C values correspond to the C-rate. The
maximum individual current of the battery pack and the ultra-
capacitor unit in the simulations was limited to 200 A. This
limit was chosen because of the possible limitations in dc/dc
converter current acceptance. In all the simulations, the total
loaded weight of the loader consisted of the operating weight
of 14.5 t, a payload of 3 t, and the weight of the ESS. The
ambient temperature was kept constant at 25 C, and the effect
of air humidity was not taken into account. The battery cooling
system control was configured to keep the battery temperature
between 25 C and 30 C.
V. S IMULATION R ESULTS AND A NALYSIS
A. Summary
The simulation results clearly show that the energy and work
efficiency of the underground mining loader can be significantly
improved by hybridization. The improvement depends on the
loader configuration and particularly on the ESS. Table VI
presents a summary of the simulation results in terms of work
and energy efficiency. The fuel economy improvement is simi-
lar with the CS hybrid to those that have been published in the
literature, e.g., [16]. The CD hybrid has better fuel economy as
a result of the higher electrical energy and power capacity of
the ESS.
Working time in Table VI corresponds to the period of work
without recharging the battery pack. Work efficiency is defined
TABLE VI
E NERGY AND W ORK E FFICIENCY R ESULT
as tons of material moved in an hour and energy efficiency as
energy consumed for moving 1 t of material. The increase in
the work efficiency of the hybrid loader and the decrease in its
fuel consumption are calculated in relation to the conventional
loader (CONV). The increased work performance of the hybrid
loader comes mainly from the fact that it can operate faster and
can thus drive at higher speeds.
Fig. 2(a) and (b) shows the main operating data of the
loader configuration CS1, which has a battery pack and an
ultracapacitor unit as energy storage. During the long downhill
drive (the period from 40 to 85 s), both storage store braking
energy and the genset are shut down. The ultracapacitor unit
is basically fully recharged after the downhill drive (around
t = 85 s, voltage = 390 V). During the peak power demands,
e.g., t = 10 s, t = 30 s, and t = 135 s, all the power sources are
used together to provide maximum performance.
B. Power and Energy Capacity
The impact of battery energy capacity on the increase in the
work efficiency of the hybrid loader and the decrease in its
fuel consumption is shown in Fig. 3(a). With both strategies,
i.e., CS and CD, work efficiency is increased in a similar
way, but the CD strategy allows an inherently more effective
reduction of fuel consumption. Battery power capacity has
an important influence on the total performance of the loader
and, particularly, on work efficiency, as shown in Fig. 3(b).
The baseline (reference) work efficiency in Fig. 3(b) can be
slightly improved by higher current limits for some loader
configurations.
Fast charging from an external energy source improves the
work efficiency of the CD hybrid. Increasing the external
charging current from 1C to 4C (or a maximum power of
200 kW) seems to have a significant impact on work efficiency,
around 15%.
C. Life Cycle
The operation of an underground mining loader is very en-
ergy intensive, which leads to high requirements in terms of the
battery life cycle. Fig. 4(a) shows that, by increasing the number
of shallow cycles, both work efficiency and fuel economy can
be improved. In the reference simulations, the shallow cycles
were between 3%8% of the total energy of the battery pack.
The deep cycles have no impact on fuel consumption, but work
efficiency can be increased by smaller numbers of deep cycles,
as shown in Fig. 4(b).
LAJUNEN AND SUOMELA: EVALUATION OF ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS FOR HYBRID MINING LOADERS 3391

Fig. 2. Operating data of the loader configuration CS1 at the beginning of the duty cycle. (a) Power of genset, battery, and ultracapacitors. (b) Voltages and
currents.

Fig. 4. Impact of battery cycles on the loader performance. (a) Shallow cycles.
(b) deep cycles.

Fig. 3. (a) Impact of the battery energy capacity on the loader performance.
(b) Impact of the elevated battery power capacity on increased work efficiency.

Depending on the loader configuration and, more precisely,

on the working time without external recharge, a different
number of deep cycles occur for the same amount of operation.
The longer the working time is, the fewer the deep cycles that
are needed, and in addition, the work efficiency is increased.
The corresponding working times without external recharge are
shown in Table VI.

