4.8 Review

Analysis of electrochemical and thermal models and modeling techniques for polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2019.109283

关键词

Polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell (PEMFC); Modeling techniques; Electrical and thermal behavior; Model development; Review

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness [ENE2016-79145-R]
  2. Provincial Council of Gipuzkoa (project Etorkizuna Eraikiz 2019) [DGE19/03]
  3. Basque Government (project ELKARTEK) [KK-2017/00083]
  4. University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU [EHUA15/25, PPG17/23]
  5. Basque Government (GISEL research group) [IT1083-16]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Polymeric Electrolyte Membrane Fuel Cell (PEMFC) modeling considering thermal and electrical behavior in a coupled manner is a key aspect when evaluating new designs, materials, physical phenomena or control strategies. Depending on the behavior to be emulated, it is important to choose the modeling technique that best suits the needs required. In this sense, this paper describes the most commonly used PEMFC modeling techniques in the context of analytical-mechanistic approach, semi-empirical approach based on theoretical formulation and empirical correlations, as well as empirical approach based on experimentation with a real system. In addition, an in-depth analysis of PEMFC models at the cell and stack level that emulate the thermal and electrical behavior of these systems in a coupled manner is carried out. A chronological classification of the most relevant models has been made based on the modeling technique used, purpose of the model, state and dimension of the model, and the real system, other developed models or experimental results that have been used to validate the proposed new model. Additionally, new modeling challenges have been detected to study several effects on the behavior of PEMFCs, and guidelines to improve their energy efficiency through the development of new models are given.

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