See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/339738544

Experimental and modelling studies of low temperature PEMFC performance

Article  in  International Journal of Hydrogen Energy · March 2020

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.01.019

CITATIONS READS

2 56

6 authors, including:

Chinmay Chaudhari Kapil Sonkar

IndianOil IndianOil
1 PUBLICATION   2 CITATIONS    3 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Alok Sharma
IndianOil
12 PUBLICATIONS   8 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Hydrogen Association of India Annual event View project

Hydrogen production View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alok Sharma on 06 March 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 8 8 6 6 e8 8 7 4

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/he

Experimental and modelling studies of low

temperature PEMFC performance

Sachin Chugh*, Chinmay Chaudhari, Kapil Sonkar, Alok Sharma,

G.S. Kapur, S.S.V. Ramakumar
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Research and Development Centre, Faridabad, India

highlights

$ Experimental evaluation of operating parameters' effect on fuel cell performance.

$ Steady state mathematical model development in MATLAB.
$ Model validation by comparison with experimental results.
$ Identification of optimum operating parameters.

article info abstract

Article history: The performance of a PEMFC (Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Fuel Cell) is greatly influenced
Received 31 August 2019 by the various operating variables like temperature, pressure, stoichiometry of reactants
Received in revised form and humidity. The presented work deals with the experimental study of 30 cells low
4 December 2019 temperature PEM fuel cell stack employing Nafion®-212 membranes. Experimental results
Accepted 3 January 2020 are discussed with polarization curves and compared with the steady state model results,
Available online 25 January 2020 developed in MATLAB. The model predicts increase PEMFC performance with increase in
operating temperature, pressure and reactant humidity. The comparison shows good
Keywords: agreement between experimental and modeling results with deviations in the range of 7
LT-PEM fuel cell stack e15% only.
Nafion®-212 © 2020 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Parametric study
Polarization curve
Mathematical modeling

