Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 28 (2003) 343 – 348

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhydene

Fractional factorial design of experiments for PEM fuel cell

performances improvement
Roberto C. Dantea; ∗ , Jos-e L. Escamillaa , Vicente Madrigala , Thomas Theussa ,
Juan de Dios Calder-ona , Omar Solorzab , Rub-en Riverab
a InstitutoTecnologico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, Campus Cd. de Mexico (ITESM CCM), Calle del Puente 222, 14380
Mexico, Mexico
b Center of Advanced Research (CINVESTAV), Ave. Instituto Polit ecnico Nacional 2508 COl. San Pedro Zacatenco, 07360 Mexico,
Mexico

Abstract
A fractional experimental design, at two levels and four factors, has been carried out in order to improve the power output
of a commercial stack protonic exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell with seven graphite plates at about atmospheric hydrogen
pressure. The factors considered were both hydrogen and oxygen pressures and 6ow rates. An orthogonal and fractional matrix
array was used in order to reduce time execution with eight experiments instead of the full factorial design of 16 experiments.
The experiments showed that not all the conditions have stable power output with the considered hydrogen pressure, but
that it is possible to stabilize it especially with high oxygen 6ow rates.
A comparison has been carried out between this commercial fuel cell and PEM fuel cell device manufactured in Mexico
by Monterrey Technology Institute and Advanced Studies, Mexico City Campus (ITESM CCM).
? 2002 International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Fuel cells; PEM fuel cells; Design of experiments; Fuel cell prototype; Fuel cell performances

1. Introduction 2. Methodology

Since the 1990s the groups of researchers of ITESM
CCM, CINVESTAV at National Polytechnic Institute, Elec-
tric Research Institute (IIE) and Materials Research Institute
at National University of Mexico began studies on protonic
exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell; each group with dif-
ferent objectives and interests.
CINVESTAV carried out relevant research on oxygen
reduction catalysis; IIE on global projects about PEM fuel
cells, Materials Research Institute on alternative protonic
exchange membranes.
ITESM CCM developed collector and bipolar plates for-
mulations as well as design of the whole PEMFC, also doing
manufacture and engineering solutions for PEM fuel cells.
In this study, the design of experiments methodology is
shown as a suitable technique for adapting fuel cell systems
to a speci?c device and also improve performances.
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: rdante@campus.ccm.itesm.mx (R.C. Dante).
In order to achieve the objective of this study, we utilized
the experimental design methodology, because the fuel cell
system is a complex one; indeed there are several factors
too diAcult to analyze exactly such as 6ow ?elds, catalyst
distribution, electrical circuits, etc.
The full factorial design required 2k experiments, where
k is the number of factors. The number of factors considered
in our work is 4 so the number of runs is 16(24 ) (Table 1) for
a full factorial design; however, using the suitable fractional
factorial design it is possible to reduce the runs to 8(24−1 )
with the design generator D=± ABC (Table 1) and ABCD=
identity [1–3].
The experiments were previously carried out with a refer-
ence fuel cell stack for research purposes in order to improve
the outputs of the fuel cell system, therefore a comparison
of performances with one of our prototypes was ful?lled.
The main objective of this study is the fast performance
improvement for a fuel cell speci?c application in this case
simulated with the resistance R of Fig. 1 [4 – 6].

0360-3199/02/$ 22.00 ? 2002 International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 6 0 - 3 1 9 9 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 6 9 - 1
344 R.C. Dante et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 28 (2003) 343 – 348

Nomenclature

PEM: Protonic exchange membrane Ai : Active area per membrane

PEMFC: Fuel cell with PEM A: Total active area
R: electrical resistance DG01: PEMFC prototype
ANOVA: Analysis of variance : QH2 =QO2
PH2 : Hydrogen pressure FC50-03SP: Electrochem PEMFC stack
PO2 : Oxygen pressure
: Power density
QH2 : Hydrogen 6ow A: Amperometer
QO2 : Oxygen 6ow V: Voltimeter