D. Cost
The cost of the ESS, and particularly the battery, is one of the
most important factors that makes a hybrid loader economically
more profitable than a conventional loader. Fig. 5(a) shows
the amount of work required to amortize the higher cost of
the hybrid loader with three different battery cost scenarios: Fig. 5. Amount of work required to amortize the elevated cost of the hybrid
$1500, $1000, and $500 per kilowatthour. The cycle life curve loader. (a) Reference simulations. (b) Double battery pack.
corresponds to an estimated cycle life for the battery pack
(explained later). ent loader configurations, although the CD hybrid somewhat
The same results, as in Fig. 5(a), are shown in Fig. 5(b) for outperforms the CS options in almost every case. The major
the simulations with two battery packs (twice as much energy difference is in the battery life. With CS hybrid options, the
capacity). There are no major differences between the differ- battery life is much longer, as shown in Fig. 5. The elevated
3392
Fig. 6. Impact of the initial costs of the hybrid loader on payback time.
working efficiency with higher energy capacity ESS compen-
sates somewhat for the higher price. However, increasing the
energy storage capacity (double battery) only slightly shortens
the amortizing time. Moreover, the cycle life of the battery is
then also shorter.
The combined energy storage with a battery and an ultra-
capacitor has a slightly longer payback time, which can be
seen by comparing the cases CS1 and CD1 to CS2 and CD2,
respectively. With the CD hybrid, having a combined ESS
seems not to be a profitable solution because the battery already
provides adequate power capacity.
USABC has defined battery lifetime requirement targets
for the plug-in passenger vehicle, which are 300 000 shallow
cycles, 5000 deep cycles, and 15 years of calendar life. In
this case, a shallow cycle is considered to be a charge or
discharge cycle that is less than a 10% of the SOC, and a
deep cycle corresponds to the maximum DOD of the battery.
On the basis of these numbers, the battery cycle life for each
loader configuration is shown in Fig. 5. The limit of deep
cycles is related to the CD hybrid, and it is quite restrictive. In
fact, according to the manufacturers data, Altairnano batteries
(loader options CS3 and CD3) should last up to 12 000 deep
cycles with 2C charge and discharge at 25 C. This number of
deep cycles would increase the estimated battery cycle life by
more than doubling it for the options CS3 and CD3. Currently,
there are only very limited research data for this kind of cycle
durability of lithium-ion batteries.
It should be remembered that if the initial costs of the hybrid
loader were lower, the payback time would also be shorter.
This is shown in Fig. 6, where the payback time for the hybrid
loader is shown with four different initial cost scenarios where
the battery cost is $1000/kWh. The results shown in Fig. 5
correspond to the reference scenario (cost factor of 1.5 equals
to 50% higher initial cost), as defined in Table I. According to
these results, the initial costs (other than ESS) of the hybrid
loader are also important in terms of payback time.
In these simulations, the ultracapacitor unit has the same
number of deep cycles as the battery has shallow cycles. This
requirement should not be hard because ultracapacitors can
reach to a lifetime of up to one million deep cycles.
E. Safety
Even if simulations cannot directly define safety-related
requirements, they can provide important information about
the prevailing operating conditions in terms of the current and
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 61, NO. 8, OCTOBER 2012
Fig. 7. (a) Battery effective discharge and charge current. (b) Battery cooling
power as percentage of its maximum power.
temperature demands imposed on the battery. In general, many
factors can have effect on lithium-ion battery safety, but two
major factors can be distinguished for ensuring the safe opera-
tion of these batteries. First, the cell chemistry characteristics
can be chosen to be such that the materials and chemical
reactions are stable in a wide range of operating conditions, and
second, the battery control has to be well established, which
includes effective cooling and an active battery management
system (BMS).
Fig. 7(a) shows the effective current of the battery pack as
the C-rate for each loader configuration. Usually, the higher
the effective current is, the greater the demands on the battery
will be, and at the same time, it will probably need to operate
at higher temperatures. This demand is obviously a lot less
with the higher capacity batteries than with the smaller capacity
batteries, but there are considerable differences between similar
battery configurations, e.g., CS2 versus CS3, where different
battery chemistries are being compared.
The battery cooling requirement in three different scenarios
is shown in Fig. 7(b). The cooling power is expressed as a
percentage of the nominal discharge power of the battery. There
is an obvious relation to the effective current; the cooling power
is higher when the effective current is higher. The higher current
limits allow more use of battery power, particularly with the CS
hybrid, but this consequently causes an increase in the cooling
power requirement.