and distribution system based on renewable energy resources

Introduction
Energy crisis and air pollution is a perennial problem across
the world. There is a strong need to develop alternate sources
of energy in order to provide energy for the future as the de-
mand is rising while the reserves of fossil fuels are depleting.
To reduce dependency on fossil fuels, a hydrogen generation
can be promoted.
Fuel cells are emerging as an imperial spoke of e-mobility.
The cost of the fuel cells have seen a significant downward
trend over the last few years, however further optimization of
its design aspects and innovative material level interventions
are needed to enhance their competitiveness [1]. Polymer
Electrolyte Membrane (PEM) Fuel Cells are light weight,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: chughs@indianoil.in (S. Chugh).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.01.019
0360-3199/© 2020 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 8 8 6 6 e8 8 7 4
compact, have quick startup, relatively easy maintenance and
among all, have low temperature working and high power
density [2]. They are also a compliment to the conventional
heat engines and cater to environmental and national security
implications [3].
The performance of a PEMFC is greatly influenced by the
various operating variables like temperature, pressure, stoi-
chiometry of the reactants and humidity. These parameters
affect the gibbs free energy of the reaction, electrical con-
ductivity of the electrolyte membrane, gas diffusivity and
water management of the cell [4]. Study of these variables is
very essential to understand the behavior of the fuel cell
under the given set of operating variables. Performance of a
fuel cell can be analyzed from the polarization curve and
hence the difference between equilibrium and electrode po-
tential [5]. The data thus obtained can be used to design bal-
ance of plant and fuel cell system integration.
Mathematical modeling of fuel cell can be categorized into
two classes, a mechanistic approach and an empirical
approach. The mechanistic approach simulates the heat
transfer, mass transfer and electrochemical reactions. The
empirical method uses models to predict the performance of
the fuel cell without in detail analysis of heat-mass transfer
and electrochemical phenomenon.
In this work, the steady state operational performance of a
30 cells low temperature PEM fuel cell stack employing
Nafion®-212 membranes is experimentally studied and a
mathematical model is developed in MATLAB which allows a
feasible investigation of the effect of certain constants which
influence the fuel cell stack performance. The experimenta-
tion deals with univariate analysis of the stack. The variables
studied in the current work are temperature, pressure, rela-
tive humidity on anode as well as cathode side.
The mathematical model is based on simplified assump-
tions and semi empirical equations. However the assump-
tions and equations are used based on basic chemical and
physical interactions occurring in fuel cell. The model is
validated by comparing the results of the experiments and
predicted results by the model, for different testing
conditions.
Experimental method
A fuel cell stack consisting of 30 cells, having an individual cell
active area of 50 cm2 has been used for experimentation and
modeling in this study. Graphite electrodes of similar design
have been used at both anode and cathode and backing layer
is made of thick carbon paper. The catalyst layer is made from
fine platinum particles supported on carbon with 0.3 Pt/C
(40%) mg/cm2/side loading. Nafion®-212 (50.8 mm thickness) is
used as the electrolyte membrane. The membrane electrode
assembly (MEA) is sandwiched between two fuel cell grade
graphite plates having gaskets on each side to prevent any
leakage of the gases while flowing through the channels
grooved on the plates. Reactants approach each other in
counter current fashion but flow in co-current mode across
graphite flow channels.
Two gold plated copper bus plates are used for holding
rigidly the whole assembly at its position and the pneumatic
8867
piston quickly and reliably applies the compression necessary
for cell operation. Bus plate is neither in physical contact with
the reactant nor the cooling water. The stack also employs two
water jackets, one on each side of the MEA, to ensure
consistent and even temperature control.
The fuel cell test station developed by GreenLight In-
novations, Canada, is programmed to control the operating
parameters of the fuel cell, e.g. coolant temperature, humid-
ification temperature, operating pressure, stoichiometry ratio,
mixing of contaminant gases etc. and various other controls
on both the anode and the cathode sides through a computer.
The test station also has a control and data acquisition system
based on FCATS (Fuel Cell Automated Test Station)
EMERALD™ software which collect and analyze the signals
from a computer responsible for overall control of the system.
Thermocouples (TC), mass flow controllers (MFC), pressure
transducers (PT) and solenoid valves (SOV) are installed prior
to the humidifiers and are controlled through electronic con-
trol unit and read through the FCATS.
Fig. 1 shows the schematic representation of the Gas
Management Unit (GMU). The GMU manages many gas
streams, e.g. the fuel (hydrogen), the oxidant (in this setup,
air), an inert gas for purging (nitrogen) and also some
contamination gases (CO, SO2, CH4, C3H8 etc.). The flow rates
of these gases are controlled through the pneumatic mass
flow controllers in dry or humidified conditions, as per the
testing requirements. The reactant streams are humidified
using two gurgle humidifier tanks filled with de-ionized
water at the preset temperature, as required to maintain a
defined degree of humidification of the inlet gas streams.
The gases can be circulated either in dead end mode or
continuous flow mode. Provision is made to humidify the
nitrogen gas too, so that conditioning of fuel cell can be
performed, if required. A water trap is installed in the
exhaust line followed by a backpressure regulator and mass
flow controller, on each anode and cathode line. Finally,
reactants are exhausted to the ambient through a separate
vent line.
Individual cell voltage monitoring cables are connected to
the load bank and read through the software and the fuel cell
polarization curve is obtained from this program by control-
ling the Electronic load bank. The polarization curve is
generated by measuring the response of the fuel cells corre-
sponding to set current, voltage or power. A PC with data
acquisition system is also used to record and store the data so
collected.
Performance of PEM fuel cell depends on various operating
parameters like stack temperature, pressure, stoichiometry
and humidity of reactant gases. Hence, a detailed parametric
study was undertaken in order to evaluate the performance of
fuel cell stack. Table 1 depicts the operating variables and
their corresponding values, maintained during each set of
experiment.
The coolant outlet temperature is assumed as stack tem-
perature. DI water was used as the coolant medium. Flow rate
of coolant was controlled to restrict a maximum of 2
C in-
crease in coolant temperature. Each polarization cycle was
repeated thrice, to ensure reproducibility of the results. A
holding time of 45 s was provided at each current density data
point before recording stabilized voltage. Effect of ambient
8868 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 8 8 6 6 e8 8 7 4

Fig. 1 e Schematic representation of Gas Management Unit (GMU).

