Control Engineering Practice 120 (2022) 104992

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Control Engineering Practice

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

An adaptive model-based feedforward temperature control of a 100 kW

PEM electrolyzer
R. Keller ∗, E. Rauls, M. Hehemann, M. Müller, M. Carmo
Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Institute of Energy and Climate Research, IEK-14: Electrochemical Process Engineering, 52425 Jülich, Germany

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Polymer Electrolyte Membrane (PEM) electrolyzers will play a central role in future power-to-gas plants.
Feedforward control Increasing the performance and scaling of PEM electrolyzers to the MW scale represents significant challenges
PEM electrolyzer for existing system components, as well as for optimal operational management. In relation to existing control
Model-based control
loops, temperature control turns out to be critical. Due to scaling into higher performance classes and highly
System efficiency
dynamic load profiles of green energy sources such as wind power and photovoltaics, the disturbance variable
Stability
Adaptive control
current density has an increasing influence on temperature control. The temperature is an essential operating
Safety parameter, especially for PEM electrolyzers, to be able to provide optimum efficiency, safety and prevent
premature aging or destruction. In this article, we present an adaptive temperature control with a model-
based feedforward control based on a model that considers the dependency of the operating parameters
current density and stack temperature. In order to demonstrate the reliability and robustness of the control
performance, an experimental validation of the adaptive temperature control with feedforward control is
carried out on a 100 kW PEM electrolyzer. In this context, a comparison and an evaluation of the control
concept to the existing proportional–integral–derivative (PID) control under highly dynamic load changes from
wind power and photovoltaics is performed. Finally, the obtained results are discussed with respect to the
aspects of optimal operational management.

1. Introduction aging phenomena (Tjarks, 2017). Moreover, high temperatures lead

In Germany’s future energy landscape, hydrogen will be a central
pillar as an energy carrier and will be of preeminent importance. The
main advantages of hydrogen are obvious: It has a high energy density
relative to its mass and can be obtained emission-free via water elec-
trolysis when using electrical power generated by renewable sources. In
addition to alkaline electrolysis, Polymer Electrolyte Membrane (PEM)
electrolysis has recently become increasingly important in so-called
‘‘power-to-gas’’ applications (Sab, 2018; Peters et al., 2019; Robinius
et al., 2018; Tjarks et al., 2018). PEM electrolysis can react to fast
load changes and meet growing H2 demands in highly dynamic energy
systems that are predominated by volatile renewable energy sources
such as wind power and photovoltaics. PEM electrolyzers achieve high
power densities (Sab, 2018; Tjarks et al., 2018), which means that
the systems are compact and have low thermal masses. Therefore,
they are a favorable technology for dynamic operation. In addition to
high efficiencies, good long-term stability, and reliability are important
criteria for the later economical use of this technology. With regard to
long-term stability, aging phenomena play a major role in electrochem-
istry. High temperatures and current densities within PEM cells ensure
strong electrochemical dynamics and can therefore cause accelerated
to increased permeability of H2 and O2 through the used membrane,
which can lead to amplified cross-contamination, causing the formation
of explosive H2 /O2 gas combinations (Anon, 2008; Broka & Ekdunge,
1997; Fateev, Grigoriev, Millet, & al, 2007; Lebbal & Lecøeuche, 2009).
Due to the fact that hydrogen has a higher permeability than oxygen,
H2 in O2 on the anode side is especially safety-relevant. To ensure
that safety maximized, a robust and reliable temperature control is
also required. During scaling into the higher power classes, the power
density and thus the specific waste heat increases. Therefore, heat
management has an increasing influence on PEM electrolyzer operation
at large scales. In addition, there are changing physical properties,
such as higher thermal capacities in the PEM system. In the context
of optimal operational management and dynamic load changes, the
question of a suitable means of temperature control emerges as a crit-
ical element, as this depends on many physical values such as current
density and structural parameters. By scaling into higher performance
classes, there is an increasing need to design a suitable temperature
control mechanism.
Until now, alkaline electrolyzers have mostly been used for hydro-
gen production required for industrial purposes (Anon, 2020). Alkaline

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: r.keller@fz-juelich.de (R. Keller).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conengprac.2021.104992
Received 15 February 2021; Received in revised form 28 September 2021; Accepted 13 November 2021
Available online 13 December 2021
0967-0661/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
R. Keller, E. Rauls, M. Hehemann et al. Control Engineering Practice 120 (2022) 104992

Nomenclature

PEM Proton Exchange Membrane

MEA Membrane Electrolyte Assembly
CV Controlled Variable
MV Manipulated Value
SP Set-point
PLC Programmable Logic Controller
MPC Model Predictive Control
PID Proportional–Integral–Derivative
PV Photovoltaic

