Energetic Macroscopic Representation (EMR): New approach for multiphysics

energetic flows modelling

K.S Agbli*,**, D. Hissel*, M-C. Péra*, Issa Doumbia**

*University of Franche-Comte, FEMTO-ST, UMR CNRS 6174, Belfort, France.

(e-mail: serge.agbli@femto-st.fr / aksergi@yahoo.fr).
**University of Cocody-Abidjan, Signals and Systems laboratory, 01 BP V34 Abidjan 01, Ivory Coast.}

Abstract: Developed in 2000 to analyse and control electromechanical systems, Energetic Macroscopic
Representation (EMR) has been extended over the years to cover other energetic domains by using
kinetic and potential variables based on action-reaction principle; so that the product of these variables is
homogeneous to the power unit. The necessity of more than two variables for some multiphysics energetic
flows modelling has led to specific EMR with three and four ports, going away from the basic principle,
particularly in thermo-pneumatic and thermo-fluidic domains. The contribution of this paper is to
propose a new approach of EMR modelling for the multi-variable energetic flows to comply with the
basic action-reaction principle whose two variables product is homogeneous to the power unit.
Keywords: EMR formalism, multiports EMR, multiphysics modelling, graphical modeling tool.

Applied to the fuel cell systems, since 2006, within the

1. INTRODUCTION
The researcher’s community using EMR as graphical
modelling and control tool is increasingly considerable at the
worldwide scale. As it was recalled at the 2011 EMR summer
school (EPF Lausanne, Switzerland), several countries are
covered by the EMR users: academic users as well as
industries ones. Beyond France, it can be at least mentioned
Italy, Denmark, Spain, UK, Switzerland, Canada, China and
Austria. Moreover, EMR has been successfully spread in
significant international universities namely University of
Québec à Trois Rivières (Canada), the EPF Lausanne
(Switzerland), the University of Tsinghua and Harbin
Institute of Technology (China), the University Carlos III of
Madrid (Spain), the University of Modena & Reggio, (Italy),
the University of Aalborg (Denmark). In this context it can be
referred to some of the published works in the electrical
vehicle application (Grossi et al. 2009) (Cheng et al. 2010),
the energy storage field (Rufer et al. 2004) and the EMR
formalism applied to winder tension control applications
(Djani et al. 2006).
At the beginning, the Energetic Macroscopic Representation
(EMR) was aimed to analyse and control systems with
several electrical machines; so that electro-mechanical
domain systems modelling have been the first goal of the
EMR. It has been very useful for different electromechanical
systems modelling and control such as multi-machine
systems as presented by Bouscayrol et al. (2000), wind
energy conversion system control (Delarue et al. 2003) and
other applications like micro hydropower station (Ansel &
Robyns 2006).
The EMR formalism relevance to properly describe the
physical phenomena in the control purpose led it to be
extended to other physical domains beyond the initial ones.
framework of the FEMTO-ST laboratory researches, EMR
pictograms has been redefined to be able to model these
multiphysics systems because of multi-domain interactions
within the fuel cell stack such as electrical, electrochemical,
thermal, fluidic and thermodynamic domains. From this
extended EMR, several models and controls, around the fuel
cell applications, have been achieved. It can be recalled some
of these applications by referring to the fuel cell and super-
capacitor coupling (Boulon et al. 2007), the PEMFC (Proton
Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell) control using EMR (Boulon
et al. 2010), and electrical hybrid vehicle applications
powered by fuel cell coupled with both the batteries and the
super-capacitors (Boulon 2009).
However, the energetic flow modelling in strongly coupled
physical domains namely thermal domain and pneumatic
ones led to the multiports EMR representation (Chrenko et al.
2009) going away from the basic principle of the power flow
modelling. This further EMR extension has been fulfilled in
the framework of the fuel cell system fed by hydrocarbons
work performed by Chrenko (2008). The gas flows being
described by the ideal gas law, three variables (pressure,
temperature and mass flow) are retained instead of four
variables (pressure, temperature, mass flow or volume flow
and enthalpy flow) for three ports EMR representation
(Chrenko et al. 2009). Subsequently, the four ports EMR
representation introduced by Chrenko et al. (2009) has been
applied to describe liquid flow (water flow) feeding the PEM
electrolyser (Agbli et al. 2011a).
In order to comply with the specific principle to describe
power flow based on action-reaction principle for control
purpose, the goal of this paper is to propose a new EMR
modelling approach closer to the previously recalled basic
principles.
After recalling the initial EMR context by pointing out the
basic EMR principle, the EMR first step extension from the
