## 7 Comparison Between the Two Selected EMSs  
The two selected EMS presented in Section 3, Standard Alternative PFCS (SA-PFCS) and Discretized Alternative PFCS (DA-PFCS), have been studied using the models presented in Sections 4 and 5 of this paper. The comparison between both strategies has been made in terms of hydrogen and energy consumption, as well as degradation in both the battery and the fuel cell caused by each strategy. The simulation was performed during a single WHTC driving cycle, with the weight of the fully loaded vehicle. To obtain the results for electricity and hydrogen consumption, we decided to simulate the longitudinal dynamics of the heavy-duty truck with an initial battery SOC of 50% to guarantee the operation of the fuel cell. In fact, in both EMSs, the FC activation is set when 50% of the battery's state of charge is reached to allow for the inclusion of the dynamics of the FC startup in the simulation, which has consequences in terms of degradation. Figure 12 shows the different operating conditions of both strategies concerning fuel cell utilization, showing the differences in power trends (with and without the discretization of power levels) and efficiency, which is slightly higher on average for the SA-PFCS. The more discretized power profile of the DA-PFCS can be observed when compared to the SA-PFCS, which follows the average power demand of the vehicle over the WHTC cycle. The discretization is also reflected in the efficiency, which fluctuates among six values in the DA-PFCS (corresponding to those of the power). In Figure 13, the electrical energy and fuel consumption resulting from the selected vehicle simulation along the WHTC using both selected EMSs are presented in terms of battery energy and hydrogen consumption trends. It can be seen that the DA-PFCS generates higher final hydrogen consumption with lower electrical energy consumption compared to the SA-PFCS. The battery decreases its state of charge during the cycle, with the hybrid part consuming fuel while providing the average power of the cycle, especially in the final part that corresponds to the motorway section with higher velocities. The results of the comparison between the two selected strategies in terms of consumption and degradation are summarized in Table 5. The translation of the results obtained with the model presented in this work to real costs exceeds the techn \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline
**Name** & **Description** & **M** & **P** & **C** \\ \hline BatteryPackCurrent\_SAData\_Msg & I/O current of the battery pack & 10.1\% & 9.3\% & 14.30\% \\ \hline eMCurrent\_SAData\_Msg & Electric motor current & 7.60\% & 7.60\% & 10.10\% \\ \hline eMTorque\_SAData\_Msg & Electric motor torque & 6.00\% & 6.90\% & 9.20\% \\ \hline FCVoltage\_SAData\_Msg & Fuel cell voltage & 8.10\% & 2.90\% & 8.60\% \\ \hline BatteryPackPower\_SAData\_Msg & I/O power of the battery pack & 4.00\% & 7.00\% & 8.00\% \\ \hline ElectricalPower\_SAData\_Msg & I/O DC bus power & 1.30\% & 6.20\% & 6.30\% \\ \hline Current\_SAData\_Msg & I/O DC bus current & 4.80\% & 2\% & 5.20\% \\ \hline FCPower\_SAData\_Msg & Fuel cell power & 3.8\% & 1.7\% & 4.10\% \\ \hline Speed\_SAData\_Msg & Electric motor speed & 0.16\% & 0.49\% & 0.50\% \\ \hline StateOfCharge\_SAData\_Msg & Battery state of charge & 0.40\% & 0.24\% & 0.47\% \\ \hline FCEfficiency\_SAData\_Msg & Fuel cell efficiency & 0.28\% & 0.10\% & 0.30\% \\ \hline Voltage\_SAData\_Msg & DC bus voltage & 0.07\% & 0.05\% & 0.09\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Compared parameters for the validation of the AVL simulation model. since the costs of electricity, hydrogen, batteries, and fuel cells are rapidly changing and vary across different countries and companies. To perform the battery degradation analysis, a recharge with a CC-CV profile was added at the end of the WHTC cycle to bring the battery back to 50% SOC, with a C-rate of 0.2C.