electrolysis is primarily suited to static operating points. Physical pa-

rameters such as temperature and power and the resulting hydrogen
flow therefore remain at fixed values. In addition to this technology,
PEM electrolysis has been a niche product for several years. However,
due to the emerging importance of power-to-gas applications, PEM
electrolysis is becoming of ever greater interest to current research
activities in order to meet the later dynamic requirements and high cur-
rent densities of the regenerative energy landscape. A few approaches
of control strategies to regulate the temperature of PEM electrolyzers
within certain limits are shown in the literature. Bessarabov, Wang,
Li, and Zhao (2015), Garche (2009), Höller (2020), Lee, Park, and
Kim (2013) and Tiktak (2019) demonstrate the basic principle of
removing the generated heat with a water cycle and an existing heat
exchanger from the electrolyzer. With larger systems in higher perfor-
mance classes, the non-linearity mostly increases due to the additional
power that is required to saturate the product gases on the anode
and cathode sides with water vapor. Moreover, with large non-linear
operation ranges, conventional PID controllers reach their limits.
In addition to the PID algorithm, there are a variety of control
methods described in the literature, ranging from neural networks
(Leonard & v Long, 1998; Lunze, 2010; Samal, 2004; Wilhelm, 2010)
to fuzzy control (Lunze, 2010; Serge & Reuter, 2011). If there are many
process values that depend on each other and that must be controlled,
Model Predictive Controllers (MPCs) (Keller, 2018; Keller, Ding, Müller,
& Stolten, 2017) are often used. This differs from adaptive control
methods (Astolfi, Karagiannis, & Ortega, 2008; Aström & Wittenmark,
2008; Dumont & Huzmezan, 2002) which are, on the one hand, quick
and easy to implement and, on the other, can cover a large operating
range. One of these adaptive control methods are PID controllers with
scheduling of PID parameters for given operation ranges or conditions
(Amoozgar & Chamseddine, 2015; Henriques, Gil, Cardoso, & Dourado,
2002; Oliveira & Karimi, 2012; Sarhan, 2014). Non-linear systems are
therefore split into partial linear systems in order to identify the optimal
control parameters. These controllers have the advantage, that they
can be tuned offline and countered non-linearities with simple control
methods such as PID algorithms. Influences of disturbance variables
on the control loop can be countered with feedforward controllers
(Glück, Pott, & Sawodny, 2017; Liu et al., 2019; Meutia & Bukhori,
2017; Wang et al., 2021). This control design determine the impact of
the disturbance variable on the controlled variable and acts before the
control loop is involved.
In this paper, an adaptive model-based feedforward temperature
control mechanism is presented. Initially, the existing PID control
algorithm was used. In order to meet the higher dynamic requirements
of power-to-gas systems, the temperature control must directly follow
changing operating points in order to ensure good efficiency. Due to
the non-linearity of PEM electrolyzers, the existing PID control strategy
must be adapted to guarantee optimal operation. At maximal operating
temperatures, overshoots of the set-point must be minimized in order
to prevent premature aging phenomena. This creates new challenges,
particularly with regard to the control algorithm. The current density
Fig. 1. 100 kW PEM electrolyzer..
within the PEM electrolyzer influence the heat balance. Additionally,
the stack temperature of the electrolyzer is highly non-linear over its
operating range of 20-80 ◦ C. In this context, the control algorithm must
be aligned in such a way that it succeeds across the entire temperature
range. In order to implement a simple and fast algorithm, higher
control approaches are avoided in this work. Instead, a model is used
to identify the optimal PID parameters for the respective operating
point depending on the stack temperature and current density. The
optimal parameters are then stored in a look-up table to make them
available for the PID algorithm. In order to meet the high dynamics
in operation with regard to current density and to keep the influence
on the stack temperature as low as possible, a feedforward control is
designed, which compensates for the influences of the current density
disturbances on the controlled variable stack temperature.
In this context, this work is structured as follows: Section 2 presents
the utilized 100 kW electrolysis system. The structure in terms of the
temperature control to be designed is explicitly discussed. Important
properties of the structure and components of the PEM electrolyzer
are examined and illuminated. Section 3 presents the model of the
100 kW electrolyzer. The depth of detail reflects all of the factors that
influence the heat balance. In this context, the physical process values
that directly influence the temperature are specifically identified and
mapped. In Section 4 a validation of the 100 kW electrolyzer model
takes place. The design of the adaptive model-based feedforward tem-
perature control is then outlined in Section 5. In addition to the design
of the feedforward control, which includes the direct influence of the
current density on the stack temperature, the PID control parameters
optimized for the respective operating ranges are described here. The
stability of the designed control algorithm with regard to the dynamic
operation is then demonstrated for various scenarios in Sections 6 and
7. Finally, Section 8 provides a summary of the results.
2. The 100 kW PEM electrolyzer system
The 100 kW electrolyzer examined comprises two 50 kW electrolysis
stacks connected in parallel. This makes it possible to keep the active
cell area relatively small at 300 cm2 , because the smaller area creates
significant advantages in terms of gas tightness, especially at operating
pressures of up to 50 bar. To simplify the subsequent modeling, the two
50 kW stacks are combined into one lumped 100 kW stack.
Fig. 1 shows the 100 kW system built up at the IEK-14 of the
Forschungszentrum Jülich. The two 50 kW stacks can be seen in the
front functional area. Fig. 2 shows the schematic structure of the

2
R. Keller, E. Rauls, M. Hehemann et al.
Fig. 2. Flow diagram electrolyzer.
100 kW system with the units required for operation. Water circulates
on the anode and cathode sides using two pumps. On the one hand,
this has the goal of making the required educt water available on the
anode side and, on the other hand, due to the circulating water on both
sides, it is also possible to add or remove heat from the stack via both
water circuits. In addition to the PEM stack, Fig. 2 shows the elements
for supplying heat and the heat exchangers for dissipating it. This is
essential for the later temperature control. In addition, Fig. 2 also shows
the gas water separators of the anode and cathode.
3. System model of the 100 kW PEM electrolyzer
In this section, the 100 kW PEM electrolyzer presented in Section 2
is modeled for the purpose of temperature control. In addition to the
physical parameters, structural modeling parameters are also deter-
mined. Various energy flows are combined to calculate the heat and
or power balance. First, the electrochemistry of the individual cells is
illuminated and then combined into a stack model consisting of several
cells.
3.1. Electrochemical model
The following stack model is used to calculate the cell voltage for
a given operation point. The cell voltage 𝑈𝐶𝑒𝑙𝑙 consists of the Nernst
voltage 𝑈𝑁𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑠𝑡 , the activation overvoltage 𝑈𝑎𝑐𝑡 , the concentration over-
voltage 𝑈𝑐𝑜𝑛 and the ohmic overvoltage 𝑈𝑂ℎ𝑚 . They add up in the
following equation:
𝑈𝐶𝑒𝑙𝑙 = 𝑈𝑁𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑠𝑡 + 𝑈𝑎𝑐𝑡 + 𝑈𝑂ℎ𝑚 + 𝑈𝑐𝑜𝑛 . (1)
The Nernst voltage 𝑈𝑁𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑠𝑡 is often referred to as the open cell voltage
and is the voltage that prevails at the thermoneutral potential. It
depends on the Gibbs Energy 𝛥𝐺0 , the partial pressures at the anode
and cathode and the temperature 𝑇 , as can be seen in the equation:
⎛ √ ⎞
√ saturation of the hydrogen. Here, the flow of water that turns into vapor
𝛥𝐺0 𝑅𝑇 ⎜ 𝑝𝐻2 √ 𝑝𝑂2 ⎟
𝑈𝑁𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑠𝑡 = + ln 𝑟𝑒𝑓 √ 𝑟𝑒𝑓 . (2)
2𝐹 2𝐹 ⎜ 𝑝 𝑝𝑂 ⎟⎠
⎝ 𝐻 2 2
If this potential is reached, however, there is still no electric current
flow and therefore no splitting of the water, as there remain the burdens
of the ohmic and activation losses given by the following equations:
𝑈𝑜ℎ𝑚 = (𝑅𝑚𝑒𝑚 + 𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑒 ) ⋅ 𝑗𝑒𝑙 (3)
( )
𝑗
𝑈𝑎𝑐𝑡 = 𝛼 ln 𝑒𝑙 (4)
𝑗0
and these must be overcome. The ohmic overvoltage is composed of
the electrical contact resistance 𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑒 , the electrical resistance of the
membrane 𝑅𝑚𝑒𝑚 and the resulting electric current flow. Both param-
eters were determined by practical tests with polarization curves and
impedance spectroscopy. The activation overvoltage can be expressed
3
Control Engineering Practice 120 (2022) 104992
in a summarized form of the Butler–Volmer equation (4). The charge
transfer coefficient 𝛼 and the exchange current density 𝑗0 used herein
was also taken from Tjarks (2017). Due to sufficient water flow on the
cathode side, it was assumed that there is no undersupply in the cell,
which means that the concentration overvoltage can be neglected. Only
after the sum of the voltages, given by Eq. (1), has been overcome,
can the decomposition of water at the anode take place. The electric
power required for water splitting is made up of the specified electric
current density and the resulting cell voltage. As can be seen from
Eq. (2), the power required highly depends on the temperature. The
cell voltage model described in this section refers to a single cell. As
an electrolyzer is operated with a so-called stack of several individual
cells, the subsequent input power results from the sum of the individual
cell voltages. This relationship will be dealt with in more detail in
Section 3.2 within the required energy flows.
3.2. Mass transfer model
The resulting mass transport is marked by the products that occur
in the catalyst. On the cathode side, the hydrogen generation and the
resulting flow 𝑛̇ 𝐻2 can be determined by the Faraday constant 𝐹 and
the electric current density 𝑗𝑒𝑙 using the following equation:
𝑗𝑒𝑙
𝑛̇ 𝐻2 = 𝑁𝐶𝑒𝑙𝑙 ⋅ 𝐴𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙 ⋅ . (5)
2𝐹
The saturated vapor pressure of the hydrogen 𝑝𝐻2,𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑡 is given by Eq. (6):
4 3 2
𝑝𝐻2,𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑡 = 𝑎4 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 + 𝑎3 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 + 𝑎2 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 + 𝑎1 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 + 𝑎0 (6)
where the produced hydrogen is humidified. It can be seen that Eq. (6)
has a strong dependence on the stack temperature 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 . The tem-
peratures on the anode and cathode sides are described as the stack
temperature 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 . The equation for the saturated vapor pressure of
hydrogen can be found in Huang (2008). The flow of water that turns
into vapor is described through:
𝑝𝐻2,𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑡
𝑛̇ 𝐻2,𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑚 = ⋅ 𝑛̇ . (7)
𝑝𝐾 + 1 − 𝑝𝐻2,𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑡 𝐻2
It can be seen that the water vapor 𝑛̇ 𝐻2,𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑚 is strongly dependent
on the stack temperature 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 and on the cathode-side pressure 𝑝𝐾 .
Parallel to the cathode, oxygen is generated on the anode side by the
existing current flow, given by the following equation:
𝑗𝑒𝑙
𝑛̇ 𝑂2 = 𝑁𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙 ⋅ 𝐴𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙 ⋅ . (8)
4𝐹
As already described for the cathode side, the resulting oxygen gas is
also saturated with vapor. Analogously to the cathode side, the vapor
saturation is also strongly temperature-dependent and is described by:
4 3 2
𝑝𝑂2−𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑡 = 𝑏4 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 + 𝑏3 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 + 𝑏2 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 + 𝑏1 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 + 𝑏0 . (9)
The existing parameters 𝑏i differ only slightly from those of the vapor
can be calculated through:
𝑝𝑂2,𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑡
𝑛̇ 𝑂2,𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑚 = ⋅ 𝑛̇ . (10)
𝑝𝐴 + 1 − 𝑝𝑂2,𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑡 𝑂2
In addition to the vapor saturation of the product gases, there is an
electro-osmotic water drag due to the proton flow over the membrane
that depends on the current density, the operating pressure and the
stack temperature. This drag transports water from the anode to the
cathode site of the electrolysis stack. The water drag was determine by
measuring the added water supplied to the anode site while keeping
the level in the gas separator constant. It is described by the drag factor
𝐷 = 1.9 mol/(mol H+). The resulting water flow can be calculated with:
𝑚̇ 𝐷𝑟𝑎𝑔 = 2 ⋅ 60 ⋅ 𝐷 ⋅ 𝑀𝐻2𝑂 ⋅ 𝑛̇ 𝐻2 . (11)
R. Keller, E. Rauls, M. Hehemann et al. Control Engineering Practice 120 (2022) 104992

