# Combination of LiCs and EDLCs with Batteries:
## 3 Results
As the duty cycle increased, the efficiency of the converter reduced; also, as the input voltage increased, the efficiency of the converter reduced. This shows that the converter was much more efficient for bucking than it was for boost mode operations; however, all of the efficiency values were above 75%. Figure 6:0 Scope results showing the inductor \(L_{2}\) current and voltage alongside the associated switching signals of the MOSFETs for operating the multiple input converter in Mode B at (**a**) 30% duty and (**b**) 75% duty. Figure 6:1 The efficiency results of the multiple input converter operating in Modes A and B (**a**) under varying duty cycles at a constant load and (**b**) under varying load currents at a constant output voltage. Next was to test the efficiency of the converter under varying load conditions, and the results are presented in Figure 13b. Recall that the converter was designed for a maximum load of 12 A at 12-V output; therefore, the output voltage of the converter was kept constant at 12 V, and then, the electronic DC load was made to vary from 10% loading through to 100% in increments of 10%. This was done for Modes A and B, with the inputs of 5 and 10 V, respectively. It is seen in Figure 13b that the higher efficiencies were attained when the input voltage was the highest. Furthermore, when the load current increased, the efficiency also increased, but at 90% load, the highest efficiency was attained across all three modes of operation. This shows that in all modes of operation, the converter attained efficiency values higher than 70% and was most efficient at 90% loading. Therefore, the converter was most efficient when it was operated with a load current of about 10.8 A. A test was carried out to see the response of the entire system to the realistic EV load profile as was used in the result presented in Figure 6:2 This EV profile has been used repeatedly in this research and was also validated in previous research [33; 45]. The response of the hybridisation topology being proposed in this research to the electric vehicle profile used above is presented in Figure 6:3 In this topology, SC and HC were connected directly in parallel, and resultantly, the control became less complex. The battery supplied all load currents not exceeding 2 A, but instead of selectively choosing between SC and HC (which would have been more conventional), both of them were made to supply all load currents exceeding 2 A. This topology was able to supply the load adequately, and SC was seen to handle all of the higher currents when compared to HC. Using this proposed topology, the battery was less often required to supply energy to the electric vehicle, and so, its cycle life was preserved. Furthermore, since the battery was not used for the repeated acceleration and deceleration in the entire driving cycle, the temperature increments that would have arisen as a result were avoided; hence, the battery life was further preserved. Thirdly, now that the battery was not the sole energy storage in the energy storage system, it could be further downsized to best fit the required base load, thereby further reducing the weight and volume of space occupied by the energy storage system. Lastly, having considered all of the nitty gritty of the energy storages and the multiple input converter, it is important to draw a big picture on why it is being proposed that SC and HC be connected directly in parallel instead of using the conventional hybridisation topology of each energy storage, having its own input port. Table 4 presents a comparison of resource use between the conventional hybridisation topology (with a three-input converter) and the proposed hybridisation topology (with a two-input converter). From Table 4, it is seen that the resource use of the proposed hybridisation topology was much less than in the conventional hybridisation topology.