DOI: 10.1002/fuce.
201400080
On-Line PEMFC Control Using
ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER
Parameterized Nonlinear Model-Based
Predictive Control
C. Damour1, M. Benne1*, J.-J. A. Kadjo1, J. Deseure2,3, B. Grondin-Perez1
1
LE2P EA 4079, University of La Reunion, 97715 Saint-Denis, France
2
Univ. Grenoble Alpes, LEPMI, F-38000 Grenoble, France
3
CNRS, LEPMI, F-38000 Grenoble, France
Received May 06, 2014; accepted August 14, 2014; published online October 08, 2014
Abstract
In this work, a fast nonlinear model-based predictive control
(NMPC) strategy is designed and experimentally validated
on-line on a real fuel cell. Regarding NMPC strategies, the
most challenging part remains to achieve on-line implemen-
tation, especially when dealing with fast dynamic systems.
As previously demonstrated in a recent work, the proposed
control strategy is ideally suited to address this problem.
Indeed, it is 30 times faster than classical NMPC controllers.
This strategy relies on a specific parameterization of the con-
trol actions to reduce the computational time and achieve
on-line implementation. Due to its short computational time
compared to mechanistic models, an artificial neural network
model is designed and experimentally validated. This model
1 Introduction
Proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) arises as a
suitable clean energy generator technology for a wide range of
applications [1–3]. However, several bolts, especially related
to its control, still remain to be removed to improve the overall
system performance. Indeed, accurate power response, opti-
mal air and hydrogen consumption, and global efficiency
improvement remain challenging control goals.
Numerous control strategies have been reported in the lit-
erature for PEMFC systems, ranging from PID controller [4–6],
state feedback linearizing or differential flatness approaches
[7, 8], dynamic neural network controller [9, 10], linear quad-
ratic Gaussian (LG) controller [11], to model predictive control
[12]. Due to its ability to take into account dynamic nonlineari-
ties of the process, to handle just as well state and input con-
straints as economical constraints, nonlinear model-based
predictive control (NMPC) strategy appears as a promising
candidate regarding PEMFC control. However, despite its suc-
cessful application in numerous industries [13], in its basic
form, NMPC controller requires high computation cost. There-
886 ª 2014 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
is employed as internal model in the NMPC controller to pre-
dict the system behavior. To confirm the applicability and the
relevance of the proposed NMPC controller varying control
scenarios are investigated on a test bench. The built-in con-
troller is overridden and the NMPC controller is implemen-
ted externally and executed on-line. Experimental results
exhibit the outstanding tracking capability and robustness
against model-process mismatch of the proposed strategy.
The parameterized NMPC controller turns out to be an excel-
lent candidate for on-line applications.
Keywords: Artificial Neural Network Model, Energy
Conversion, Fast Nonlinear Model-based Predictive Control,
Fuel Cells, On-Line Implementation
fore, when dealing with fast dynamic systems, the most chal-
lenging part remains to achieve on-line implementation.
Recently, several works dealing with benefits of predictive
control strategies regarding PEMFC control have been
reported. Wu et al. [14] proposed a multi-loop nonlinear pre-
dictive control strategy using a reduced order model to regu-
late oxygen excess ratio and stack temperature of a fuel cell.
However, the controller has only been tested in simulation
environment, and as emphasized by authors some devices
and design, such as hydrogen storage or power management,
have not been considered. Shokuhi-Rad et al. [15] designed an
approximate predictive control strategy to regulate the output
voltage of a PEMFC. This approach, based on an instanta-
neous linearization of a neural network model, has been tested
in simulation environment, and appeared to be an interesting
alternative to achieve real-time control. Gruber et al. [16]
developed a model-based predictive strategy to regulate the
–
[*] Corresponding author, michel.benne@univ-reunion.fr
FUEL CELLS 14, 2014, No. 6, 886–893
Damour et al.: On-Line PEMFC Control Using Parameterized Nonlinear Model-Based Predictive Control
oxygen stoichiometric ratio using compressor motor voltage
as manipulated variable. Experimental results showed that the
designed controller stabilized the oxygen stoichiometric ratio
around the target value five times faster than the built-in con-
troller. Ziogou et al. [17] proposed a NMPC approach to track
variable load demands while minimizing hydrogen consump-
tion and avoiding oxygen starvation. To achieve on-line appli-
cation, these authors developed a tailor-made optimization
strategy that discretizes control variables and state variables.
The proposed approach has been experimentally confirmed
and exhibited good performance in terms of tracking capabil-
ity and computational time efficiency. In a previous work, to
achieve real-time implementation, a parameterized NMPC
scheme has been developed in [18]. The proposed strategy,
tested in simulation environment, turned out to be an excellent
candidate to address on-line implementation issue. Indeed, for
similar tracking capability, the designed NMPC controller was
30 times faster than the classical NMPC controller.
In this paper, in continuation to this previous work, a
parameterized multivariable NMPC controller is developed to
control the output voltage of a fuel cell. To confirm the reliabil-
ity and the relevance of this approach, the controller is imple-
mented on-line and experimentally tested on a real fuel cell
system. Regarding real-time control goal, and according to its
short computational time compared to classical mechanistic
model, an artificial neural network (ANN) model is used to
predict the PEMFC behavior. The rest of this paper is orga-
nized as follows: The experimental setup of the fuel cell unit is
presented in Section 2. Section 3 deals with the design and the
experimental validation of the ANN model. Section 4 is
dedicated to the parameterized NMPC controller design.
Fig. 1 Simplified process and instrumentation diagram of the FCTS system.
FUEL CELLS 14, 2014, No. 6, 886–893 www.fuelcells.wiley-vch.de
ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER
Experimental validation of the proposed control strategy is
presented in Section 5. Finally, Section 6 concludes the paper.
2 System Description
In the present study, all experiments are performed on a
Fuel Cell Test Station (FCTS) manufactured by Fuel Cell
Technologies, Inc.
The FCTS provides control of temperature, flow rate, pres-
sure, and humidity for both feed gases. The bench integrates
an AC-Impedance measurement system and a programmable
DC electronic load (Figure 1).
Inlet gas flow rates are controlled using two mass flow con-
trollers, located before the humidifier. Humidification and fuel
cell temperatures are controlled using temperature controllers.
Reactant gases are humidified through external water tanks,
and desired gas humidification value is reached through the
regulation of the water temperature in the humidifiers. Output
pressures are regulated using backpressure controllers de-
signed to operate between 0 and 400 kPa. An electronic load
measures cell output voltage and current.
A Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCDA)
system, developed on LabView[trade] – software, is used to
monitor and regulate the FCTS. The SCDA system allows to
record and monitor all available data, and to manipulate all
system actuators. All measured data are written in a file and
can be accessed in real-time, and actuators can be manipulated
on-line.
In the present study, a 50 cm2 single home fuel cell assem-
bling, with a commercial membrane electrode assembly
(MEA) from Paxitech, is used. The fuel cell is assembled with
ª 2014 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim 887
 Damour et al.: On-Line PEMFC Control Using Parameterized Nonlinear Model-Based Predictive Control