temperature was negated by maintaining a constant room Thermodynamic potential

temperature during testing.
The thermodynamic potential gives the maximum possible
voltage from a single cell. The Gibbs free energy is a measure
Model development of the chemical potential energy in the reactant and thus, is a
measure of the maximum work which can be derived from the
General chemical reaction. For a reversible electro-chemical reaction,
the maximum electrical output would be equal to the change
One of the reasons why fuel cell modeling is important is to in Gibbs free energy. Hence, the amount of electrical work
study the reason for the deviation of the actual voltage of a produced is given by
fuel cell from the theoretical voltage [6]. The theoretical cell
voltage of a fuel cell, not connected to the electrical circuit, at a Dgf ¼  nFE (ii)
given pressure and temperature is given by the Nernst equa- The values of Dgf depends upon the reactant's pressure
tion. But when the circuit is closed, various voltage losses are and temperature as follows:
caused due to different phenomena. Such losses are broadly !
classified as activation losses, ohmic losses and concentration PH2 P0:5
O2
Dgf ¼ Dg0f  RTln (iii)
losses. Thus, the actual voltage of a fuel cell is given by PH2 O

Vactual ¼ ENernst  Vact  Vohm  Vconc (i) Hence, the maximum reversible output voltage of a fuel
cell is expressed as
where ENernst is the theoretical Nernst voltage, Vact is the acti-
vation overpotential, Vohm is the Ohmic overpotential, and Vconc !
Dgf Dg0f RT PH2 P0:5
O2
the concentration losses. E¼  ¼ þ ln (iv)
nF nF nF PH2 O

Table 1 e Parametric study of PEM fuel cell performance.

Sr. No. Temperature (
C) Pressure (kPag) Anode Stoichiometry Cathode Stoichiometry %RH anode %RH cathode
1 50-60-80 100 2 2 100 100
2 80 0-100-200 2 2 100 100
3 80 100 2 2 25-45-95 100
4 80 100 2 2 100 25-45-95
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 8 8 6 6 e8 8 7 4 8869

This expression is also known as the Nernst Equation of a  

RT i
fuel cell. On standard condition of 25
C and a pressure of Vact ¼ ln (xi)
naF i0
1 atm, taking the value of n ¼ 2, we will have
where i is the current density, and i0 is the reaction exchange
Dg0f current density, n is the number of exchange protons per mole
E0 ¼  ¼ 1:229 V (v)
nF of reactant, F is Faraday's constant, and a is the charge
The following expression is used for calculating the cell transfer coefficient used to describe the amount of electrical
voltage at temperatures different than the reference energy applied to change the rate of the electrochemical re-
temperature action [8].

 0
Dg0f   DS Ohmic losses
 ¼ 1:229 þ Tfc  T0 (vi)
nF nF The material's natural resistance to charge flow causes ohmic
polarization, which results in a loss in cell voltage. This
The reversible Nernst voltage is a function of temperature
resistance is offered by all the components of a fuel cell e.g.
and pressure, which is given by:
the carbon electrodes, current collecting plates and contact
  material to the circulation of electrons, and the resistance of
Ecell ¼ 1:229  0:87  103 Tfc  298:15 þ 9:78
     the electrolyte membrane to transfer the protons through it.
 105 log PH2 þ 0:5 log PO2 (vii)
Ohmic losses prevail at medium and higher current density
In the above equations, Tfc is the fuel cell temperature in and are given by
Kelvin while PH2 and PO2 are the partial pressures in atm.
The saturation pressure of water is given by Ref. [7]. Vohm ¼ i$Rohm (xii)

where, Rohm is the total resistance offered by the membrane,

logPH2 O ¼  2:1794 þ 0:02953TC  9:1837  105 TC þ 1:4454
electrodes as well as the metallic contact. As the resistance of
 107 TC the membrane is comparatively very high than that offered by
(viii) graphite electrodes or current collector plates, Rohm is
where TC is the temperature in
C. considered to be equal to be membrane resistance, given by
The partial pressure of hydrogen is given by Ref. [7]. r$tm
Rohm ¼ (xiii)
0 1 A
B C where, r is the specific resistance of the membrane (UDcm), tm
B PH2
!C
pH2 ¼ 0:5  B C  PH2 O (ix) is the membrane thickness (cm), and A is the cell active area
@ A
1:653i
exp T1:334 (cm2).
K