electro-mechanical domain to the multi-domain will be
presented. Afterwards, the frame of the multiports EMR
representation will be introduced and finally the helpful
proposition to come back to the initial power flow modelling
based on action-reaction principle will be developed.
2. EMR FORMALISM: FROM ELECTRO-MECHANICAL
TO MULTIPHYSICS SYSTEMS MODELLING
2. 1 Initial aim of the EMR formalism
Based on action-reaction principle like Bond-Graph (BG),
EMR is endowed with physical causality principle contrary to
BG (Bouscayrol et al. 2005a). Furthermore, beyond these
strengths for being able to describe electro-mechanical
systems according to both action-reaction and causal
principles, EMR further feature is control ability namely
Maximum Control Structure (MCS) which is deduced from
the EMR of the modelled system by applying inversion rules.
In fact, a complex system of several energy sources and
several energy conversion units can be accurately modelled
by the EMR tool more synthetically with a clear readability
in the macroscopic point of view compared to other graphical
modelling tools. Moreover, EMR can be easily grasped by
experts who haven’t even got used to this modelling
formalism allowing communication facility between different
research fields.
At the begening, some pictograms were used to model
different step of the power flow conversion into the electro-
mechanical systems. The energy source and energy sink are
modelled with a light green oval with dark green rim.
However, to modelled the power flow and to highlight
action-reaction principle, each conversion element, has two
variables pairs (action variable and reaction variable which
are both kinetic and potential variables) upstream and
dowrnstream (Chrenko et al. 2009).
Thanks to the EMR formalism, several electro-mechanical
complex systems have been modelled and controlled. For
instance, power strategies performed for wind energy
conversion system with a synchronous machine (Bouscayrol
et al. 2005b), also the EMR analysis applied to the polyphase
synchronous machine (Semail et al. 2003) can be recalled.
2.2 EMR extended to other physical domains
In close cooperation between both FEMTO-ST laboratory
and L2EP laboratory, Hissel et al. (2008) has developed the
first EMR model of a fuel cell. Beyond the initial physical
domains related to the EMR namely electrical,
electromechanical and mechanical domains, because of the
further physical domains involved in this modelling like
thermal, fluidic, electrochemical and thermodynamic ones,
EMR pictograms have been redefined as indicated on Fig. 1.
This new definition has been officialised at the 2011 summer
school in Switzerland (EPFL Lausanne).
ES
Energy Source
Multi-physical Mono-physical
conversion conversion
Energy
accumulation Multi-physical Mono-physical
coupling coupling
Fig. 1 . EMR basic pictograms extended to other domains
In order to extend the EMR application domain , Fig. 2 points
out an example of an energetic conversion from electrical
domain (current and voltage as action-reaction variables) to
electrochemical domain (molar flow and free enthalpy as
action-reaction variables) (Hissel et al. (2008)). It can be seen
another example onto Fig. 3 referring to energy conversion
from electrical domain to thermal domain in which action-
reaction variables are highlighted by current and overvoltage
for the electrical domain and for the thermal domain: entropy
flow and temperature.
Electrical domain Electrochemical
domain
I n&
V ∆G
Fig. 2: Multi-domain conversion: energetic flow from
electrical domain to electrochemical domain
Electrical domain Thermal domain
I ∆S qη
η (I ) T
Fig. 3: Multi-domain conversion: energetic flow from
electrical domain to thermal domain
Until now, within this EMR extension frame, several works
have been achieved. From Hissel et al. (2008) model, hybrid
systems applications, around fuel cell systems, have been
performed in the control purpose as recalled in the
introduction of this paper. The PhD thesis of Zhou (2009) can
also be referred to.
Though the EMR has been extended to all other physical
domains, the specific modelling features represent some new
issues for the multiphysics modelling particularly for
energetic flow described by multivariable in specific
conditions.
3. FROM POWER FLOW EMR TO MULTIPORTS EMR
In order to carry out the EMR model of a diesel fuel
processing unit for PEMFC feeding, facing to the difficulty to
decouple strong linked domains describing the modelled
energetic flow, specific multiport EMR has been introduced
by Chrenko et al. (2009).
3.1 Thermo-pneumatic energetic flow: multiports EMR possibility of both mass and thermal balances during the
water flow process, the previous analysis introduced by
To properly describe the energetic state of the diesel fuel Chrenko et al. (2008) allowing modelling the coupling
flow along the processing unit, two basic principles are between thermal and fluidic domains by four EMR variables
simultaneously used: mass and energy balances (Chrenko et is needed ( Fig. 5).
al. (2009)). Thus, the EMR of the energetic flow modelled •
m1 m2
•