The total required mass flow of water 𝑚̇ 𝑠𝑢𝑚 is added up from the
water drag and the electrochemically-converted water from Eq. (5),
producing:

𝑚̇ 𝑠𝑢𝑚 = 𝑚̇ 𝐷𝑟𝑎𝑔 + 60 ⋅ 𝑀𝐻2𝑂 ⋅ 𝑛̇ 𝐻2 . (12)

3.3. Energy balancing model

For energy balancing of the electrolyzer, all incoming and outgoing

energy flows are taken into account. The energy that flows into the
system can then be used to determine the current internal energy of
the PEM stack, which at the same correlates with the stack temperature
𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 as the characteristic operating parameter.
The power input of the electrolysis system is the product of the
current density 𝑗𝑒𝑙 and the resulting cell voltage 𝑈𝐶𝑒𝑙𝑙 and is determined
by:
𝑊𝑒𝑙 = 𝑗𝑒𝑙 ⋅ 𝐴𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙 ⋅ 𝑈𝐶𝑒𝑙𝑙 ⋅ 𝑁𝐶𝑒𝑙𝑙 . (13)
As already indicated above, the active cell area 𝐴𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙 and the number
of cells 𝑁𝐶𝑒𝑙𝑙 in the electrolysis stack must be taken into account for
the total power consumption. The storable power of the generated
hydrogen is calculated from the energy content, based on the upper
heating value 𝛥𝐻, and the generated flow of hydrogen 𝑛̇ 𝐻2 according
to Eq. (7) and results in:
𝑊𝐻2 = 𝑛̇ 𝐻2 ⋅ 𝛥𝐻 ⋅ 1000. (14)
Fig. 3. Heat-balancing.
we need another energy flow 𝑄̇ 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙 into the system. With 𝑄̇ 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙
we are able to supply a positive energy flow with heating elements
(4 kW) or a negative energy flow with heat exchangers (−36 kW) to the
PEM electrolyzer. In this context, the time-dependent behavior of the
temperature 𝑇̇ 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 resulting from the amount of heat 𝑄̇ 𝑆𝑢𝑚 and 𝑄̇ 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙
with the heat capacity 𝐶𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑦𝑧𝑒𝑟 given by the equation:
𝑄̇ 𝑆𝑢𝑚 + 𝑄̇ 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙
𝑇̇ 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 = (20)
𝐶𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑦𝑧𝑒𝑟
The value 𝐶𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑦𝑧𝑒𝑟 is a construction-specific characteristic of the
electrolyzer and was determined in a step response to be 401.61 kJ/K.
With the normal equation

The electrical power 𝑊𝑒𝑙 is reduced by the resulting hydrogen 𝑊𝐻2 , 𝑥̇ (𝑡) = 𝑓 (𝑥 (𝑡) , 𝑢 (𝑡) , 𝑧 (𝑡)) (21)
which results in the produced excess heat 𝑄̇ 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 , given by the equation:
𝑦 (𝑡) = 𝑔 (𝑥 (𝑡)) (22)

𝑄̇ 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 = 𝑊𝑒𝑙 − 𝑊𝐻2 . (15) for nonlinear time invariant systems Eq. (20) can be rewritten into