Specific resistance is dependent on the water content of

The partial pressure of oxygen can be obtained from the membrane which itself is affected by the relative humid-
Ref. [7]. ity/water content of the incoming gas streams and thus the
0 1 dry gas and dew point temperature. The following expression
B C is used for specific resistance of the membrane [9].
B Pair
!C
pO2 ¼ B C  PH2 O (x)     2  2:5
@ A
exp 4:192i
T 1:334 181:6 1 þ 0:03 AT þ 0:062 303
T
 AI
K
r¼    (xiv)
   4:18· T303
T
Overpotential l  0:634  AI  exp

As described earlier, there are three types of voltage losses
which decrease the theoretical cell voltage. These are dis-
cussed in detail in the following sub sections.
Activation overpotential
Activation polarization is the voltage overpotential required to
overcome the activation energy of the electrochemical reac-
tion on the catalytic surface. This type of overpotential dom-
inates at lower current density only. The total activation
polarization overpotential is 0.1e0.2 V, which reduces the
maximum actual voltage to less than 1.0 V even under open-
circuit conditions.
The kinetics of the hydrogen reduction reaction (HRR) are
an order of magnitude higher than that of oxidation of oxygen,
and thus the activation over-potential of the oxygen reduction
reaction is higher than the hydrogen oxidation.
The parameter l, described above is known as the water
content is given by Ref. [10].
l ¼ 0:043 þ 17:81a  39:81a2 þ 36a3 (xv)
where a is the relative humidity of the inlet gas streams,
defined as the ratio of partial pressure of the vapor to the total
pressure.
Concentration losses
These losses arise because of the inability of the cell to deliver
the required amount of oxygen at constant pressure due to
flow resistance. As the reaction proceeds and current density
increases, the consumption of reactant increases and thus, its
concentration at the electrode surface decreases while the
rate of diffusion of gas through the GDL is comparatively low
because of a number of factors. Such phenomenon will put an
8870 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 8 8 6 6 e8 8 7 4
upper limit on the rate of reactant consumption. The con-
centration overpotential can be calculated from the following
equation [11].
   
RT Csurface RT i
Vconc ¼ $ ln ¼ $ln 1 
nF C∞ nF ilim
where, n is the number of electrons, F is the Faraday's con-
stant, C∞ is the concentration of bulk reactant, while Csurface is
the concentration of the reactant at the catalyst surface. This
expression is valid till i < ilim . If the current is increased beyond
a certain limit beyond which reactant cannot diffuse faster
compared to their rate of consumption, the concentration at
the electrode surface becomes zero i.e. Csurface ¼ 0.
Results and discussion
Effect of cell operating temperature
Fig. 2 shows the effect of operating temperature ranging from
50
C to 80
C on the fuel cell stack voltage. The stack operating
temperature was changed by changing the coolant set tem-
perature. A constant pressure of 100 kPag was maintained for
all the experimentation with anode/cathode stoichiometric
ratio maintained as 2 each at both electrodes. From Fig. 2 it can
be seen that, with increase in stack temperature to 80
C, the
performance is reduced for low current densities. The value of
this current density is ~0.3 A/cm2. The performance of the
stack then increases steadily for the higher values of current
densities, as compared to other temperatures. At low value of
current density and high temperature, water produced is not
able to effectively humidify the membrane by back-diffusion,
as a result of which the Ohmic resistance will increase and net
voltage will drop. But at high current density, the water pro-
duction rate at cathode increases, which will help to improve
the water content of the membrane and performance of the
cell elevates. The increase in stack voltage upon rise in
Fig. 2 e Comparison of experimental and modeling polarization curve for different operating temperatures.
temperature from 50
C to 80
C is reported to be 25% at a
current density of 1.1 A/cm2. While the increase in stack
voltage is 5e20% when the stack is operated in the current
density of 0.3e1.0 A/cm2.
(xvi) Fig. 2 also compares the effect of temperature on the stack
performance, as observed experimentally and predicted by
the mathematical model. It can be seen from the figure that
the model follows the experimental trends very well. The
largest deviation from the experimental values was observed
to be 7%. Also, from the graph, it can be seen that the differ-
ence between the predicted value and experimental observed
stack volatge is higher at higher current densities, for all the
temperature variations.
A decrease in activation overpotential is observed at higher
temperatures, which may be due to the increase in exchange
current density [12]. The difference in slope of the polarization
curve at any two temperatures suggests that Ohmic resistance
is decreased which contributes to better performance [13].
This improvement can also be attributed to the fact that
the gas diffusivity and the membrane conductivity increase
with increasing temperature. Hence, mass transport resis-
tance decreases with increasing temperature [13].
Effect of cell operating pressure
A series of tests were conducted to observe the effect of
operating pressure in fuel cell stack performance. Same
pressure was maintained at both the anode and the cathode
sides. The pressure was increased from 0 kPag to 200 kPag, as
shown in Fig. 3 and 4 Effect of operating pressure on stack
power outputFig. 4. The operating temperature of the stack
was maintained at 80
C while fully humidified (100% RH) fuel
and oxidant gases were used for all the experimentations.
Figs. 3 and 4 suggest that the fuel cell performance is always
improved by pressurized anode and cathode inlet gas streams.
This improvement can be explained as a result of increase in
partial pressure of the reactant streams [13,14] which also
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 8 8 6 6 e8 8 7 4 8871

