1882
6, JUNE 2010
From Modeling to Control of a PEM Fuel Cell
Using Energetic Macroscopic Representation
Loïc Boulon, Daniel Hissel, Senior Member, IEEE, Alain Bouscayrol, Member, IEEE, and Marie-Cécile Péra
Abstract—This paper presents a methodology to design the
control part of a proton exchange membrane fuel cell (FC) stack.
The objective is to control the FC voltage. This methodology is
based on an energetic macroscopic representation (EMR) of the
FC and leads to a so-called maximal control structure (MCS).
The MCS is a step-by-step inversion of the EMR (inversion-
model-based control structure). The control design process is
based on an explicit definition of the problem. Basically, for in-
stance, the tuning inputs, the system objectives, or constraints are
highlighted to organize the control. Moreover, the MCS shows the
places where sensors are required and controllers are requested.
Unfortunately, the MCS is only a theoretical control structure.
Consequently, a realistic structure needs some simplifications,
leading to a so-called practical control structure. The FC model is
first presented and experimentally validated. The designed control
structure is then simulated, and the results are discussed.
Index Terms—Control, energetic macroscopic representation
(EMR), fuel cell (FC), modeling.
I. I NTRODUCTION
T HIS paper deals with two main issues. First is the design
of a fuel cell (FC) model that is suitable for transportation
simulation applications [1]. Second is the design of a control of
such a system used to adapt the input gas flows to the electrical
solicitations of the FC [2].
The modeling part of this paper has been already presented
in [3] and [4]. This model must be integrated in a com-
plete vehicle simulation [5]. Thus, it should reach a good
accuracy/simulation time ratio and enable the design of local
and global control schemes for actuators [6]–[8] and energy
management [9]–[11], respectively. Then, the model should
focus on the interactions with the environment of the FC and
on the internal couplings inside the FC. To reach these goals,
using a multiphysics control, oriented graphical formalism is of
highest interest: energetic macroscopic representation (EMR)
Manuscript received January 14, 2009; revised April 23, 2009; accepted
May 28, 2009. Date of publication July 17, 2009; date of current version
May 12, 2010.
L. Boulon is with the FEMTO-ST UMR CNRS, 25044 Besançon Cedex,
France, with the FC LAB Institute, with the University of Franche-
Comté, 25030 Besançon Cedex, France, with the University of Lille, L2EP
Lille, France, and also with MEGEVH (e-mail: loic.boulon@univ-fcomte.fr).
D. Hissel and M-C. Péra are with the Franche-Comté Electronique, Mé-
canique, Thermique et Optique-Sciences et Technologies (FEMTO-ST) Unité
Mixte de Recherche du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (UMR
CNRS), with the FC LAB Institute, with the University of Franche-Comté,
90010 Belfort, France, and also with MEGEVH.
A. Bouscayrol is with the University of Lille, L2EP Lille, France, and also
with MEGEVH.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIE.2009.2026760
0278-0046/$26.00 © 2010 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: UT campus at Belfort Montebellard. Downloaded on December 16,2022 at 09:11:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 57, NO.
is considered here [12], [13]. Other models like that in [14]
are designed with a control objective. The work presented here
shows how the description of physical phenomena and the
application of basic modeling rules can be helpful to a simple
design of the control part.
In the second part of this paper, the control scheme is pro-
posed. First, the control structure design methodology steps are
described [15]. The identification of objectives, of constraints,
of tuning inputs, of action, and tuning chains as well leads to
a so-called maximal control structure (MCS) of the system.
Second, taking into account the constraints imposed by a real
system leads to a practical control structure (PCS). The objec-
tive of this paper is thus not to present a control methodology
of a system, including an FC [5], [16]–[18], but to control the
FC stack itself.
II. P RESENTATION OF EMR AND MCS
EMR allows an accurate graphical description of the multi-
physics couplings (see the Appendix) and allows an easy design
of the control scheme [19]. EMR organizes a complex system
such as an FC stack in interconnected subsystems and implies
to take into account the physical causality principles (an output
can only be an integral function of an input). Indeed, a causal
modeling of the different parts of the FC system simplifies the
design of the local control schemes. The interactions between
the different parts are represented by arrows. All elements are
connected according to the action and reaction principle. The
product of the action and reaction variables is equal to the
instantaneous power exchanged between the two considered
subsystems.
An EMR model enables a simple and systematic deduc-
tion of the control structure by using inversion rules, leading
to an MCS. Each EMR block is inverted step by step. A
block without energy accumulation can directly be inverted.
An accumulation block is inverted by using a controller in
order to respect the physical causality. As a matter of fact, an
accumulation block contains an integral function which cannot
be directly inverted without using a derivative function. The
methodology will be detailed below.
III. M ODELING OF AN FC S TACK W ITH EMR
This section presents the model which will be used to design
the control part of the system. For this study, the FC stack
model will be divided into three parts: the electrochemical part,
the electric part, and the fluidic part. The electrochemical part
represents the strictly speaking FC. The electric part allows the
BOULON et al.: FROM MODELING TO CONTROL OF A PEMFC USING ENERGETIC MACROSCOPIC REPRESENTATION 1883

