This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.

The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elseviers archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

Author's personal copy

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 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 7 8 8 9 e7 8 9 7

Available at www.sciencedirect.com

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

Direct and inverse neural networks modelling applied to

study the influence of the gas diffusion layer properties on
PBI-based PEM fuel cells
Justo Lobato a,*, Pablo Canizares a, Manuel A. Rodrigo a, Ciprian-George Piuleac b,
Silvia Curteanu b, Jose J. Linares a
a

Chemical Engineering Department, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Campus Universitario s/n, 13004 Ciudad Real, Spain
Faculty of Chemical Engineering and Environmental Protection, Department of Chemical Engineering, Gh. Asachi Technical University Iasi
Bd. D. Mangeron, No. 71A, 700050 IASI, Romania
b

article info

abstract

Article history:

This article shows the application of a very useful mathematical tool, artificial neural

Received 22 March 2010

networks, to predict the fuel cells results (the value of the tortuosity and the cell voltage, at

Received in revised form

a given current density, and therefore, the power) on the basis of several properties that

11 May 2010

define a Gas Diffusion Layer: Teflon content, air permeability, porosity, mean pore size,

Accepted 12 May 2010

hydrophobia level. Four neural networks types (multilayer perceptron, generalized feed-

Available online 16 June 2010

forward network, modular neural network, and Jordan-Elman neural network) have been
applied, with a good fitting between the predicted and the experimental values in the

Keywords:

polarization curves. A simple feedforward neural network with one hidden layer proved to

GDL

be an accurate model with good generalization capability (error about 1% in the validation

PEMFC

phase). A procedure based on inverse neural network modelling was able to determine,

Neuronal networks

with small errors, the initial conditions leading to imposed values for characteristics of the

PBI

fuel cell. In addition, the use of this tool has been proved to be very attractive in order to

Direct and inverse neural modelling

predict the cell performance, and more interestingly, the influence of the properties of the
gas diffusion layer on the cell performance, allowing possible enhancements of this
material by changing some of its properties.
2010 Professor T. Nejat Veziroglu. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1.

Introduction

The current energy model, based on fossil fuel, shows clearly

exhaustion signs. For this reason, one of the main challenges
during next years is to make progress within a new model
based on non-pollutant energies, whose supply is guaranteed.
In this context, hydrogen, as an energy vector, appears as
a good alternative, especially if produced from renewable
resources. There are two main ways of using the hydrogen.
The first one is in internal combustion engines or turbines,

and the second one is in fuel cells. A fuel cell is an electrochemical device that directly converts the chemical energy
contained in a fuel into electricity, promising power generation with high efficiency and low environmental impact. The
basic physical structure of a fuel cell consists of an electrolyte,
in contact with an anode and a cathode on either side.
The proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs) are
one type of fuel cell suitable for portable, mobile and even
residential applications, due to their advantages, such as
high-power density, simple and safe construction, and quick

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 34926295300x6707.

E-mail address: justo.lobato@uclm.es (J. Lobato).
0360-3199/$ e see front matter 2010 Professor T. Nejat Veziroglu. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.05.065

Author's personal copy

7890

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 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 7 8 8 9 e7 8 9 7

start-up, even at low operating temperatures [1]. PEMFC technology differs itself from other fuel cell technologies in the use of
a solid phase polymer membrane as cell separator/electrolyte.
PEMFCs are widely based on the use of perfluorosulphonated materials (Nafion and similar) as electrolyte.
Some of their qualities are high ionic conductivity when fully
hydrated (z0.1 Scm1), excellent mechanical strength, and
a demonstrated reliability during operation for more than
50,000 h [1]. However, Nafion membranes need to be hydrated
in order to be proton conductors, limiting the operational
temperature to 90  C at atmospheric pressure. This leads to two
important limitations: (i) the CO tolerance of the Pt catalyst
(tens of ppm), and (ii) a sluggish cathodic kinetic.
In order to overcome these drawbacks, it is advisable to
increase the operational temperature above 120  C. An appropriate material for working under these conditions is Polybenzimidazole (PBI). This material has certain advantages such
as high proton conductivity when impregnated with a nonvolatile acid (phosphoric acid), and an exceptional thermal and
chemical stability [2e6]. These properties have driven the rapid
development of PBI-based PEMFC systems since 1995, when it
was first proposed by Wainright and co-workers [7].
PBI-based PEMFCs are composed by the classical PEMFC
elements: electrolytic membrane (PBI), catalytic layer (Pt/
C PBI), gas diffusion layer (carbon substrate) and monopolar/
bipolar plates. It is evident that an optimum design, configuration and/or composition of all of these elements is fundamental in order to attain the highest and most stable possible
cell performance [8]. However, this work implies a large
number of experiments, resulting in a highly time, energy and
material consuming process.
Modelling can be used as an alternative in order to simplify
this experimental work, assisting in the prediction of the
experimental results. However, a simple look to rigorous
analytical models shows how complex is the modelling of
a PEMFC, due to the large number of variables and processes
affecting the performance [9e11]. In these conditions, an
empirical modelling is an appropriate opportunity. The use of
artificial neural networks (ANN) has become increasingly
recommended for applications where the mechanistic
description of the interdependences between variables is
either unknown or very complex. Direct neural network
modelling can be a powerful and accessible tool for determination the fuel cell characteristics as function of working
conditions. In addition, inverse neural network modelling
could give the initial conditions, which lead to pre-established
properties, substituting the complex modelling and optimization processes with a simple and rapid technique, supplying
reliable results. Some examples of the application of ANN to
the fuel cell field are collected in literature [1,12e15].
Generally, there are some specific issues for neural
networks which potential users should be aware of. The
neural networks have the capability to learn what happens in
a process, without modelling the physical and chemical laws
that govern the system. Consequently, they are very useful in
approximation of any continuous non-linear functions [16].
Parallel organization permits solutions to problems where
multiple constraints must be satisfied simultaneously, and
the high functionality and the rules are more implicit than
explicit. On the other hand, neural networks need large

