sustainability

Article
Fuel Cell Characteristic Curve Approximation Using
the Bézier Curve Technique
Mohamed Louzazni 1, * , Sameer Al-Dahidi 2 and Marco Mussetta 3, *
1 National School of Applied Sciences, Abdelmalek Essaadi University, Tetouan B.P. 2117, Morocco
2 Mechanical and Maintenance Engineering Department, School of Applied Technical Sciences,
German Jordanian University, Amman 11180, Jordan; [email protected]
3 Dipartimento di Energia, Politecnico di Milano, Via Lambruschini 4, 20156 Milano, Italy
* Correspondence: [email protected] (M.L.); [email protected] (M.M.)




Received: 31 July 2020; Accepted: 29 September 2020; Published: 1 October 2020


Abstract: Accurate modelling of the fuel cell characteristics curve is essential for the simulation
analysis, control management, performance evaluation, and fault detection of fuel cell power systems.
However, the big challenge in fuel cell modelling is the multi-variable complexity of the characteristic
curves. In this paper, we propose the implementation of a computer graphic technique called
Bézier curve to approximate the characteristics curves of the fuel cell. Four different case studies
are examined as follows: Ballard Systems, Horizon H-12 W stack, NedStackPS6, and 250 W proton
exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFC). The main objective is to minimize the absolute errors between
experimental and calculated data by using the control points of the Bernstein–Bézier function and de
Casteljau’s algorithm. The application of this technique entails subdividing the fuel cell curve to some
segments, where each segment is approximated by a Bézier curve so that the approximation error is
minimized. Further, the performance and accuracy of the proposed techniques are compared with
recent results obtained by different metaheuristic algorithms and analytical methods. The comparison
is carried out in terms of various statistical error indicators, such as Individual Absolute Error (IAE),
Relative Error (RE), Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), Mean Bias Errors (MBE), and Autocorrelation
Function (ACF). The results obtained by the Bézier curve technique show an excellent agreement
with experimental data and are more accurate than those obtained by other comparative techniques.

Keywords: fuel cell; characteristics curve; computer graphic technique; approximation; Bézier curve

1. Introduction
Recently, the fuel cell (FC) has been recognized by scientists and industrialists as a significant
renewable energy source. Specialists considers it as the lowest impact and the least of all the major
problems facing the global energy system [1]. It consist essentially of two electrodes viz., a cathode,
anode and a Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) between them as an electrolyte. The two electrodes
are in contact with bipolar plates embedding gas flow channels within which the reactive gasses (H2
and O2 ) are delivered to the device. It generates electricity as long as the fuel is delivered in the
form of hydrogen. The FC is a type of sustainable energy that converts the chemical process between
hydrogen and oxygen to electrical energy. The use of the fuel cell is due to its advantages over other
renewable energy sources, e.g., the electrical efficacies of FC range between 50% and 70%, rich reserves,
high utilization efficiency, versatility, high safety, and flexibility in the use of the necessary fuels. Thus,
it has become a genuinely competitive power source of energy [2,3]. Generally, two types of fuel can be
distinguished in industries; they are: (i) Proton Exchange Membrane FCs (PEMFCs) and Solid-Oxide
FCs (SOFCs). PEMFC is one type of fuel cell technology in which high power density and compactness
work at low temperature (−20 ◦ C to −100 ◦ C). In the solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC), solid oxide material is

Sustainability 2020, 12, 8127; doi:10.3390/su12198127 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 8127 2 of 23

used as an electrolyte and is ideal for energy production and hybrid electric implementations, because
they have higher temperature levels (600 ◦ C to 700 ◦ C) and higher efficiency [4]. Standard electrolyte
materials in SOFCs contain zirconia, along with a small amount of yttrium doping, samarium doped
ceria, or gadolinium doped ceria (8 mol%). The main problems and challenges in PEMFCs research
occur in the catalyst layers (CLs) since they are complex and heterogeneous [5]. The catalyst layers
need to be constructed to produce high amounts of desirable reactions and reduce the amount of
catalyst needed to obtain the required levels of power production. In order to achieve the objective,
the aforementioned criteria must be considered: (i) strong three-phase interface in the CL, (ii) effective
transfer of protons, (iii) fast transfer of reactant and liquid gasses, and elimination of condensed
water, and (iv) continuous electronic current passage between the reaction sites and the current
collector. The overall efficiency of the CLs depends on all these important factors, and it is therefore
necessary for the identification of electrode structures and operating conditions [6]. On the other
hand, PEMFCs are used in mobile cell phones, portable music players, and electric and space vehicles
due to high power capacity, potential cost reduction, relatively low operating temperature (60 ◦ C
to 100 ◦ C), broad application prospect, zero or very low emissions, low noise, low corrosion rate,
no waste generation, solid electrolytes, and electrical efficiency of about 50% [7,8]. PEMFCs have some
limitations, such as weak oxygen reduction kinetics, weak water and heat regulation, CO toxicity,
gas diffusion layer, flow field layers and degradation. Further, manufacturing of the FC is expensive
due to the high cost of catalysts, the hydrogen is costly to manufacture and not easily accessible and
there is a lack of infrastructure to support the distribution of hydrogen [9]. The degradation rates
are considered from the major disadvantage due to the presence of liquid water in the stack system.
By converting to the high-temperature process, this is minimized since there is no liquid water present
in the stack.
Over the last decade, and due to the revolution in FC technologies, numerous researchers have
paid particular attention to modeling, controlling, and parameter extractions [3]. The primary purpose
of these studies is to develop an accurate FC model that can be correctly expressed in simulation studies
and be very identical to experimental models. Meanwhile, modeling plays a vital role in the simulation,
concept, configuration, analysis, and improvement of high-efficiency fuel cell systems. In order to
understand and manage the functionality of the fuel cell, it is important to establish a stable model of
the fuel cell [7]. The performance of the model depends mainly on reducing the error value between the
simulation and the experimental results. Generally, the electrochemical model, based on mathematical
formulations, is the most useful model for specialists to approximate the output characteristics of the
FC system. Mathematical modelling is popularly used as a reasonable cost and an effective solution to
experimental studies. Nonetheless, its efficacy is typically influenced by an inappropriate configuration
of the parameters, such as stack temperature, the humidity of anode and cathode, gas pressure, and so
on [10]. Recently, the most effective techniques are developing mathematical models [11] based on
analytical models [12], empirical models [13] or semi-empirical models [14], and mechanistic models,
and then the approximation of unidentified voltage–current (V–I) and power–voltage (P–I) curves
through optimization techniques [15]. Within these models, the semi-empirical model established
in [16], based on Nernst and Tafel equations, is widely recognized by the researchers. Due to the
parametric equations of the FC model, it can be formulated as an optimization problem to approximate
the FC curves and, thus, describe the behavior of characteristic curves.
Recently, numerous research papers have been focusing on developing different approaches to
approximate the FC characteristic curves using analytical and meta-heuristic techniques, instead of using
conventional analytical methods or meta-heuristic optimization algorithms, both in non-parameter [17]
and parameter modelling [18]. Among the accepted empirical scientific methods, the electrochemical
impedance spectrum method, combined with broadband current excitation [19], least square method
adapted to fractional order models [20], semi-empirical model [21], generalized reduced gradient
technique (GRG-1, GRG-2) [22], Gauss–Newton [23], Levenberg–Marquardt [23], and least square
fitting [24]. However, such analytical methods are based on complex operations. These methods have
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8127 3 of 23