Fig. 1. EMR of the thermodynamic potential.

representation of the capacitive behavior of the FC. The fluidic

part consists in the modeling of the gas supply.

A. Electrochemical Part
1) Thermodynamic Potential: The electrochemical part is
organized around the calculation of a thermodynamic potential
E0 . It is approached with an empirical function of the temper-
Fig. 2. EMR of the Nernst potential.
ature (1) [20]. Consequently, this EMR block is a multiphysics
converter (Fig. 1). On the electric side, the action variable
is the FC current Ifc , and, on the thermal side, the reaction
variable is the entropy flow ΔSq0 . The notion of the entropy
flow is introduced to respect EMR rules that impose to have the
action and the reaction variable product consistent to a power
(watts). The entropy flow is defined as the product of an entropy
variation by a molar flow. Consequently, the entropy flow is the
product of the entropy variation at the time of creation of a mole
of water ΔS0 (atmospheric pressure and Tfc temperature) by a
molar flow of water qH2O

E0 = α + βTfc + γTfc2 + δTfc3 + νTfc ln Tfc (1)

Ifc
ΔSq0 = ΔS0 qH2O with qH2O =
2F
with F the Faraday constant. (2) Fig. 3. EMR of the cell potential.

2) Nernst Potential: This first potential is then modified with R being the perfect gas constant and N being the number
with a potential variation ΔE, leading to the Nernst potential of cells
En (6) [21]. This operation is split into two EMR blocks.
The first block is a multiphysics coupling (Fig. 2). It En = E0 + ΔE. (6)
calculates ΔE from the evolution of partial pressures at the
electrodes Pscx (3) (in this paper, x states for H2 or O2 ). 3) Voltage Drop: In the same way as the Nernst potential,
According to the Nernst law, this potential variation creates an the calculation of the voltage drop ΔV (7) (activation, con-
entropy flow ΔSqn (4). On the electric and the thermodynamic centration, and ohmic losses) is carried out in a separate block
sides of the block, the action variables are Ifc and Tfc , (a multiphysics coupling block; see Fig. 3).
respectively. On the fluidic sides, the reaction variables are the The activation losses ΔVact (that result from the kinetic of
volume flows of used gas qc_x . They are calculated according the reaction at the electrodes) are modeled with a Tafel law (9).
to the perfect gas law (5). The concentration losses ΔVconc are modeled as (10). The
The second block is a monophysics (electric) coupling block ohmic losses (mainly caused by the electrolyte resistance) are
which calculates the Nernst potential given in (6) represented with a simple electric resistance Rm (11) [21].
Concentration and ohmic losses are dissipated in a form of
PscH2 PscO2
ΔE = Acd ln + Bcd ln (3) heat. Consequently, an entropy flow ΔSq appears
P0 P0
ΔEIfc ΔV = ΔVact + ΔVconc + ΔVohm (7)
ΔSqn = (4)
Tfc ΔVM = En − ΔV (8)
 
Ifc RTfc Ifc RTfc Ifc + In
qc_H2 = N qc_O2 = N (5) ΔVact = ATfc ln (9)
2F Psc_H2 4F Psc_O2 I0

Authorized licensed use limited to: UT campus at Belfort Montebellard. Downloaded on December 16,2022 at 09:11:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1884 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 57, NO. 6, JUNE 2010

Fig. 5. EMR of the charge double layer.

