Energy Reports 7 (2021) 2635–2646

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Reports
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/egyr

Research paper

Performance analysis of hydrogen fuel cell with two-stage turbo

compressor for automotive applications
∗
Nabeel Ahsan a , Ans Al Rashid b , , Asad A. Zaidi c , Ramsha Imran d , Sikandar Abdul Qadir e
a
School of Energy and Power Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, PR China
b
Division of Sustainable Development, College of Science and Engineering, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Qatar Foundation, Doha, Qatar
c
Department of Engineering Sciences, PN Engineering College, National University of Sciences and Technology, Karachi, Pakistan
d
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Institute of Space Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan
e
Division of Engineering Management and Decision Sciences, College of Science and Engineering, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Qatar
Foundation, Doha, Qatar

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper discusses the numerical modeling of an automobile fuel cell system using a two-stage
Received 8 March 2021 turbo-compressor for air supply. The numerical model incorporates essential input parameters for air
Received in revised form 17 April 2021 and hydrogen flow. The model also performed mass and energy balances across different components
Accepted 5 May 2021
such as pump, fan, heat-exchanger, air compressor and keeps in consideration the pressure losses
Available online 12 May 2021
across flow pipes and various mechanical parts. The compressor design process initiates with numerical
Keywords: analysis of the preliminary design of a highly efficient two-stage turbo compressor with an expander,
Fuel cell stack (FCS) as a single-stage compressor has several limitations in terms of efficiency and pressure ratio. The
Proton exchange membrane (PEM) compressor’s design parameters were carefully studied and analyzed with respect to the highly
Turbo-compressor efficient fuel cell stack (FCS) used in modern hydrogen vehicles. The model is solved to evaluate the
Turbo-expander overall performance of PEM FCS. The final compressor has a total pressure and temperature of 4.2
Modeling bar and 149.3◦ C , whereas the required power is 20.08kW with 3.18kW power losses and having a
Loop
combined efficiency of 70.8%. According to the FC model with and without expander, the net-power
Current load
Performance
outputs are 98.15kW and 88.27kW, respectively, and the maximum efficiencies are 65.1% and 59.1%,
respectively. Therefore, it can be concluded that a two-stage turbo compressor with a turbo-expander
can have significant effects on overall system power and efficiency. The model can be used to predict
and optimize system performance for PEM FCS at different operating conditions.
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction Zhao et al., 2012). Turbo-compressor and twin-screw compres-

Fuel cell technology for electricity production via a chemi-
cal reaction of hydrogen and oxygen was invented more than
a hundred years ago (Al-Baghdadi, 2017). Hydrogen fuel cells
are getting overwhelming popularity and importance in the 21st
century, especially in automotive applications (Mushtaq et al.,
2016). Numerous efforts have been put into developing fuel cell
modules and achieved significant milestones, including the per-
formance, cost, and lifetime (Gimba et al., 2016). In addition to
the fuel cell module itself, many other parameters are essential
requirements of the entire energy unit framework (Weyers and
Bocklisch, 2018).
Air compressor that supplies pressurized air for the hydrogen–
oxygen reaction is one of those key parts in a fuel cell system
assembly that assumes an indispensable job in the general frame-
work execution and productivity (Blunier and Miraoui, 2007;
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: anrashid@hbku.edu.qa (A. Al Rashid).
sors have been successively used in fuel cell stack (FCS) for
automotive applications (Yu et al., 2015). The turbo-compressor
has several advantages: low noise, low vibration, high efficiency,
and exhaust gas energy recovery (Ahsan et al., 2019a). The flow
passages of a turbo-compressor typically consist of an impeller,
diffuser, and volute, where the air is pressurized by increasing the
speed of an impeller with the assistance of an encompassing case.
It would then be able to organize multistage for more prominent
extents of pressure (Numakura, 2012; Pakle and Jiang, 2018).
In the earlier research regarding FCS, the pressure ratio to
test the fuel cell stack was limited to 2.5 bars or below (Blunier
and Miraoui, 2007; Pischinger et al., 2001). In the prior decade,
permeable membranes of fuel cells went under much advance-
ment by utilizing engineered materials to increase durability and
performance (Al-Baghdadi, 2017). Several studies (Cunningham
et al., 2001; Wiartalla et al., 2000; James et al., 2018) showed
that increased fluid pressure significantly affects fuel cell stack
performance in power output and efficiency (Pukrushpan, 2003).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.05.007
2352-4847/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
N. Ahsan, A. Al Rashid, A.A. Zaidi et al.
Nomenclature
I Current load (A)
V Voltage (V)
N Number of cells
P Power (kW)
M Molecular mass
F Faraday’s constant
PR Pressure ratio
LHV Lower heating value (J kg−1 )
HHV Higher heating value (J kg−1 )
∅ Percentage of gas (%)
Q Energy transferred (kW)
U Heat transfer coefficient
A Surface area (m2 )
∆Tlm Log mean temperature difference
γ Ratio of molecular weight
φ Relative humidity
ρ Density (kg m−3 )
ṁ Mass flow rate (kg s−1 )
θ Stoichiometry ratio
k Specific heat ratio
R Universal gas constant (J mol−1 K−1 )
6 Efficiency
Cp Specific heat (J kg−1 K−1 )
E Energy of vaporization (J kg−1 )
J Current density (A cm−2 )
Screw, turbo, and blower types of compressing systems were
investigated, and the performance of fuel cell stacks was mea-
sured at different pressure ratios such as 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 bars. It
was observed that the fuel cell stack performed best in terms of
efficiency and power output corresponding to 2.5 bars operating
pressure. From the results, it can be concluded that higher pres-
sure has better stack performance (Venturi et al., 2012). However,
increasing the pressure of incoming air above the critical limit of
the permeable membrane also has dreadful effects resulting in
plastic deformation of the membranes, eventually destroys the
stack, which is presently the most expensive component of the
whole system.
