4.7 Article

A coupled and interactive influence of operational parameters for optimizing power output of cleaner energy production systems under uncertain conditions

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESEARCH
卷 43, 期 3, 页码 1294-1302

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/er.4347

关键词

hydrogen excess ratio; polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells; power output; stack current; uncertain operational PEMFC variables

资金

  1. Department of Education of Guangdong Province
  2. Sailing Talent Program, Shantou University Youth Innovation Talent Project [2016KQNCX053]
  3. State Key Lab of Digital Manufacturing Equipment and Technology (Huazhong University of Science and Technology) [DMETKF2018019]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The mechanisms in proton-exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs) cannot be explicitly represented by a mathematical function because the PEMFC system is multi-dimensional and complex and represents uncertainty in operation variables, which cannot be modeled by experiments or by trial-and-error approach. Therefore, this work proposes to study the coupled and interactive influence of stack current (SC), stack temperature (ST), oxygen excess ratio (OER), hydrogen excess ratio (HER), and inlet air humidity (IAH) for optimizing the power output of PEMFC. The data obtained from the experiments have been inserted into architecture of automated neural-network search, which automates the selection of error function, activation function, uncertainties in inputs and number of hidden neurons in formulation of a robust and accurate model for power density as a function of five operational variables. Among the operational variables, the correlation coefficient between the SC and the output power is the highest, followed by OER, and the ST. However, for HER and IAH, the power output follows negative nonlinear relation. The optimization converged at 130(th) iteration results in maximum power output of 3410 W for an optimum value of SC (51A), ST (59 degrees C), OER (3:2), HER (1:10), and IAH (0.8).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据