4.8 Article

Estimating the end-of-life of PEM fuel cells: Guidelines and metrics

期刊

APPLIED ENERGY
卷 177, 期 -, 页码 87-97

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.05.076

关键词

Proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell; Prognostics; Remaining useful life; PHM

资金

  1. ANR project PROPICE [ANR-12-PRGE-0001]
  2. Labex ACTION project [ANR-11-LABX-01-01]
  3. French region of Franche-Comte
  4. French National Research Agency

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Prognostics applications on PEMFC are developing these last years. Indeed, taking decision to extend the lifetime of a PEMFC stack based on behavior and remaining useful life predictions is seen as a promising solution to tackle the too short life's issue of PEMFC5. However, the development of prognostics shows some lacks in the literature. Indeed, performing prognostics requires health indicators that reflect the state of health of stack, while being able to interpret them in an industrial context. It is also important to propose criteria to set its end of life. Moreover, to trust any prognostics' application, one should be able to evaluate the performance of its algorithms with respect to standards. To help launching a discussion on these subjects among scientific and industrial actors, this paper addresses some of the issues encountered when performing prognostics of a PEMFC stack. After showing the link between prognostics and decision, this paper proposes guidelines to set the limits of a prognostics approach. The definitions of healthy and degraded modes are discussed as well as how to choose the time instant to perform predictions. Then, three criteria based on the power produced by the stack are proposed as indicators of the state of health of the stack. The definition of the end of life of the stack is also discussed before proposing some criteria to assess the performance of any prognostics algorithm on a PEMFC. Some perspectives of works are also discussed before coneluding. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.8
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