Teflon glass fiber as seal joints and clamped at 11 Nm bolt tor- 3.2 Model Identification and Validation
ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER

que. Details about the fuel cell assembling optimization can be

When addressing ANN model identification, the choice of
consulted in a previous work [19]. MEA used for this work
the training data set is a quite important feature. Since ANN
is composed of symmetric electrodes (0.5 mgPt cm–2,
models demonstrate poor performance in extrapolation, col-
Pt 40 wt.%/C) with a Nafion N115 membrane. Air and pure
lected data has to range the whole operating conditions.
hydrogen are used as oxidant and fuel, respectively.
In the following, two sets of experimental data, sampled
with a 3-s period and collected from the PEMFC system
described in Section 2, are used. The model identification is
3 PEMFC Model Design
carried out on the first set (Figure 3) using Levenberg–Mar-
Regarding NMPC control strategies, the first step is to quardt algorithm with an error goal of 0.001, whereas the
design a model of the system. This model is expected to validation step is performed on the second one (Figure 4).
predict the system behavior several steps ahead. Among the Three criteria are considered to assess the ANN model
various PEMFC models that can be consulted in the literature, prediction performance:
a very few are dedicated to control purposes. In real-time con- qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pn 2
trol context, most of complex and heavy computations i¼1 ðy  ^
ðiÞ yðiÞ Þ
RMSE ¼ (1)
mechanistic models cannot be considered [20–31]. Recently, n
several works emphasized the interest of ANN to model Pn
ðyðiÞ  ^ yðiÞ Þ
PEMFC systems [32–34]. Indeed, its short computational time, AME ¼ i¼1 (2)
n
its low sensitivity to noise, and its reliability make it a poten-
tial candidate to achieve real-time control. 0.7 Experimental data
Simulated data (ANN)
0.65
3.1 ANN Model Design
0.6
Determination of network inputs requires to understand
Output Voltage / V