some demerit points because they are based on mathematical manipulation, and the derivation imposes
several restrictions, such as convexity, continuity, and differentiability, also, the approximations reduce
the ultimate accuracy.
On the other hand, the meta-heuristic algorithms have prospered over the last few years, and have
been effectively used to overcome several challenging optimization difficulties in specific various fields.
In the literature, numerous meta-heuristic optimization techniques have been proposed to approximate
the FC characteristic curves, including Shuffled Frog-Leaping Algorithm (SFLA), Firefly Optimization
Algorithm (FOA), Imperialist Competitive Algorithm (ICA) [25], Shuffled Multi-Simplexes Search
Algorithm (SMSA) [26], Hybrid Grey Wolf Optimization (HGWO) [27], Hybrid Vortex Search Algorithm
and Differential Evolution [28], Eagle Strategy [8], Cuckoo Search Algorithm with Explosion Operator
(CAEO) [29], Neural Network Optimizer (NNO) [30], Shark Smell Optimizer (SSO) [31], Slap Swarm
Optimizer (SSO) [32], Grasshopper Optimization (GO) [33], Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO) [34], Hybrid
Teaching Learning Based Optimization-Differential Evolution [35], Hybrid Adaptive Differential
Evolution Algorithm [36], Evolutionary Strategy [37], Genetic Algorithm (GA) and Manta Rays
Foraging Optimizer (MRFO) [38], Transferred Adaptive Differential Evolution (TADE) [39], Adaptive
Differential Evolution Algorithm (ADEA) [40], and Harmony Search Algorithm (HSA) [41]. In particular,
these nature-inspired or artificial swarm intelligence have their own benefits and drawbacks, in which
someone can overcome an unsolvable problem and not solve another one. Even so, the algorithms
referenced are generally trapped at local optima and have large error values. Besides, the accuracy
of such algorithms is strongly dependent on the selection of specific parameters, such as mutation
probability, crossover probability, and the selection operator in the GA, as well as inertia weight,
and social and cognitive parameters for particle swarm optimization. As a result, researchers are
always looking for successful techniques capable of approximating the characteristics curves of the FC
with low error and high accuracy.
As mentioned previously, most scientists have tried to improve the modeling of the FC,
which requires a complex model with a degree of nonlinearity and multi-variability. The latter maintains
that the FC characteristics curves are challenging to be tackled by using traditional methodologies
to improve the effectiveness of V–I and P–I characteristic curves, and accurately reflect the ultimate
performance. It is essential to define accurate curves using modern techniques properly. However,
the critical requirement for choosing a method to approximate the FC characteristic curves is its
precision. The primary needs for the techniques are accuracy, reliability, efficiency, detection limit,
quantitation limit, flexibility, operating range, and robustness. An approximation technique with a low
error is widely accepted as successful, and the calculated error is measured based on the discrepancy
between the calculation and the experimental values.
For this reason, recently, several researchers have introduced the Computer Aided Geometric
Design (CAGD) technique, Computer Graphics (CG), and Computer-Aided Design (CAD) to overcome
all problems of the nonlinearity and complex functions to approximate curves and surfaces [42].
The Bézier curves technique is considered the most stable among all polynomial based on CAD
and provides excellent representation for piecewise polynomial curves (since the Bézier curve has
a continuous curvature, and can rapidly change the shape by adapting its control points and can be
adjusted with an optimization algorithm) [43]. This technique is used to fit or approximated different
geometry through different algorithms to minimize the distance between the experimental and control
points. For example, Huo et al. [44] have applied the Bézier curve technique to approach and design
the trajectory of the electric sail. A description of the thermal behavior of three-way mixing valves [45],
estimation of the Kendall distribution function [46], and circle, and conic approximation [47,48],
has been also carried out.
In this paper, an investigation and application of the control points of the Bernstein-Bézier
technique for numerically approximating the V–I and P–I characteristics curve of FCs have been
proposed. The main objective is to minimize the absolute errors between experimental and calculated
data by using the control points of the Bernstein–Bézier technique. Four different case studies
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8127 4 of 23

are examined as follows: PEMFC by M/S Ballard Systems, Horizon H-12 W stack, NedStack PS6
PEMFC stack, and 250 W PEMFC stack. To check the efficiency of the used technique and the
performance of the obtained results, a statistical analysis is conducted to assess the precision and
accuracy of the approximated V-I and P-I curves. The results obtained are compared to latest
methods, such as the Whale Optimization Algorithm (WOA) [14], GRG-1 [22], GRG-2 [22], FOA [25],
ICA [25], SFLA [25], SMSA [26], SSO [32], Modified Artificial Ecosystem Optimizatio (MAEO) [49],
GA [38], MRFO [38], Grouping-based Global Harmony Search GGHS [50], Improved Harmouny Search
(HIS) [50], Particle Swarm Optimization with adaptive inertia Weight (PSO-w) [50], and Chaotic Harris
Hawks Optimization (CHHO) [51]. To evaluate the performance of the proposed method, various
error parameters are computed, examined, and compared, such as Individual Absolute Error (IAE),
Relative Error (RE), Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), Mean Bias Error (MBE), and Autocorrelation
Function (ACF). The obtained results are shown close to the experimental data, with a good agreement
for most of the approximated curves. The proposed method outperforms the benchmark techniques
from the literature.
The remaining of this article is structured as follows: Section 2 displays the mathematical model
and fundamentals description of FCs. Section 3 presents the application of the Bézier curve technique
to the FC curve. Section 4 depicts the evaluation of the statistical criteria. Sections 5 and 6 illustrate
the obtained results and the analysis and discussion of the approximated curves, respectively. Lastly,
conclusions and future works are drawn in Section 7.