In recent studies, fuel cell operational pressure has been in-
creased to almost 3.5 bars in some specific applications (Wan
et al., 2017). However, when the air pressure rises, it results in
a temperature rise which is not suitable for fuel cells. Presently
the safe operating temperature of PEM fuel cells is just under
100 ◦ C. A cooling system is required for proper thermal man-
agement of the FCS to cater to this condition. Air and liquid
cooling systems are usually used for this purpose, keeping in
view the system requirement. In such cooling systems, additional
mechanical components are needed, such as heat exchanger,
pump, radiator ion exchanger, and control valves, making the
system more complex and reducing the system power output
as stack power is utilized to operate the cooling system (Hama
et al., 2019). In the previous studies, different compressor types
were compared with each other for fuel cell systems (Yu et al.,
2015; Wiartalla et al., 2000; Venturi et al., 2012; Kulp et al.,
2002); for some cases, turbo compressor was preferred, while for
others, screw compressor was considered a better choice. How-
ever, single-stage compressors were used in most cases because
the pressure ratio was kept below 3.0 bars (Kulp, 2001). For a
pressure ratio above 3.5 bars, using a single-stage compressor
is not viable because of energy losses within the moving parts
2636
Energy Reports 7 (2021) 2635–2646
resulting in the low overall efficiency of the system (Numakura,
2012; Harrison et al., 2015). To overcome this issue, Honda Motor
Corporation Limited has introduced a turbo-compressor for their
fuel cell stack, which gives a pressure ratio of 4.2 bars (Sugawara
et al., 2016). The company used the same compressor in its
hydrogen vehicle, and it claims to develop the highest power
density FCS (Kikuchi et al., 2016). The compressor used was
just performing a single purpose of compressing the air flowing
into the FCS. Previous research conducted by some researchers
showed that the fuel cell system efficiencies used in FC vehicles
ranged from 64.8% for a 60 kW system and 66.8% for a 65 kW
system (Wan et al., 2017; Kulp, 2001). However, the mean system
efficiency for a complete cycle of the current load was relatively
less than the maximum efficiencies, i.e., 52% and 57%.
Moreover, there was a prospect for advancement regarding
the power recovery while utilizing the excess air coming out of
the stack, as air at the FCS exit has relatively high temperature
and pressure with respect to ambient conditions. Capata and
Hernandez (2014) worked on recovering the excess airpower
using a numerical model incorporating a turbo compressor and
turbo-expander. Turbo expander was mounted on the compres-
sor’s drive shaft; thus, when excess air with high pressure and
temperature flows into the expander, the kinetic energy of air
was utilized to rotate the driveshaft; hence, mechanical power
was produced. Consequently, the turbo-expander performed a
fraction of the work for the compressor. Accordingly, the com-
pressing system’s power consumption is reduced, resulting in an
overall increase in fuel cell system power.
This study presents a numerical simulation of the FC system
with a two-stage high-speed turbo compressor with an expander.
By incorporating the important input parameters of FCS, specific
operation points are considered for the design of turbo com-
pressors. The performance curves of the turbo-compressor are
integrated with the operation of FCS to obtain the overall output
performance (Sugawara et al., 2016; Zhao et al., 2014).
2. Methodology
The automotive company Honda has used the turbo-
compressor in their FCS with a high power density in terms of
mass and volume (Kikuchi et al., 2016). The numerical model
is based on the Honda FCS. In 2017 Honda claimed that its
latest car, ‘‘Clarity’’, is equipped with the most advanced fuel
cell vehicle, and the FCS used in it had the highest Power-to-
Volume density and Power-to-Mass density. Moreover, it offers
the maximum driving range of any zero-emission vehicle, offer-
ing approximately 630 km under NEDC (New European Driving
Cycle) conditions. The input parameters are considered involving
the FCS and the air management system. The schematic diagram
of the model is shown in Fig. 1 (Sato et al., 2016; Kimura et al.,
2016b; Ahsan et al., 2019b).
2.1. System diagram
An FCS needs to be integrated with other components to form
a fuel cell system to power an automobile. Fig. 1 shows the
essential components required for a fuel cell system. The FCS re-
quires four fluid flow systems: (a) hydrogen supply system to the
anode; (b) air supply system to the cathode; (c) dehumidifying
system for the air and water mixture coming out of the FCS; (d)
coolant flow system to keep FCS within optimum temperature
range (Pukrushpan, 2003; Hama et al., 2019; Kulp, 2001).
The hydrogen tank is needed to store hydrogen gas at high
pressure of 70 MPa (Kimura et al., 2016a; Zaidi et al., 2018).
A pressurized safety valve is installed to manage the flow to
the optimum level after getting signals from the pressure and
N. Ahsan, A. Al Rashid, A.A. Zaidi et al. Energy Reports 7 (2021) 2635–2646

Fig. 1. Flow chart of the complete system.

temperature sensors. The hydrogen flows into the FCS’s anodic Table 1
side with high pressure and temperature for better diffusibil- Designed parameters and characteristics of the key components of an FC
system.
ity through the proton exchange membrane, also known as a
Component Characteristics Parameter Value Unit
polymer electrolyte membrane.
In the second flow loop, a two-stage turbo compressor takes in Number of cells 358
Physical Surface Area 1872.7 cm2
air from the atmosphere and supply to FCS via a humidifier. The
properties Volume 33.3 L
air with high pressure and temperature after getting humidified Fuel cell Mass 51.71 kg
by a humidifier enters the FCS’s cathodic side (Wan et al., 2017). stack
Power of single FC 287.71 W
When the gaseous hydrogen comes in contact with the PEM, it Designed Power output 103,420 W
dissociates into ionic form. As the name suggests, the PEM only performance Power-to-Volume density 3.1 kW/L
allows the hydrogen cations to pass through it while the free Power-to-Mass density 2 kW/kg
electrons pass through an external circuit towards FCS’s cathodic Type Centrifugal
side, and electricity is produced. The incoming oxygen reacts with Physical Stages 2
Hydrogen cations and free electrons to form water molecules in properties Intercooler Yes
an exothermic reaction. Fluid Air
Turbo
In the third flow loop, the excess air coming out of the FCS and Compressor Pressure ratio 4.2
the water produced by the reaction are channeled towards the Speed 105,000 RPM
Designed
Mass flow 0.117 kg/s
water separator (Kimura et al., 2016b; Yoshida and Ryu, 2018), performance
Pressure outlet 4.2 bar
which separates air from water and supplies air to the expander Critical pressure ratio 4.6
to produce fractional work for the compressor. The separated
Pressure ratio 3.243
water is supplied to the humidifier to further moisturize the Turbo Physical
Speed 105,000 RPM
incoming air into FCS. Likewise, water produced by FCS is utilized expander properties
Mass flow 0.1107 kg/s
continuously to humidify the air in the prior system.