Fig. 4. EMR of the gas supply.
 
Ifc
ΔVconc = BTfc ln 1 − (10)
Il
ΔVohm = Rm Ifc (11)
2
ΔV Ifc Rt Ifc
ΔSq = + (Rt will be presented
Tfc Tfc
in the electrical part). (12)

B. Fluidic Part
The fluidic part is the gas circuit located between the gas
tanks and the reaction sites. This part of the model allows the
calculation of the partial pressure used in the electrochemical
part. There are two similar fluidic lines: one for the hydrogen
and one for the oxygen. They are modeled with an electric
analogy and composed of a distribution resistor Rdx1 (13), an
exhaust resistor Rdx2 (14), and a hydraulic capacity Ch (15) Fig. 6. Acd parameter versus the O2 stoichoimetry.
(which represents the gas accumulation in the circuits) [21].
The inputs of this subsystem are the gas flow imposed by the
flow regulators qx and the atmospheric pressure PSx imposed
on the exhausts (Fig. 4). On the electrochemical side, the
consumed gas flow qcx is an input as well. The partial pressures
on the electrodes are imposed by the accumulation volume
(accumulation blocks)

Px = Pscx + Rdx1 qx (13)

(Pscx − Psx )
qxout = (14)
Rdx2
dPscx 1
= (qx − qcx − qxout ). (15)
dt Ch

C. Electric Part
The electric part models the charge double layer phenom-
enon. Experimental results show that the phenomenon has a
limited influence on the FC dynamic. The results provided in Fig. 7. Bcd parameter versus the O2 stoichoimetry.
[3] show the prevalence of the gas dynamic on the FC behavior.
However, taking into account this phenomenon fixes the input This charge double layer effect is modeled by a first-order
and the output of the FC on the electric side. In fact, the FC is Rt Cdl circuit (with Rt being a charge transfer resistance) (16)
clearly a voltage source. [21]. An accumulation block is used (Fig. 5). The cell voltage