0.55
the process, and how each variable affects the output. In the
following, load current and hydrogen and air mass flow rates 0.5
are considered as inputs. 0.45
Once inputs of the network are determined, the next step is
0.4
to define its topology, which is the number of layers and neu-
rons. Since no accurate method allows to determine the opti- 0.35
mal number of neurons in the hidden layer, a ‘‘trial-error’’
0.3
method is performed to find the best architecture in terms of
accuracy and computational cost. After comparing several 0.25
architectures, a fully connected three layers feedforward net- 0.2
work (Figure 2) is retained. Three inputs, namely hydrogen 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Time / sample
and air flow rates, and load current are considered for the
input layer. The output layer of the ANN provides the cell out- Fig. 3 Training data.
put voltage using one neuron, and five neurons compose the
hidden layer. A tangent sigmoid activation function f1, and a 0.7 Experimental data
linear activation function f2 are used for the hidden layer and Simulated data (ANN)
0.65
the output layer, respectively.
0.6

0.55
Output voltage / V

0.5

0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2
0 50 100 150 200
Time / samples
Fig. 2 ANN architecture. Fig. 4 Validation data.

888 ª 2014 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.fuelcells.wiley-vch.de FUEL CELLS 14, 2014, No. 6, 886–893
Damour et al.: On-Line PEMFC Control Using Parameterized Nonlinear Model-Based Predictive Control

 
 

ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER

n
AE¥ ¼ max yðiÞ  ^yðiÞ  (3) p ¼ arg min ðJðuÞÞ
^ (4)
i¼1 p

Ny
AE¥, AME, and RMSE denote the absolute maximal error, X ðkþiÞ ðkþiÞ ðkÞ
J ðkÞ ðuÞ ¼ gðysp  ym þ yðkÞ  ym Þ2
the absolute mean error, and the root mean squared error, i¼1
respectively. n represents the number of data, y and ^y denote
Nu 2
the experimental and the simulated data, respectively. 3 X
X ðkþiÞ
Considering real-time control goal, and seeing that the pro- þ bj ðDuj ðpÞÞ (5)
j¼1 i¼1
posed NMPC strategy handles modeling error, the prediction
accuracy of the ANN model is more than sufficient (Table 1). uðkþiÞ ðpÞ ˛ ½umin ; umax ; umin ˛R3 ; umax ˛R3 for i
The designed ANN model is used to predict the PEMFC out- ¼ 1; 2 . . . ; Nu (6)
put voltage in the parameterized NMPC strategy. h iT
ðkÞ ðkÞ ðkÞ ðkÞ
uðkÞ ðpÞ ¼ u1 ðpÞu2 ðpÞu3 ðpÞ ¼ ½Icell ðpÞm _ ðkÞ _ ðkÞ
h2 ðpÞmair ðpÞ
T
is
the control actions vector at time k, g, and bj are some weight-
4 NMPC Controller Design ðkÞ
ing parameters.ysp denotes the desired reference trajectory, Nu
NMPC is an optimization-based multivariable constrained and Ny denote the control horizon and the predictive horizon,
control method that uses a nonlinear model to predict the respectively. Here, the modeling error at time k is taken into
future behavior of the process. Classical NMPC is defined by consideration using the difference between the measured out-
ðkÞ
solving on-line an optimization problem that leads to an opti- put y(k) and the model output ym . Duj represents the changes
mal sequence of future control actions that minimizes a given in control variables and is defined as follows:
cost function over a certain prediction horizon. NMPC offers a ðkþiÞ ðkþiÞ ðkþi1Þ
Duj ðpÞ ¼ uj ðpÞ  uj ðpÞ for j ˛f1; 2; 3g (7)
great flexibility since it can handle input/state constraints,
process nonlinearities, and even economical or operating con- In this work, to obtain a low-dimensional optimization
straints [35]. However, in its basic form, NMPC strategies problem decoupled from the choice of the predictive horizon,
involve heavy computations, which becomes a bolt when the subsequent parameterization is proposed:
dealing with fast dynamic systems. n o
uðkþiÞ ðpÞ ¼ uðkþiÞ þ pEðkþiÞ for ˛ 0; 1; Ð; Ny (8)
In this work, to address this problem and reach real-time
control goal, a parameterized NMPC strategy is designed. The This parameterization involves the steady control actions
main idea lies in reducing the computational time by decreas- vector h obtained iTin steady state at time k
ing the optimization problem dimension. In this aim, the con- ðkÞ ðkÞ ðkÞ
u ðkÞ ¼ u1 u2 u3 , a vector parameter p ˛ [–1, 1]3, and
trol sequence u is defined using a low dimensional parameter the trajectory tracking error E*(k) obtained using u*(k). In the
vector p. Indeed, in parameterized NMPC strategy, the optimi- present case, seeing that the system is open-loop stable, using
zation problem dimension depends on the dimension of the u* allows to reduce the degree of freedom of the control profile:
parameter vector p. In this context, a well-structure parameter- 8 ðkþiÞ ðkþiÞ
ization may lead to a low-dimensional optimization problem >
< u1 ¼ a1 ysp þ b1
whatever the predictive control horizon Ny. A low-dimen- ðkþiÞ ðkþiÞ
u ¼ a2 u1 þ b2 (9)
>
: 2ðkþiÞ
sional optimization problem turns out to be a significant u3
ðkþiÞ
¼ a3 u1 þ b3
advantage to achieve on-line implementation [36]. Let us recall
that when dealing with classical NMPC strategies, the predic- The expressions of ui¼1;2;3 have been determined from
tive horizon sets the optimization problem dimension, which experimental observations of the steady state, and aj = 1,2,3 and
could lead to huge problem dimension. bj = 1,2,3 are constant parameters that must be estimated off-
Here, a parameterized NMPC controller is used to control line.
the PEMFC output voltage, once manipulated variables are Note that there is no universal parameterization. Indeed,
load current (Icell), hydrogen (m_ h2 ) and air (m
_ air ) molar flow each problem requires a particular parameterization. More
rates. In this context, the optimal set of parameters ^ p is details about parameterized NMPC strategies can be
obtained by minimizing the cost function J, which is subject to consulted in Refs. [18, 37, 38].
constraints on manipulated variables:

5 On-Line Implementation and Experimental

Table 1 Training and validation results. Results
Training Validation To appraise the applicability, efficiency, and robustness of
RMSE (V) 7.8839 · 10 –4
0.0011 the proposed parameterized multivariable NMPC controller
several experiments, based on varying control scenarios and
AME (V) 0.0094 0.0114
several output voltage profiles, are carried out. In this aim, the
AE¥ (V) 0.0690 0.1033
original built-in controller is overridden and the NMPC

FUEL CELLS 14, 2014, No. 6, 886–893 www.fuelcells.wiley-vch.de ª 2014 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim 889
 Damour et al.: On-Line PEMFC Control Using Parameterized Nonlinear Model-Based Predictive Control
ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER

Table 2 Control design parameters. Table 3 Experimental setpoint tracking performance of the proposed
NMPC controller.
Parameter Value
Profile 1 Profile 2
a1 –0.3460
Case 1: Ny = Nu = 5
b1 0.3170
3 RMSE (V) 9.4033·10–4 5.8732 · 10–4
a2 1.0423 · 10
AME (V) 0.0045 0.0046
b2 0.0414
3 AE¥ (V) 0.0157 0.0440
a3 8.2798 · 10
Case 2: Ny = Nu = 20
b3 –1.0186
RMSE (V) 0.0015 5.5206 · 10–4
g 1
AME (V) 0.0078 0.0047
bj 1
AE¥ (V) 0.0181 0.0350

0.65
a) Setpoint
PEMFC output voltage (parameterized NMPC)
0.6

0.55
Output voltage / V

0.5

0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time / s

0.65
b) Setpoint
PEMFC output voltage (parameterized NMPC)
0.6

0.55
Output Voltage / V

0.5

0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time / s
Fig. 5 Experimental setpoint tracking results obtained with the proposed NMPC controller (a) profile 1 with Ny = Nu = 5; (b) profile 2 with Ny = Nu = 20.