The last flow loop is the coolant flow path (Umezawa et al.,
2019). It is considered an essential part of the fuel cell system
to maintain a reasonable temperature as heat generated by the two-stage turbo compressor and provides system efficiencies and
stack can result in too much temperature rise and damage the other output data that can be used to evaluate the performance of
PEM of the fuel cells. The flow system has a radiator that works the whole system and individual components. The model consists
as a heat exchanger to allow hot coolant coming out from FCS of several recurring loops, including the humidifier heat check
to get cooled by outside air at ambient temperature. The coolant loop, system pressure loop, and fuel cell current loop (Kulp, 2001;
pump function is to maintain the optimum flow rate of coolant Moore et al., 2005). These loops incorporate different components
into the flow pipes. The too-high flow rate may damage FCS individually and perform iterations until the value for the pro-
microchannels, and too low flow rate may not dissipate heat from ceeding section is obtained. The program then calculates values
FCS. The purpose of an ion exchanger (Hama et al., 2019) is to for the next component, and the program proceeds until final
remove the excess ions from coolant flowing into the stack as ions results and system plots are obtained.
are the major cause of microchannels erosion. Design parameters
and characteristics of the key components of an FC system are
shown in Table 1. 2.2.1. Constants and system parameters
The program starts with constant system values, including FCS
2.2. System modeling constants, turbo-compressor constants, and physical constants of
air and fuel. The turbo-compressor values are obtained from the
The model proposed in this paper is developed using the CFTurbo, which provides the single-stage values at a specific pres-
software ‘MATLAB’. It simulates the fuel cell system with the sure ratio and mass flow rate. The two values were interpolated to
2637
N. Ahsan, A. Al Rashid, A.A. Zaidi et al.
get combined values for the two-stage compressor, keeping mass
flow rate and compressor speed constant.
The initial calculations are performed prior to the numeric
simulations to determine upper and lower limits of mass flow
rate, pressure ratio, current density, and FCS voltage. This section
provides a broader range for the program to get exact values after
iterations. Some of the equations are extracted from combined
compressor curves obtained from CFTurbo for reliable verification
of results. The governing equations (Gimba et al., 2016) used in
the section are given below.
Ncell · I · MH2
ṁH2 = (1)
2F
where ṁH2 is the mass flow rate of Hydrogen gas required for the
reaction, Ncell is the number of cells, I is FCS current load (A), MH2
is the molecular mass of Hydrogen, and F is Faraday’s constant
Pstack = V ∗ Ncell ∗ I (2)
where Pstack is power (kW) produced by FCS, and V is voltage (V)
produced by a single fuel cell.
Pstack
6stack = (3)
ṁH2 ∗ LHVH2
where 6stack is the efficiency of FCS, and LHVH2 is the lower
heating value (J/kg) of hydrogen.
θO2/H2 ∗ ṁH2 ∗ MO2
ṁO2 = (4)
MH2
where ṁO2 is the mass flow rate (kg/s) of oxygen gas required for
the reaction, θ is the stoichiometry ratio of oxygen and hydrogen,
and MO2 is the molecular mass of oxygen.
ṁO2 ∗ Mair
ṁair.req = (5)
MO2 ∗ ∅
where ṁair.req is the mass flow rate (kg/s) of air required for the
reaction and ∅ is the percentage of oxygen in the air mixture.
PRmax = −3 × 10−6 ∗ ṁair,max 3 + 7 × 104 ∗ ṁair,max 2
( ) ( )
+ (−6.4 × 103 ∗ ṁair,max ) + 1.038 (6)
where PRmax is maximum operating pressure ratio of the turbo-
compressor, ṁair,max is the maximum mass flow rate (kg/s) of air
passing through the compressor. The equation has been derived
by applying the curve fitting technique at the highest pressure
ratio line (105,000 rpm) of the compressor map shown in Fig. 6.
2.2.2. Compressor section
In the compressor sections, a two-stage turbo compressor
(Ganesan, 2010) designed on CFTurbo has been used. The total
pressure ratio of 4.2 bar was unable to achieve from a single-stage
turbo compressor due to low efficiency. Each compressor stage
has a pressure ratio of 2.049 bar, which is calculated by taking
the square root of the total pressure. The designed flow rate is
0.117 kg/s, and the flow rate at the highest compressor speed of
105 000 rpm is 0.169 kg/s. Both, pressure versus mass flow rate
and efficiency versus mass flow rates graphs are obtained from
CFTurbo. To get combined curves for a two-stage compressor, the
pressure ratio and efficiency values of both stages are multiplied
by keeping the flow rate constant. Due to the high-pressure ratio,
the outlet temperature of fluid after the first stage becomes very
high, and an intercooler (Röyttä et al., 2009) has been installed
between the two stages, as shown in Fig. 2. The amount of energy
transferred within the intercooler (heat-exchanger) is calculated
using Eq. (7) shown below.
Q = U ∗ A ∗ ∆Tlm (7)
2638
Energy Reports 7 (2021) 2635–2646
where Q is the amount of energy that is transferred, U is the
heat transfer coefficient, A is the heat transfer area or the surface
area of intercooler tubes and fins and ∆Tlm is the log mean
temperature difference.
The intercooler temperature range has been set in the model,
and it reduces the air temperature by about 70 ◦ C for the highest
pressure. As a result, the air entering the second stage impeller
has a temperature of only 70 ◦ C, which is suitable for the impeller
blade to prevent plasticity. If the temperature rise after the first
stage is less than 45 ◦ C, the air-cooler does not perform any
cooling effect.
For the two-stage turbo compressor, only fifty percent of the
pressure ratio and flow rate area on the map is taken into ac-
count mainly because of the narrow operating range of the turbo
compressor. The models consider a given value from the initial
calculation section and carry out iterations to find the speed line
coinciding with the given value.
γ ∗ ṁdry air,max ∗ Psat ∗ ϕ
ṁvap,max = (8)
P − (Psat ∗ ϕ )
where, ṁvap,max is the maximum mass flow rate (kg/s) of va-
por entering the compressor, ṁdry air,max is the maximum mass
flow rate (kg/s) of dry air entering the compressor, P and Psat
is ambient pressure (atm) and saturation pressure (atm) of air,
respectively, and ϕ is the air’s relative humidity. γ is the ratio
of molecular weight of water to that of dry air is approximately
0.622.
ṁdry air ṁvap
ṁair,max = + (9)
ρdry air ρvap
where, ρdry air and ρvap are the density (kg/m3 ) of dry air and
water vapor, respectively.