2. Fuel Cell Model

A Fuel Cell (FC) is an electrical and chemical system that transforms chemical energy generally
from hydrogen directly to electric power. The analogous electrical circuit may be used to simulate the
complex behaviors of the FC and its polarization curves are depicted in Figure 1a,b, respectively [52].
This model is characterized by a sequence of equations and a set of parameters, the interpretation
of which is crucial for successful simulation performance. The polarization is caused by chemical
and physical factors associated with various elements in the fuel cell, such as temperature, pressure,
and gas composition. The three primary types of polarization, named activation, ohmic (or resistance)
and concentration, are illustrated in Figure 1b.

Figure 1. (a) Fundamental structure and electrical equivalent circuit of the FC, (b) voltage-current
polarization curves of 250 W proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFC) stack [53].

Moreover, the polarization voltage (or terminal voltage) of FC is given in function of

thermodynamic voltage Enernst , activation voltage losses due to reaction kinetics Vact , the ohmic
voltage losses from ionic and electronic resistance Vohm , the concentration voltage losses due to mass
transport Vcon and ncell is the number of cells. Generally, the real voltage output of a fuel cell could be
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8127 5 of 23

written by starting with the thermodynamically predicted voltage and then subtracting the various
overvoltage losses, as follow [16]:

Vcell = ncell (ENernst − Vact − Vohmic − Vcon ) (1)

Each of the terms in Equation (1) is identified and interpreted individually as follows:

RT
 q 
ENernst = E0 + α1 (T − T0 ) + ln PH2 PO2 (2)
2F
h   i
Vact = − ζ1 + ζ2 T + ζ3 T ln CO2 + ζ4 T ln(I ) (3)
Po2 
498

CO2 = exp (4)
5.08 × 106 T
where, E0 = 1.229 is the standard-state reversible fuel cell thermodynamic voltage are only useful under
standard-state conditions (equal to 1.229 V at 298.15 K and 1 atm). The coefficient α1 = (dENerst /dT )p
depends on the thermodynamic equilibrium potential, in the literature is determined from the entropy
change of a given reaction which is approximately constant and can be set to the standard state value
−0.83.10−3 V/K, R is the gas constant, 8.3143 J/mol.(K), F is the Faraday’s constant, equal to 96 487 C/mol,
PH2 is the hydrogen partial pressure at anode catalyst/gas interface (atm), Po2 the oxygen partial pressure
at cathode catalyst/gas interface (atm), T is the absolute cell temperature (Kelvin) and T0 = 298.15
is the standard state temperature (Kelvin). The parametric coefficient ζi (i = 1, 2, 3, 4) represents the
semi-empirical coefficients based on fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, and electrochemistry. The Co2
is the oxygen concentration at the catalytic interface of the cathode defined according to Henry’s
law(mol.cm−3 ).
The ohmic loss in the FC can be mathematically interpreted as:

Vohmic = i(Rm + Rc ) (5)

where i is the cell operating current (I), Rm denotes the membrane resistance (Ω) and Rc denotes the
equivalent resistance describing the concentration processes (Ωcm−2 ). The membrane resistance Rm
and ρm denotes the specific resistance of the material of the membrane (Ω.cm), they can be evaluated
as given in Equation (6).



 Rm = ρm Al
181.6[1+0.03(i/A)+0.062(T/303)2 (i/A)2.5 ] (6)

 ρm =


[λ−0.634−3(i/A) exp(4.18 T−303

T )]

where, λ is an adjustable empirical coefficient that influenced by the preparation steps of the solid
membrane and l is the membrane thickness (µm).
The concentration voltage drop is given by:

Vcon = −β ln(1 − J/Jmax ) (7)

where β is a parametric coefficient (V), J and Jmax represent the actual and the maximum current of the
cell (A.cm−2 ), respectively.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8127 6 of 23

3. Bézier Curve Method

The Bézier curve technique is defined as a parametric based in the spline or fitting curve,
which forms the basis of the Bernstein function and control points. A Bézier curve P(t) of degree n in
space Rm with the bi as the control point is defined as follows:
n
X
p(t) = bi Bni (t) (8)
i=0

 bi (xi,1 , xi,2 · · · xi,m ) ∈ R , 0 < i < n , t ∈ [0 1]

 m
(9)
Bi (t) = i!(n−i)! (1 − t)n−i ti
n n!




where Bi n is the Bernstein basis functions and the coordination of the control points as pi (ti ,bi ).
The control points use the Greville abscissa ti = i/n to provide a kind of parametrization for various
approximation polygons of the original Bézier curve using the subdivision process. Noting that the
subdivision is an essential form in geometric modeling. In practice, the subdivision offers an attractive
method for interpolation. Intersections of curves can also be determined by subdivision within any
given tolerance [1,54]. Theoretical characteristics of the subdivision scheme also characterize specific
geometric characteristics of the curve.
The subdivision of the curve using the Bézier curve method is obtained using the set of control
points bi to find the new coordinate in the curve. The points are subdivided into two segments,
and each segment possesses a Bézier polygon as follows:

b0 + b1 b1 + b2 bn−2 + bn−1 bn−1 + bn

b0 , , ,··· , , , bn (10)
2 2 2 2
Figure 2 illustrates the degree elevation of a cubic Bézier piece with b0 and b4 are the content and
ending points, respectively, and the points c1 , . . . ,c5 are the connecting or midpoint points. The points
from b2 , . . . ,b2 are the control points of the curve. The curve constructed by the control points is called
control polygon. The subdivision of the FC characteristic voltage–current curve using the Bézier curve
method is illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Degree elevation of Bézier curve applied to FC characteristic voltage–current curve.