Fig. 3 e Comparison of experimental and modeling polarization curve for different operating pressures.

Fig. 4 e Effect of operating pressure on stack power output.

increases the Open circuit voltage (OCV) as suggested by the
Nernst equation (iv) and also due to decrease in diffusion
resistance of the gas streams.
Fig. 3 exhibits the behavior of stack voltage by increasing
current density at different operating pressures. As can be
seen from the figure, the OCV of the stack increased by 0.5 V
when the operating pressure was made 100 kPag from 0 kPag.
This increase in OCV can be seen as 1 V when the operating
pressure was further built up to 200 kPag. This is in agreement
with the Nernst equation (iv).
The increase in the stack voltage is reported to be 30%
when the stack operating pressure was increased from 0 kPag
to 100 kPag at 1.0 A/cm2. While this increase is reported as 50%
when the stack pressure was further increased to 200 kPag.
Clearly the increase in operating pressure increases the
operating range of the stack, in terms of voltage. But this in-
crease in the stack voltage is at the cost of higher power
consumption by the air compressor. Thus this data can be
used to determine the net increase/decrease in the power
output of the fuel cell system under consideration.
Fig. 3 also depicts the comparison of the effect of operating
pressure as observed experimentally and predicted by the
model. As can be seen from the figure, the model follows
experimental trend. It can be seen from the figure that the
largest deviation in the predicted value of the stack voltage is
10% at 0kPag. It can also be seen that the model predicts the
stack voltage very well at higher operating pressure and low to
medium current densities. At low operating pressures and
8872 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 8 8 6 6 e8 8 7 4
Fig. 5 e Comparison of experimental and modeling polarization curves for different anode humidification.
high current densities (>0.7 A/cm2) the average deviation is
observed to be 7e8%. Whereas the deviation is 2e3% for lower
current densities.
As can be seen from Figs. 2 and 3 that the comparison is
good at low and medium current densities and poor at higher
current densities. The model always over-predicts the stack
volatge. It is so because of the presence of liquid water in the
GDL and catalysts layers which reduces their effective
porosity resulting in an increase in mass transfer resistance.
As a result, the experimental values of the stack voltage are
lower than the predicted values by the steady state model.
Fig. 4 depicts the power output of the stack as a function of
current densities, at various operating pressures. Typically the
plot of power output vs current density shows a maxima in
after which the curve falls to the lower values. This can be
evidently seen from the curve of power output at 0 kPag
operating pressure. The other curves at 100kPag and 200kPag
show the similar trend. It can be observed from Fig. 4 that the
stack power output value increases with increase in the
operating pressure. The increase in maximum stack power
output is 30% when the operating pressure was raised to
100kPag from 0 kPag. Whereas 60% increase in maximum
power output of the stack can be seen upon further increase in
stack operating pressure to 200kPag.
Also the current density at which the maxium power
output occurs can be seen to be shifted to a higher value, when
the stack operating pressure was increased. This can be useful
in applications which have dynamic load profiles. The in-
crease or decrease in power demand can be met by changing
the operating pressure of stack, with minor or no change in
current density. However further work needs to be done to
test system response time for change in operating pressure to
meet the load variations.
Effect of humidity on fuel cell performance
Two series of experiments were conducted to study the effect
of relative humidity of the reactant gas streams on the stack
performance. In the first set of experiment, %RH on cathode
side was set to 100% (corresponding to a humidification tem-
perature of 80
C) while varying.
The %RH on the anode side. The other set of experiments