Eq. (12) describes the mass flow of water lost on the anode side. This
loss of water must be replenished. The freshly added water must then
be heated to the stack temperature. The energy flow required for this
is given by Eq. (16):
𝑚̇ 𝑠𝑢𝑚 ( ) of the anode 𝑝A and the cathode 𝑝K are kept constant at 5 bar. With
𝑄̇ 𝐻2𝑂 = 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 − 𝑇𝐻2𝑂 ⋅ 106 ⋅ 𝑐𝐻2𝑂 . (16)
60
Additional power is required to evaporate the water within the product
gases on the anode and cathode sides. Due to the flow of water vapor in
H2 and O2 described in Eqs. (7) and (10), the heat required for the evap-
( )
oration results from the following: 𝑄̇ 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑚 = − 𝑛̇ 𝐻2,𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑚 + 𝑛̇ 𝑂2,𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑚 ⋅
( )
−0.044 ⋅ 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 + 45.07 ⋅ 1000. (17)
Here, a direct dependency of the required heat on the stack temper-
ature is apparent. The existing surfaces 𝐴𝐴𝐶 of the electrolyzer cause
additional heat losses through convection to the environment, and are
dependent on the heat transfer coefficient 𝛼𝐴𝐶 . The product of 𝛼𝐴𝐶 and
𝐴𝐴𝐶 describes a construction-specific characteristic of the electrolyzer
and was determined to be 152.63 W/K in a step response. The power
dissipation of the electrolyzer to the environment is given by the
following equation:
( ) ( )
𝑄̇ 𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑓 𝑎𝑐𝑒 = 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 − 𝑇𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑 ⋅ 𝛼𝐴𝐶 ⋅ 𝐴𝐴𝐶 . (18)
If all incoming and outgoing heat production from the electrolyzer
stack are combined, the instantaneous heat energy flow results from
the following equation:
𝑄̇ 𝑆𝑢𝑚 = 𝑄̇ 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 − 𝑄̇ 𝐻2𝑂 − 𝑄̇ 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑚 − 𝑄̇ 𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑓 𝑎𝑐𝑒 . (19)
With this equation it can be directly seen, that the whole energy
flow 𝑄̇ 𝑆𝑢𝑚 is coming from the electrochemical reaction inside the
stack. In order to achieve the desired temperature for certain operating
conditions over the entire performance range of the PEM electrolyzer,
energy must either be supplied or removed from the system in terms
of heating or cooling. To control the temperature of the electrolyzer
𝑇̇ 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 = 𝑓 (𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 , 𝑗𝑒𝑙 , 𝑄̇ 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙 ) (23)
with state variable 𝑥 (𝑡) = 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 , manipulated variable 𝑢 (𝑡) = 𝑄̇ 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙
and disturbance variables 𝑧 (𝑡) = 𝑗𝑒𝑙 . Due to the reason that the oper-
ating pressure has a small influence on the heat balance, the pressure
no other dependency the temperature also represents the output of the
system 𝑦 (𝑡) = 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 .
With 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 from the model, a temperature from the real PEM elec-
trolyzer has to define which represents the whole stack temperature.
That is given through the cathode temperature. In Fig. 3 it can be
directly seen, that the PEM stack works like a plate heat exchanger.
If the anode and cathode temperatures vary from each other, there
will be directly an energy flow 𝑄̇ 𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 between both sides, so that
the temperature end up to be equal. For the developed controller the
thermal management system of the PEM electrolyzer has two heat
exchangers and two heat elements, which are distributed on the anode
and cathode sides. The manipulated variable acts equal on both sides
of the stack. For that the control amount determined by the proposed
strategy ensure the temperature balance in both sides of the PEM stack.
The resulting electrolyzer model will be validated in detail in the
next section
All constants of the electrolyzer are shown in Table 1.
4. Validation of the generated model
The generated model from Section 3 will now be validated. For
the validation of the model, 9 specific stationary working points were
approached within the 100 kW electrolyzer and the model was vali-
dated using the coefficient of determination 𝑅2 . Due to the stationary
operating points, the change over time of the temperature must be zero
(𝑇̇ 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 = 0), which means that the model can be expressed through
𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 = 𝑓 (𝑗𝑒𝑙 , 𝑄̇ 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙 ). (24)
The manipulated variable of 𝑄̇ 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙 is standardized to ±100%. This
results in 4 kW = +100% for the heating elements and 36 kW = −100%

4
R. Keller, E. Rauls, M. Hehemann et al. Control Engineering Practice 120 (2022) 104992

Table 1
System constants.
Constant Description Value and Unit
𝑅𝑚𝑒𝑚 Membrane resistance 0.120 Ω
𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑒 Contact resistance 0.096 Ω
𝑀𝐻20 Molar mass water 18.015 g/mol
𝑅 Gas constant 8.314 J/(mol K)
𝐹 Faraday constant 96 485 C/mol
𝑁𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙 Number of cells 54
𝐴𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙 Active cell surface 300 cm2
𝛼 Charge transfer coefficient 0.024 V
𝑗0 Exchange current density 12 * 10−8 A/cm2
𝐷 Drag factor 1.9 mol/(mol H+)
𝛥𝐻 Calorific value 20 J/mol
𝑐𝐻2𝑂 Heat capacity water 75.4 J/(mol K)
𝛼𝐴𝐶 ⋅ 𝐴𝐴𝐶 Heat transfer coefficient * convection surface 152.63 W/K
𝑇𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑 Surrounding temperature 20 ◦ C
𝐶𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑦𝑧𝑒𝑟 Thermal capacity Electrolyzer 401.61 kJ/K Fig. 5. 𝑄̇ 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙 = 𝑓 (𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 , 𝑝𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 , 𝑗𝑒𝑙 ).
𝑎1 … 𝑎4 Coefficients equation 𝑝𝐻2−𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑡 Appendix
𝑏1 … 𝑏4 Coefficients equation 𝑝𝑂2−𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑡 Appendix
𝑘0 … 𝑘9 Coefficients equation 𝐾𝐶 Appendix
𝑛0 … 𝑛9 Coefficients equation 𝑇𝑁 Appendix
𝑣0 … 𝑣9 Coefficients equation 𝑇𝑉 Appendix

Fig. 6. Feedforward control.

Fig. 4. 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 = 𝑓 (𝑗𝑒𝑙 , 𝑄̇ 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙 ).
for the heat exchangers. The current density 𝑗𝑒𝑙 is kept constant at 0.5,
1 and 1.5 A cm2 . For the measured points of 𝑄̇ 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙 the conventional
PID algorithm is used and 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 is kept constant at 50, 65 and 75 ◦ C for
2 h to meet the stationary condition. In Fig. 4 the temperature model of
100 kW electrolyzer in variation of 𝑄̇ 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙 and 𝑗𝑒𝑙 is shown, as well as
the measured stationary operation points. It can be directly seen, that
the model meets the measured values very well with a coefficient of
determination of 𝑅2 = 0.96.
5. Adaptive model-based feedforward control design
Eq. (24). The only difference is 𝑗𝑒𝑙 going from 0 to 2 A/cm2 . Espe-
cially at high current densities and stack temperatures, the cooling
demand increases steeply. In order to counteract the high dynamics
during load operation, the existing model (25) is used for model-based
feedforward temperature control. Thus, the influence of the distur-
bance variable current density on the stack temperature is reduced.
Depending on the specified operating point, the feedforward control
calculates the amount of energy flow initially required. The structure
of the feedforward control is displayed in Fig. 6.
Regarding to the non-linear behavior of PEM electrolyzers, the
existing model-based feedforward control must be further adapted. In
order to ensure that optimal control can prevail at every operating
point, a complementary, adaptive PID controller is designed. To define
pairs of PID parameters, the 9 stationary working points from Section 4
will be used. In these operation points the non-linear model (23) of
the electrolyzer is linearized. In terms of linearization there must be a
stationary condition of the temperature, given be the equation:

In this section, the control concept of the adaptive model-based 𝑇̇ 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 = 0 (26)
feed-forward temperature control is presented. To ensure high rele- It can be directly seen, that Eq. (24) represents this stationary con-
vance for practical applications and to enable transfer to other control
dition. If we take the derivative of (24) with respect to the defined
tasks, higher control approaches are deliberately avoided. Therefore, a
operation points (OP) the amplification 𝐾𝑆 is given by the equation:
conventional PID control is used which only works adequately for one
operating condition (compare with Section 1). To meet the dynamic
requirements, the temperature control must follow the changing oper- 𝜕𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 ||
𝐾𝑆 = | (27)
ating points as quickly as possible. The model described in Section 3 𝜕 𝑄̇ 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙 ||𝑄̇ 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙(𝑂𝑃 )
is used to make the utilization of the model-based feedforward control 𝑗𝑒𝑙(𝑂𝑃 )
possible. If Eq. (24) is expressed through dependent process variables, The time-dependent behavior of the temperature is given with Eq. (20).
this creates the following relationship: Each operating point in model (23) can be approximated by a linearized
𝑄̇ 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙 = 𝑓 (𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 , 𝑗𝑒𝑙 ), (25) model representing a PT1-element with time constant 𝑇𝑒 and dead time
𝑇𝑡𝑒 given by the equation
which shows the amount of energy flow of the existing PEM stack 𝑡−𝑇
− 𝑇 𝑡𝑒 𝐶𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑦𝑧𝑒𝑟
depending on the current density and stack temperature in stationary 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 (𝑡) = 𝐾𝑆 − 𝑒 𝑒 𝑇𝑒 = 𝑇𝑡𝑒 ≈ 2∕3 min (28)
𝛼𝐴𝐶 ⋅ 𝐴𝐴𝐶
condition.
Fig. 5 shows the simulated energy supply by the control in varia- 𝑇𝑒 is a construction-specific characteristic from Eq. (23) and 𝑇𝑡𝑒 is
tion of the stack temperature and the current density over a defined measured with 2 min for the heating plates and 3 min for the heat
operational range. The operating ranges are similar to the model from exchanger. For validation a step response of the PEM system is made

5
R. Keller, E. Rauls, M. Hehemann et al. Control Engineering Practice 120 (2022) 104992

Fig. 8. Adaptive model-based feedforward control.

Fig. 7. Step response 𝑇̇ 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 = 60 ◦ C, 𝑗𝑒𝑙 = 1 A/cm2 , 𝛥𝑚𝑣 = 10%.

Table 2
System constants.
Operation Condition (OC) 𝐾𝐶 𝑇𝑁 (min) 𝑇𝑉 (min)
0 < 𝑗𝑒𝑙 ≤ 0.5 A/cm2 ∧ 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 ≤ 50 ◦ C 32.89 87.71 0.84
0.5 < 𝑗𝑒𝑙 ≤ 1 A/cm2 ∧ 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 ≤ 50 ◦ C 26.31 87.71 0.84
1 < 𝑗𝑒𝑙 ≤ 1.5 A/cm2 ∧ 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 ≤ 50 ◦ C 8.77 87.71 1.26
1.5 A/cm2 < 𝑗𝑒𝑙 ∧ 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 ≤ 50 ◦ C 7.02 87.71 1.26
0 < 𝑗𝑒𝑙 ≤ 0.5 A/cm2 ∧ 50 < 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 ≤ 65 ◦
C 43.86 87.71 0.84
0.5 < 𝑗𝑒𝑙 ≤ 1 A/cm2 ∧ 50 < 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 ≤ 65 ◦
C 32.89 87.71 0.84
1 < 𝑗𝑒𝑙 ≤ 1.5 A/cm2 ∧ 50 < 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 ≤ 65 ◦
C 13.4 87.71 1.26
1.5 A/cm2 < 𝑗𝑒𝑙 ∧ 50 < 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 ≤ 65 ◦ C 9.23 87.71 1.26
0 < 𝑗𝑒𝑙 ≤ 0.5 A/cm2 ∧ 65 < 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 ≤ 75 ◦C 52.63 87.71 0.84
0.5 < 𝑗𝑒𝑙 ≤ 1 A/cm2 ∧ 65 < 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 ≤ 75 ◦C 43.86 87.71 0.84
1 < 𝑗𝑒𝑙 ≤ 1.5 A/cm2 ∧ 65 < 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 ≤ 75 ◦
C 17.54 87.71 1.26
1.5 A/cm2 < 𝑗𝑒𝑙 ∧ 65 < 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 ≤ 75 ◦ C 14.62 87.71 1.26
Fig. 9. Nyquist plot of all 16 operation conditions.
0 < 𝑗𝑒𝑙 ≤ 0.5 A/cm2 ∧ 75 ◦ C < 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 65.78 87.71 0.84
0.5 < 𝑗𝑒𝑙 ≤ 1 A/cm2 ∧ 75 ◦ C < 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 52.63 87.71 0.84
1 < 𝑗𝑒𝑙 ≤ 1.5 A/cm2 ∧ 75 ◦ C < 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 35.08 87.71 0.84
1.5 A/cm2 < 𝑗𝑒𝑙 ∧ 75 ◦ C < 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 25.06 87.71 1.26 1 and then will be reset to 0, after another change takes place. In this
context the implemented function (30) guaranties a smooth change of
𝑢 (𝑡) into the PEM process.
in a specific operation point and compared with the linearized model
in Fig. 7. 6. Stability analysis
It can be directly seen, that the linearized model matches the PEM
process very well. Moreover with a small dead time 𝑇𝑡𝑒 and a great The stability for the developed control design from Section 4 has to
compensation time 𝑇𝑒 , the setting rule of ‘‘Chien, Hrones and Reswick’’ be analyzed. Therefore Eq. (28) is represented as a transfer function.
are applied by equation With the develop controller it turns into
( )
𝑇𝐺 1 1
𝐾𝑐 = 1.2 ; 𝑇 = 2 ⋅ 𝑇𝐺 ; 𝑇𝑉 = 0.42 ⋅ 𝑇𝑈 (29) 𝐺𝑂 (𝑠) = 𝐾𝐶 1 + + 𝑇𝑉 𝑠 ⋅ ⋅ 𝑒−𝑇𝑡𝑒 𝑠 (32)
𝑇𝑈 𝐾𝑆 𝑁 𝑇𝑁 𝑠 1 + 𝑇𝑒 𝑠
to find optimal PID parameters gain factor 𝐾𝑐 , integral time 𝑇𝑁 and The feed forward control part has no influence on the stability and
derivative time 𝑇𝑉 . The setting rules of Eq. (23) represents a tracking is therefore be neglected. For all 16 operation conditions the stability
behavior with 20% overshoot and a good performance to disturbances. and the determined PID parameters are simulated and analyzed with
By determining the PID parameters for the 9 defined operating a Nyquist plot in the software environment LabVIEW. The generated
points, this results in matrix of 16 operation conditions of the PEM Nyquist plots are shown in Fig. 9.
{ }
electrolyzer depending on 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 and 𝑗𝑒𝑙 , illustrated in Table 2. It can be directly seen, that all of 𝐺𝑂 does not overlap 𝑅𝑒 𝐺0 = −1
It shows the control parameters 𝐾C , 𝑇N and 𝑇V with respect to the ◦
at 180 phase shift. The control loop thus exhibits stable behavior for
16 operation condition. The control parameters obtained are then adapt all operating ranges. The PID parameters found still show a good phase
and supplied to the PID algorithm depending on the operating point. and amplitude reserve. There is still room for improvement here. Due to
In Fig. 8, the created control algorithm is visualized with feedforward the inert PEM system and the associated dead and delay times, further
control and a schedule of operating based PID parameters. optimization is dispensed with at this point in order to continue to be
To guaranty a bump free transition of 𝑢 (𝑡) into the PEM process by stable even under bad conditions.
changing the PID parameters in each operation condition, the function
7. Experimental data analysis and results
𝐾𝑆 (𝑡) = (1 − 𝛼 (𝑡)) 𝐾𝑆−𝑜𝑙𝑑 + 𝛼 (𝑡) 𝐾𝑆−𝑛𝑒𝑤 , 0≤𝛼 (𝑡) ≤1 (30)
In this section the developed adaptive model-based feedforward
is defined. 𝐾𝑆−𝑜𝑙𝑑 is the amplification parameter from the old and algorithm will be demonstrated. As already said, the current density is
𝐾𝑆−𝑛𝑒𝑤 is the amplification parameter from the new operation condi- a disturbance variable and plays an important factor in the quality of
tion. In function (30) 𝛼 (𝑡) is given by the temperature control. In this context, highly dynamic load changes
have a significant role for testing and stressing out the developed
𝛼 (𝑡) = 𝑡𝑎𝑛ℎ (𝑘𝑟 (𝑡)) , (31)
adaptive model-based feedforward algorithm. Since more and more
where 𝑟 (𝑡) represents a time dependent ramp and 𝑘 defines the slope. If renewable energy sources will be used to generate green hydrogen in
a change in the amplification parameter takes place 𝑟 (𝑡) rises from 0 to the future, a load profile from a wind power and PV system are used