The subdivision and evaluation can be obtained easily by using de Casteljau’s algorithm applied
to Equation (8). Let us define the new formulation based on the recurrence relation as follow:

b0i (t) = bi
(
i = 0, · · · ; n
(11)
bri (t) = (1 − t)br−1
i
(t) + tbr−1
i+1
(t) r = 1, · · · , n; i = 0, · · · ; n − r
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8127 7 of 23

The p(t) = bn0 (t) and let us consider any curve defined by:

n
X
d(t) = d n ( t ) bn (12)
n=0

Equation (12) belongs to the class of the curves that can be evaluated by the de Casteljau algorithm
by changing the variable t to a linear function nonconstant. The evaluation of the Bernstein polynomial
begins with choosing a point t0 to evaluate and subdivide the curve by using the diagonals of the
triangle scheme to construct a division of the polynomial. The new evaluation can be formulated
as follows:
0

 bi ( t ) = bi i = 0, · · · ; n



 r
 r (t) br−1 (t) + Lr (t)br−1 (t)

 b i
( t ) = 1 − L i i i i+1
r = 1, · · · , n; i = 0, · · · ; n − r (13)
 r t−t0
Li (t) = 1−t0 t0 ∈ [ 0 1 ]



The points bn0 (t) are obtained by the de Casteljau algorithm, which provides not only a procedural
approach to the subdivision, but also an attractive graphical representation of the points bn0 (t).
Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the diagram of the de Casteljau algorithm applied to the control points of the
Bézier curve for n = 3 and the relationship between d(t) = bn0 (t) and Lri (t), respectively.

Figure 3. Diagram of the de Casteljau algorithm for n = 3.

Figure 4. Relationship between L and d in the diagram of the de Casteljau algorithm for n = 3.

Since the control points bn0 (t) are intermediate points in the de Casteljau evaluation algorithm,
an optimization approach may be used to evaluate them adequately. This algorithm also provides the
subdivision of the Bézier curve.
The subdivision step consists of dividing the curve described by d(t) into two Bézier curves.
In the fixed parameter r ∈ [0 1], the first curve corresponds to the section range [0 r], and the second
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8127 8 of 23

parameter range [r 1]. Formally, the above curves are the Bezier curves related to ple f t (t) = (rt) and
prigh (t) = p[r + t(1 − r)] for t ∈ [0 1]. The new control points at left and right section at t are given as:

p00 (t), p10 (t), p20 (t), · · · , pn0 (t)

(
Le f t
(14)
p0 (t), pn−1
n
1
(t), pn−2
1
(t), · · · , p0n (t) Right

The algebraic interpretation of the subdivision can also be written in terms of matrix
multiplication as:
D(t) = [d0 (t), d1 (t), · · · , dn (t)]




h p = [p0 , p1 , · · · , pn ]



(15)
 i

p ( t ) = p 0 (t), p1 (t), p2 (t), · · · , pn (t)
l



 h 0 0 0 0 i
 p (t) = pn (t), pn−1 (t), pn−2 (t), · · · , p0 (t)

r 0 1 1 n

From Figures 2 and 3, the equations of the right and left section are given as follows:
 r
Ln r−n (t)
Q
S ( t ) =



 l
n=1

(16)

 n−r
[1 − Ln r (t)]
 Q
 Sr (t) =



n=1

The final equation of the experimental points is the sum of the right and left sections:

r
Y n−r
Y
S(t) = Ln r−n (t) + [1 − Ln r (t)] (17)
n=1 n=1

4. Proposed Method Evaluation Criteria

Statistical criteria are widely used in numerous disciplines to evaluate the fitness of the theoretical
or estimated model accurately. The assessment of the estimated models has been based on a comparison
of the statistical criteria used to check the accuracy and efficiency of the simulations. To calculate
the accuracy and performance of the Bézier curve method, the following statistical measures are
used [55,56]:
Individual Absolute Error (IAE): it is the correlation between the observational current, voltage,
or power points and the calculated current points using a methodology. It is defined as:
 
IAE = Vm,i − Vcal,i  (18)

Relative Error (RE): It is used as a calculation of accuracy, and it is described as the ratio of the
IAE of the measurement to the calculations being recorded. RE is expressed in terms and does not
have any units, and it is expressed as:
 
Vm,i − Vcal,i 
RE = (19)
Vm,i

Root Mean Square Error (RMSE): it represents the probability distribution between the experimental
and the presented curve data of the m data point sample. This measure will be used to quantify
unconsidered error that can be defined as follows:
v
t m
1 X 2
RMSE = Vm,i − Vcal,i (20)
m
i=1

Mean Bias Error (MBE): it represents the arithmetic mean of the error and provides information
about the long-term performance; the small value is desired as a condition. It can signify whether
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8127 9 of 23

the model overestimates or underestimates. MBE quantifies the systematic error, and it is described
as follows:
m
1 X 
MBE = Vm,i − Vcal,i (21)
m
i=1

Autocorrelation Function (ACF): it defines how the correlation between any two values of the
signal changes as their separation changes. It is a time–domain measure of the stochastic process
memory, and it does not reveal any information about the frequency content of the process. For error
signal et , the ACF can be formulated as:

Conv(et , et+k )
ACF = p (22)
Var(et )Var(et+k )

5. Results, Discussions, and Comparisons

In this section, the performance and validity of the proposed method are investigated for
characteristic curves approximation of four well-known commercial PEMFC by M/S Ballard Systems,
Horizon H-12 W stack, NedStackPS6 PEMFC stack, and 250 W PEMFC stack. The datasheet specifications
of these four commercial PEMFCs stacks are concluded from [14,25,49,50], and represented in Table 1,
respectively. The measured experimental data characteristic curves of these four FCs are accessible
online and reproducible in the literature in terms of parameter and curves estimation by several
researchers [14,19,38,46].

Table 1. Datasheet specifications of different stacks.

Fuel Cell ncell A(cm2 ) l(µm) PH2 (bar) Po2 (bar) T (K) RHa , RHc
M/S Ballard [50] 35 50.6 178 1 1 343 1
Horizon H-12 [14,57] 13 8.1 25 0.4935 1 302.15 1
NedStack PS6 [25] 65 240 178 0.5–5 0.5–5 343 1
250 W [49] 24 27 178 1 0.2075 343.15–353.15 1

The efficiency of the proposed effective computer graphic technique used to approximate the
FC characteristics curve is compared with various algorithms to validate the performance of each
algorithm. Further, statistical metrics are calculated and evaluated using the most used statistical
criteria and error analysis in the research literature. The important is to identify the performance
method in others by comparing each V–I and P–I curves.