must be able to highlight this linkage. For thermo-pneumatic P1 P2

domain, this goal can be fulfilled by the help of both the T1 T2
•
•
perfect gas law and the enthalpy flow (“1” and “2”). H 1 H 2

PV = n& RT (1) Fig. 5: EMR multiports (four ports) for mono physical
domain conversion
P [Pa] pressure
T [K] Temperature This representation has been chosen for liquid flow, like
3 water in the electrolyser case, because contrary to the
V [m ] volume pneumatic domain allowing perfect gas law, the only
H& = m& c p T (2) modelling equation linking the fluidic and the thermal
domain is as follows (Agbli et al. 2011b):
H& Enthalpy flow
-1 -1
(
H& = m& c p T + P / ρ + ρ v 2 / 2 ) (3)
c p [J kg K ] specific isobar heat capacity -3
ρ [kg m ] the fluid density
That led to four energetic variables ( ( H& ) , ( P ) , (T ) , (m& ) ) -1
v [m s ] the fluid speed
because the describing equations cannot be separated into the
two energetic domains like thermal and pneumatic domains. Contrary to Chrenko et al. (2009) the four variables cannot be
Moreover, considering the independent variables allowing an reduced and the Fig. 5 pictogram has been retained (Agbli et
accurate description, the number of ports can be reduced to al. 2011b).
three EMR variables ( ( P ) , (T ) , (m& ) ) for the gaseous fuel Fig.6 summarises the three ports EMR pictograms needed for
flow modelling (Chrenko et al. 2009) as shown onto Fig. 4. modelling into the thermo-pneumatic domain. Regarding the
• • two pictograms in the last column , the potential coupling
m1 m2
P1 P2
between the multiports EMR and the formal power flow
T1 T2 EMR is pointed out: two ports formal EMR and three ports
EMR.
Fig. 4: Multiports EMR (three ports) for mono physical ES
domain conversion
Energy Source Mono-physical
Multi-physical Mono-physical
This three port approach has been applied to the different conversion conversion coupling

kind of energy conversions, distributions and also to the

energy accumulation pictograms. Based on this new EMR
orientation, although going away from the power flow Energy
principle obtained by the product of the action-reaction accumulation Multi-physical
coupling
Mono-physical
coupling
Multi-physical
coupling
variables producing power unit value, the issue to model the
Fig. 6: basic pictograms for thermo-pneumatic domain
strongly linked multidomains energetic flows, has been
modelling
solved. Several works have consequently been performed
thanks to this multiports EMR approach namely Chrenko et The thermo-fluidic four ports EMR pictograms are presented
al. (2008), Chrenko et al. (2009) and Chrenko et al. (2010) on Fig.7. The potential coupling between the multiports EMR
for instance. and the power flow EMR is likewise highlighted by the two
pictograms of the last column of Fig.7. Some of these
However, beyond the thermo-pneumatic domain, the
pictograms are used in the PEM electrolyser model
energetic independent variables number being able to
performed by Agbli et al. (2011b).
accurately describe the system is not necessarily the same
from one physical domain to another. Therefore, in the ES

thermo-hydraulic domain in which the hydraulic and the

thermal domain are strongly linked, this EMR of three Energy Source
Multi-physical Mono-physical Mono-physical
variables doesn’t provide modelling satisfaction. conversion conversion coupling