amount of good quality data for its training, which is normally

difficult to obtain in practice. If properly trained and validated,
the neural network models could be used to make accurately
predictions upon the process behaviour, hence, leading to
improve process optimization and control performance [17].
Neural networks topologies are correlated with the nature
of their application and the type of the chemical system, e.g.:
feedforward neural networks for stationary conditions [18,19],
recurrent neural networks useful for long term predictions [20],
stacked neural networks composed from some different or
identical neural networks [21], hybrid models, which combine
simplified phenomenological models with the neural ones
[22,23], or neural network trained with static and dynamic
operating data [24]. Stacks and hybrid models can be formed by
feedforward or recurrent neural networks and have as main
goal the development of a model with improved performance
as compared with the individual neural networks.
In a previous work, authors used neural networks to
further understand the behaviour of the fuel cell under
different temperatures [25]. This article represents a first
approach to the utility of the neural networks for the design of
the electrodes, addressing the influence of the properties of
the gas diffusion layer (GDL) on the cell performance.
Finally, it should be recalled that this GDL fulfils four basic
goals: i) acts as a gas diffuser, ii) provides mechanical support,
iii) provides an electrical pathway for electrons, and iv)
channels product water away from the electrodes. Some of
the properties that define its characteristics are: Teflon
content, permeability, porosity, mean pore size, and hydrophobia level. These properties represent the inputs of the
neural models in direct modelling, influencing the cell
performance, and the outputs in inverse neural network
modelling which predict them based on final imposed tortuosity and cell voltage. Consequently, neural network modelling applied in this article, in variants of direct and inverse
modelling, represents an efficient tool for the prediction of
fuel cell performance and for the optimization of the properties that define gas diffusion layer.

2.

Method of approach

The development of the neural network model implies the

following stages: collecting the experimental data (110 data in
our case), making up the training and testing data sets,
developing the neural network topology, training and, finally,
establishing the performance of the neural network model by
comparing the network prediction to unseen (validation) data.
As a general rule, the model is sought from experimental
available sets of data that clearly contain a number of very
interesting relationships, feature correlations and other
information, which cannot be deduced in a straightforward
manner from the first principles, by theoretical calculations or
even with numerical methods. The quantity and quality of the
experimental data influence the accuracy of the neural model.
Our experimental data set correspond to these requirements
being in sufficient number and covering uniformly the
investigated domain.
The available set of data was divided into training
(a number of 100 data) and validation (approximately 10%)

Author's personal copy

7891

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 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 7 8 8 9 e7 8 9 7

feedforward networks are a generalization of MLP, the

difference being into the connections that can jump over one
or more layers. In practice, generalized feedforward networks
often solve the problem much more efficiently. Modular
feedforward networks are a special class of MLP, using several
parallel MLPs, and then recombining the results. This capability tends to create some structure within topology, which
will foster specialization of function in each sub-module.
Jordan and Elman networks supply the multilayer perceptron
with context units, which are processing elements that
remember past activity. Context units provide to the network
the ability to extract temporal information from the data [26].
Many papers have been applied a multilayered, feedforward, fully connected network of perceptions because the
simplicity of the theory, ease of programming and good
results obtained [1,12e15,27,28]. That is due to its universal
feature in the sense that if networks topology has allowed to
vary freely, it can take the shape of any broken curve [29].
A neural network model is obtained by training with input/
output pairs, which have to be related by the transformation,
which is being modelled. The adjustment of the neural
network function to experimental data (learning process or
training) is based on a non-linear regression procedure.
Training is done by assigning random weights to each neuron,
evaluating the output of the network and calculating the error
between the output of the network and the known results by
means of an error or objective function. When the error
becomes too large, the weights have to be adjusted and the
process goes back for evaluating the output of the network.
This cycle is repeated till the error becomes low or the stop
criterion is satisfied [30]. In our work, a minimum error was
imposed as stop condition.
The main advantage of a neural network consists of the
capacity of generalization, the feature of the network to make
prediction to other inputs that were not seen yet (not included
in the training set). The error in the validation phase was
a criterion to choose the appropriate neural model, taking into
account the best generalization capability.

