4.8 Article

Simple on-board fault-detection method for proton exchange membrane fuel cell stacks using by semi-empirical curve fitting

期刊

APPLIED ENERGY
卷 303, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117654

关键词

Fuel cell; Overpotential; Control method; Flooding; Dry-out

资金

  1. TEPCO memorial foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For the stable operation of proton-exchange membrane fuel cells, expensive sensor measurements and control systems are typically used, increasing the overall cost. This study introduces a control index calculation method using overpotential, which eliminates the need for sensors and measurement systems, ultimately increasing onboard operation and reducing costs. Experimental results demonstrate the method's effectiveness in maintaining accuracy and preventing defects.
For the stable operation of proton-exchange membrane fuel cells, measurements are made using sensors, and the controls are designed to detect, identify, and avoid defects based on the measured values. These methods are expensive and increase the cost of fuel cell systems as they require many sensors and a substantial amount of data. Therefore, a method that ensures reliability and lowers the cost of proton-exchange membrane fuel cells is required. In this study, the control index using overpotential was calculated using the curve-fitting method. This method can increase the on-board operation and lower the cost because sensors and measurement system are not used. To verify the accuracy of the method, the overpotentials calculated from the proposed and the other methods were compared and it was found that the proposed method could maintain the same overpotential separation accuracy as previous study even with biased measured data. Flooding and dry-out in the high current range were reproduced as defects, and both were avoided using the proposed method. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed strategy and its viability under fault conditions.

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