F. Other Considerations
In work machine operation, shock and vibration can be harm-
ful for electrochemical energy storage. To be able to evaluate
the requirements in this respect, more detailed modeling and
laboratory tests are needed. Moreover, corrosion can occur after
a relatively short period of time with high-voltage electric sys-
tems in harsh operating environments. These phenomena can
additionally tighten the material and engineering requirements
for the ESS.
ESS weight and volume are not the most critical factors
in the hybridization of a mining loader in terms of loader
LAJUNEN AND SUOMELA: EVALUATION OF ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS FOR HYBRID MINING LOADERS
performance. However, batteries with lower specific energy
than the reference used in this paper could be impractical
solutions with respect to the available space in the loader.
VI. C ONCLUSION
ESS and, particularly, battery requirements have been evalu-
ated on the basis of the simulation results of a hybrid under-
ground mining loader. The resulting analysis clearly showed
that these requirements depend on the operating strategy and
loader configuration. Therefore, it is important to take into ac-
count these factors, together with the duty cycle, when defining
the requirements for the ESS. According to the evaluation,
recently developed lithium-ion battery technologies can fulfill
most of the requirements, such as power and energy capacity,
cost, and also life cycle. However, the power-intensive oper-
ation that is typical of underground mining could impact on
battery life expectancy and safety, in a negative way.
The CD hybrid-loader options provide better fuel economy
and higher work performance because of their higher energy
and power capacity. Their payback time is also lower than
with the CS hybrid, but at the same time, the cycle life of
the battery pack is lower, which can lead to several battery
replacements during the lifetime of the loader. Despite the
higher performance of the CD hybrid, its operational unavail-
ability (battery recharging delays) can be a disadvantage if
fast recharge capability is not available. Therefore, the choice
between the CS and depleting hybrid is dependent on both the
battery characteristics and the operational requirements.
As there are many suitable lithium-ion battery chemistries
and different solutions for ESS configuration in hybrid work
machine applications, this paper will be continued by focusing
on battery requirements on a detailed level.
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 the art, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 59,
no. 6, pp. 28062814, Jul. 2010.
[2] M. Anderman, The plug-in hybrid and electric vehicle opportunity re-
port, Adv. Autom. Batteries, May 2010.
[3] M. A. Roscher, J. Assfalg, and O. S. Bohlen, Detection of utilizable
capacity deterioration in battery systems, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.,
vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 98103, Jan. 2011.
[4] E. Karden, S. Ploumen, B. Fricke, T. Miller, and K. Snyder, Energy
storage devices for future hybrid electric vehicles, J. Power Sources,
vol. 168, no. 1, pp. 211, May 2007.
[5] S. M. Lukic, J. Cao, R. C. Bansal, F. Rodriguez, and A. Emadi, Energy
storage systems for automotive applications, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 22582267, May 2008.
[6] L. T. Lam and R. Louey, Development of ultra-battery for hybrid-electric
vehicle applications, J. Power Sources, vol. 158, no. 2, pp. 11401148,
Aug. 2006.
[7] T. Abe, K. Miyatake, Y. Shimoida, and H. Horie, Research and devel-
opment work on lithium-ion batteries for environmental vehicles, World
Elect. Veh. J., vol. 1, pp. 251257, 2007.
[8] E. Schaltz, A. Khaligh, and P. O. Rasmussen, Investigation of battery/
ultracapacitor energy storage rating for a fuel cell hybrid electric vehicle,
in Proc. IEEE Veh. Power Propulsion Conf., Sep. 2008, pp. 16.
[9] S. J. An, K. I. Lee, and T. J. Kim, Performance analysis according to the
combination of energy storage system for fuel cell hybrid vehicle, Int. J.
Autom. Technol., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 111118, Feb. 2008.
[10] A. Lajunen, Evaluation of the benefits of using dual-source energy stor-
age in hybrid electric vehicles, in Proc. IEEE Veh. Power Propulsion
Conf., Sep. 2010, pp. 16.
[11] N. Omar, J. Van Mierlo, F. Van Mulders, and P. Van den Bossche, As-
sessment of behaviour of super capacitor-battery system in heavy hybrid
3393
lift truck vehicles, J. Asian Elect. Veh., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 12771282,
Dec. 2009.
[12] N. Jinrui, W. Zhifu, and R. Qinglian, Simulation and analysis of perfor-
mance of a pure electric vehicle with a super-capacitor, in Proc. IEEE
Veh. Power Propulsion Conf., Sep. 2006, pp. 16.