Table 1 e The best topologies and their performances for

different neural network types.
Network type

Topology

MLP
GFF
MNN
JEN

6:15:2
6:12:4:2
6:12:4:2
6:6:2

MSE

Correlation

Epochs

0.000113
0.000081
0.00022
0.000071

0.99999
0.99987
0.99972
0.99988

11000
18000
5000
5000

data sets. Six input variables were considered: PTFE (Polytetrafluoroethylene) content (%), porosity from Hg-porosity
(%), mean pore diameter (mm), air permeability (m2), hydrophobia level (%), and current density (mA/cm2). The outputs of
the neural model are cell voltage (mV), and tortuosity.
Experimental data come from the paper corresponding to
the reference 8 of this manuscript. In this article [8], the influence of the Teflon content of the gas diffusion layer on the cell
performance was studied, carrying out physical characterization and electrochemical measurements. Tables 1 and 2 of this
manuscript, along with the polarization curves, are the feed for
the current work. The explanation of the experimental techniques which characterize the gas diffusion layer, the operational protocol for obtaining the fuel cell results, and the
significance of each parameter have been described in the
experimental section of the previous paper [8].
The inverse neural network modelling answers to the
following problem: What are the initial working conditions
when the tortuosity and the cell voltage values are imposed?
Therefore, changing the outputs with the inputs in the first
problem, there is a high probability to determine the real
adequate parameters, in order to operate the fuel cell system
in good conditions.
Fig. 1 presents schematically the neural network-based
strategies in direct and inverse neural network modelling.
The next task in the modelling technique is to develop the
neural network topology. To determine the optimum network
configuration, different elements were tested within a trialand-error procedure: neural network types, number of hidden
layers and neurons, learning rules and activation functions.
In the present article four types of neural networks that
have as common characteristic the supervised learning
control (Multilayer Perceptrons, MLP, Generalized Feedforward Networks, GFF, Modular Neural Networks, MNN and
Jordan-Elman Networks, JEN) have been tested.
Multilayer perceptron, the most common neural network
architecture, can approximate any input/output map, but it
trains slowly and requires lots of training data. Generalized

3.

Results and discussion

Neural networks were implemented for achievement the

following objectives: prediction of potential and tortuosity
that define the cell performance depending on working
condition (direct neural network modelling) and determining

Table 2 e The performances of the neural models in the training and validation stages.
Network type

Training stage
Potential

MLP(6:15:2)
GFF(6:12:4:2)
MNN(6:12:4:2)
JEN(6:6:2)

Validation stage
Tortuosity

Potential

Tortuosity

Correlation

Average
error

Correlation

Average
error

Correlation

Average
error

Correlation

Average
error

1.000
0.999732
0.99958
0.999775

2.525
2.747
3.168
3.404

1.000
0.999998
0.99999
0.99999

0.007
0.020
0.048
0.046

0.99879
0.99929
0.999268
0.98371

1.269
0.954
1.245
10.983

1.000
0.999998
0.999991
0.99611

0.006
0.027
0.053
1.199

Author's personal copy

7892

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 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 7 8 8 9 e7 8 9 7

Fig. 1 e Direct and inverse neural network modelling.

the initial conditions that lead to imposed values for the

potential and tortuosity (inverse neural network modelling).
The direct modelling established the inputeoutput relation, giving supplementary predictions. The inverse modelling
can be considered as a working alternative useful to predict
initial conditions corresponding to the final pre-established
values for cell characteristics.

Direct neural network modelling

An important constrain in the development of neural network

model is the determination of the network architecture, i.e. the
number of hidden layers, and the number of neurons in each
hidden layer, to lead to a minimum error. Firstly, potentially
good topologies must be identified. Nevertheless, no good
theory or rule accompanies the neural network topology that
should be used, and trial-and-error is still required.
Four types of neural networks were designed and trained,
and the best performance was chosen based on the values of
the mean squared error (MSE). We tried different types of
neural models with to goal to establish the best modelling
strategy from the point of view of accuracy of the predictions
and simplicity of the method (network topology, training
time). Table 1 presents these networks. The topology is represented by the number of inputs (six in our case), the number
of neurons in one or two hidden layers and the number of
outputs (two for this case). For instance, MLP(6:15:2) is
a network with 6 neurons in the input layer, one hidden layer
with 15 neurons and 2 neurons in the output layer.
The mean squared error was computed using the following
formula:
1,
P X
N 
2
X
dij  yij A N,P
MSE @
j1