5.1. Case Study 1: Single Cell-Based PEMFC by M/S Ballard Systems

The proposed computer graphic technique is applied first to approximate the voltage-current and
P–I curves of the M/S Ballard Systems rated power fuel cell system. This stack has 35 cells connected in
a series with 70 A maximum thermal current. The main information and the characteristics of this FC
are reported in Table 1. The pair measured experimental data are collected from [19]. The experimental
data of M/S Ballard Systems have been widely used to extract and estimate the unknown parameters
and then approximate their characteristic curves. Table 2 reports the approximated current and
voltage using the Bézier curve method compared with GRG-1 [22], GRG-2 [22], GGHS [50], IHS [50],
and PSO-w [50]. Further, the IAE of the approximated characteristics are evaluated and compared.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8127 10 of 23

Table 2. Comparison results of the approximated voltage, current, and IAE of M/S Ballard Systems.

Experimental Bézier Curve IAE

Iex Vex Vb Ib Bézier Curve GRG-1 [22] GRG-2 [22] GGHS [50] IHS [50] PSO-w [50]
5.4 0.92 5.423 0.9185 1.50 × 10−3 2.9 × 10−3 1.52 × 10−2 3.2 × 10−3 1.41 × 10−2 2.07 × 10−2
10.8 0.88 10.8105 0.8803 3.00 × 10−4 2.1 × 10−3 2 × 10−3 1.7 × 10−3 2.4 × 10−3 1.36 × 10−2
16.2 0.85 16.1271 0.8495 5.00 × 10−4 1.6 × 10−3 5.8 × 10−3 3.5 × 10−3 2.9 × 10−3 1.04 × 10−2
21.6 0.82 21.5855 0.8202 2.00 × 10−4 3 × 10−3 7.5 × 10−3 1 × 10−4 1.6 × 10- 1.28 × 10−2
27.0 0.79 27.044 0.7894 6.00 × 10−4 5.1 × 10−3 5.8 × 10−3 6.5 × 10−3 3.2 × 10−3 1.81 × 10−2
32.4 0.77 32.4315 0.7689 1.10 × 10−3 2.3 × 10−3 1.23 × 10−2 4.4 × 10−3 1 × 10−4 1.51 × 10−2
37.8 0.74 37.7481 0.7381 1.90 × 10−3 5 × 10−4 7.5 × 10−3 1.34 × 10−2 8.2 × 10−3 2.31 × 10−2
43.2 0.72 43.1356 0.719 1.00 × 10−3 6.9 × 10−3 1.21 × 10−2 1.29 × 10−2 7.1 × 10−3 2.16 × 10−2
48.6 0.69 48.5232 0.6882 1.80 × 10−3 4.6 × 10−3 6.4 × 10−3 2.25 × 10−2 1.62 × 10−2 3 × 10−2
54.0 0.66 53.9107 0.6589 1.10 × 10−3 3 × 10−3 9 × 10−4 3.18 × 10−2 2.5 × 10−2 3.78 × 10−2
59.4 0.62 59.3691 0.6178 2.20 × 10−3 7.3 × 10−3 1.37 × 10−2 5.02 × 10−2 4.27 × 10−2 5.35 × 10−2
64.8 0.60 64.8275 0.5987 1.30 × 10−3 5 × 10−3 6 × 10−3 4.62 × 10−2 3.78 × 10−2 4.2 × 10−2
70.2 0.55 70.1441 0.5489 1.10 × 10−3 5.4 × 10−3 2.13 × 10−2 6.52 × 10−2 5.43 × 10−2 6.31 × 10−2

To present more validity and accuracy of the proposed method, the reconstructions of the V–I
and P–I are presented in Figure 5a,b. The reconstructed approximated characteristics curves are
compared with the experimental data point and GRG-1, GRG-2, GGHS, IHS, and PSO-w. The results
of validation and approximation curves denote an excellent match compared with empirical data and
other algorithms. From Figure 5, it is shown that the two algorithms GRG-1 and GRG-2 are close to
experimental data in low voltage while in high voltage, they are far. The other algorithm approximated
the two curves by high errors in high and low voltages.

Figure 5. (a) V–I and (b) P–I compared experimental data and model calculated results of M/S
Ballard systems.

Figure 6 illustrates the comparison of the approximated voltage of M/S Ballard system with the
experimental and the values obtained by the algorithms GRG-1, GRG-2, GGHS, IHS and PSO-w.
The comparison illustrates and demonstrates that the Bézier curve method shows an excellent
correlation between the approximated voltages and the experimental voltage.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8127 11 of 23

Figure 6. Compared calculated voltage with experimental of M/S Ballard Systems.

To confirm the performance of the proposed method and present more accuracy of each technique,
the IAE and RE are presented and compared in Figure 7a,b, respectively. From Figure 7a,b, the lowest
values of the IAE and RE, which indicate the advantages of the Bézier curve method, are demonstrated.
Further, the obtained lower values using the Bézier curve method present the performance of the
proposed method concerning GRG-1, GRG-2, GGHS, IHS, and PSO-w.

Figure 7. (a) IAE and (b) RE of M/S Ballard Systems.

Moreover, the ACF is evaluated as shown in Figure 8. The presented qualified test of the M/S
Ballard Systems is in the range of −1 and +1.

Figure 8. ACF of M/S Ballard Systems.

Sustainability 2020, 12, 8127 12 of 23

5.2. Case Study 2: Horizon H-12 W Stack

The second case study is about the approximation of the characteristic curves of Horizon H-12
12 W. The primary information and characteristics datasheet of this fuel cell are reported in Table 2.
The primary objective of this test case study was to validate the implementation of Bézier curve method
compared to WOA [14], GA [38], and MRFO [38] for the effective determination of voltage, current
and power of Horizon H-12 PEMFC stack. The measured pairs current and experimental voltage data
of PEMFC stack are collected from [14,38], in which the fuel cell is operated at a normal atmospheric
pressure of 0.5 bar and the ambient temperature of 29 ◦ C. The main configuration for this fuel cell
illustrated in Table 2. A 19 experimental pair measurements of current–voltage characteristics are used
under the cited steady-state conditions illustrated in Table 3.