was carried out with different cathode %RH while keeping the
same anode %RH (100%, corresponding to a humidification
temperature of 80
C). It can be observed from Fig. 5 that the
performance is decreased with a decrease in relative humidity
at anode side. The maximum increase in the stack voltage on
increase in the anode humidity from 25% to 45% was observed
to be 3% at current density of 1.0 A/cm2. Whereas the
maximum increase in stack voltage is observed to 10%, as
anode humidity was further increased from 25% to 95% at 0.65
A/cm2.
As seen in Fig. 5 the stack voltage is lowest for a given
current density at lowest anode %RH. It may be due to the fact
that at low anode %RH, water transfer by back-diffusion is
dominant as compared to water migration by electro-osmosis
from the anode side to the cathode side. As a result, the
membrane conductivity is decreased because of reduction in
water content. Hence the slope of polarization curve is
decreased on reduction in the %RH on anode side.
Fig. 5 also compares the polarization curves for different
anode humidification as recorded experimentally and pre-
dicted by model. It can be observed from the figure that the
values as predicted by the model are on the higher side than
the experimental values. The largest deviation observed to be
for 95% RH at anode. The maxium deviation is observed to be
15%.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 8 8 6 6 e8 8 7 4
Fig. 6 e Comparison of experimental and modeling polarization curve for different cathode humidification conditions.
It is so because of the presence of liquid water in the GDL
and catalysts layers which reduces their effective porosity
resulting in an increase in mass transfer resistance.
Fig. 6 depicts the behavior of the stack as a function of
current densities at different %RH at cathode side. The hu-
midity on anode side was maintained at 100%RH.The in-
crease in the stack voltage is observed to be maximum 6%
when the cathode humidity was increased from 25% to 45%
at 1.1 A/cm2. Also, the maximum rise in stack voltage is
observed as a 16% when the cathode humidity was further
increased from 25% to 95%, at 1.1 A/cm2. Electrode kinetics
and membrane resistance are limiting parameters leading to
reduced performance of fuel cell at low RH [14]. Thus it shows
the stack performance is more sensitive to the cathode hu-
midity than compared to anode humidity. This is because of
the higher flow rates of the cathode than compared to the
anode. Typically the cathode side flow rate is double than
that of anode fuel flow rate. Thus the water content carried
by these streams vary in the same ratio, at same %RH for
anode and cathode side. As explained earlier, this water
content greatly changes the ionic conductivity of the polymer
membrane. Thus, the stack voltage drops due to higher
ohmic resistance, at low %RH of cathode.
Fig. 6 also compares the polarization curved for different
cathode humidification as observed experimentally and pre-
dicted by model. It can be seen that the model overpredicts the
stack voltage at any given current density. The maximum
deviation observed in the predicted and experimental values
is 10%.
The presence of liquid water as explained before has a
negative effect of stack performance.
Conclusions
The presented work deals with the experimental study of
PEMFC stack performance for different operating conditions
8873
like temperature, pressure, % RH of anode and cathode
streams etc. Also, the experimental work has been compared
with the steady state model, developed in MATLAB. Increase
in stack operating temperature from 50
C to 80
C was seen to
increase the stack voltage by 25%, because of lowering the
activation potential and ohmic resistance. However, further
increase in operating temperature results in membrane
dehydration. Similarly, 30% increase in stack output power
was observed on increase in operating pressure from 0 kPag to
100 kPag. The further increase in pressure to 200 kPag showed
a 60% increase in the output power. This is mainly because of
the increased gibbs free energy change and higher gas diffu-
sivity, at higher operating pressures. The operating pressure is
limited by mechanical strength of membrane and also the net
