## 4 Results and Discussions
### Case Three (12 V-90 Ah HESS Capacity)  
In this case, the proposed HESS is simulated for 227 s for case three (a) and 234 s for case three (b), with required CCC ranges between 400 A and 650 A for 3 s. The proposed case three is compared with a single 12 V-90 Ah LAB with the same required CCC/A. Figures 16 and 17 show the results of case three. In Figure 16, the HESS delivers a maximum current of 653.2 A for case three (a). Figure 17 shows that the HESS delivers a maximum current of 665.5 A. These values are both greater than the required CCA of 650 A for 3 s.  
Figure 16: HESS supplying the required CCC for case three (a). Figure 17: HESS supplying the required CCC for case three (b). As illustrated in Figures 16 and 17, after three seconds, the CCA demand is 0 A. The results show that the HESS is charged with a maximum charging current of \(-21.1\) A, which varies with the HESS's SoC. The maximum charging voltage from the DC-bus link is 14.5 V. When the battery is fully charged, the current is 0 A, and the battery voltage reduce to the nominal battery voltage. The current supplied, SoC and voltage responses of the hybridised batteries during discharging mode are detailed herein. Figure 18 shows the results of case three (a) during discharging mode. As shown in Figure 18, the LAB supplies 386.7 A for case three (a), which represents 59.68% of the required CCA, whereas the minimum voltage is 11.43 V and SoC is 98.32%. The LIB supplies 260.5 A, which represents 40.3% of the required CCA, whereas the minimum voltage is 9.985 V and SoC is 98.32%. Figure 19 shows the results of the HESS for case three (b). Figure 19: The supplied required CCC, SoC and voltage response of HESS for case three (b) during discharge mode. Figure 18: The supplied required CCC, SoC and voltage response of HESS for case three (a) during discharge mode. In Figure 19, the LAB supplies 379.1 A, which represents 56.1% of the required CCA, whereas the minimum voltage is 11.47 V and SoC is 99.7. The LIB supplies 293.4 A, which represents the 43.9% required CCA, whereas the minimum voltage is 11.02 V and SoC is 98.49%. Moreover, Figures 20 and 21 show the results of cases three (a) and (b) during charging modes. Case three (a) is simulated for 227 s, and case three (b) is for 234 s during charging mode. In Figure 20, the LAB's SoC starts from 99.68 to 100%, whereas the voltage response increases from 11.43 V to the charging reference voltage of 13.1 V and the charging reference current of \(-\)13 A. The LIB's SoC starts from 98.32% to 99.9%, whereas the voltage response increases from 9.985 V to the charging reference voltage of 14.2 V and the charging reference current of \(-\)6 A. Figure 21 illustrate the results for case three (b). As shown in Figure 21, the LAB's SoC starts from 99.7 to 100%, whereas the voltage responses increase from 11.47 V to the charging reference voltage of 13.1 V and the charging reference current of \(-\)13 A. The LIB's SoC starts from 98.49% to 99.9%, whereas the voltage response increases from 11.02 V to the charging reference voltage of 14.2 V and the charging  
Figure 21: The CCC, SoC and voltage response of HESS during charging mode for case three (b). Figure 20: The CCC, SoC and voltage response of HESS during charging mode for case three (a). reference current of \(-7\) A. The results obtained in these cases are used to determine the lifespan of the system as compared to a single LAB. Therefore, compared with SLABs, the performance is analysed in terms of energy storage and lifespan. The comparison is made based on CCC delivered by the proposed HESS and SLABs, as well as the minimum SoC and voltage responses of LABs in HESS with SLABs during discharging mode to evaluate the delivery CCC and how it affects the SoC, voltage, and lifespan of the batteries. Figure 22 shows the results of case three as compared to a single LAB.