Authorized licensed use limited to: UT campus at Belfort Montebellard. Downloaded on December 16,2022 at 09:11:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
BOULON et al.: FROM MODELING TO CONTROL OF A PEMFC USING ENERGETIC MACROSCOPIC REPRESENTATION
Fig. 8. EMR of a complete FC stack.
is obtained with the sum of VM and Vc (17). The overall
stack voltage is obtained with the number of cells N . These
operations are realized in a monophysics coupling
Vc Rt
(s) = with s being the Laplace variable
IP AC 1+Rt Cdl s
Vfc = N (VM + Vc ).
D. Model Parameterization
Globally, the fluidic resistances and capacitors can be es-
timated from direct measurements. The electrochemical and
electrical parameters are classical values extracted from the
literature [21]. The global behavior is tuned from the tests
by acting on the Acd and Bcd parameters. They are linear or
quadratic functions of the temperatures and of the input gas
flows (qH2 and qO2 ). The model validity range covers a tem-
perature from 30 ◦ C to 50 ◦ C, a hydrogen stoichiometry of two,
and an oxygen stoichiometry from four to six. Consequently,
the future control part should not set the values out of these
validity ranges.
As an example, for each oxygen stoichiometry value, the
best Acd and Bcd parameters are evaluated. An optimization
algorithm minimizes the error (least square method) between
the simulated values of Vfc and the measurements. Then, the
points are interpolated with linear or quadratic functions (the
results are very close to each other; see Figs. 6 and 7).
Authorized licensed use limited to: UT campus at Belfort Montebellard. Downloaded on December 16,2022 at 09:11:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1885
E. EMR of the Complete FC Stack
Fig. 8 shows the EMR of a complete proton exchange
membrane (PEM) FC stack. The three main parts independently
presented previously can easily be interconnected. This is due
to the respect of the physical causality in the accumulation
blocks which sets the inputs and the outputs of each element
(16)
of the system. The environment of the system is represented
(17) with the EMR source elements. On the fluidic part, the gas
flows are imposed to the system. The cooling part manages
the temperature of the FC stack. The FC current is set by the
electrical load. The control inputs are the places where the
control part can act on the system. They are marked with red
arrows in Fig. 8. In this case, the system is controllable through
the ancillaries. The next section of this paper will present the
control part design methodology.
F. Experimental Validation
The experimental tests are performed on a 20-cell PEM FC
stack manufactured by the German company UBZM. The active
area of a single cell is 100 cm2 . The operating pressures are
near the atmospheric pressure, and the stack temperature is
considered to be equal to the liquid output cooling flow (here
50 ◦ C, experimental validations for various temperatures are
available in [3]). The input temperature of gas is 55 ◦ C. The
hydrogen is dry, and the air is humidified at 50%. The hydrogen
stoichiometry is set to two by the test bench regulators (we
consider an appropriate management).
1886
Fig. 9. FC voltage evolution (O2 stoichoimetry = 4).
Fig. 10. FC voltage evolution (O2 stoichoimetry = 6).
Figs. 9 and 10 show the simulation and experimental voltage
evolutions with different oxygen stoichiometries (the range
four–six avoids oxygen starvation issues). The load current
follows a square signal (20 A, 1 Hz). The gas flows are
recalculated directly from the stoichiometry.
Based on these considerations, the input variables, namely,
qH2 ref , qO2 ref , Tfc ref , and Ifc , are set. These results validate the
chosen description level.
IV. MCS OF THE FC S TACK
A. Control Part Objectives
The first step of the methodology consists in the determi-
nation of the tuning variables, control objectives, and system
constraints. In this case, the objective is to control the FC volt-
age. To reach this aim, the control part can act on four tuning
variables: the input gas flows qO2 ref and qH2 ref , the system
temperature Tfc ref , and the FC current Ifc ref . The control part
must also manage one constraint: the absolute pressures on each
Authorized licensed use limited to: UT campus at Belfort Montebellard. Downloaded on December 16,2022 at 09:11:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 57, NO. 6, JUNE 2010
side of the membrane should stay consistent (pressure drops can
create a dangerous mechanical stress) [23]. Consequently, there
are one objective and one constraint with four tuning variables:
the two tuning variables left are unemployed and can be used to
control other variables (in order to optimize the behavior of the
system for instance).
First, the use of the temperature to control a voltage is
not realistic because the time constants are too different. The
control part can impose a reference temperature, but the real
cooling system cannot reach it instantaneously. In practice, the
FC temperature is regulated to a constant value in order to work
with a good efficiency.
Second, the FC current can be controlled with a power
electronics converter placed between the FC and the electric
load. Generally, this additional degree of freedom is used to
manage the power supplied by the FC or to limit the current
dynamic which could lead to premature aging [24] and to
prevent transient reactant starvation.
Consequently, the control part designed in this study will
manage the FC voltage (objective) and the pressure repartition
around the electrolyte (constraint) by acting on the input gas
flows.
B. Tuning and Control Chains
The second step of the methodology is to define the ways
to reach the objectives and to respect the constraints. It is the
identification of the tuning chain (Fig. 11). This step is based
on the EMR of the system. First, we have to control each partial
pressure by acting on the input flows. At first sight, the EMR
suggests that it is possible to follow the chain
qxref → qx → qx → Pscx . (18)
However, the monophysics hydraulic coupling element only
performs a flow distribution. To act on the partial pressure,
it is necessary to go through the accumulation element which
addresses the hydraulic capacitor. Then, the actual action chain
becomes
qxref → qx → qx → qx − qcx → PSCx → PSCx . (19)
Here, an arbitrary choice leads to using qO2 to manage Vfc
and using qH2 to manage the membrane pressure drop ΔP .
From PSC H2 , Vfc can be reached either by controlling ΔE
or ΔSqn . This last solution leads to the control of the FC
temperature and, therefore, should be rejected. The chosen
tuning chain for the management of Vfc is
qO2 ref → qO2 → qO2 → qO2 − qc O2 → PSC O2
→ PSC O2 → ΔE → En → VM → Vfc . (20)
The third step consists in defining the control chains of the
control part. The PSC H2 control chain (21) is an inversion of
the tuning chain (19)
PSC H2 ref → PSC H2 ref → qH2 − qCH2 ref
→ qH2 ref → qH2 ref → qH2 ref . (21)
BOULON et al.: FROM MODELING TO CONTROL OF A PEMFC USING ENERGETIC MACROSCOPIC REPRESENTATION 1887

Fig. 11. EMR and MCS of the FC stack (for readability, measurement arrows are not totally drawn).

