4.7 Article

Standard and Quasi Oppositional bonobo optimizers for parameter extraction of PEM fuel cell stacks

Journal

FUEL
Volume 340, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2023.127586

Keywords

PEMFC; Parameter identification; Bonobo optimizer; Quasi Oppositional BO

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The accuracy of the mathematical model used to simulate the electrochemical characteristics of fuel cell stacks is crucial. In this research, the Bonobo Optimizer and a modified Quasi Oppositional Bonobo algorithm are applied to determine unknown design parameters of different types of proton exchange membrane fuel cells. The results are validated by comparing with experimental data, and the modified algorithm outperforms the traditional one in solving the optimization problem.
The accuracy of the mathematical model used to simulate the electrochemical characteristics of fuel cell (FC) stacks has a significant impact on the quality of the electrochemical simulation. Due to the lack of manufacturers' information, a set of unidentified parameters must be properly estimated for establishing an accurate representation of proton exchange membrane FCs (PEMFCs). In this research, the Bonobo Optimizer (BO) and the modified Quasi Oppositional BO (QOBO) are applied for determining unknown design parameters of various typical PEMFCs. The obtained results in the form of polarization curves are compared with the corresponding experimental ones to validate the appropriateness and adequacy of the used algorithms. The findings obtained using the original BO and modified QOBO algorithms are compared to those acquired using other current optimization approaches, revealing that the QOBO algorithm outperformed the conventional BO algorithm in solving the optimization problem. Further, a statistical analysis is carried out that guaranteed the robustness and reliability of the developed QOBO.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available