4.6 Article

Design and Experimental Validation of the Temperature Control of a PEMFC Stack by Applying Multiobjective Optimization

Journal

IEEE ACCESS
Volume 8, Issue -, Pages 183324-183343

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3029321

Keywords

Optimization; Cooling; Control design; Temperature measurement; PI control; PD control; PEMFC; temperature control; electrical efficiency; multiobjective optimization; PID control

Funding

  1. Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities [RTI2018-096904-B-I00]
  2. Generalitat Valenciana Regional Government [AICO/2019/055]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The current environmental challenges require the implementation of environmentally friendly energy production systems. In this context, proton exchange membrane fuel cell stacks (PEMFC) represent, due to their high electrical efficiency and their low level of CO2 emissions, a promising alternative technology. However, there are still many technical aspects that need to be improved before they become a commercial reality. One of them is the temperature control of the stack, since its electrical efficiency and its lifetime depend on the performance of this control. In this work, we design a multiloop PID control of the temperature of a PEMFC stack and validate it experimentally. The stack is the prime mover of a micro combined heat and power system (micro-CHP). For this task, we use a previously developed nonlinear model and apply a multiobjective optimization methodology. To assess its performance, the PID control is compared to a second PID control designed with a linearized model. The results show, on the one hand, the importance of having a nonlinear model valid in a wide operation range for the correct design of the temperature control of a PEMFC stack and, on the other hand, the advantages of applying a multiobjective optimization methodology to this problem.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available