The Vfc control chain is [inversion of (20)] The inversion of the ΔE calculation element leads to a dis-
tribution problem. In fact, the associated control block admits
Vfc ref → VM ref → En ref → ΔEref → PSC O2 ref → PSC O2 ref one reference input ΔEref and two outputs (PSCH2ref and
→ qO2 −qc O2 ref → qO2 ref → qO2 ref → qO2 ref . (22) PSCO2ref ). This issue is solved due to a distribution criterion
kd . This criterion helps to respect the pressure sharing con-
straint with (24). In consequence, PSCO2ref is calculated as
C. MCS of the FC Stack (25), based on (3). The MCS is shown in Fig. 11
The basic principle of the MCS (Fig. 11) consists of a step-
Enref = VM ref + ΔVmeas (23)
by-step inversion of the EMR following the control chains (21)
PSCH2ref = kd · PSCO2ref (24)
and (22). The conversion and coupling elements are directly  
inverted, while the accumulation elements are inverted through ΔE − Acd ln(kd )
PSCO2ref = P0 exp . (25)
a controller. In fact, the direct inversion of an accumulation Acd + Bcd
block is not possible according to the integral causality rule.
The MCS is a theoretical control structure, and, consequently,
D. PCS of the FC Stack
all variables are considered as measurable.
As an example, the inversion of the quasi-static potential VM The PCS is the last step of the control part design (Fig. 12).
is (23). The goal is to remove the unrealistic hypothesis of the MCS.

Authorized licensed use limited to: UT campus at Belfort Montebellard. Downloaded on December 16,2022 at 09:11:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1888 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 57, NO. 6, JUNE 2010

Fig. 12. EMR and PCS of the FC stack.

Fig. 14. Dynamic behavior of the FC voltage versus the reference and
pressure variations around the membrane.
Fig. 13. Limit polarization curves reachable with the control.

Some measurements are not physically possible, and model surements out of the eight can be implemented (Tfc meas ,
limitations lead to modifications of the control. qO2 out meas , and qH2 out meas ). The others will be estimated.
1) Unrealistic Measurements: Some measurements present The estimation elements contain a piece of the model (purple
on the MCS scheme are unrealistic. In fact, only three mea- blocks in Fig. 12). For example, the estimation of E0 from