Table 1
Full factorial format for four factors

A B AB C AC BC ABC D AD BD ABD CD ACD BCD ABCD

1 − − + − + + − − + + − + − − +
2 + − − − − + + − − + + + + − −
3 − + − − + − + − + − + + − + −
4 + + + − − − − − − − − + + + +
5 − − + + − − + − + + − − + + −
6 + − − + + − − − − + + − − + +
7 − + − + − + − − + − + − + − +
8 + + + + + + + − − + − − − − −
9 − − + − + + − + − + + − + + −
10 + − − − − + + + + + − − − + +
11 − + − − + − + + − − − − + − +
12 + + + − − − − + + − + − − − −
13 − − + + − − + + − + + + − − +
14 + − − + + − − + + + − + + − −
15 − + − + − + − + − − − + − + −
16 + + + + + + + + + − + + + + +
The L8 (24−1 ) matrix of the fractional factorial design is indicated in black. The generator is D = ± ABC.

3. Experimental results

The experimental design was applied to the reference fuel

Fig. 1. Fuel cell system sketch.
cell (FC50-03SP); the conclusions from the experiments
were used for our prototype (DG01) in order to compare
the stabilization of output power of the two systems. The
technical speci?cations of the two fuel cells are reported in
Table 2. The considered fuel cell system is composed of
tanks of hydrogen gas, oxygen gas, 6ow meters, a fuel cell,
and other assemblies (Fig. 1).
The resistance of the electrical device indicated in Fig. 1,
as R, is 2:3 L, with a dissipative maximum power of 50 W.
The array is conformed by eight parallel resistances, each
resistance of 4:73 L with a dissipative power of 5 W. The
resistance R, as said above, corresponds to our simulation
of a real device for a fuel cell system. The experimental
design factors considered are: (A) pressure of hydrogen
(PH2 ), (B) pressure of oxygen (PO2 ), (C) 6ow rate of hy-
drogen (QH2 ), and (D) which is the 6ow rate of oxygen
 R.C. Dante et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 28 (2003) 343 – 348 345

Table 2
Technical speci?cations for two diNerent types of fuel cells

Speci?cations Reference fuel cell Fuel cell prototype

Nominal power output 50 W 0:0729 W

Electrode assembly 50 cm2 (350 cm2 total, seven MEAs) 9 cm2 (1 MEA)
Type Solid polymer electrode Solid polymer electrode
Dimensions 15 cm × 15 cm × 15 cm overall 9 cm × 9 cm × 0:6 cm
◦ ◦
Operating temperature Up to 100 C Up to 100 C
Graphite plates 8 2
Manufactured by ElectroChem Inc. ITESM CCM
Item number FC50-03SP ITESM DG 01
Component description 50 cm2 PEM fuel cell hardware, seven MEAs, 9 cm2 PEM fuel cell hardware, one MEA, two
eight graphite plates, ?ttings, copper current collectors, graphite plates, copper current collectors
banana jacks on each plate and two banana plugs

Table 3
Analysis of variance for design of experiments L8 with the reference fuel cell

Grades of freedom Mean squares F ratio Pure sum % Contribution Critical F 90% conf.

H2 1 0.0035 0.0012 − 2.8827 − 7.8849 3.78

O2 1 1.3955 0.4835 − 1.4906 − 4.0773 3.78
QH2 1 1.2083 0.4186 − 1.677 − 4.5894 3.78
QO2 1 3.6829 1.2760 0.7966 2.1790 3.78
Interactions 3.78
H 2 O2 1 0.01828 0.0063 − 2.8679 − 7.8445 3.78
H2 QH2 1 12.2891 4.2578 9.4028 25.7190 3.78
O2 QH2 1 0.64457 0.2233 − 2.2416 − 6.1315 3.78
Error 6 2.8862 41.5738
Total 7

Table 4
ENects given by FC50-03SP

ENects PH2 PO2 QH2 QO2

169:0 kPa 96:5 kPa 172:4 kPa 275:9 kPa 4:1E-5 m3 =s 8:25E-5m3 =s 4:1E-5 m3 =s 8:2E-5 m3 =s