18

(1)

i1

where P is the number of output processing elements (in this

case, P 2), N is the number of exemplars in the data set, yij is
the network output for exemplar i at processing element j, and
dij is the desired output for exemplar i at processing element j.
Smaller errors indicate potentially good architectures, i.e.
neural network topologies with chances to train well, and to
output good results. In Table 1, the parameter correlation
shows a good agreement between the experimental data and

MLP(6:15:2)
GFF(6:12:4:2)
MNN(6:12:4:2)
JEN(6:6:1)

16
14
-4

20

MSE x 10

3.1.

the outputs of the neural networks. The training time is represented by the number of epochs (a cycle for considering the
whole set of training data).
Fig. 2 shows the decrease of the error (MSE) during the
training process for the considered neural network types,
according to the Table 1, where the values at the end of the
training stage are given. This Figure shows the small errors at
the end of the training stage, similar for the four types of neural
networks (MLP, GFF, MNN, JEN). In addition, JEN benefits of the
shorter training time. But the decision regarding the choice of
the best model will be done after the validation stage.
In order to determine the best model, it is required a validation stage. In this phase, it was selected ten data from the
experimental set (not included in the training set). Figs. 3 and 4
show the validation stage for the cell voltage and the tortuosity,
respectively, for the models developed in this work. One can see
from these Figures that the MLP network provides the best
results for both modelled parameters (potential and tortuosity),
so this type of network has the best generalization capability.
In Figs. 3 and 4 the predictions of the neural networks are
grouped as followed: MLP and GFF in 3a and 4a for the potential
and tortuosity, respectively, and MNN and JEN in 3b and 4b.
Average relative errors (Equation (2)) were computed for
the two output parameters in the training and validation phases as one of the criterion of choosing the best neural models.

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0

5000

10000

15000

20000

Epochs
Fig. 2 e The evolution of mean square errors for different
neural networks during the training process.

Author's personal copy

7893

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 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 7 8 8 9 e7 8 9 7

900
800
700
600
500
400
300

Tortuosity_MLP

3.5

Tortuosity_GFF

3
2.5
2
1.5

200

100

0.5
0

0
1

10

900

10

800

Potential_exp

700

Potential_MNN

Tortuosity_exp
Tortuosity_MNN

Tortuosity_JEN

3.5

Potential_JEN

600

5
4.5

Tortuosity

Potential, mV

Exemplars

Exemplars

Tortuosity_exp

4.5

Tortuosity

Potential, mV

Potential_exp
Potential_MLP
Potential_GFF

500
400

3
2.5
2
1.5

300

200

0.5

100

10

10

Exemplars

Exemplars

Er %

Oexp  Onet
$100
Oexp

(2)

where O is the output variable of the neural model (tortuosity

or potential) and indices exp and net denote experimental and
network values, respectively.
The smaller average relative error in validation stage (Table
2) for both outputs of the networks were registered by MLP
type (1.269% for potential and 0.006% for tortuosity), compared
with JEN type, which had the best training performance,
(10.983% for potential and 1.119% for tortuosity).
It can be observed from Tables 1 and 2 and Figs. 3 and 4 that
the best fitting corresponds to the neural network MLP (6:15:2).
It benefits of very good performance in the training and validation phases and, also, it is a simple model, with a single
hidden layer and reasonable number of intermediate neurons.
Therefore the final choice was MLP (6:15:2).
Fig. 5 shows a comparison of the polarization curves with
different Teflon contents between the experimental data and
the values predicted by the MLP model in the training stage
(values of the rest of inputs are collected in Table 3, except the
current density, which is defined for each experimental point).
It can be observed that the MLP model fits well the experimental data, which means the model learned well the
behaviour of the process. In Fig. 5, one can see that the lower is
the Teflon content, the better the cell performs, especially at
high current densities. This is due to the higher porosity and
permeability of the gas diffusion layer, allowing an enhanced

Fig. 4 e The tortuosity of the cell determined by

experiments and predicted by neural network modelling in
validation phase; (a) predictions of MLP and GFF networks;
(b) predictions of MNN and JEN networks.

transport of the reactant gases and water vapour product

produced in the cathode.
Fig. 6 shows the experimental and MPL predictions of
tortuosity for different Teflon content (the rest of the inputs
corresponds to the same collected in Table 3). A good
concordance between the two sets of data is observed also for
this parameter.

900
0% PTFE_exp

800

0% PTFE_net
10% PTFE_exp

700

10% PTFE_net
20% PTFE_exp
20% PTFE_net

600

Potential, mV

Fig. 3 e The potential of the cell determined by

experiments and predicted by neural network modelling in
validation phase; (a) predictions of MLP and GFF networks;
(b) predictions of MNN and JEN networks.