Authorized licensed use limited to: UT campus at Belfort Montebellard. Downloaded on December 16,2022 at 09:11:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
BOULON et al.: FROM MODELING TO CONTROL OF A PEMFC USING ENERGETIC MACROSCOPIC REPRESENTATION
Fig. 15. EMR and MCS graphical representations.
Tfc meas is realized as (26), based on (1). ΔVest is obtained
from Tfc meas and Ifc meas . Vc est is estimated from Ifc meas . It
can be noticed that the estimation of the parameters can lead to
new measurements. Basically, the MCS does not suggest the Ifc
measurement.
The estimation of the partial pressures is slightly more com-
plicated. In the fluidic part, only the input and the output flows
are easily measurable. Thus, the partial pressures should be esti-
mated from it. The open-loop observer block contains the whole
fluidic part model, from the gas tank and the atmosphere (source
elements) to the ΔE calculation (overlapped circles). Finally,
the partial pressures are estimated from qH2 meas , qO2 meas ,
Ifc meas , and Tfc meas
E0est = α + βTfc meas + γTfc2 meas
+δTfc3 meas + νTfc meas ln Tfc meas . (26)
2) Model Limitations: The considered control structure de-
sign methodology is based on the model inversion. In conse-
quence, the control part should not impose the reference values
out of the validity range of the model. In this paper, the model
is only validated for a H2 stoichiometry of two. The main
consequence is the loss of one degree of freedom (the H2
stoichiometry is constant). Consequently, the control of the
ΔP value around the membrane is not possible, and qH2 ref
control blocks should be removed. The O2 stoichiometry is
limited between four and six. As we will see, the O2 input flow
variation is low enough to obtain an acceptable ΔP variation.
Since the partial pressure PSCH2 is not controllable, there is
no distribution difficulty, and the kd criterion is removed. How-
ever, knowledge of an estimation of PscH2 becomes necessary
to calculate the PscO2 reference. The content of the inversion of
the ΔE calculation element becomes
⎛   ⎞
ΔEref −Acd ln PSCH2est
P0 +Bcd ln(P0 )
PSCO2ref = exp⎝ ⎠.
Bcd
(27)
V. S IMULATION R ESULTS
Figs. 13 and 14 show the obtained simulation results. In
Fig. 13, the lower and the higher polarization curves that
Authorized licensed use limited to: UT campus at Belfort Montebellard. Downloaded on December 16,2022 at 09:11:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1889
were reached with the considered control part are plotted. The
polarization curve is static. Consequently, for a given current,
the lower and the higher reachable values of Vfc are read after
stabilization. For example, it means that, for a 10-A current, the
control part allows a voltage regulation between 15 and 16.5 V.
Fig. 14 shows the dynamic performances of the control
part. On the one hand, the follow-up of a voltage reference is
obtained. The reference is reached with a time-response value
of about 1 s. On the other hand, Fig. 14 shows the evolution
of ΔP around the electrolyte membrane. At all time, this value
stays under 20 kPa (0.2 bar). This value is weak and does not
lead to membrane overconstrainsts. In consequence, the control
part enables the control of the FC voltage with respect to a
low ΔP . The preliminary objectives and constraints are thus
reached.
VI. C ONCLUSION
The goal of this paper is to present a control design method-
ology (MCS) applied to an FC stack. An MCS is an inversion-
model-based method organized from the EMR of the system.
The first part of this paper has presented the considered FC
model, its parameterization, and the obtained experimental re-
sults. The second and third parts have showed the methodology
to obtain the MCS and the PCS of the system. Finally, the
simulation results are given, and the objectives are reached.
This study has shown how to control the FC voltage by acting
on the input gas flows and how to respect a small pressure
gradient around the membrane.
The MCS is designed through a model inversion. The control
algorithm is presented, and the sensor locations are detailed.
However, this study shows the importance of the model validity
range. In fact, the control part is intimately related to the
modeling part. Consequently, if the model is limited, the control
should be restrained. The future developments of this work
will focus on the improvement of the validity range and on the
application of the proposed control methodology on a complete
FC system (including all the ancillaries).
A PPENDIX
Fig. 15 shows the EMR and the MCS graphical
representations.
1890 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 57, NO. 6, JUNE 2010