If the given point directly coincides with a point on the map,
the program moves on the following section; otherwise, the
program checks the neighboring pressure line higher than the
initial pressure point. If the point is found on that pressure line,
the program stores the value. The displacement from an initial
value to the newly found value is calculated, and the ratio of two
points is used to interpolate the optimum compressor speed at
the initially provided point. This method is also valid to calculate
the efficiency of the initially provided point because the efficiency
map is also linked to compressor speed for the same mass flow
rate.
If the initially calculated data point is at a flow rate lower than
the minimum flow rate point, the program will automatically
shift the point to the lowest flow rate line of the map. The end of
this section is the system pressure loop which checks the overall
system pressure.
θ = 3.381 × 10−6 ∗ I2 + (−6 × 10−4 ∗ I2 ) + 2.009
( )
(10)
where θ is the stoichiometry ratio, and I is the current load (A)
of the FCS. The equation has been derived from curve fitting of
estimated current load and stoichiometry ratio of air and fuel for
different efficiency range. The equation is used to calculate the
air required for the reaction to occur.
If the pressure ratio across the system is less than one, the
program automatically stores the pressure ratio value equal to
ambient pressure.
)(k−1/k)
( ( )
ṁdry air ṁvap k Pout
( M + Mvap
) ∗R∗T∗ (k−1)
∗ Pin
−1
air
Pcomp =
6comp ∗ 6motor
(11)
where Pcomp is power (W) consumed by the compressor, T is
ambient air temperature (K), and k is specific heat ratio. Pin and
N. Ahsan, A. Al Rashid, A.A. Zaidi et al.
Fig. 2. Detailed diagram of two-stage turbo-compressor with an intercooler.
Pout are inlet and outlet pressures (atm), respectively. R is the
universal gas constant (J/mol K), 6comp and 6motor are combined
stages efficiency of compressor and efficiency of compressor mo-
tor respectively.
( √ ) [
k/(k−1) Pout
Pin
− 1 ∗T
Tout = +T
6comp ∗ 6motor
where Tout is the outlet temperature (K) of the compressor.
2.2.3. Humidifier/heat exchanger section
The heat exchanger and humidifier condition the tempera-
ture (Pukrushpan, 2003) and humidity of the air stream exiting
from the compressor to an optimum level before it finally enters
FCS. Keeping in view the mechanical properties of PEM studied
from the literature (Röyttä et al., 2009), the air stream’s upper-
temperature limit has been set to 95 ◦ C. Beyond this temperature
limit, the air stream can cause irreversible damage to PEM.
When the program enters this section, both components con-
sider the FCS heat rejection data calculated in the initial section
of the program to determine the temperature range of the heat
exchanger. The heat exchanger loop performs iterations to recal-
culate FCS heat rejection data and the optimum temperature for
FCS. Once the variations between two iterated FCS heat rejection
values reach 1%, the loop stops, and the program enters the FCS
section.
Due to the high-pressure ratio in a two-stage turbo compres-
sor, the air stream’s final temperature is much higher than the
temperature required by FCS. Therefore, the heat exchanger acts
as a second intercooler to further reduce the temperature of the
air. While the humidifier increases the moisture content of in-
coming air to saturation level, which is desired relative humidity
for FCS. The air is humidified to saturation level to prevent PEM
from drying out.
( )
ṁstack.vapor
Qstack = ṁH2 ∗ 1 − ∗ HHVH2
ṁstack.water
( )
ṁstack.vapor
+ ṁH2 ∗ ∗ LHVH2 − Pstack
ṁstack.water
where Qstack is the heat rejected (W) by the FCS, and ṁstack.vapor
and ṁstack.water is the mass flow rate (kg/s) of vapor and water
from the FCS, respectively. HHVH2 is the higher heating value
(J/kg) of hydrogen.
ṁwater.balance = ṁnet.water + ṁwater.recover − ṁwater.add
where ṁwater.balance is the mass flow rate (kg/s) of system wa-
ter balance, ṁnet.water is the net mass flow rate (kg/s) of water
Energy Reports 7 (2021) 2635–2646
produced by the FCS, ṁwater.recover is the mass flow rate (kg/s) of
water recovered as liquid at the FCS exit, and ṁwater.add in air is
the mass flow rate (kg/s) of water added to the air stream via the
humidifier.
( )]
Q = ṁair ∗ Cp,air ∗ Tout,HX − Tin,HX
(12)
[ ( )]
+ ṁvap ∗ Cp,vap ∗ Tout,HX − Tin,HX (15)
[ { ( )}]
+ ṁwater ∗ Evap + Cp,vap ∗ Tout,HX − Twater
where Q is the heat energy (W) needed by the heat exchanger
to increase the temperature of the air stream according to the
optimum requirement of FCS. Cp,air and Cp,vap are the specific
heats (J/kg K) of dry air and water vapor, respectively. Tin,HX
and Tout,HX are the temperature (K) of air stream at the inlet
and outlet of the heat exchanger, respectively. Evap is the energy
of vaporization (J/kg) for water. ṁwater and Twater are the mass
flow rate (kg/s) and temperature (K) of water entering the heat
exchanger, respectively.
2.2.4. Fuel cell section
The fuel cell section performs calculations (EG and G, 2004)
to validate FCS parameters, including the water produced, the
average partial pressure of oxygen, the pressure drop across FCS,
oxygen consumption, and voltage produced by the fuel cell. The
polarization curve is also obtained in the section from the voltage
equation.
Vfc = 1.03 − 0.06 ∗ Log10 (J) − (1.12 − 0.00249 ∗ Tstack.out )∗J
+0.14 ∗ Log10 (PO2 ) + (Tstack.out − 333) ∗ 0.0004 ∗ Log10 (J)
(16)
where Vfc is fuel cell voltage (V), J is fuel cell current density
(A/cm2 ), Tstack.out is fuel cell average temperature (K), and PO2 is
the average partial pressure of oxygen in a fuel cell. This equation
illustrates each fuel cell’s voltage with respect to temperature,
current load, and oxygen concentration available. The first vari-
(13)
able in the equation represents an open circuit voltage of 1.03
V. The second variable is the measure of overpotential of fuel
cell due to activation energy known as Tafel equation. The third
term is the ohmic loss term. The next term accounts for the effect
of changes in oxygen partial pressure derived from the Nernst
equation. Finally, the last term is an additional temperature effect
in air (14)
term, added to correct for a particular fuel cell system in use.
No term is added that accounts for the drop-off voltage at high
current density due to mass transfer limitations.
2639
N. Ahsan, A. Al Rashid, A.A. Zaidi et al.
The system pressure loop also ends on this section that
rechecks the compressor section if satisfactory values are ob-
tained.