6
R. Keller, E. Rauls, M. Hehemann et al. Control Engineering Practice 120 (2022) 104992

◦
Fig. 10. Variation of 𝑗𝑒𝑙 (wind profile) at 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘−𝑠𝑒𝑡 = 75 ◦ C/conventional PID controller. Fig. 11. Variation of 𝑗𝑒𝑙 (wind profile) at 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘−𝑠𝑒𝑡 = 75 C/adaptive model-based
feedforward algorithm.

to test the developed algorithm. The wind data (‘‘PV2City’’, 2021) was
converted into a load profile using the model from Dirscherl, Hackl,
and Schechner (2015) and the sun data using (‘‘PV2City’’, 2021). The
load profiles are then scaled to the operation range of the 100 kW PEM
electrolyzer 𝑗𝑒𝑙 = 0..2 A/cm2 . In addition to the disturbance variable,
the set-point of the operating temperature was modified by ±5 ◦ C at
the operating temperature of 70 ◦ C. With this the algorithm is maximal
stressed out. In this context, conventional PID control is compared
to the new control design. The allowed operating range of the stack
temperature was determined to be between 60 and 80 ◦ C.

7.1. Wind profile

First the wind profile is applied. The used wind profile is coming ◦
Fig. 12. Variation of 𝑗𝑒𝑙 (wind profile) at 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘−𝑠𝑒𝑡 = 70 ± 5 C/conventional PID
from a windy day (19.07.2021) and has therefore a very high dynamic controller.
behavior. Fig. 10 shows the load 𝑗𝑒𝑙 of the PEM electrolyzer coming
from the wind profile. It starts at 30 min and lasts for 9 h. 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 is set to
75 ◦ C and kept constant for the whole operation time and controlled by
a conventional PID algorithm. The PID parameter are defined to 𝐾C =
35.08, 𝑇N = 87.71 min and 𝑇V = 0.84 min.
It can be directly observed, that the tracking performance of 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘
is very bad in case of the PID control algorithm. The deviation of
𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 to the set-point is greater than ±5 ◦ C. With very high dynamic
disturbances of 𝑗𝑒𝑙 on the load side of the PEM electrolyzer, a normal
PID algorithm is not able to keep the desired temperature in range. At
no time of the wind profile a real settling of 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 to the given set-point
takes place. Under normal process conditions this would exceed the
operation range of 80 ◦ C and the electrolyzer had to be shoot down,
due to the possibility of enhanced degradation. For the experimental
setup this critical operation condition was allowed. As mentioned in
Section 5, the stability is given in meaning of the control design, but Fig. 13. Variation of 𝑗𝑒𝑙 (wind profile) at 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘−𝑠𝑒𝑡 = 70 ± 5 ◦ C/adaptive model-based
not in context to the desired temperature. feedforward algorithm.
With the developed adaptive model-based feedforward algorithm
Fig. 11 shows that 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 meets the temperature of the desired set-point
of 75 ◦ C with a deviation less than ±1 ◦ C. change in the temperature set-point, the tracking performance is much
It can be observed, that the performed behavior of 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 is quite worse. The deviation of 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 around the given set-points is greater
well. The response of the algorithm to the disturbance variable 𝑗𝑒𝑙 than ±5 ◦ C. If there were no set-points illustrated in Fig. 12, it will be
shows no oscillation or high overshoots in the temperature. 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 set- hard to tell which set-point of the temperature is really given. In this
tles very fast to the given set-point within high dynamic load changes. scenario no real settling takes place. At the whole operation time 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘
Compared to the conventional PID algorithm the new design is much does not match the set-points. Although, due to the lower starting set-
more stable in case of disturbance variable 𝑗𝑒𝑙 . point of 70 ◦ C, 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 does not reach the critical temperature of 80 ◦ C
To stress out the developed algorithm, additionally to the distur- (see Fig. 13).
bance variable 𝑗𝑒𝑙 , the set-point of 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 is modified by ±5 ◦ C at the In case of the developed adaptive model-based feedforward algo-
operating temperature of 70 ◦ C. The load 𝑗𝑒𝑙 of the PEM electrolyzer rithm the tracking performance is quite well over the whole operation
coming from the wind profile starts, as before, at 30 min and lasts for time. The desired set-points of 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 are well controlled. The adap-
9 h. The PID parameter for the conventional algorithm are defined with tive model-based feedforward algorithm reacts to the disturbance of
𝐾C = 17.54, 𝑇N = 87.71 min and 𝑇V = 1.26 min. 𝑗𝑒𝑙 immediately with no oscillation. Compared to the scenario with
Fig. 12 demonstrates the conventional PID controller in terms of no changes in the set-point of 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 , there are small overshoots in
the descried setting profile. In contrast to the scenario before, with no temperature when the set-point of 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 drops to 65 ◦ C and 70 ◦ C, but