Potential 0.234 − 0.299 − 0.276 0.503

Current intensity 0.138 − 0.410 − 0.370 0.547

(QO2 ); the response is the output power. The eight experi-
ments of the chosen design (Table 1) were carried out and
consequently new estimates of the factors were determined
starting from the analysis of eNects (Table 4) and the anal-
ysis of variance (ANOVA) (Table 3) for the FC50-03SP
[7,8]; indeed ANOVA shows that the interaction between
PH2 and QH2 is one of the most important contributors to
the total variance with about 25% of the total (Table 3).
The mean eNects of oxygen pressure are negative (−0:299 V
on potential, −0:410 A on current intensity), as reported in
Table 4. The eNects of oxygen 6ow rate are positive on po-
tential (0:503 V) and current intensity (0:547 A). The ef-
fects of hydrogen pressure are positive for both potential
(0:234 V) and intensity current (0:138 A) but not so strong
as oxygen 6ow rate eNects; however, the eNects of hydrogen
6ow rate are negative (−0:276 V on potential, −0:370 A on
current intensity) as reported in Table 4. Finally, the best
responses resulted to be rather at higher 6ow rate of oxygen
than the hydrogen one. All the eNects estimated are signi-
?cative, considering that the standard deviation is 0:0064 V
for potential and 0:0041 A for current intensity measure-
ments (determined in ?nal experiment) and that the reported
voltimeter and amperometer uncertainty is of ±0:001 V for
potential and ±0:001 A for current intensity.
346 R.C. Dante et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 28 (2003) 343 – 348

120

100

80
Power (W)

60
40
20 Final Experiment
Experiment 8.1
00 Experiment 7
Experiment 6
Experiment 5
15
Experiment 4
Experiment 3
time (min) 30 Experiment 2
Experiment 1

Fig. 2. L8 Design experiments.

Power Density The total area for the FC50-03SP is 350 cm2 and total
0.3 thickness is 15 cm; for DG01 the total area is 18 cm2 and
thickness 0:6 cm. The results of the eight experiments can
0.25
be compared with power density curves and current density
0.2 curves of Figs. 4 –7 obtained from the Electrochem Test
FC50 Station of CINVESTAV for both fuel cells, showing a
W/cm2

0.15 DG01 correlation with the results of the simulation.

0.1

0.05
4. Discussion

0 The analysis of eNects and ANOVA allows to establish

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 that the lowest hydrogen pressure and 6ow rate are the best
t (min) choice in order to stabilize the output power reducing one
of the principal contributor to total variance, however, high
Fig. 3. Power density produced by two diNerent fuel cell stacks. oxygen 6ow rate are needed to increase the power (Table 4).
Furthermore, we can notice that the behavior of oxygen and
The new levels determined for a ?nal experiment were hydrogen is opposite: while higher hydrogen pressure in-
PH2 : 69:0 kPa, PO2 , 138:0 kPa, QH2 : 4:1E-5 m3 =s, and QO2 creases power, higher oxygen pressure decreases it; while
is 1:2E-4 m3 =s. higher oxygen 6ow rate increases power, higher hydrogen
The results of the “Final Experiment” for FC50-03SP are 6ow rate decreases power. This situation is probably due to
reported in Fig. 2. The experiment with DG01 was car- a mix of thermodynamic and kinetics factors acting on the
ried out, at the same pressures of the “Final Experiment”, active surface of the electrodes. In the ?nal experiment the
but with diNerent 6ow rates (QH2 2:7E-7 m3 =s, and QO2 is hydrogen pressure was decreased to 69:0 kPa and 6ow rate
8:0E-7 m3 =s) constantly keeping the ratio  = QH2 =QO2 = was kept at the lowest level 4:1E-5 m3 =s, overall, in order
0:33 (Fig. 3). to reduce variation in the output power; the oxygen pressure
The density of power (
) is the ratio between the power was lowered to 138:0 kPa but the 6ow rate was increased
and the active area, where the active area is given by the to 1:2E-4 m3 =s in order to promote power. The ?nal exper-
addition of each area; these data are reported in Table 3. iment (Fig. 2) had a very stable output power during the
Power total test, con?rming our assertions and allowing the FC50-03SP

= ; to work at about 90 W, i.e. about 40 W more than the nom-

A

inal power and 10 W less than the peak power. The power
A= Ai : density obtained from the Electrochem Test Station is in
i agreement with the results of simulation for both fuel cells,
 R.C. Dante et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 28 (2003) 343 – 348 347

FC50-030SP fuel cell stack

0.2

Power Density, Wcm -2

0.15

0.1
10 oC
15
20
30
0.05
40
50
60
70
0
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Cell Potential, V

Fig. 4. Power density at diNerent temperatures for FC50-030SP (QH2 = QO2 = 1:7E-4 m3 =s, PH2 = PO2 = 206 kPa).

