4.7 Article

Parametric analysis of the proton exchange membrane fuel cell performance using design of experiments

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
Volume 33, Issue 9, Pages 2311-2322

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.02.040

Keywords

proton exchange membrane fuel cell; Taguchi method; design of experiments

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) performance depends on different fuel cell operating temperatures, humidification temperatures, operating pressures, flow rates, and various combinations of these parameters. This study employed the method of the design of experiments (DOE) to obtain the optimal combination of the six primary operating parameters (fuel cell operating temperatures, operating pressures, anode and cathode humidification temperatures, anode and cathode stoichiometric flow ratios). In the first stage, this study adopted a 2(k-2) fractional factorial design of the DOE to deter-mine whether these factors have significant effects on a response and the interactions between various parameters. Second, the L-27(3(13)) orthogonal array of the Taguchi method is utilized to determine the optimal combination of factors for a fuel cell. Based on this study, the operating pressure, the operating temperature, and the interactions between operating temperature and operating pressure have a significant effect on the fuel cell performance. Among them, the operating pressure is the most important contributor. When the operating pressure increases, it should simultaneously lower the effects of other factors. While both the operating temperature and pressure increase simultaneously with that, the other factors are at appropriate conditions, it is possible to improve the fuel cell performance. (c) 2008 International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available