R EFERENCES Loïc Boulon received the M.S. degree in electrical

and automatic control engineering from the Univer-
[1] J. Van Mierlo and G. Maggetto, “Fuel cell or battery: Electric cars are the sity of Lille, Lille, France, in 2006. He is currently
future,” Fuel Cells, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 165–173, Apr. 2007. working toward the Ph.D. degree at the University
[2] C. A. Ramos-Paja, C. Bordons, A. Romero, R. Giral, and L. Martinez- of Franche-Comté, Belfort, France, where his Ph.D.
Salamero, “Minimum fuel consumption strategy for PEM fuel,” IEEE dissertation is in collaboration with the FEMTO-ST,
Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 685–696, Mar. 2009. Belfort, and the L2EP Laboratories, Lille.
[3] L. Boulon, M.-C. Pera, P. Delarue, A. Bouscayrol, and D. Hissel, “Causal His research interests include modeling and con-
fuel cell system model suitable for transportation simulation applica- trol of hybrid electric vehicles, of energy and power
tions,” ASME J. Fuel Cell Sci. Technol., vol. 7, no. 1, 2010. sources, and of fuel cell systems.
[4] L. Boulon, D. Hissel, A. Bouscayrol, and M-C. Péra, “Maximal and Mr. Boulon is a member of the FC LAB Institute
practical control structure of a PEM fuel cell system based on energetic (dedicated to fuel cell research) and of the MEGEVH (a French national
macroscopic representation,” in Proc. FDFC, Dec. 2008. network on energy management of hybrid electric vehicles).
[5] L. Boulon, M. C. Pera, D. Hissel, A. Bouscayrol, and P. Delarue,
“Energetic macroscopic representation of a fuel cell-supercapacitor
system,” in Proc. IEEE VPPC, Sep. 9–12, 2007, pp. 290–297.
[6] D. Chen, W. Li, and H. Peng, “An experimental study and model valida-
tion of a membrane humidifier for PEM fuel cell humidification control,”
J. Power Sources, vol. 180, no. 1, pp. 461–467, May 15, 2008.
[7] K. Jin and X. Ruan, “Hybrid full-bridge three-level LLC reso-
nant converter—A novel dc–dc converter suitable for fuel-cell power
system,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 1492–1503,
Oct. 2006.
[8] M. H. Todorovic, L. Palma, and P. N. Enjeti, “Design of a wide input
range dc–dc converter with a robust power control scheme suitable for
Daniel Hissel (M’03–SM’04) received the electri-
fuel cell power conversion,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 55, no. 3,
cal engineering degree from the Ecole Nationale
pp. 1247–1255, Mar. 2008.
Supérieure d’Ingénieurs Electriciens de Grenoble,
[9] A. J. del Real, A. Arce, and C. Bordons, “Development and experimental
Grenoble, France, in 1994 and the Ph.D. degree from
validation of a PEM fuel cell dynamic model,” J. Power Sources, vol. 173,
the Institut National Polytechnique de Toulouse,
no. 1, pp. 310–324, Nov. 2007.
Toulouse, France, in 1998.
[10] F. Grasser and A. Rufer, “A fully analytical PEM fuel cell system
From 1999 to 2000, he was with the ALSTOM
model for control applications,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 43, no. 6,
Transport, Tarbes, France, where he was a System
pp. 1499–1506, Nov.–Dec. 2007.
Engineer on electrical and fuel cell buses projects.
[11] M. Tekin, D. Hissel, M-C. Pera, and J. M. Kauffmann, “Energy-
From 2000 to 2006, he was an Associate Professor
management strategy for embedded fuel-cell systems using fuzzy logic,”
with the University of Technology Belfort, Belfort,
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 595–603, Feb. 2007.
France. From 2006 to 2008, he was a Full Professor with the University of
[12] W. Lhomme, P. Delarue, P. Barrade, A. Bouscayrol, and A. Rufer, “Design
Franche-Comté, Belfort, and the Head of the “Fuel Cell Systems” Research
and control of a supercapacitor storage system for traction applications,”
Team with the Laboratory of Electrical Engineering and Systems. Since 2008,
in Conf. Rec. IEEE IAS Annu. Meeting, 2005, pp. 2013–2020.
he has been a Full Professor with the University of Franche-Comté and the Head
[13] P. Delarue, A. Bouscayrol, A. Tounzi, X. Guillaud, and G. Lancigu,
of the “Energy Systems Modeling” Research Team with the Franche-Comté
“Modelling, control and simulation of an overall wind energy conversion
Electronique, Mécanique, Thermique et Optique-Sciences et Technologies
system,” Renew. Energy, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 1159–1324, Jul. 2003.
(FEMTO-ST) Unité Mixte de Recherche du Centre National de la Recherche
[14] M. Buchholz and V. Krebs, “Dynamic modelling of a polymer electrolyte
Scientifique (UMR CNRS). His main research activities are concerning fuel
membrane fuel cell stack by nonlinear system identification,” Fuel Cells,
cell systems dedicated to automotive and stationary applications, modeling,
vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 392–401, Oct. 2007.
nonlinear control and energy optimization of these systems, and fuel cell system
[15] P. J. Barre, A. Bouscayrol, P. Delarue, E. Dumetz, F. Giraud, J. P. Hautier,
diagnosis. He is also the Associate Editor of the IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON
X. Kestelyn, B. Lemaire-Semail, and E. Semail, “Inversion-based control
I NDUSTRIAL E LECTRONICS and the Associate Editor of the ASME Fuel Cell
of electromechanical systems using causal graphical descriptions,” in
Science and Technology. He has published more than 150 scientific papers in
Proc. IEEE IECON, Nov. 2006, pp. 5276–5281.
peer-reviewed international journal and/or international conferences.
[16] J. Zhenhua and R. A. Dougal, “A compact digitally controlled fuel
Dr. Hissel is a member of the FC LAB Institute (dedicated to fuel cell
cell/battery hybrid power source,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 53,
research) and of the MEGEVH Network on HEV’s.
no. 4, pp. 1094–1104, Jun. 2006.
[17] T. Haimin, J. L. Duarte, and M. A. M. Hendrix, “Line-interactive UPS
using a fuel cell as the primary source,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 55, no. 8, pp. 3012–3021, Aug. 2008.
[18] P. Thounthong, S. Rael, and B. Davat, “Control strategy of fuel cell and
supercapacitors association for a distributed generation system,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 3225–3233, Dec. 2007.
[19] A. Bouscayrol, M. Pietrzak-David, P. Delarue, R. Pena-Eguiluz,
P. E. Vidal, and X. Kestelyn, “Weighted control of traction drives with
parallel-connected ac machines,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 53,
no. 6, pp. 1799–1806, Dec. 2006.
[20] R. Saïsset, Contribution à l’Étude Systémique de Dispositifs Énergétiques
à Composants Électrochimiques. Toulouse, France: Institut National Alain Bouscayrol (M’02) received the Ph.D. de-
Polytechnique de Toulouse, 2004. gree in electrical engineering from the Institut
[21] J. Larminie and A. Dicks, Fuel Cell Systems Explained. New York: National Polytechnique de Toulouse, Toulouse,
Wiley, 2003. France, in 1995.
[22] M. Chnani, H. Maker, M. C. Péra, D. Candusso, and D. Hissel, “Electrical In 1996, he was an Associate Professor with the
analogy modelling of a PEFC system fed by a compressor,” in Proc. University of Lille 1, “Sciences and Technologies,”
EPEFC, Lucerne, Switzerland, Jul. 2005. Lille, France, where, in 2005, he became a Full
[23] F. Harel, X. François, D. Candusso, M.-C. Péra, D. Hissel, and Professor. Since 2005, he has managed MEGEVH,
J.-M. Kauffmann, “PEMFC durability test under specific dynamic current a French national network on energy management
solicitation, linked to a vehicle road cycle,” Fuel Cells, vol. 7, no. 2, of hybrid electric vehicles. His research interests
pp. 142–152, Apr. 2007. deal with graphical descriptions for modeling and
[24] F. A. de Bruijn, V. A. T. Dam, and G. J. M. Janssen, “Review: Durability control (including energetic macroscopic representation), with applications in
and degradation issues of PEM fuel cell components,” Fuel Cells, vol. 8, renewable energy systems, railway traction systems, and electric and hybrid
no. 1, pp. 3–22, Feb. 2008. electric vehicles.