40% PTFE_exp
40% PTFE_net

500
400
300
200
100
0
0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

Current density,mA/cm

Fig. 5 e A comparison between the experimental and

predicted potential with MLP(6:15:2) in the training stage.

Author's personal copy

7894

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 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 7 8 8 9 e7 8 9 7

Table 3 e Values of the inputs variables for Figs. 5 and 6.

Hydrophobia
PTFE Porosity Mean pore
1012 Air
level
(%)
(%)
size diameter permeability
(%)
(m2)
(mm)
0
10
20
40

76.3
73.9
69.6
61.6

3.2.

39.4
36.7
33.9
31.6

9.21
7.77
6.36
3.46

80.3
97.3
98.5
99.5

Inverse neural network modelling

5
4

Tortuosity

Fig. 7 e Working conditions obtained experimentally and

by MLP(2:10:6) prediction in validation phase of inverse
neural network modelling; (a) PTFE, diameter and
permeability; (b) porosity and hydrophobia.

The development of neural networks in direct and inverse

modelling was done into the framework of the special software NeuroSolutions.

3.3.

3
2

1200

1000
800

600

400
200

Tortuosity_exp
1

Supplementary predictions of the fuel cell

The good results provided of the neural models imply that

they could be used to make supplementary predictions of the
fuel cell process for working conditions, which not belongs to
experimental data set.

Current_density_net

A mathematical model can easily predict the final properties

from the initial process conditions. But the other way around
(inverse modelling) is much more difficult to do and an optimization technique, highly time consuming, must be
involved. The optimization approach can be substituted by
a neural network trained to do the same job, and once trained,
the neural network can estimate the operating conditions
faster than the optimization algorithm.
Supplementary information is obtained by inverse neural
modelling, which is a procedure for identification of working
conditions, which lead to the imposed fuel cells characteristics (for example, maximum power peaks), without the
disadvantages of the classical optimization - the necessity of
a rigorous model and the appropriate mathematical tool for
solving the optimization problem. An inverse neural network
with potential and tortuosity as inputs, and PTFE content,
porosity from Hg-porosity, mean pore diameter, air permeability, hydrophobia level, and density as outputs was developed. Several tests in inverse neural network modelling led to
an optimal topology MLP(2:10:6), that is a network with 10
hidden neurons, having MSE 0.000009, r 0.999988, and the
percentage error of 1.68% in the training phase.
Figs. 7 and 8 denote the validation phase in inverse neural
network modelling. Five parameters (PTFE content, porosity
from Hg-porosity, mean pore diameter, air permeability and
hydrophobia level) obtained by network prediction are
compared with the experimental values in Fig. 7 (3 outputs in
7a and 2 outputs in 7b) and the last one, current density is
represented in Fig. 8. The correlation with experimental
values near of 1 and the average error of 2.0038% reflect
a very good capability of the neural model.

Tortuosity_net
0

10

20

30

40

50

PTFE, %
Fig. 6 e A comparison between the experimental and
predicted tortuosity with MLP(6:15:2) in the training stage.

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Current density_ex p
Fig. 8 e Current density obtained experimentally and by
MLP(2:10:6) prediction in validation phase of inverse neural
network modelling.

Author's personal copy

7895

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 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 7 8 8 9 e7 8 9 7

After finishing the training and validation stages, an

additional application of the neural network models was the
prediction within the range of tested parameters, without
performing any experimental work. In this sense, it might be
interesting to see the variation of the system behaviour when
changing the properties of the gas diffusion layer. Two
approaches will be performed in order to get the most out of
this neural network tool.
Experimental data has been shown that the cell performance increases with the decrease of the Teflon percentage in
the gas diffusion layer. However, the mechanical integrity of
the membrane-electrode-assembly was not guaranteed when
using non-teflonized carbon paper [25]. As commercial Toray
Graphite papers were used, the minimum available Teflon
percentage was 10%, but it might be interesting to predict the
cell behaviour for intermediate Teflon loadings, between
0 and 10%, checking only the mechanical integrity of the
membrane-electrode-assembly, reducing notably the time
necessary for testing. Thus, the optimum value would correspond to the maximum power peak obtained, proving that the
mechanical integrity of the assembly is preserved.
Using the direct neural network methodology based on MLP
(6:15:2), the cell voltage and the tortuosity were predicted for
three values of PTFE (2.5, 5 and 7.5%), porosity, mean pore
diameter, hydrophobia level, air permeability and current
density (Table 4). The values of the porosity, mean pore
diameter and air permeability were linearly interpolated from
the experimental data collected in Table 3. The current density
shown corresponds exclusively to that in which the power
peak is achieved. In the case of the hydrophobia level, it will be
considered that, even at these low Teflon percentages, the
carbon support is still extremely hydrophobic. In Table 4, the
parameter power was calculated from potential and current
density and the last column, ultimate current density, represents the maximum or limiting current achieved in the cell.
A decrease in the Teflon percentage results in a slight
decrease of the power peaks of the fuel cell, but, on the
contrary, it is possible to achieve larger ultimate current
densities. On the one hand, the use of a more porous and
permeable carbon support enhances the mass transfer
processes, which reflects on the enlargement of the values of
the limiting current density. On the other hand, the power
peaks are achieved for intermediate current densities, where
the ohmic resistance governs the performance [31], and, in
this region, it may be more beneficial to have a less porous and
permeable structure. This might lead to a slight higher