[13] L. C. Rosario and P. C. K. Luk, Power and energy management policy
implementation of a dual-energy source electric vehicle, in Proc. Power
Electron., Mach. Drives, Apr. 2006, pp. 464468.
[14] E. Schaltz, A. Khaligh, and P. O. Rasmussen, Influence of battery/
ultracapacitor energy-storage sizing on battery lifetime in a fuel cell hy-
brid electric vehicle, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 3882
3891, Oct. 2009.
[15] D. Wang, C. Guan, S. Pan, M. Zhang, and X. Lin, Performance analy-
sis of hydraulic excavator powertrain hybridization, Autom. Construct.,
vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 249257, May 2009.
[16] T. Lin, Q. Wang, B. Hu, and W. Gong, Development of hybrid powered
hydraulic construction machinery, Autom. Construct., vol. 19, no. 1,
pp. 1119, Jan. 2010.
[17] D. Y. Jo and S. Kwak, Development of fuel-efficient construction equip-
ment, in Proc. ICPE ECCE, Jun. 2011, pp. 3137.
[18] H. Kim, J. Choi, S. Yoo, and K. Yi, An investigation into optimal energy
management strategy for compound hybrid excavator, in Proc. 10th Int.
Symp. Adv. Veh. Control, Aug. 2010, pp. 387393.
[19] Q. Xiao, Q. Wang, and Y. Zhang, Control strategies of power system in
hybrid hydraulic excavator, Autom. Construct., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 361
367, May 2008.
[20] S. Hui and J. Junqing, Research on the system configuration and energy
control strategy for parallel hydraulic hybrid loader, Autom. Construct.,
vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 213220, Mar. 2010.
[21] S. Grammatico, A. Balluchi, and E. Cosoli, A series-parallel hybrid
electric powertrain for industrial vehicles, in Proc. IEEE Veh. Power
Propulsion Conf., Sep. 2010, pp. 16.
[22] A. Lajunen, Evaluation of energy storage system requirements for hybrid
mining loader, in Proc. IEEE Veh. Power Propulsion Conf., Sep. 2011,
pp. 16.
[23] M. Liukkonen, A. Hentunen, and J. Suomela, Validation of quasi-static
series hybrid electric vehicle simulation model, in Proc. IEEE Veh. Power
Propulsion Conf., Sep. 2010, pp. 16.
[24] A. Hentunen, J. Suomela, A. Leivo, M. Liukkonen, and P. Sainio,
Hardware-in-the-loop verification environment for heavy-duty hybrid
electric vehicles, in Proc. IEEE Veh. Power Propulsion Conf., Sep. 2010,
pp. 16.
[25] A. Lajunen, A. Leivo, and T. Lehmuspelto, Energy consumption simu-
lations of a conventional and hybrid mining loader, in Proc. 25th World
Battery, Hybrid Fuel Cell Elect. Veh. Symp. Exhib., Nov. 2010, pp. 18.
[26] V. H. Johnson, Battery performance models in ADVISOR, J. Power
Sources, vol. 110, no. 2, pp. 321329, Aug. 2002.
[27] A. Burke and M. Miller, Performance characteristics of lithium-ion bat-
teries of various chemistries for plug-in hybrid vehicles, in Proc. EVS24,
May 2009, pp. 113.
Antti Lajunen (M11) received the M.Sc. degree
in mechanical engineering from Helsinki University
of Technology (TKK), Espoo, Finland, in 2005 and
the Master of Advanced Studies degree in industrial
engineering from Ecole Centrale Paris (ECP), Paris,
France, in 2007. He is currently working toward the
Ph.D degree with Aalto University, Aalto, Finland.
From 2008 to 2010, he was a Research Engineer
with Sherpa Engineering, Paris. His main research
interests include hybrid vehicle modeling and sim-
ulation, energy efficiency of vehicles and work ma-
chines, and electrochemical energy storage devices.
Jussi Suomela received the M.Sc., Lic.Sc., and
D.Sc. degrees from Helsinki University of Tech-
nology (TKK), Espoo, Finland, in 1992, 2001, and
2004, respectively.
In early 2010, TKK became a part of the Aalto
University. Since 1991, he has been with TKK in
various positions. He is currently an acting Professor
of automation technology. His main research inter-
ests include hybrid electric powertrains in off-road
mobile machines, and field and service robotics.