Authorized licensed use limited to: UT campus at Belfort Montebellard. Downloaded on December 16,2022 at 09:11:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
BOULON et al.: FROM MODELING TO CONTROL OF A PEMFC USING ENERGETIC MACROSCOPIC REPRESENTATION 1891

Marie-Cécile Péra was born in Paris, France, in

1968. She received the electrical engineering degree
from the Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Ingénieurs
Electriciens de Grenoble, Grenoble, France, in 1990,
and the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from
the Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble,
Grenoble, in 1993.
From 1994 to 1999, she was an Associate
Professor with the University of Reims Champagne-
Ardenne, Reims, France, where she studied
nonlinear dynamics of electrical systems, based on
chaos theory. Since 1999, she has been with the University of Franche-Comté
(UFC), Belfort, France. She has worked on fuel cell systems with the
Laboratory of Electrical Engineering, Electronics and Systems. She has
developed models for polymer electrolyte fuel cell and solid oxide fuel cell
as well. She also studies system architecture for energy optimization. Since
January 2008, she has been with the Energy Department, FEMTO-ST, from
the CNRS and the UFC, where, since September 2008, she has been a Full
Professor and the Deputy Chief of the Energy Department, FEMTO-ST. She
has contributed to more than 100 publications in international scientific journals
and international conferences. She gives courses in electrical engineering
with the Institut Universitaire de Technologie de Belfort-Montbeliard for the
bachelor degree and with the UFC for the master degree.
Dr. Péra is a member of the MEGEVH Network on HEV’s.

Authorized licensed use limited to: UT campus at Belfort Montebellard. Downloaded on December 16,2022 at 09:11:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.