retention of the water vapour generated by the cathode

reaction [32], increasing the level of hydration of the electrolyte, and hence, the conductivity of the electrolyte [5,33], with
the consequent slight drop in the ohmic resistance.
The second approach consists of analyzing the influence of
the parameters that define the properties of a gas diffusion
layer on the cell performance. This could be useful in order to
enhance the design of this layer, adapting its structure with
the goal to maximize the cell performance.
Different predictions of MLP(6:15:2) were used to obtained
the Fig. 9 which emphasizes the influence of three variables
(porosity, hydrophobia level and air permeability) in the
polarization curves. The parameters Teflon percentage and
average pore diameter will not be considered. Although Teflon
percentage actually determines the change in the characteristics of the carbon paper, the hypothetical gas diffusion layer
will be considered as blank ones. On the other hand, despite
the average pore diameter and the porosity have been taken
as independent variables in the neural model, in this simulations, they will be considered to rely on each other, which is
actually much closer to reality.
In Fig. 9(a), it can be seen that the cell performance
decreases with the porosity (and hence, the average pore
diameter), especially at high current densities, where the
mass transfer governs the cell behaviour [31]. An example of
changing the porosity, keeping approximately constant the
hydrophobia level and the permeability might come from
a change in the microstructure of the gas diffusion layer,
keeping the same type of material (and hence, the hydrophobia level) with an appropriate thickness that maintains the
air permeability at the same level.
Fig. 9(b) shows the influence of the hydrophobia level,
assuming that the rest of the parameters are kept constant. It
is significant to observe that at low/intermediate current
densities, the higher the hydrophobia level, the better the cell
performances. At these values of current densities, the
performance is controlled by the catalytic activity and the
ohmic losses [31]. The higher is the hydrophobia level, the
higher may be the retention of water vapour by the gas
diffusion layer, increasing the level of hydration of the electrolyte, and therefore, its conductivity. This leads to a reduction of the ohmic resistance, and to an enhancement of the
catalytic activity, since the electrolyte in the electrode is an
important active element in the electrode structure [34].
However, at high current densities, the use of a highly
hydrophobic support seems to be not very advisable. This can

Table 4 e Prediction of the values of the cell voltage and power peak for intermediate Teflon percentages in the range
between 0 and 10% Teflon using MLP (6:15:2).
%
Porosity
Mean pore
Hydrophobia
PTFE
(%)
diameter (mm)
level (%)
0a
2.5
5
7.5
10a

76.3
76.0
75.1
74.1
73.9

a Experimental data.

39.4
38.7
37.9
37.1
36.7

80.3
90.2
92.5
95.4
97.3

Air
Permeability
 1012 (m2)
9.21
8.85
8.50
8.14
7.77

Current density Cell voltage Power peak Ultimate current

for the power
(mV)
(mW/cm2) density (mA/cm2)
peak (mA/cm2)
800
800
800
800
800

309
312
316
324
325

247.2
249.4
252.5
259.4
260.0

1508.8
1502.3
1494.9
1487.2
1480.0

Author's personal copy

7896

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 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 7 8 8 9 e7 8 9 7

900

porosity=60%; =30m
porosity=70%; =35m
porosity=80%; =40m

700

600
500
400
300

900

700
600
500
400
300

200

200

100

100

Hydrophobia level=80%
Hydrophobia level=90%
Hydrophobia level=100%

800
Cell voltage (mV)

Cell voltage (mV)

800

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Current density (mA/cm )

Current density (mA/cm )

900
permeability=4.5 m
permeability=6.5 m
permeability=8.5 m

Cell voltage (mV)

800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Current density (A/cm )

Fig. 9 e Polarization curves obtained by predictions performed with MLP(6:15:2). (a) for different porosities (hydrophobia
level [ 90%, 1012 air permeability [ 8.5, average pore diameter [ F); (b) for different hydrophobia level (porosity [ 80%,
1012 air permeability [ 8.5, average pore diameter [ 40 mm); (c) for different air permeability (porosity [ 80%, hydrophobia
level [ 90%, average pore diameter [ 40 mm).