Table 3. Comparison of the approximated values and IAE of Horizon H-12 W stack.

Experimental Bézier Curve IAE

Iex Vex Ib Vb Bézier Curve WOA [14] GA [38] MRFO [38]
0.104 9.58 0.1032 9.5732 8.00 × 10−4 1.51 × 10−1 1.69 × 10−1 1.64 × 10−1
0.2 9.42 0.2010 9.4153 1.00 × 10−3 3.00 × 10−2 4.70 × 10−2 4.10 × 10−2
0.309 9.25 0.3097 9.2510 7.00 × 10−4 4.00 × 10−3 1.20 × 10−2 5.00 × 10−3
0.403 9.2 0.4032 9.1984 2.00 × 10−4 9.00 × 10−2 7.40 × 10−2 8.20 × 10−2
0.51 9.09 0.5097 9.0866 3.00 × 10−4 1.09 × 10−1 9.40 × 10−2 1.04 × 10−1
0.614 8.95 0.6141 8.9485 1.00 × 10−4 8.00 × 10−2 6.60 × 10−2 7.70 × 10−2
0.703 8.85 0.7032 8.8564 2.00 × 10−4 6.60 × 10−2 5.20 × 10−2 6.50 × 10−2
0.806 8.74 0.8076 8.7447 1.60 × 10−3 4.90 × 10−2 3.60 × 10−2 5.00 × 10−2
0.908 8.65 0.9076 8.6526 4.00 × 10−4 4.50 × 10−2 3.30 × 10−2 4.90 × 10−2
1.076 8.45 1.075 8.4488 1.00 × 10−3 2.10 × 10−2 3.10 × 10−2 1.30 × 10−2
1.127 8.41 1.1271 8.4093 1.00 × 10−4 2.20 × 10−2 3.20 × 10−2 1.30 × 10−2
1.288 8.2 1.2902 8.1989 2.20 × 10−3 1.13 × 10−1 1.21 × 10−1 9.90 × 10−2
1.39 8.12 1.3902 8.1200 2.00 × 10−4 1.19 × 10−1 1.26 × 10−1 1.03 × 10−1
1.45 8.11 1.4510 8.1068 1.00 × 10−3 8.60 × 10−2 9.30 × 10−2 6.90 × 10−2
1.578 8.05 1.5793 8.0477 1.30 × 10−3 5.70 × 10−2 6.20 × 10−2 3.60 × 10−2
1.707 7.99 1.7076 7.9951 6.00 × 10−4 2.80 × 10−2 3.20 × 10−2 3.00 × 10−3
1.815 7.95 1.8163 7.9490 1.30 × 10−3 6.00 × 10−3 3.00 × 10−3 3.50 × 10−2
1.9 7.94 1.9010 7.9359 1.00 × 10−3 5.40 × 10−2 5.20 × 10−2 8.50 × 10−2
2.06 7.9 2.0597 7.8964 3.00 × 10−4 1.23 × 10−1 1.23 × 10−1 1.00 × 10−1

Table 3 depicts the approximated voltage and current by Bézier curve method compared with the
measured experimental data. Moreover, Table 3 illustrates the comparison of the IAE of Bézier curve
method with WOA, GA, and MRFO.
The reproduced V–I and P–I curves using the approximated Bézier curve method compared
with the experimental data are presented in Figure 9a,b. Moreover, the quality and efficiency of the
approximated values are reconstructed and compared with WOA, GA, and MRFO. It is clear that the
reconstructed curves using the Bézier curve method are close to the experimental data.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8127 13 of 23

Figure 9. Comparison of (a) I-V and (b) P-V with experimental data and model calculated results by
WOA, GA, and MRFO of Horizon H-12 W Stack.

The accuracy of the Bézier curve method in the voltage approximation is illustrated in Figure 10.
The approximated voltage is close to the experimental values, while the values obtained by WOA,
GA, and MRFO are far. This shows that the proposed method outperforms the WOA, GA,
and MRFO algorithms.

Figure 10. Compared calculated voltage with experimental for FC Horizon H-12 W Stack.

For more validity and accuracy, the statistical metrics in terms of IAE and RE are illustrated in
Figure 11a,b. It is observed that the Bézier curve method provides the lowest value of IAE and RE
compared to the algorithms WOA, GA, and MRFO.

Figure 11. Comparison of (a) IAE and (b) RE of FC Horizon H-12 W stack.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8127 14 of 23

Figure 12 presents the ACF of the fuel cell Horizon H-12 12 W. The given qualified test is in the
range of −1 and +1.

Figure 12. ACF of the FC Horizon H-12 W Stack.

5.3. Case Study 3: NedStackPS6 PEMFC Stack

In this case study, a NedSstackPS6 PEMFC stack rated power fuel cell system has been analyzed
for performance analysis of the Bézier curve method. The datasheet of the product is accumulated
from [25] and reported in Table 2. The fuel cell is with 225 A maximum cell current, and operating
partial pressures lie between 1 and 5 bar.
Table 4 present the approximated values obtained by Bézier curve method compared with the
algorithms MRFO [38], FOA [25], ICA [25], SFLA [25], SMSA [26] and SSO [32].

Table 4. Comparison of the approximated values and IAE of NedStackPS6 PEMFC stack.