3.2 Fluidic energetic flow: multiports EMR

Energy
Considering the modelling of a PEM electrolyser, a accumulation Multi-physical
coupling
Mono-physical
coupling
Multi-physical
coupling
singularity has been encountered by describing the feeding
Fig.7: basic pictograms for thermo-fluidic domain modelling
water process by Agbli et al. (2011b). Having to maintain the
As already expressed, if multiport EMR is helpful in the This approach is applied to the Fig. 8a three port EMR. The
analysis and the control of energetic mutliphysics systems in carrier domain energetic variables are deemed to be “a” and
a macroscopic point of view, keeping the initial power flow “b”, where “a” represents the action variable and “b” the
modelling purpose would be more suitable if this approach reaction variable. “c” being an action variable related to the
could take into account the different multi-physic system carried domain, it is represented as a subscript of the global
features to avoid multiports EMR. Thereby, EMR readability action variable as depicted onto Fig. 8b. The carried domain
and simplicity wouldn’t be lost. energetic process can be subsequently decoupled as shown by
the Fig. 8b.
In the following section, a new approach for multi-physics
energetic flow EMR being able to respect intrinsic P[W ] = a .b (4)
multiphysic characteristic and readability is introduced.
Linked physical Physical domain Linked physical Physical domain
domains X-Y X or Y domains X-Y X or Y
4. NEW EMR APPROACH FOR MULTIPHYSICS a
a or c c
d d
ENERGETIC FLOW MODELLING b ( a) c
c a (a) c
b b
c b
Linked physical Linked physical
For being as generic as possible, the principle of the new domains X-Y domains X-Y
approach is applied to the two kind of multiports EMR. (a) (b)
Fig. 8: (a) Multivariable (three variables) current EMR; (b)
4.1 New EMR approach describing multivariable Simplified EMR proposed
energetic flow
This approach can be applied to the linked physical domains
It is considered an energetic flow described by three energetic with four variables (Fig. 9a) and more. The proposed new
variables “a”, “b” and “c” linking two physical domains X action-reaction variable is given by Fig. 9b.
and Y; it is expected to decouple these two domains during
Linked physical Physical domain Linked physical Physical domain
the conversion in order to deduce another energetic domains X-Y X or Y domains X-Y X or Y
a or c c
conversion process different from the initial linked domains a e e
b ( a) c
and referring to one of them. According to the current three c
d
a (a) c
b (b) d
ports EMR, the decoupling leading to a new energetic c
d (b) d
process emphasising upon one of the initial linked domain is Linked physical Linked physical
domains X-Y domains X-Y
shown on Fig. 8a. (a) (b )