890 ª 2014 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.fuelcells.wiley-vch.de FUEL CELLS 14, 2014, No. 6, 886–893
Damour et al.: On-Line PEMFC Control Using Parameterized Nonlinear Model-Based Predictive Control

ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER

250 Ny = Nu = 5
a)
N = N = 20
y u

Hydrogen flow / sccm

200

150

100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time / s
2000
b) Ny = Nu = 5
Ny = Nu = 20

1800

1600
Air flow / sccm

1400

1200

1000

800
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time / s

c) Ny = Nu = 5
12
N = N = 20
y u

11

10
Current / A

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Time / s
Fig. 6 Effect of the control and prediction horizons on the manipulated variables on profile 2 (a) hydrogen flow; (b) air flow 2; and (c) current.

FUEL CELLS 14, 2014, No. 6, 886–893 www.fuelcells.wiley-vch.de ª 2014 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim 891
 Damour et al.: On-Line PEMFC Control Using Parameterized Nonlinear Model-Based Predictive Control

controller is implemented externally. The NMPC controller, excellent candidate for on-line applications. For fast dynamic
ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER

implemented in Matlab environment, runs on-line and com- systems when classical NMPC controller cannot be consid-
municates with the SCDA system of the fuel cell. In this ered, the proposed approach is an up-and-coming strategy.
section, two of the above-mentioned output voltage profiles
are used to illustrate the performance of the NMPC controller
(Figure 6).Hydrogen and air molar flow rates, and load References
current are manipulated variables, whereas the controlled
[1] J. Larminie, A. Dicks, M. S. McDonald, Fuel Cell Systems
variable is the output voltage. The cell temperature is main-
Explained, Wiley, Chichester, United Kingdom, 2003.
tained at 70 C and the sampling period is set to 3 s. The
[2] C. Wang, M. H. Nehrir, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers.
optimization problem is solved on-line using Levenberg–Mar-
2007, 22, 864.
quardt algorithm. All experiments are performed using
[3] C. Wang, M. H. Nehrir, H. Gao, IEEE Trans. Energy Con-
control parameters listed in Table 2.
vers. 2006, 21, 586.
The NMPC controller performance, especially in terms of
[4] S. R. Huang, C. Y. Lin, C. C. Wu, S. J. Yang, Int. J. Hydro-
setpoint tracking accuracy, is assessed using RMSE, AME, and
gen Energy 2008, 33, 5205.
AE¥ as statistical criteria. For both voltage profiles, two differ-
[5] F. C. Wang, C. C. Ko, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2010, 35,
ent values of control and predictive horizons are investigated:
10437.
case 1: Ny = Nu = 5, case 2: Ny = Nu = 20.
[6] R. N. Methekar, V. Prasad, R. D. Gudi, J. Power Sources
Table 3 summarizes the setpoint tracking accuracy perfor-
2007, 165, 152.
mance of the NMPC controller for different values of Nu and
[7] Q. Li, W. Chen, Y. Wang, J. Jia, M. Han, J. Power Sources
Ny, and different setpoint voltage profiles.
2009, 194, 338.
The parameterized NMPC controller demonstrates excel-
[8] R. Da Fonseca, E. Bideaux, M. Gerard, B. Jeanneret,
lent performance in terms of setpoint tracking accuracy for
M. Desbois-Renaudin, A. Sari, Appl. Energy 2014, 113,
both voltage profiles, regardless of control and predictive
219.
horizons dimensions (Table 2).
[9] M. Hatti, M. Tioursi, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2009, 34,
As illustrated in Figures 5 and 6, the controller demon-
5015.
strates good tracking capability, while offering an entirely suit-
[10] J. Hasikos, H. Sarimveis, P. L. Zervas, N. C. Markatos,
able dynamic for manipulated variables, which underlines,
J. Power Sources 2009, 193, 268.
among other things, its robustness against inescapable model-
[11] R. N. Methekar, S. C. Patwardhan, R. Rengaswamy,
process mismatch. However, it is important to notice that the
R. D. Gudi, V. Prasad, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2010, 88, 861.
manipulated variables are smoother for Ny = Nu = 20. There-
[12] J. Golbert, D. R. Lewin, J. Power Sources 2004, 135, 135.
fore, even if the setpoint tracking accuracy is quite similar,
[13] M. Bauer, I. K. Craig, J. Process Control 2008, 18, 18.
Ny = Nu = 20 appears to be the best configuration since
[14] W. Wu, J. P. Xu, J. J. Hwang, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2009,
constraints on actuators are decreased. It should be pointed
34, 3953.
out that such length of horizons could not be used with a
[15] A. Shokuhi-Rad, A. Jamali, M. Naghashzadegan,
classical NMPC controller due to its heavy computations.
N. Nariman-zadeh, A. Hajiloo, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
2012, 37, 11244.
[16] J. Gruber, M. Doll, C. Bordons, Control Eng. Pract. 2009,
6 Conclusion
17, 874.
In this study, a parameterized multivariable NMPC control- [17] C. Ziogou, S. Papadopoulou, M. C. Georgiadis, S. Voute-
ler has been designed and experimentally tested on-line to takis, J. Process Control 2013, 23, 483.
control the PEMFC output voltage. First, to reach real-time [18] C. Damour, M. Benne, A. Kadjo, S. Rosini, B. Grondin-
control goal, a parameterized NMPC strategy has been devel- Perez, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2013, 38, 7407.
oped. In this aim, a specific parameterization of the control [19] A. J. J. Kadjo, P. Brault, A. Caillard, C. Coutanceau, J. P.
sequence has been proposed, which led to a low-dimensional Garnier, S. Martemianov, J. Power Sources 2007, 172, 613.
optimization problem. In a second stage, an ANN model, used [20] T. E. Springer, T. A. Zawodzinski, S. Gottesfeld, J. Elec-
as predictor in the NMPC controller, has been developed and trochem. Soc. 1991, 138, 2334.
experimentally validated. Eventually, the performance of the [21] D. M. Bernardi, M. W. Verbrugge, J. Electrochem. Soc.
NMPC controller has been evaluated on a test bench. The 1992, 139, 2477.
original built-in controller has been overridden and the para- [22] T. V. Nguyen, R. E. White, J. Electrochem. Soc. 1993, 140,
meterized NMPC controller has been implemented externally 2178.
and executed on-line. [23] J. S. Yi, T. V. Nguyen, J. Electrochem. Soc. 1998, 145, 1149.
Experimental results validated the efficiency of the NMPC [24] V. Gurau, H. Liu, S. Kakac, AIChE J. 1998, 44, 2410.
controller in terms of robustness against model-process mis- [25] S. Dutta, S. Shimpalee, J. W. Van Zee, Appl. Electrochem.
match and tracking capability. The real-time implementable 2000, 30, 135.
NMPC strategy designed in this study turned out to be an