Experimental Bézier Curve IAE

Iex Vex Ib Vb Bézier Curve MRFO [38] FOA [25] ICA SMSA [26] SSO [32]
2.25 61.64 2.2448 61.6528 1.28 × 10−2 1.889 0.6265 0.6347 0.7158 0.7381
6.75 59.57 6.4981 59.5867 1.67 × 10−2 0.546 0.1246 0.1328 0.2118 0.2305
9 58.94 9.0974 58.9256 1.44 × 10−2 1.458 0.0244 0.0326 0.1104 0.1276
15.75 57.54 15.714 57.5206 1.94 × 10−2 0.832 0.1239 0.1155 0.0418 0.0286
20.25 56.8 20.203 56.7768 2.32 × 10−2 0.762 0.1595 0.1511 0.0805 0.0698
24.75 56.13 24.693 56.1157 1.43 × 10−2 0.976 0.1595 0.1511 0.0838 0.0755
31.5 55.23 31.545 55.2066 2.34 × 10−2 0.611 0.1412 0.1328 0.0711 0.066
36 54.66 36.035 54.6280 3.20 × 10−2 1.027 0.1038 0.0954 0.0378 0.0346
45 53.61 45.014 53.6363 2.63 × 10−2 0.665 0.0325 0.0242 0.0245 0.0241
51.75 52.86 51.867 52.8925 3.25 × 10−2 1.418 0.0359 0.0441 0.0853 0.0826
67.5 51.91 67.462 51.9008 9.20 × 10−3 0.88 0.4989 0.4911 0.4697 0.4763
72 51.22 71.952 51.1570 6.30 × 10−2 1.797 0.2152 0.2076 0.1923 0.1997
90 49.66 89.910 49.5867 7.33 × 10−2 1.027 0.2369 0.2301 0.2416 0.2502
99 49 98.889 49.0082 8.20 × 10−3 0.962 0.3535 0.3472 0.373 0.381
105.8 48.15 105.74 48.1818 3.18 × 10−2 0.506 0.0882 0.0824 0.1192 0.1261
110.3 47.52 110.23 47.5206 6.00 × 10−4 0.463 0.1547 0.1602 0.1161 0.1102
117 47.1 117.08 47.1074 7.40 × 10−3 0.836 0.0029 0.002 0.0527 0.0567
126 46.48 126.06 46.3636 1.164 × 10−1 1.016 0.1638 0.1598 0.2279 0.2285
135 45.66 135.04 45.6198 4.02 × 10−2 0.806 0.1337 0.1306 0.2106 0.2067
141.8 44.85 141.9 44.7933 5.67 × 10−2 0.814 0.0712 0.0736 0.0136 0.0056
150.8 44.24 150.87 44.1322 1.078 × 10−1 1.24 0.1336 0.1324 0.2254 0.2108
162 42.45 161.98 42.4793 2.93 × 10−2 0.3 0.6136 0.6131 0.5221 0.5467
171 41.66 170.96 41.5702 8.98 × 10−2 0.603 0.5354 0.5334 0.4557 0.4901
182.3 40.68 182.3 40.6611 1.89 × 10−2 0.286 0.3733 0.3693 0.3337 0.3824
189 40.09 188.92 40.0826 7.40 × 10−3 0.38 0.2491 0.2437 0.2546 0.3131
195.8 39.51 195.77 39.5041 5.90 × 10−3 0.727 0.0644 0.0575 0.1426 0.212
204.8 38.73 204.75 38.7603 3.030 × 10−2 0.654 0.2618 0.2707 0.0151 0.0705
211.5 38.15 211.6 38.0991 5.09 × 10−2 1.046 0.6296 0.6403 0.1504 0.0514
220.5 37.38 220.58 37.37 1.00 × 10−2 0.773 1.2377 1.654 0.3661 0.2472

Figure 13a,b show the reconstructed V–I and P–I curves of NedStackPS6 PEMFC stack using the
approximated value using Bézier curve method compared to experimental data and MRFO and FOA
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8127 15 of 23

algorithms. The comparisons show that the reconstructed value using Bézier curve method is in good
agreement with experimental data.

Figure 13. Comparison of (a) V–I and (b) P–I with experimental data and model calculated results by
MRFO and FOA of NedStackPS6 PEMFC stack.

Figure 14 presents the comparison of the approximated voltage values with experimental and
the value obtained by MRFO and DOA algorithms. The voltage value approximated by Bézier curve
method is close to the experimental data better than the values obtained by MRFO and DOA algorithms.

Figure 14. Compared calculated voltage with experimental of NedStack PS6 PEMFC stack.

The performance of the Bézier curve method provides the lowest values for the statistical criteria,
IAE and MAE, when compared to the other algorithms. Therefore, the Bézier curve method is ranked
first in achieving the lowest of IAE and RE, while the ICA and FOA are ranked second and third,
respectively. Therefore, the approximated values of the characteristic’s curves identified by the
proposed Bézier curve method are very accurate because they are close to the experimental data of the
fuel cell. The IAE and the RE for each measurement using optimal values founded by the Bézier curve
method are depicted in Figure 15a,b. It observed that the Bézier curve method performs better than
the reported algorithms.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8127 16 of 23

Figure 15. Compared (a) IAE and (b) RE of NedStack PS6 PEMFC stack.

Figure 16 illustrated the calculated ACF of the FC NedStackPS6 PEMFC stack. The presented
values of the qualified test are in the range of −1 and +1.

Figure 16. ACF of the NedStack PS6 PEMFC stack.

5.4. Case Study 4: 250 W PEMFC Stack

The last case study deals with the approximation of the characteristics curve of the 250 W fuel cell
stack. The measured end experimental current and voltage data are collected from [46]. This data is
widely used in the parameters extraction and estimation to estimate the characteristic curve of the
250 W fuel cell stack. Moreover, the datasheets constant data of the product are reported in Table 2.
Table 4 presents the approximated value of current and voltage using the Bézier curve method
compared with experimental data. The calculated IAE of the Bézier curve, CHHO [49], and MAEO [51]
are compared and reported in Table 5. The purpose of the comparison is to validate the accuracy of the
proposed technique in the characteristic curves process with other algorithms.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8127 17 of 23

Table 5. Comparison of the approximated value of 250 W PEMFC stack.

Experimental Bézier Curve IAE

Iex Vex Ib Vb Bézier Curve MAEO [49] CHHO [51]
0.4717 21.63 0.44278 21.649 1.90 × 10−2 1.20 × 10−1 0.1741
2.149 19.68 2.1458 19.678 2.00 × 10−3 3.18 × 10−1 0.333
2.83 18.78 2.8951 18.778 2.00 × 10−3 1.45 × 10−1 0.1352
3.983 17.88 3.985 17.878 2.00 × 10−3 4.59 × 10−1 0.4558
5.713 17.58 5.6199 17.56 2.00 × 10−2 6.45 × 10−2 0.0662
7.075 17.12 7.0504 17.124 4.00 × 10−3 5.71 × 10−2 0.0606
8.019 16.77 8.0041 16.767 3.00 × 10−3 1.06 × 10−1 0.1103
11.16 15.92 11.138 15.92 2.20 × 10−2 1.85 × 10−2 0.022
13.73 15.22 13.726 15.218 2.00 × 10−3 4.25 × 10−2 0.0406
16.56 14.42 16.587 14.424 4.00 × 10−3 1.57 × 10−1 0.1572
17.56 14.02 17.473 14.014 6.00 × 10−3 1.23 × 10−1 0.1232
19.03 13.52 19.04 13.525 5.00 × 10−3 2.37 × 10−1 0.2368
20.34 12.82 20.334 12.823 3.00 × 10−3 2.21 × 10−1 0.2188
22.01 10.86 22.037 10.865 5.00 × 10−3 3.59 × 10−1 0.3726
22.96 9.058 22.99 9.052 6.00 × 10−3 1.01 × 10−2 0.0512

To validate the approximated pair current and voltage values obtained by Bézier curve method,
they are used to reconstruct the V–I and P–I of the 250 W PEMFC stack. Figure 17a,b present the
V–I and P–I characteristic curves of the approximated values by the Bézier curve method along with
the experimental data. From the results, it can be observed that the values extracted by the Bézier
curve method for the considered 250 W PEMFC stack fit the experimental data very well, and they are
very close.