However, in order to come back to the initial power flow
modelling based on the action-reaction principle, it is
possible to enunciate the domains linkage by expressing it in
a way that the physical link between domains and the power
flow principle can be together highlighted. Therefore, two of
the three energetic variables whose product is homogeneous
to the power unit can be chosen. Consequently, the last
unchosen variable must be shown up in order to avoid hiding
the physical domain from which it is related to. Thus, the two
action-reaction variables choice is made by considering the
main physical domain carrying the described energetic flow
(“carrier domain”) so that, the underlying physical domain
(“carried domain”) will be described by the last variable.
Having thereby, for the multidomain-multivariable energetic
flow, a carrier domain with its action-reaction variables and
the carried domain (or domains) with its (or their) own
action-reaction variables. Then, the initial action reaction
principle based on power flow modelling is maintained by
properly defining and expressing the action-reaction
variables. Hence, the global action variable is defined by
considering in parenthesis the carrier domain action variable
and as its subscript the action variable (or variables separated
by a comma) related to the carried domain (or domains).
Also, the global reaction variable is defined by considering in
parenthesis the carrier domain reaction variable and as its
subscript the reaction variable (or variables separated by a
comma) related to the carried domain (or domains).
Fig. 9: Multivariable (four variables) current EMR; (b)
Simplified EMR proposed
4.2 New EMR approach describing multivariable
energetic flow: thermo-pneumatic and thermo-
fluidic domains
The three and the four ports EMR describing the thermo-
pneumatic and the thermo-fluidic domains respectively can
be anew rewritten within the new frame introduced
previously. By considering the linear relationship between
molar flow and volume flow, the thermo-pneumatic domain
three ports EMR modelling the decoupling of the thermal
domain is done onto the Fig.10a and the related new
approach onto Fig.10b.
Given the previous definition regarding this new approach,
the carrier domain in the thermo-pneumatic domain (gas
flow) is the pneumatic domain and the carried domain is the
thermal domain. Hence, the representation complies with the
power flow modelling:
Ppneumatic [W ] = P ⋅ V& (5)
Pthermal [W ] = T ⋅ ∆ S q (6)
V& Volume flow
∆ S q Entropic flow
 5. CONCLUSIONS
Thermo-pneumatic Thermal domain Thermo-pneumatic Thermal domain
domain domain
T T
Developed twelve years ago, EMR has been extended beyond
V& ∆Sq ∆S q its initial physical domains like electrical, mechanical and
P (V& )T
V& (V& )
T
P P
T
electromechanical domain. Because of its relevance to
T P properly describe, in the analysis and control frame, the
Thermo-pneumatic Thermo-pneumatic
domain domain multi-physics energetic tools, EMR modelling fields have
Fig.10: (a)(a)Thermo-pneumatic domain:(bThe
) current three been expanded to other physical domains such as thermal,
EMR ports model; (b) The new approach electrochemical, thermodynamic, fluidic, pneumatic and so
on. Initially based on the modelling of power flow according
By the same way, from the thermo-fluidic domain is to action-reaction principle, multiports EMR has been
generated a thermal domain process. The current considered in order to suitably describe the strongly coupled
representation and the proposed one are given onto the Fig. domain like thermo-pneumatic and thermo-fluidic domains,
11a and the Fig. 11b. The four variables are the volume flow, going away from the initial power flow modelling purpose.
the pressure, the temperature and the enthalpy flow.
This paper proposes a new EMR approach for the modelling
Thermo-fluidic Thermal domain Thermo-fluidic Thermal domain
of the multidomain-multivariable energetic flows in order to
domain domain
T come back to the first EMR principle complying with the
V& T
P ∆S q
& (V& ) T ∆S q power flow modelling based on the action-reaction principle.
T V
P (V& )
H& T ( P ) H& T