892 ª 2014 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.fuelcells.wiley-vch.de FUEL CELLS 14, 2014, No. 6, 886–893
Damour et al.: On-Line PEMFC Control Using Parameterized Nonlinear Model-Based Predictive Control
[26] S. Um, C. Y. Wang, K. S. Chen, J. Electrochem. Soc. 2000,
147, 4485.
[27] Z. H. Wang, C. Y. Wang, K. S. Chen, J. Power Sources
2001, 94, 40.
[28] A. Rowe, X. Li, J. Power Source 2001, 102, 82.
[29] T. Berning, D. Lu, N. Djilali, J. Power Sources 2002, 106,
284.
[30] S. Um, C. Y. Wang, J. Power Sources 2004, 125, 40.
[31] M. Hu, A. Gu, M. Wang, X. Zhu, L. Yu, Energy Convers.
Manage. 2004, 45, 1861.
[32] A. Saengrung, A. Abtahi, A. Zilouchian, J. Power Sources
2007, 172, 749.
[33] N. S. Sisworahardjo, T. Yalcinoz, M. Y. El-Sharkh, M. S.
Alam, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2010, 35, 9104.
______________________
FUEL CELLS 14, 2014, No. 6, 886–893 www.fuelcells.wiley-vch.de
ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER
[34] A. U. Chavez-Ramirez, R. Munoz-Guerrero, S. M. Dur-
on-Torres, M. Ferraro, G. Brunaccini, F. Sergi, V. Anto-
nucci, L. G. Arriaga, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2010, 35,
12125.
[35] J. Richalet, Informatique Industrielle, Techniques de l’ingé-
nieur, 1997, ISSN 1632-3831, S2: pp. R7423.1–R7423.17.
[36] A. Murilo De Almeida Pinto, PhD Thesis, Institut Poly-
technique de Grenoble, 2009.
[37] M. Alamir, Lecture Notes in Control and Information
Science, Springer, London 2006, ISBN 1-84628-470-8.
[38] R. Amari, M. Alamir, P. Tona, in Proceedings of the IFAC
World Congress, South Korea, 2008.
ª 2014 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim 893