Psystem = Pstack − Pfan − Pcomp − Ppump
Psystem. exp = Pexp + Pstack − Pfan − Pcomp − Ppump
where Psystem and Psystem. exp are the net system power (W) with-
out and with the turbo-expander. Pfan , Pcomp and Ppump are the
power (W) consumed by the fan, compressor, and pump, re-
spectively. Pexp is the power (W) produced by the expander.
Psystem
6system =
ṁH2 ∗ LHVH2
Psystem. exp
6system. exp =
ṁH2 ∗ LHVH2
where, 6system and 6system. exp are the net efficiency of the system
without and with turbo-expander.
2.2.5. Radiator section
The radiator section itself has five components. The radiator
model is the single path cross-flow heat exchanger with sepa-
rated fluid streams. The Number of Transfer Units (NTU) method
is used to calculate the rate of heat transfer in heat exchang-
ers (Yunus and Michael, 2000). During the winter season, heat
rejected from FCS is supplied to the car’s heating space, which
is the car’s sitting compartment. Otherwise, heat is rejected via
a radiator to the atmosphere. The coolant temperature just be-
fore entering FCS is set to be 5 ◦ C less than the average FCS
temperature. The program, therefore, calculates the percentage of
time the fan is on during the working of the whole system. The
maximum power consumption of the radiator fan and pump are
taken to be 250 W and 900 W, respectively. The values have been
determined from Prize Pump CD-100, 3600 RPM rating, similar
power rating radiator fans, and pumps are used in same-sized
gasoline vehicles.
Qstack
ṁcoolant =
∆T ∗ Cp,water
where ṁcoolant is the mass flow rate (kg/s) of the coolant in the
coolant loop. ∆T is the temperature gradient (K) of the coolant
entering and exiting the FCS, and Cp,water is the specific heat
(J/kg K) of water.
2.2.6. Expander section
The expander section is the last calculative section of the
program. The numeric model is similar to the compressor section.
The purpose of installing an expander is to utilize excess airflow
to get some mechanical work for the compressor. As a result,
it also increases the overall power output and efficiency of the
system. Turbo expander is a centrifugal turbine, which converts
the air stream’s kinetic energy to rotational work (Capata and
Hernandez, 2014). In this section, general centrifugal expander
equations calculate the power output and air stream temperature
at pre-defined expander efficiency.
)(k−1/k)
( (
ṁdry air ṁvap k Pout
( Mair
+ Mvap
) ∗R∗T∗ (k−1)
∗ Pin
−1
Pexp =
6exp
where Pexp is the power (W) produced by the expander, T is
the outlet air temperature (K) of the FCS, and k is specific heat
ratio. Pin and Pout are inlet and outlet pressures (atm) of FCS
Energy Reports 7 (2021) 2635–2646
respectively, R is the universal gas constant (J/mol K) and 6exp is
the net efficiency of the expander is 70%. Due to the presence
of water separator between the expander and FCS, the excess
airflow experiences a pressure drop. The pressure ratio and the
(17)
mass flow rate for designing the expander are taken at the outlet
of the water separator.
(18)
3. Results and discussions
3.1. Fuel cell stack
The relation between current load and FCS power is illustrated
in Fig. 3(a). The graph shows a nearly linear relationship between
both variables. The maximum power produced by the stack is
(19) 109.41 kW at the upper limit of the current load that has been
set to be 360 A. The relation between the current density and the
FCS voltage is illustrated in Fig. 3(b), also known as the polariza-
(20) tion curve, whereas the relation between stack power and stack
efficiency is illustrated in Fig. 3(c). Both the graphs show curves
decreasing exponentially. The values for maximum and minimum
stack voltages are 335.79 V and 303.92 V, and stack efficiencies
are 74.91% and 67.8%, respectively, corresponding to the lower
and upper limits of the current load and FCS power. However, the
slope shows an abrupt decline before 40 kW stack power, majorly
because of the activation loss and partially because of ohmic loss.
This is due to the need to cause the electron flow and dissociate
and form chemical bonds in the cathode and anode (Lee et al.,
1998). Whereas a fraction of the useful energy is lost in propelling
the chemical reaction.
The relation between the current load and the FCS heat re-
jection is illustrated in Fig. 4(a). The maximum heat rejection by
the stack is 63.573 kW, which coincides with the upper limit
of the current load. However, the slope shows a little variation
at around 200 A current load; this is due to the starting of the
radiator fan, as shown in Fig. 4(b), to maintain the FCS’s optimum
temperature. As the FCS power is larger than 50 kW in Fig. 4(b),
the temperature reaches the limit and is maintained at 95 ◦ C
using the coolant loop.
The relation between the FCS power and the mass flow of air
is illustrated in Fig. 5(a). The mass flow of air exiting the FCS
(21) is higher than that entering the FCS due to the water produced
during the hydrogen–oxygen reaction. After 80 kW, the curves
become linear until the maximum power of stack because the
air becomes saturated. The maximum and minimum flow rates
of air exiting FCS are 110.67 g/s and 51.94 g/s, respectively, and
103.79 g/s and 50.61 g/s for the air entering FCS respectively,
corresponding to the lower and upper limits of the FCS power.
The relation between water produced by the FCS is shown in
Fig. 5(b), which shows an almost linear relationship between the
two variables. The RH of air exiting FCS experiences much fluctu-
ation, as shown in Fig. 5(c). This is because as the stack power
increases, air temperature and pressure also increase. As the
system is pressurized therefore the change in RH is dominated
by rising pressure. However, at about 20 kW, the RH becomes
constant and decreases slightly due to a constant temperature
increase. After 50 kW, the stack temperature was controlled,
as shown in Fig. 4(b). Hence, the RH humidity again started to
increase sharply because of increased absolute pressure until the
air became saturated.
)
(22) 3.2. Compressor
Figs. 6 and 7 describe the performance of the two-stage turbo
compressor. Raw graphs were generated in CFTurbo software for
single-stage turbo compressors after completing the compressors’
2640
N. Ahsan, A. Al Rashid, A.A. Zaidi et al. Energy Reports 7 (2021) 2635–2646

Fig. 4. (a) Heat rejection by FCS with varying current load; (b) Variation of FCS
absolute temperature with power.

design phase. After that, the plot data from both the individ-
ual compressors were evaluated to obtain the two-stage turbo
compressor’s performance maps.