H& ( P ) H& By developing a relevance phenomenological description, the

Thermo-fluidic
domain
(a )
Fig. 11: (a) Thermo-fluidic domain: The current four EMR
ports model; (b) The new approach
For a given energetic flow modelling, the identification of
carrier and carried domains can be made by considering as
carrier domain the physical domain being responsible to the
physical motion of the power flow. For instance, the gas flow
motion being a pneumatic phenomenon; it can be seen as the
carrier domain. The Tab. 1 brings out the carrier domain and
the carried one by applying this basic identification criterion
to the gas flow and the water flow.
Tab. 1: Carrier and carried domains identification
Matter quantity flow Carrier domain
Physical domain Action-reaction variables
Water flow Fluidic domain Pressure
Volume flow
Gas flow Pneumatic domain Pressure
Volume flow
By using the power flow modelling based on the EMR
action-reaction principle applied to the multidomain-
multivariable energetic flow, the PEM electrolyser EMR
model developed by Agbli et al. (2011b) can be adapted
particularly in the thermo-pneumatic and the thermo-fluidic
domains (Fig. 12).
Generally, the choice of the action and the reaction variables
is made according to both the EMR accumulations elements
states variables and the explicit physical constraints of the
power flows motions.
For the PEM electrolyser model (Fig. 12), the hydraulic
power flow conversion process action-reaction variables are
chosen by considering three constraints. First, the pressure
imposed by the EMR accumulation element. Then, the
feeding water propelled in the electrolysis environment by
the means of a hydraulic pump imposing thereby a volume
flow as action variable. And finally, the produced gas being
poured out at the atmospheric pressure, it becomes a further
constraint from the atmosphere and the water tanks.
Thermo-fluidic linked physical domains useful to model the energetic flow
domain
(b )
must be brought out. By introducing the concepts of the
“carrier domain” and the “carried domain(s)”, the global
action-reaction between two variables related to the defined
carrier domain is enunciated. To avoid hiding the carried
domain(s), its (their) action-reaction variables are indicated
as subscript respectively of the global action variable or the
global reaction variable.
The new proposed EMR approach, being close to the formal
EMR formalism aims to analyse and control multiphysics
power flows. A first example has been provided on a PEM
electrolyser device.
In this paper, the proposals are as generic as possible thus the
modelling process, according to the modelling purpose
pursued, can be applied to any power plant or power system.
Carried domain
Physical domain Action-reaction variables
Thermal domain Temperature REFERENCES
Enthalpy flow
Thermal domain Temperature
Agbli, K.S., Hissel, D., Péra, M.-C. & Doumbia, I. (2011a)
EMR modelling of a hydrogen-based electrical
energy storage. Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys, 54, 23404.
Agbli, K.S., Péra, M.C., Hissel, D., Rallières, O., Turpin, C.
& Doumbia, I. (2011b) Multiphysics simulation of a
PEM electrolyser: Energetic Macroscopic
Representation approach. International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy, 36, 1382-1398.
Ansel, A. & Robyns, B. (2006) Modelling and simulation of
an autonomous variable speed micro hydropower
station. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation,
71, 320-332.
Boulon, L., Pera, M.-C., Hissel, D., Bouscayrol, A. &
Delarue, P. (2007). Energetic Macroscopic
Representation of a Fuel Cell-Supercapacitor
System. IEEE, Vehicle Power and Propulsion
Conference (VPPC 2007), p.290-297.
Boulon, L. (2009). Modélisation multiphysique des éléments
de stockage et de conversion d’énergie pour les
véhicules électriques hybrides : Approche
systémique pour la gestion d’énergie. University of
 Franche-Comté. Ph.D from the University of
Franche-Comte.
Boulon, L., Hissel, D., Bouscayrol, A. & Pera, M.-C. (2010).
From Modeling to Control of a PEM Fuel Cell
Using Energetic Macroscopic Representation. IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 57(6),
p.1882-1891.
Bouscayrol A., Davat B., De Fornel B., Hautier J.P.,
Meibody-Tabar F., Pietrzak-David M. & François B.
(2000). Multi-converter multi-machine systems:
application for electromechanical drives. Eur. Phys.
J. Appl. Phys., 10(2), p.131-147.
Bouscayrol A., Schoenfeld R., Dauphin-Tanguy G., Geitner
G.-H., Guillaud X., Pennamen A. & Hautier J.P.
(2005a). Different energetic descriptions for
electromechanical systems. EPE’05. European
Conference on Power Electronics and Applications.
Dresden, Germany., p. 10.
Bouscayrol, A., Delarue, P. & Guillaud, X., (2005b). Power
strategies for maximum control structure of a wind
energy conversion system with a synchronous
machine. Renewable Energy, 30(15), p.2273-2288.
Chrenko, D. (2008). Energetic Macroscopic Representation
Modeling and Control of a Low Temperature Fuel
Cell System Fed by Hydrocarbons. Ph.D from the
University of Franche-Comte.
Chrenko, D., Coulié, J., et al., (2009). Static and dynamic
modeling of a diesel fuel processing unit for
polymer electrolyte fuel cell supply. International
Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 34(3), p.1324-1335.
Chrenko, D., Lecoq, S., et al., (2010). Static and dynamic
modeling of a diesel fed fuel cell power supply.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 35(3),
p.1377-1389.
Delarue, P., Bouscayrol, A., Tounzi, A., Guillaud, X. &
Lancigu, G. (2003). Modelling, control and
I EL
simulation of an overall wind energy conversion
system. Renewable Energy, 28(8), p.1169-1185.
Djani, Y., Sicard, P. & Bouscayrol, A. (2006) Extension of
Energetic Macroscopic Representation to time-
varying systems, applications to winder tension
control. IEEE-ISIE’06. Montreal, Canada. pp. 1370-
1375.
Grossi, F., Lhomme, W., Zanasi, R. & Bouscayrol, A. (2009)
Modelling and control of a vehicle with tire-road
interaction using energy-based techniques. IEEE
VPPC'09. Dearborn, Michigan, USA. pp. 1842-
1848.
Hissel, D., Péra, M.C., Bouscayrol, A. & Chrenko, D. (2008).
Energetic Macroscopic Representation of a fuel cell.
Revue internationale de génie électrique, 11(4-5),
p.603-623.
Rufer, A., Hotellier, D. & Barrade, P. (2004) A
Supercapacitor-Based Energy-Storage Substation for
Voltage-Compensation in Weak Transportation
Networks. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery
pp. 629-636.
Semail E., Bouscayrol A. & Hautier J.P., (2003). Vectorial
formalism for analysis and design of polyphase
synchronous machines. Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys.,
22(3), p.207-220.
Y. Cheng, Espanet, C., Trigui, R., Bouscayrol, A. & Cui, S.
(2010) Design of a permanent magnet electric
variable transmission for HEV applications. in Proc.
IEEE VPPC'10. Lille, France. pp. 1-5.
Zhou, T. (2009). Control and Energy Management of a
Hybrid Active Wind Generator including Energy
Storage System with Super-capacitors and Hydrogen
technologies for Microgrid Application. Ecole
Centrale of Lille.
•
n • •
nH2 V H2