be explained taking into account the large amounts of water

vapour that is being generated, which may not be released so
easily from the electrode, decreasing excessively the oxygen
partial pressure, and, in consequence, increasing the mass
transfer limitations. Thus, an optimum intermediate value,
within the considered range, seems to be advisable for this
high temperature PEMFC system. An example of a change in
the hydrophobia level of a gas diffusion layer could be the
usage of a material of different nature.
Fig. 9(c) shows the influence of the change of the air
permeability, keeping constant the porosity and the hydrophobia level. As in the case of porosity, at low/intermediate
current densities, a low permeability is advisable in terms of
a higher water vapour retention, increasing the level of
hydration of the phosphoric acid doped polybenzimidazole
electrolyte present in the MEA structure. Contrarily, at high
current densities, the mass transfer processes become more
limited when a low permeable support is used, appearing
larger mass transfer limitations that reduce the cell performance. A change of the porosity happens when using a same
support but with different thickness. The porosity and the
level of hydrophobia remain constant, whereas the permeability diminishes the thicker the GDL were.
Thus, with the results collected in Table 3 and Fig. 9, it has
been proved how useful the neural networks can be. Firstly, by
simulating intermediate conditions, which have not been
tested experimentally, being reproduced in a quite logical

fashion. This would lead to a reduction of the experimental

work. On the other hand, with this tool, it has been demonstrated how the properties of the gas diffusion layer can vary
the cell performance. Despite the limitation of the available
experimental data, reduced to a gas diffusion layer consisting
of Toray Graphite Paper, it must be considered qualitatively
the potential of this application, which may be very interesting from a practical point of view, supporting any optimization study of a gas diffusion layer, by changing, for example,
its properties (type of material, microstructure, level of
impregnation with a hydrophobic materials, thickness etc.).

4.

Conclusions

This paper has shown the utility of the neural network tool for
the prediction and simulation of the fuel cell performance,
applied to the particular case of the influence of the gas
diffusion layer on the cell performance of a PBI-based PEMFC.
Firstly, the neural network was trained with available experimental data, learning about the behaviour of the system, with
a subsequent validation stage, concluding that the neural
network has satisfactorily reproduced it. In addition, the
inverse neural network has demonstrated the possibility of
inversely obtained the properties of the GDL for a given cell
performance, postulating it as an attractive optimization tool.
Thus, it can be concluded the neural network has shown its

Author's personal copy

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 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 7 8 8 9 e7 8 9 7

validity for directly predicting fuel cell results, or even, more

interestingly, and for this particular work, for a deep analysis
and simulation of the effects of the properties that define a gas
diffusion layer, allowing a very valuable information for
a possible optimization of the structure of a gas diffusion layer
with the purpose of maximizing the cell performance.

Acknowledgements
This research has been supported by the Project PBI08-01512045 from the JCCM (Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La
Mancha, Spain), and the Project CTM2007-60472 from the
Spanish Government, Ministry of Education and Science. This
work was also done by financial support provided by Romanian Ministry of Education and Research through Program
IDEI, Grants ID_592, Contract 59/2007.

references

[1] Lee W-Y, Park G-G, Yang T-H, Yoon Y-G, Kim C-S. Empirical
modelling of polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell
performance using artificial neural networks. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2004;29:961e6.
[2] LaConti AB, Hamdan M, McDonald RC. Chapter 49. In:
Vielstich W, Lamm A, Gasteiger HA, editors. Handbook of
fuel cells, vol. 3. John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2003.
[3] Savadogo O. Emerging membranes for electrochemical
systems part II. High temperature composite membranes for
polymer electrolyte fuel cell (PEFC) applications. J Power
Sources 2004;127:135e61.
[4] Li Q, He R, Jensen JO, Bjerrum NJ. PBI-based polymer
membranes for high temperature fuel cells - preparation,
characterization and fuel cell demonstration. Fuel Cells 2004;
4:147e59.
[5] Lobato J, Canizares P, Rodrigo MA, Linares JJ, Manjavacas G.
Synthesis and characterisation of poly[2,2-(m-phenylene)5,5-bibenzimidazole] as polymer electrolyte membrane for
high temperature PEMFCs. J Membr Sci 2006;280:351e62.
[6] Lobato J, Canizares P, Rodrigo MA, Linares JJ, Aguilar JA.
Improved polybenzimidazole films for H3PO4-doped PBIbased high temperature PEMFC. J Membr Sci 2007;306:47e55.
[7] Wainright JS, Wang JT, Weng D, Savinell RF. Acid-Doped
polybenzimidazoles: a new polymer electrolyte. J
Electrochem Soc 1995;142:L121.
[8] Lobato J, Canizares P, Rodrigo MA, Ruiz-Lopez C, Linares JJ.
Influence of the Teflon loading in the gas diffusion layer of
PBI-based PEM fuel cells. J Appl Electrochem 2008;38:
793e802.
[9] Hernandez A, Hissel D, Outbib R. Non linear state space
modelling of a PEMFCx. Fuel Cells 2006;1:38e46.
[10] Yao KZ, Karan K, McAuley KB, Oosthuizen P, Peppley B, Xie T.
A review of mathematical models for hydrogen and direct
Methanol polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells. Fuel
Cells 2004;4:3e29.
[11] Su A, Ferng YM, Shih JC. CFD investigating the effects of
different operating conditions on the performance and the
characteristics of a high-temperature PEMFC. Energy 2010;35:
16e27.
[12] Kumbur EC, Sharp KV, Mench MM. A design tool for
predicting the capillary transport characteristics of fuel cell
diffusion media using an artificial neural network. J Power
Sources 2008;176:191e9.