increase/decrease in power output of fuel cell system inclu-
sive of balance of plant. The PEMFC stack was observed to be
more sensitive to cathode humidity than the anode humidity.
The stack voltage increased by 16% with increment in the %RH
of cathode from 25% to 95%. The increase in anode % RH from
25% to 95% recorded at stack voltage increase of 10%. Elec-
trode kinetics and membrane resistance are limiting param-
eters contributing to reduced performance at low RH. The
steady state developed model was observed to have followed
the similar trend as that of experimental results. The devia-
tion in the model and experimental data was found to be
7e15% for various operating parameters like temperature,
pressure, %RH of anode and cathode streams. The deviations
were majorly because of simplified assumptions and lower
effective diffusivity of gases due to water generation at higher
current densities. The conducted study and developed model
would help to predict the performance of the stack within
tested domain of operating conditions to a reasonable accu-
racy. This in turn would be useful for estimation of net power
output from fuel cell system for known operating conditions.
The presented work can be extended for controller design,
battery sizing and design of balance of plant for hybrid
applications.
8874 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 8 8 6 6 e8 8 7 4
6. Acknowledgements
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
references
[1] Steele BC. Material science and engineering : the enabling
technology for the commercialisation of fuel cell systems. J
Mater Sci 2001;6:1053e68.
[2] Wu HW. A review of recent development: transport and
performance modeling of PEM fuel cells. Appl Energy
2016;165:81e106. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.apenergy.2015.12.075.
[3] Jiang R, Chu D. Voltage-time behavior of a polymer
electrolyte membrane fuel cell stack at constant current
discharge. J Power Sources 2001;92:193e8. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0378-7753(00)00540-1.
[4] Wilberforce T, El-Hassan Z, Khatib FN, Al Makky A,
Baroutaji A, Carton JG, et al. Modelling and simulation of
Proton Exchange Membrane fuel cell with serpentine bipolar
plate using MATLAB. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2017;42:25639e62. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2017.06.091.
[5] Abdin Z, Webb CJ, Gray EMA. PEM fuel cell model and
simulation in MatlabeSimulink based on physical
parameters. Energy 2016;116:1131e44. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2016.10.033.
View publication stats
[6] Larminie J, Dicks A. Fuel cell systems explained. 2002.
[7] Nguyen TV. A water and heat management model for
proton-exchange-membrane fuel cells. J Electrochem Soc
2006;140:2178. https://doi.org/10.1149/1.2220792.
[8] Butler JAV. Studies in heterogeneous equilibria. Part II. - the
kinetic interpretation of the nernst theory of electromotive
force. Trans Faraday Soc 1924;19:729e33. https://doi.org/
10.1039/TF9241900729.
[9] Springer TE. Polymer electrolyte fuel cell model. J
Electrochem Soc 2006;138:2334. https://doi.org/10.1149/
1.2085971.
[10] Sridhar P, Perumal R, Rajalakshmi N, Raja M,
Dhathathreyan KS. Humidification studies on polymer
electrolyte membrane fuel cell. J Power Sources
2001;101:72e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7753(01)00625-
5.
[11] Kim J. Modeling of proton exchange membrane fuel cell
performance with an empirical equation. J Electrochem Soc
2006;142:2670. https://doi.org/10.1149/1.2050072.
[12] Wang L, Liu H. Performance studies of PEM fuel cells with
interdigitated flow fields. J Power Sources 2004;134:185e96.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2004.03.055.
[13] Amirinejad M, Rowshanzamir S, Eikani MH. Effects of
operating parameters on performance of a proton exchange
membrane fuel cell. J Power Sources 2006;161:872e5. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2006.04.144.
[14] Wang L, Husar A, Zhou T, Liu H. A parametric study of PEM
fuel cell performances. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2003;28:1263e72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3199(02)
00284-7.