FC50-030SP fuel cell stack

8

10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70°C
7

4
V

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

-2
Current Density, A/cm

Fig. 5. Current density at diNerent temperatures for FC50-030SP (QH2 = QO2 = 1:7E-4 m3 =s, PH2 = PO2 = 206 kPa).
348 R.C. Dante et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 28 (2003) 343 – 348

DG01 DG01
0.018
1.4

1.2
0.016

1 0.014

power density (W/cm2)

0.8 0.012
V

0.6 0.01

0.4 0.008

0.2 0.006
0 0.004
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
0.002
A/cm2
0
Fig. 6. Current density for DG01 (PH2 =69:0 kPa, PO2 =138:0 kPa, 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
QH2 = 2:7E-7 m3 =s, QO2 = 8:0E-7 m3 =s). A/cm2

showing a similar trend (Figs. 4 –7). The 6ow rates of both
gases were reduced in the case of DG01, because it is
a monocell and thus it needs lower 6ow rates than the
FC50-03SP, which is composed by seven cells. We chose to
reduce the 6ow rates keeping the ratio  at the value =0:33,
as we did in the reference fuel cell, in order to maintain
the test conditions similar to those for the FC50-03SP. The
pressures of both gases had to have the same values as that
of the best experiment of the FC50-03SP, as pressure de-
?nes the potential of the cell, while 6ow rates are related to
the amount of reagents that must be less in a monocell than
in a stack. Our main assumption is that we can change the
6ow rates, keeping ratio  constant, without aNecting the re-
sults determined in the experimental design, executed with
the reference fuel cell, i.e. the stability of output power.
5. Conclusion
The experimental design methodology is a suitable tool
for the improvement of fuel cell systems in a speci?c situa-
tion, as it has been demonstrated by our study. This method-
ology allowed us to quickly adapt a fuel cell system to a
speci?c device, knowing the principal factors and eNects that
aNect the fuel cell performances. This information was the
basis of our design of fuel cell parts. Nowadays, the devel-
opment of fuel cell has reached an advanced stage world-
wide. The present challenge is to improve manufacturing
techniques and to lower costs, realizing that these two issues
are strongly linked.
Fig. 7. Power density for DG01 (PH2 =69:0 kPa, PO2 =138:0 kPa,
QH2 = 2:7E-7 m3 =s, QO2 = 8:0E-7 m3 =s).
At ITESM CCM, where advanced technologies for de-
sign and development are used, the engineering and research
phase have reached the stage of standardized manufacture
process in which both cost levels and performance have the
same relevance.
References
[1] Frigon N, Mathews D. Practical guide to design of experiments.
New York, USA: Wiley, 1997.
[2] Mason R. Statistical design and analysis of experiments. New
York: Wiley, 1989.
[3] Montgomery D. Design and analysis of experiments. New
York: Wiley, 1983.
[4] Matryonin VI, Ovchinkov AT, Tzedilkin AP. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 1997;22:1047–52.
[5] Barbir F, Gomez T. Int J Hydrogen Energy 1996;21:891–901.
[6] Amphlett JC, Baumert RM, Mann RF, Peppley BA, Roberge
PR, Rodrigues A. J Power Sources 1994;49:349–56.
[7] Abtahi A. Design and implementation of a hierarchical control
strategy for proton exchange membrane fuel cells. Proceedings
of the 37th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 1998.
p. 461–2.
[8] Simpson SF, Ferrell J. The eNect of pressure on an air-reformate
proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell system. Battery
Conference on Applications and Advances, Long Beach, CA,
USA. The Fourteenth Annual, 1999. p. 15 –7.