7
R. Keller, E. Rauls, M. Hehemann et al.
Fig. 14. Variation of 𝑗𝑒𝑙 (PV profile) at 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘−𝑠𝑒𝑡 = 75 ◦ C/conventional PID controller.
◦
Fig. 15. Variation of 𝑗𝑒𝑙 (PV profile) at 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘−𝑠𝑒𝑡 = 75 C/adaptive model-based
feedforward algorithm.
there are smaller than 2 ◦ C. The settling time of new set-points of 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘
is smaller than 20 min. With this the steady state of 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 is reached
and the new design is much more stable at the desired set-points.
7.2. Photovoltaic profile
In this section the developed adaptive model-based feedforward
algorithm is stressed out with a PV profile, which divers from the wind
profile (see Fig. 14).
The dynamic of the wind profile has indeed bigger spikes, but the
basis value of the load is higher at the PV profile. With that there are
other operation conditions for the PEM electrolyzer. For the PV profile
the test conditions are the same as for the wind profile. The used PV
profile was recorded on a cloudy day (17.02.21) and has therefore
a very high dynamic behavior. First 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 is hold constant at 75 ◦ C
and only the disturbing variable 𝑗𝑒𝑙 varies to the PV profile, starting
at 30 min and lasts for 9 h. Fig. 15 shows the load 𝑗𝑒𝑙 of the PEM
electrolyzer coming from the PV profile. It can be directly seen, that
with the conventional PID control design the tracking performance is
much worse than at the load of the wind profile with PID algorithm.
The deviation to the set-point of 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 reaches ±10 ◦ C. This is due
to the higher basis load, which is around 0.5 A/cm2 . Moreover, the
intervals of constant load of 𝑗𝑒𝑙 are at some regions 0.5 h. With this
there is no really settling of 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 to the given set-point.
Fig. 15 demonstrates the developed adaptive model-based feed-
forward algorithm. Compared to the conventional PID controller the
tracking performance of 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 turns out to be much better in this case.
The deviation to the set-point of 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 is around ±1 ◦ C and therefore
divers from the conventional design with a factor of 10. With the
developed design we are able to react to load disturbances, even with
higher basis load and long constant regions, immediately with no big
oscillation or high overshoots in the temperature.
8
Control Engineering Practice 120 (2022) 104992
Fig. 16. Variation of 𝑗𝑒𝑙 (PV profile) at 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘−𝑠𝑒𝑡 = 70 ± 5 ◦
C/conventional PID
controller.
Fig. 17. Variation of 𝑗𝑒𝑙 (PV profile) at 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘−𝑠𝑒𝑡 = 70 ± 5 ◦ C/adaptive model-based
feedforward algorithm.
Like the wind profile, the developed algorithm is also stressed out
under the PV profile with the following conditions. The set-point 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘
varies by ±5 ◦ C at the operating temperature of 70 ◦ C. The load 𝑗𝑒𝑙
of the PEM electrolyzer coming from the PV profile starts at 30 min
and lasts for 9 h. Fig. 16 shows the scenario of the conventional
PID controller in terms of the descried setting profile. The tracking
performance is even worse. The deviation of 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 around the given
set-points is greater than ±10 ◦ C. For the whole operation time the
given set-points of 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 are not matched and there is no real steady
state of 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 .
Compared to the wind profile conditions, it can be directly seen
that the critical temperature of 80 ◦ C is reached. Moreover, low tem-
peratures of 60 ◦ C are exceeded. From the view of control design the
stability is given the whole operation time, but in case of a practical
application this algorithm is not acceptable.
As shown in Fig. 17 the developed adaptive model-based feedfor-
ward algorithm demonstrates a very good tracking performance over
the whole operation time. Compared to the PID algorithm the given
set-points of 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 are rapid adjusted with small settling times. With
this the steady state condition of 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 is given. Related to performance
under the wind profile, the algorithm here reacts to the disturbance
with small oscillation around the set-point of ±1 ◦ C. The small over-
shoots of 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 in relation to the set-point are still there, but there are
smaller than 2 ◦ C. Related to the conventional PID algorithm the new
design is much more stable at the desired set-points. This points out the
robustness and guarantee a good performance.
8. Conclusion
This paper presents an adaptive model-based feedforward control
algorithm for controlling the PEM stack temperature of a 100 kW water
electrolyzer. The main focus laid on highly dynamic load profiles of
R. Keller, E. Rauls, M. Hehemann et al.
green energy sources such as wind power and photovoltaics. Related
to these load profiles the current density has a big influence on tem-
perature control as a disturbance variable. As basis of the develop
design, a conventional PID control was used. In Section 2, the controller
was expanded by means of a feedforward control and an adaptive
PID parameter supply for the entire operating range of the process-
related influencing variable current density. A model of the 100 kW
electrolyzer served as the basis for developing the control algorithm.
Through the step response combined with linearized model, the optimal
PID parameters could be found for the entire operating range and made
adaptively available to the control algorithm.
Under real conditions of load profiles from wind power and pho-
tovoltaic the designed adaptive feedforward control within a 100 kW
electrolyzer was stressed out. It was shown that the designed algorithm
has significantly advantageous compared to a common PID control.
In this context, the designed algorithm showed a very good tracking
performance and the required stack temperatures were controlled effec-
tively without high overshooting. However, the greatest advantage of
the developed control algorithm was the highly dynamic change in the
current density disturbance within the applied load profiles. At various
operating points, the conventional PID control resulted in set-point
deviations of the stack temperature of over ±10 ◦ C. In addition, there
was no real settling of the stack temperature and consequently no real
steady state. The adaptive feedforward control of the stack temperature
proved to be effective in every operating area of the highly dynamic
change in current density, with a slight deviation from the set-point
and short settling times. The stack temperature did not deviate from
the required set-point by more than 2 ◦ C in the applied scenarios.
With respect to the power-to-gas technology in the case of PEM
electrolysis, the designed control algorithm offers good stability and
robustness in terms of the stack temperature. The possibility to react
faster to load changes in a highly dynamic energy system than the
conventional PID controller leads to good tracking performance under