The relation between the mass flow rate and the pressure ratio
through the compressor is illustrated in Fig. 6. The graph shows
curves decreasing exponentially at different compressor speeds,
showing an inverse relationship between the variables. As the
mass flow increases, the pressure ratio decreases for a particular
speed and vice versa. For specific mass flow, the compressor
speed is directly related to the pressure ratio. The maximum
pressure ratio of 4.55 is observed at 105 k RPM of the compressor,
which corresponds to 0.10 kg/s. However, it is only in the special
case of the critical speed limit. To prevent any damage inside the
compressor, the maximum safe pressure ratio of 4.2 is achieved
at 100k RPM of compressor for long-lasting reliability.
The relation between the mass flow rate and the compres-
sor efficiency is illustrated in Fig. 7(a) obtained from CF-Turbo.
The graph shows curves decreasing exponentially at different
Fig. 3. (a) variations of fuel cell stack power with current load; (b) variations
of stack voltage with the current load; (c) variations of stack efficiency with the
compressor speeds, showing an inverse relationship between the
power. variables. As the mass flow increases, the efficiency decreases
for a particular speed and vice versa. For specific mass flow, the
2641
N. Ahsan, A. Al Rashid, A.A. Zaidi et al. Energy Reports 7 (2021) 2635–2646

Fig. 6. Pressure ratio performance map of the compressor.

Fig. 7. Performance map of the compressor: (a) efficiency variation with mass
flow rate of air; (b) efficiency variation with FCS power.

compressor speed is directly related to efficiency. The maximum

Fig. 5. (a) variations of mass flow rate of air entering and exiting FCS with FCS
power; (b) mass flow rate of water produced by the stack; (c) relative humidity
of air exiting FCS.
2642
efficiency of 70.67% is observed at 105k RPM of the compressor,
which corresponds to 0.12 kg/s. However, it is only in the special
case of the critical speed limit.
The relation between the FCS power and the compressor ef-
ficiency is illustrated in Fig. 7(b) obtained from the numerical
N. Ahsan, A. Al Rashid, A.A. Zaidi et al.
Fig. 8. (a) pressure ratio of air across the compressor; air temperature exiting
the compressor; (b) comparison of compressor and expander power.
model at peak pressure ratio. The graph shows a combination of
slightly exponentially increasing and sharply decreasing curves,
which shows a non-uniform relationship between the variables.
As the stack power increases, the compressor efficiency also
increases and reaches a maximum value of 69.68%, corresponding
to 80 kW stack power. After that, the efficiency sharply declines
until it reaches the minimum value of 42.44%, corresponding to
the upper limit of the FCS power.
The relations between the FCS power and the air temperature
at the compressor outlet and pressure ratio are illustrated in
Fig. 8(a). The graph shows two similar curves increasing expo-
nentially, which shows a direct relationship between both the
variables. As the stack power increases, the temperature and
pressure ratio also increases and vice versa. The maximum and
minimum air temperatures reach 182.96 ◦ C and 70.48 ◦ C. How-
ever, the maximum and minimum pressure ratios reach 4.20 and
1.878, which coincide with the upper and lower limits of the FCS
power.
The relations between the FCS power and the power required
by the compressor and power produced by the expander are
illustrated in Fig. 8(b). The graph shows exponentially increasing
curves, which show a non-uniform relationship between both
the variables. However, the power produced by the expander is
comparatively lower than the compressor power due to the low
efficiency of the expander. The maximum and minimum values of
2643
Energy Reports 7 (2021) 2635–2646
Fig. 9. Mass flow rates of the air flowing through different components.
power produced by the expander are 9.8788 kW and 1.657 kW,
whereas the maximum and minimum values of power required
by the compressor are 20.641 kW and 3.847 kW, which coincide
with the upper and lower limits of the FCS power.
3.3. System
The bar graph shown in Fig. 9 represents the mass flow rates
of dry air and water vapor at four different points of the whole
system at maximum current load and FCS power. The figure
shows the variation in flow rates of dry air and water vapor
when the pressure ratio is maximum that is 4.2 bar, and the FCS
is being operated at the peak power. The mass flow of dry air
and water vapor at the compressor inlet and outlet are 102.8 g/s
and 1 g/s, respectively. That is because no addition of air and
water molecules takes place in the compression stage. The only
difference observed is in the pressure and temperature of the
fluid. However, inside the humidifier, the mass flow of dry air
is constant, but water vapor’s mass flow increases rapidly due to
air humidification. The mass flow of water vapor at the outlet of
the humidifier is 11.2 g/s. Inside the FCS, the mass flow of dry
air experiences a decrease to 92.1 g/s due to oxygen utilization in
the chemical reaction. Moreover, the moisture content increases
sharply until the air becomes saturated due to water production
due to cell reaction. The mass flow of water vapor at the exit of
FCS is maximum during the whole process that is 18.6 g/s.
The relations between the FCS power and the hydrogen con-
sumption and hydrogen feed at different flow rates are illustrated
in Fig. 10(a). The graph shows curves increasing linearly, which
shows direct proportionality between both the variables. As the
stack power increases, hydrogen consumption also increases and
vice versa. The maximum mass flow of hydrogen utilized by the
reaction is 0.0013 kg/s, which coincides with the upper limit of
the FCS power.
The relations between the FCS power and the water added
to the air and hydrogen streams are illustrated in Fig. 10(b).
The graph shows non-linear curves, which show a non-uniform
relationship for water added in the air stream but a direct re-
lationship for the hydrogen stream with stack power. However,
N. Ahsan, A. Al Rashid, A.A. Zaidi et al.
Fig. 10. (a) Hydrogen consumption and supplied feed rates; (b) Mass flow rates
of water added into the air and fuel streams.
all the time, the water addition in the air stream is much higher
compared to the hydrogen stream due to system requirements.
Whereas the air stream is concerned, the curve increases sharply
to about 50 kW; afterward, it declines until 80 kW. Then again,
it undergoes an increment until it reaches the peak value. The
maximum values of water added to air and hydrogen streams are
0.0102 g/s and 0.003 g/s, respectively, coinciding with the upper
limit of the FCS power.
The relation between the FCS power and the pressure drop
across the system is illustrated in Fig. 11(a). The graph shows
a combination of exponentially and linearly increasing curves,
which shows a direct relationship between both variables. As
the stack power increases, the pressure drop through different
components and pipes also increases and vice versa. After 80 kW,
the pressure drop rapidly increases linearly because of a sudden
decrease in compressor efficiency at a higher current load. As
a result of increased demand for air and hydrogen intake for
the stack. As the compressor becomes less efficient, the pressure
losses across the system experience a surge. The maximum and
minimum values for pressure drop are 0.2227 bar and 0.4786 bar,
respectively, which coincides with the upper and lower limits of
the FCS power.