E ∆G T GH 2
•
nH2 SH2 •
Patm
•
T •

n O2 S O2
nO2 V O2

•
T GH2O
n H 2O S H 2 O GO 2
I EL • PA
nH 2O
ES
VEL I EL ∆SqηTotal
•
PA V H 2O _ CONS
∆Sq1
η(IEL) T T Tamb ∆S q −conv Thermal losses
∆Sq _ H2O _ outAC ∆S q−conv TH 2O
within the atmospere

T H 2O _ T
A
∆Sq2
∆S q _ O2 T
T
∆Sq _ H 2O _ outA ∆Sq _ H2O _ Mem,H2 T (V& )
O2 T
O2

Produced
Pout
oxygen
(V& )
H2O_in T
H2O _ A
(V& )
H2O_in T
(V& )
H2O_in T
H2O

H2O (P ) (P )
H2O

(P ) (V& )
H2O_ ∆ina H&

Anodic tank
H2O_in H& H2O_in H& H2O H&
H2O
H2O

(P& ) (V& ) •
H2O H2O
(P& )
H2Oa T
H2O
H2O T
H2O
H2O_out HH O

(Pout)T
2
H2O
Anodic thermo-hydraulic circuit model (P& ) (V& ) (V& )
H2O_out H&
H2O _out
Anodic tank
H2Oa T H2O_out H&
H2O H2O H2O

(P )
H2Oc H&
H2O
(V& H2O_MemT) H2O

(V& )
H2O_out HH O
•
2
H2O
(P& ) (Pout)T H2O _out Cathodic tank
(V& )
H2O_∆inc T
(P& )
H2Oc T
H2Oc T
H2O

H2O H2O
(V& ) (V& )
(P )H2Oc H&
H2O
(V& )
H2O_out H&
H2O_out H&
H2O
H2 T
H2
Produced
H2O

Cathodic thermo-hydraulic circuit model Pout

Hydrogen

Fig. 12: PEM electrolyser EMR model adapted in the thermo-pneumatic and the thermo-fluidic domains Agbli et al. (2011b)