7897

[13] Wu X-J, Zhu X-J, Cao G-Y, Tu H-Y. Predictive control of SOFC
based on a GA-RBF neural network model. J Power Sources
2008;179:232e9.
[14] Sousa Jr R, Colmati F, Gonzalez ER. Modelling techniques
applied to the study of gas diffusion electrodes and proton
exchange membrane biochemical fuel cells. J Power Sources
2006;161:183e90.
[15] Jeme S, Hissel D, Pera MC, Kauffmann JM. On-board fuel cell
power supply modelling on the basis of neural network
methodology. J Power Sources 2003;124:479e86.
[16] Curteanu S. Direct and inverse neural network modelling in
free radical polymerization. Cent Eur J Chem 2004;2:113e40.
[17] Xiong Z, Zhang J. Neural network model-based ob-line reoptimisation control of fed-batch processes using a modified
iterative dynamic programming algorithm. Chem Eng Proc
2005;44:477e84.
[18] Curteanu S, Petrila C. Neural network-based modelling for
semi-batch and nonisothermal free radical polymerization.
Int J Quant Chem 2006;106:1445e56.
kesson BM, Toivonen HT, Waller JB, Nystrom RH. Neural
[19] A
network approximation of a nonlinear model predictive
controller applied to a pH neutralization process. Comp
Chem Eng 2005;29:323e33.
[20] Zio E, Broggi M, Pedroni N. Nuclear reactor dynamics on-line
estimation by locally recurrent neural networks. Prog Nucl
Energy 2009;51:573e81.
[21] Piuleac CG, Rodrigo MA, Canizares P, Curteanu S, Saez C. Ten
steps modelling of electrolysis processes by using neural
networks. Environ Modell Softw 2010;25:74e81.
[22] Kahrs O, Marquardt W. Incremental identification of hybrid
process models. Comput Chem Eng 2008;32:694e705.
[23] Curteanu S, Leon F. Hybrid neural network models applied to
a free radical polymerization process. Polym Plast Technol
Eng 2006;45:1013e23.
[24] Acuna G, Latrille E, Beal C, Corrieu G. Static and dynamic
neural network models for estimating biomass
concentration during thermophilic lactic acid bacteria batch
cultures. J Ferment Bioeng 1998;85:615e22.
[25] Lobato J, Canizares P, Rodrigo MA, Linares JJ, Piuleac C-G,
Curteanu S. The neural networks based modelling of
a polybenzimidazole-based polymer electrolyte membrane
fuel cell: effect of temperature. J Power Sources 2009;192:190e4.
[26] Principe J, Euliano N, Lefebvre C. Neural and adaptive
systems: fundamentals through simulations. New York: John
Willy & Sons; 2000.
[27] Rouss V, Charon W. Multi-input and multi-output neural
model of the mechanical nonlinear behaviour of a PEM fuel
cell system. J Power Sources 2008;175:1e17.
[28] Bao C, Ouyang M, Yi B. Modelling and control of air stream
and hydrogen flow with recirculation in a PEM fuel cell
system-II. Linear and adaptive nonlinear control. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2006;31:1897e913.
[29] Fernandes FAN, Lona LMF. Neural network applications in
polymerization processes. Braz J Chem Eng 2005;22:401e18.
[30] Vega MP, Lima EL, Pinto JC. Control of a loop polymerization
reactor using neural networks. Braz J Chem Eng 2000;17:
471e82.
[31] Fuel cell handbook. 7th ed. West Virginia: US DOE, Office of
Fossil Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory; 2004.
[32] Lobato J, Rodrigo MA, Linares JJ, Scott K. Effect of the catalytic
ink preparation method on the performance of high
temperature polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells. J
Power Sources 2006;157:284e92.
[33] He R, Li Q, Bach A, Jensen JO, Bjerrum NJ. Physicochemical
properties of phosphoric acid doped polybenzimidazole
membranes for fuel cells. J Membr Sci 2003;277:38e45.
[34] Carrete L, Friedrich KA, Stimming U. Fuel cells e
fundamentals and applications. Fuel Cells 2001;1:5e39.