The relation between the FCS power and the percentage of
time the fan is ON is illustrated in Fig. 11(b). The graph shows
2644
Energy Reports 7 (2021) 2635–2646
a combination of uniform and exponentially increasing curves,
which shows a direct relationship between both variables after
68 kW. As the stack power increases, the percentage of time also
increases and vice versa. The maximum values for the percentage
of the time are 19%, which coincides with the FCS power’s upper
limit.
The relations between the FCS power and the system efficien-
cies with and without expander are illustrated in Fig. 11(c). The
graph shows exponentially increasing curves, which show a non-
uniform relationship between both the variables. However, all the
time, the efficiency of the system with an expander is compara-
tively higher than the efficiency without an expander. The system
efficiencies increase sharply to about 20 kW stack power; after
that, the efficiencies become stable and do not increase further.
Then after 80 kW, a slight decline is observed until the maximum
stack power. The maximum values of system efficiencies are
65.1% and 59.1% with and without expander, respectively.
The relations between the FCS power and the system powers
with and without expander are illustrated in Fig. 11(d). The
graph shows exponentially increasing curves, which show a di-
rect relationship between both the variables. As the stack power
increases, the system powers also increase and vice versa. How-
ever, all the time, the system’s efficiency with an expander is
comparatively higher than the efficiency without an expander.
The maximum values of system powers are 88.27 kW and 98.15
kW with and without expander, respectively, corresponding to
the upper limit of the FCS power.
4. Conclusion
The paper presents the performance evaluation model of a
hydrogen vehicle with a highly efficient fuel cell stack. The results
are represented in various graphs and categorized into three
different groups: the fuel cell stack (FCS), the turbo-compressor,
and the system. The FCS group’s results validate that the power
produced and the heat generated by the stack increase with the
increased current load. The relative humidity of the air reaches
the saturation point at the FCS exit. The mass flow rate of air
required and water produced by the stack increases as the stack
power increases. However, the stack’s temperature must be con-
trolled under a safe limit by the coolant cycle to prevent any
irreversible damage to the PEM of cells. The compressor group’s
results validate that the power consumed by the compressor and
the power produced by the expander increases with the increased
power of the stack. The air temperature inside the compres-
sor increases significantly with the increased work done by the
compressor. However, to achieve the maximum stack power, the
compressor is designed to produce a maximum pressure ratio
of the 4.2 bar in this case and not beyond that limit to avoid
any permanent damage to the compressor’s rotating components.
Whereas the system is concerned, the fuel consumption and the
pressure drop across the system increase with increased stack
power. Mass flow rates of water added to air and fuel streams are
always less than the water produced by the stack for this model.
Overall, the system’s efficiency and power are higher with the
turbo-expander but also make the system more complex.
Moreover, the highest efficiency is achieved in the stack
power’s middle-range due to high heat generation and pressure
losses at high stack power. The mean system efficiency is all
the time for the complete current cycle is marginally above 60%,
which is nearest to the highest system efficiency; therefore, it
can be observed that this model provides minimum efficiency
fluctuation and keeps the system stable. This model is designed
to provide the user to alter the input data and inlet conditions
according to the requirement. Moreover, the compressor type
and size of the fuel cell system can also be changed to compare
N. Ahsan, A. Al Rashid, A.A. Zaidi et al.
Fig. 11. (a) Pressure loss across the system; (b) Duration of time the fan
is on during the system working; (c) Net system powers with and with-
out turbo-expander; (d) Net efficiencies of the system with and without
turbo-expander.
2645
Energy Reports 7 (2021) 2635–2646
fuel cell system performance with advanced air management
units. However, by modifying the model for allowing variable
inlet conditions assumed to be constant here, the accuracy and
performance forecasting of the system at real-world conditions
can significantly align with the experimental investigation of fuel
cell systems.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Nabeel Ahsan: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investiga-
tion, Writing - original draft. Ans Al Rashid: Methodology, Vali-
dation, Resources, Writing - review & editing. Asad A. Zaidi: Con-
ceptualization, Investigation, Supervision, Project administration.
Ramsha Imran: Software, Writing - review & editing, Funding
acquisition. Sikandar Abdul Qadir: Writing - review & editing,
Visualization, Funding acquisition.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
The publication of this article was funded by the Qatar Na-
tional Library (QNL).
References
Ahsan, N., Chen, L., Chen, S., Hou, Y., 2019a. Performance analysis of turbo-
compressors for applications in PEM fuel cell systems. In: 9th Int. Conf.
Compress. Refrig..
Ahsan, N., Zaidi, A.A., Mushtaq, K., 2019b. Numerically simulated performance
assessment for integration of pem fuel cell stack into an automobile. In: 3rd
Dr. Congr. Eng..
Al-Baghdadi, M.A.R.S., 2017. Proton exchange membrane fuel cells modeling: A
review of the last ten years results of the fuel cell research center-IEEF. Int.
J. Energy Environ. 8, 1–28, https://doi.org/ISSN2076-2895.
Blunier, B., Miraoui, A., 2007. Air management in PEM fuel cells: State-of-the-
art and prospectives. In: Int. Aegean Conf. Electr. Mach. Power Electron.
Electromotion ACEMP’07 Electromotion’07 Jt. Conf.. pp. 245–254. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1109/ACEMP.2007.4510510.
Capata, R., Hernandez, G., 2014. Preliminary design and simulation of a turbo
expander for small rated power organic rankine cycle (ORC). Energies
7067–7093. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en7117067.
Cunningham, J.M., Hoffman, M.A., Friedman, D.J., 2001. A Comparison of High-
Pressure and Low-Pressure Operation of PEM Fuel Cell Systems. SAE Tech.
Pap. 2001, http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/2001-01-0538.
2004. Fuel cell handbook. EG & G Technical Services Inc., http://dx.doi.org/10.
5860/choice.26-6292.
Ganesan, V., 2010. Gas-Turbines, third ed. Mc-Graw Hill.
Gimba, I.D., Abdulkareem, A.S., Jimoh, A., Afolabi, A.S., 2016. Theoretical energy
and exergy analyses of proton exchange membrane fuel cell by computer
simulation. Appl. Chem. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/2684919.
Hama, Y., Nagata, D., Goto, S., Takahasi, K., 2019. Downsizing technology for FC
cooling system installation under front hood. Honda R & D Tech. Rev. 63–70.