these disturbing conditions. The designed control algorithm also pre-
vents excessive overshoot and thus undesirable high temperatures. High
temperatures and current densities within the PEM cell ensure strong
electrochemical dynamics and can therefore cause accelerated aging
phenomena or the destruction of stack components. Moreover, high
temperatures and currents lead to an increase in the permeability of H2
and O2 in the membrane. Due to the fact that hydrogen has a higher
permeability than oxygen, H2 in O2 on the anode side in particular is a
safety concern. If there is a sudden change in the load to higher values
and the temperature significantly overshoots, the resulting H2 in O2 is
larger than without the excessive overshoot. For ensuring safety, the
designed robust and reliable temperature control is also excellent.
However, scaling approaches in the megawatt class by means of the
parameters identified by the modeling in this work are challenging.
Structural and electrochemical parameters would need to be adjusted
in order to derive an optimal adaptive feedforward control.
All in all, the designed adaptive feedforward control turns out to be
effective compared to PID control, as only with it could the required
conditions be met and thus optimal operation of future power-to-gas
systems with respect to efficiency, robustness, aging, stability, safety
and dynamic operation guaranteed.
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.
Appendix
See Table 3.
9
Control Engineering Practice 120 (2022) 104992
Table 3
Humidity saturation gas.
𝑝𝐻2−𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑡 𝑝𝑂2−𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑡
Coefficient 𝑎 𝑏
0 0.0089 0.0093
1 −14.68E+06 −80.12E−07
2 41.01E−06 −42.13E−06
3 −37.03E−08 −37.82E−08
4 0.98E−08 −10E−09
References
(2018). Saba, s. and müller, m. and robinius, m. and stolten, d. International Journal of
Hydrocarbon Engineering, 43, 1209–1223.
Amoozgar, M. H., & Chamseddine, A. (2015). Fault-tolerant fuzzy gain-scheduled PID
for a quadrotor helicopter testbed in the presence of actuator faults. Journal of
Unmanned System Technology.
Anon, . (2008). Effects of temperature and relative humidity on oxygen permeation in nafion
and sulfonated poly (arylene ether sulfone), Vol. 16. The Electrochemical Society.
Anon, . (2020). Online Available at: https://www.now-gmbh.de/content/service/3-
publikationen/1-nip-wasserstoff-und-brennstoffzellentechnologie/indwede-
studie_v04.1.pdf [Accessed 06 06 2020].
Astolfi, A., Karagiannis, D., & Ortega, R. (2008). Nonlinear and adaptive control with
applications. s.l: Springer.
Aström, K. J., & Wittenmark, B. (2008). Adaptive control. New York: Dover Publications.
Bessarabov, D., Wang, H., Li, H., & Zhao, N. (2015). PEM electrolysis for hydrogen
production. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group.
Broka, K., & Ekdunge, P. (1997). Oxygen and hydrogen permeation properties and
water uptake of nafion 117 membrane and recast film for PEM fuel cell. Journal
of Applied Electrochemistry.
Dirscherl, C., Hackl, C., & Schechner, K. (2015). Modellierung und regelung von
modernen windkraftnalagen. In Elektrische antriebe - regelung von antriebssystemen.
München: Muinch University of applied Sciences.
Dumont, G. A., & Huzmezan, M. (2002). Concepts, methods and techniques in adaptive
control. In Proceedings of the american control conference, Anchorage, AK, s.n.
Fateev, V., Grigoriev, S., Millet, P., & al, e. (2007). Hydrogen safety aspects related to
high pressure PEM water electrolysis. conference.ing.unipi.it.
Garche, J. (2009). Encyclopedio of electrochemical power sources. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Glück, M., Pott, J.-U., & Sawodny, O. (2017). Investigations of an accelerometer-based
disturbance feedforward control for vibration suppression in adaptive optics of large
telescopes (p. 12pp). Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific.
Henriques, J., Gil, P., Cardoso, A., & Dourado, A. (2002). Scheduling of pid controllers
by means of a neural network with application to a solar power plant (p. 6). Honolulu,
HI, USA: IEEE.
Höller, S. (2020). In Method for operating a water electrolysis device United States, Patent
No. United States Patent Application 20200056297.
Huang, P. (2008). Umidity standard of compressed hydrogen for fuel cell technology.
ECS Transactions, 12, 479–484.
Keller, R. (2018). Aging and fault-tolerant optimal operational management of a
direct (Diss.), Jülich: Duisburg, University.
Keller, R., Ding, S., Müller, M., & Stolten, D. (2017). Fault-tolerant model predictive
control of a direct methanol-fuel cell system with actuator faults. Control Engineering
Practice, 66, 99–115.
Lebbal, M., & Lecøeuche, S. (2009). Identification and monitoring of a PEM electrolyser
based on dynamical modelling. International Journal of Hydrocarbon Engineering,
34(14).
Lee, B., Park, K., & Kim, H.-M. (2013). Dynamic simulation of PEM water electrolysis
and comparison with experiments. International Journal of Electrochemical Science,
235–248.
Leonard, D., & v Long, N. (1998). Optimal control theory and static optimization in
economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Liu, L., et al. (2019). Industrial feedforward control technology: a review. Journal of
Intelligent Manufacturing.
Lunze, J. (2010). Regelungstechnik 2: mehrgrözensysteme, digitale regelungen. Berlin:
Springer Verlag.
Meutia, T. I., & Bukhori, A. (2017). The role of feedback and feed forward control
system to improve competitive advantage of SMEs in Indonesia. European Research
Studies Journal.
Oliveira, V. d., & Karimi, A. (2012). Robust and gain-scheduled PID controller design
for condensing boilers by linear programming. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 335–340.
Peters, R., et al. (2019). A techno economic analysis of the power-to-gas route. Journal
of CO2 Utilization, 34, 616–634.
PV2City, W. i. R. d. F. (2021). Wetterstation/hochschule für technik und wirschaft
berlin. [Online] Available at: Accessed20July2021.
Robinius, M., et al. (2018). Power-to-gas electrolyzers as an alternative to network
expansion - an example from a distribution system operator. Applied Energy, 210,
182–197.
R. Keller, E. Rauls, M. Hehemann et al.
Samal, E. (2004). Grundriss der praktischen regelungstechnik. Oldenburg: Oldenburg
Verlag.
Sarhan, H. (2014). A Software-Based Gain Scheduling of PID Controller. International
Journal of Instrumentation and Control Systems.
Serge, Z., & Reuter, M. (2011). Regelungstechnik für ingenieure: analyse, simulation und
entwurf von regelkreisen. Wiesbaden: Vieweg+Teubner.
Tiktak, W. (2019). Heat managementof pem electrolysis a study on the potential of
excess heat from medium to largescale pem electrolyisis andthe performance analysis
of a dedicated cooling system (Masterthesis), Delft University of Technology, Delft
University of Technology.
10
Control Engineering Practice 120 (2022) 104992
Tjarks, G. (2017). PEM-electrolysis-systems for the integration in power-to-gas applica-
tions (Diss), Jülich: RWTH Aachen University.
Tjarks, G., et al. (2018). Energetically-optimal PEM electrolyzer pressure in
power-to-gas plants. Applied Energy, 218, 192–198.
Wang, Q., et al. (2021). Model-based feedforward control of part height in directed
energy deposition. Materials.
Wilhelm, J. C. (2010). Hybridization and control of a mobile direct methanol fuel cell
system (Diss.), Jülich: RWTH Aachen University.