Harrison, K., Peters, M., Terlip, D., 2015. DOE hydrogen and fuel cells program
review system development & testing.
James, B.D., Huya-Kouadio, J.M., Houchins, C., 2018. DOE Hydrogen and fuel cells
program review fuel cell systems analysis, (2018). https://www.hydrogen.
energy.gov/pdfs/review18/fc163_james_2018_o.pdf.
Kikuchi, H., Kaji, H., Okonogi, D., Harata, H., Nishiyama, T., 2016. Development
of new FC stack for clarity fuel cell. Honda R & D Tech. Rev. 29, 50–55, http:
//hondanews.com/media_storage/downloads/CLARITYFUELCELLPRESSKIT.pdf.
Kimura, K., Kawasaki, T., Ohmura, T., Atsumi, Y., Shimizu, K., 2016a. Development
of new fuel cell vehicle clarity fuel cell. Honda R & D Tech. Rev. 28, 1–7, http:
//hondanews.com/media_storage/downloads/CLARITYFUELCELLPRESSKIT.pdf.
Kimura, Y., Oyama, S., Giga, A., Okonogi, D., 2016b. Development of new FC
separator for clarity fuel cell. Honda R & D Tech. Rev. 29, 50–55, http:
//hondanews.com/media_storage/downloads/CLARITYFUELCELLPRESSKIT.pdf.
Kulp, G.W., 2001. A Comparison of Two Air Compressors for PEM Fuel Cell
Systems. Virginia Polytechnic Institue and State University.
N. Ahsan, A. Al Rashid, A.A. Zaidi et al.
Kulp, G.W., Gurski, S., Nelson, D.J., 2002. PEM Fuel Cell Air Management
Efficiency At Part Load. SAE Tech. Pap., http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/2002-01-
1912.
Lee, J.H., Lalk, T.R., Appleby, A.J., 1998. Modeling electrochemical performance in
large scale proton exchange membrane fuel cell stacks. J. Power Sources 70,
258–268.
Moore, R.M., Hauer, K.H., Friedman, D., Cunningham, J., Badrinarayanan, P.,
Ramaswamy, S., Eggert, A., 2005. A dynamic simulation tool for hydrogen
fuel cell vehicles. J. Power Sources 141, 272–285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jpowsour.2004.05.063.
Mushtaq, K., Zaidi, A.A., Jawid, S., 2016. Design and performance analysis of
floating dome type portable biogas plant for domestic use in Pakistan.
Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 14, 21–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.
2016.01.001.
Numakura, R., 2012. Performance of a small-size two-stage centrifugal com-
pressor. In: Inst. Mech. Eng. - 10th Int. Conf. Turbochargers Turbocharg-
ing. Woodhead Publishing Limited, pp. 307–318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1533/
9780857096135.6.307.
Pakle, S., Jiang, K., 2018. Design of a high-performance centrifugal compressor
with new surge margin improvement technique for high speed turboma-
chinery. Propuls. Power Res. 7, 19–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jppr.2018.
02.004.
Pischinger, S., Schönfelder, C., Bornscheuer, W., Kindl, H., Wiartalla, A., 2001.
Integrated Air Supply and Humidification Concepts for Fuel Cell Systems.
SAE Tech. Pap. 2001, http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/2001-01-0233.
Pukrushpan, J.T., 2003. Modeling and Control of Fuel Cell Systems and Fuel
Processors. University of Michigan.
Röyttä, P., Turunen-Saaresti, T., Honkatukia, J., 2009. Optimising the refrigeration
cycle with a two-stage centrifugal compressor and a flash intercooler. Int. J.
Refrig. 32, 1366–1375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2009.01.006.
Sato, M., Chiba, H., Inoue, M., 2016. Development of CCM water content
distribution measurement system for fuel cell stack. Honda R & D Tech.
Rev..
Sugawara, T., Kanazawa, T., Tachibana, Y., Imai, N., 2016. Development of air
supply system for clarity fuel cell. Honda R & D Tech. Rev. 28, 1–3.
2646
Energy Reports 7 (2021) 2635–2646
Umezawa, K., Matsui, K., Ikeda, Y., 2019. Technology for estimation of fuel cell
stack temperature using transient heat transfer simulation in cell stacking
direction. Honda R & D Tech. Rev..
Venturi, M., Sang, J., Knoop, A., Hornburg, G., 2012. Air Supply System for
Automotive Fuel Cell Application. SAE Tech. Pap., http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/
2012-01-1225.
Wan, Y., Guan, J., Xu, S., 2017. Improved empirical parameters design method for
centrifugal compressor in PEM fuel cell vehicle application. Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy 42, 5590–5605. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.08.162.
Weyers, C., Bocklisch, T., 2018. Simulation-based investigation of energy man-
agement concepts for fuel cell - battery - hybrid energy storage systems
in mobile applications. Energy Procedia. 155, 295–308. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.egypro.2018.11.048.
Wiartalla, A., Pischinger, S., Bornscheuer, W., Fieweger, K., Ogrzewalla, J., 2000.
Compressor ExpandEr Units for Fuel Cell Systems. SAE Tech. Pap. 2000,
http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/2000-01-0380.
Yoshida, K., Ryu, O., 2018. Initiative to evaluate effects of atmospheric impurities
on PEM fuel cell performance. Honda R & D Tech. Rev..
Yu, W., Sichuan, X., Ni, H., 2015. Air compressors for fuel cell vehicles: An
systematic review. SAE Int. J. Altern. Powertrains 4, 115–122. http://dx.doi.
org/10.4271/2015-01-1172.
Yunus, C., Michael, B., 2000. Thermodynamics an Engineering Approach, fifth ed..
Zaidi, A.A., Ruizhe, F., Shi, Y., Khan, S.Z., 2018. Nanoparticles augmentation on
biogas yield from microalgal biomass anaerobic digestion. Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.05.132.
Zhao, D., Daniel, K., Blunier, B., Zwyssig, C., Dou, M., Miraoui, A., 2012. Design
and control of an ultra high speed turbo compressor for the air management
of fuel cell systems. In: IEEE Transp. Electrif. Conf. Expo.. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1109/ITEC.2012.6243438.
Zhao, D., Zheng, Q., Gao, F., Bouquain, D., Dou, M., Miraoui, A., 2014. Disturbance
decoupling control of an ultra-high speed centrifugal compressor for the air
management of fuel cell systems. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 39, 1788–1798.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.11.057.