Figure 17. Comparison of (a) V–I and (b) P–I of 250 W PEMFC stack.

Figure 18 compares the experimental voltage values between the approximated by Bézier curve
method and CHHO algorithm. It is observed that the proposed method provides more accurate values
compared to CHHO algorithm.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8127 18 of 23

Figure 18. Comparison between experimental and estimated voltage stack of 250 W PEMFC stack.

The comparison between CHHO and the proposed algorithm in terms of IAE and RE for each
measurement is illustrated in Figure 19a,b. Figure 19 shows that the Bézier curve method has better
performance than the other estimation algorithms.

Figure 19. Comparison of (a) IAE and (b) RE of 250 W PEMFC stack.

Figure 20 depicted the ACF of the FC 250 W PEMFC stack. The presented values of the qualified
test are in the range of −1 and +1.

Figure 20. ACF Function of the 250 W PEMFC stack.

6. Analysis and Discussion

The objective of using the statistical criteria is to compare the performance of the calculated data
by the Bézier curve method and other algorithms. The RMSE present the standard deviation of the
residues of the generated errors. Residuals are a metric of how far away the variables of the regression
line are; RMSE is a metric of how these residues are distributed out. In other words, it says how
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8127 19 of 23

distributed the information is in the best match rows. The MBE represents the arithmetic mean of
the error and provides information about the long-term performance; the small value is desired as
a condition. It can signify whether the model overestimates or underestimates the stack voltage. So,
the low values of the statistical measures present the best-estimated model.
Figure 21 illustrates the comparison of RMSE and MBE for the approximated characteristics curves
of PEMFC by M/S Ballard Systems, Horizon H-12 W stack, NedStackPS6 PEMFC stack, and 250 W
PEMFC stack. It is observed that in all of the considered case studies, the proposed method has the
lowest values of RMSE and MBE.

Figure 21. Comparison of RMSE and MBE of the fuel cells under study, (a) M/S Ballard Systems,
(b) Horizon H-12 W stack, (c) NedStack PS6 PEMFC stack, (d) 250 W PEMFC Stack..

In the M/S Ballard Systems the Bézier curve method has the lowest measures’ values followed by
GRG-1 and GRG-2, while the PSO-w provides the highest measures’ values.
For the Horizon H-12 W stack, the Bézier curve method is better than WOA, GA, and MRFO,
which have the highest measures’ values in RMSE and MBE.
The characteristics curve of NedStackPS6 PEMFC stack has been approximated by the Bézier
curve method much better than SSO and SMA, while the highest value is obtained by MRFO, FOA,
ICA, and SFLA.
In the last case study, it is observed that the Bézier curve method provides the best values of the
curves, much better than MAEO and CHHO algorithms.
In all case studies, the approximation is very close to the experimental data at low voltage and
current. However, in high voltage value and low current, that is a little far. Moreover, the Bézeir
curve method outperforms all other algorithms in the four case studies and provides the lowest error
measures’ values. Further, the approximated values by the Bézier curve method are close to the
experimental values in low voltage and high current and also at low current and high voltage.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8127 20 of 23

7. Conclusions
This paper presents the implementation and adaptation of the Bézier curve method to approximate
the characteristic curves of four different fuel cells under different conditions. The used experimental
data of current and voltage for testing the effectiveness of the proposed technique are based on the
results obtained by several algorithms previously developed for parameter extraction and characteristic
curves approximation. The voltage–current curve is subdivided using the experimental into segments,
and the control points were constructed using the coefficients of the polynomial Bernstein function in
the interval of the measured data. The de Casteljau subdivision algorithm is applied to the fuel cell
curve to an infinite sequence of control points, which defines a new family of curves. The degree of the
Bernstein function depends on the number of the measured data points. The de Casteljau algorithm is
used to minimize the distance between the experimental data points and is then approximated to find
the best approximation. Further, several statistical metrics are calculated and determined to fit the
performance and accuracy of the approximated curves.
The obtained approximated voltage, current, and power are compared with those obtained by
recent techniques and methods from the literature. The proposed method provides the lowest value
in terms of Individual Absolute Error (IAE), Relative Error (RE), Root Mean Square Error (RMSE),
and Mean Bias Error (MBE) compared to other techniques. The comparisons of four cases demonstrate
that the Bézier curve method using the adopted statistical error measures provides high performance
and accuracy of the approximated current, voltage, and power of the fuel cells. Therefore, the research
relevant to the study will then commence focused on analyzing the static and dynamic behavior of the
fuel cell model in different conditions. The results of this study create the following opportunities for
various potential research:

• Construction of a good fuel cell model device based on the approximated curves;
• Development of a new implicit model.

Because the performance of the results is of significant importance in control management and
performance analysis of the fuel cell in hybrid renewable energy systems; the proposed characteristics
approximation is a useful feature for monitoring, fault detection and diagnosis of the connected
fuel cell.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.L.; methodology, M.L.; software, M.L.; validation, M.L., S.A.-D.
and M.M.; formal analysis, M.L.; investigation, M.L., S.A.-D. and M.M.; resources, M.L.; data curation, M.L.;
writing-original draft preparation, M.L.; writing-review and editing, M.L., S.A.-D. and M.M.; visualization, M.L.,
S.A.-D. and M.M.; supervision, M.L.; project administration, M.L.; funding acquisition, M.L. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: The first author is highly thankful to the Energy Department of University Polytechnic of
Milan, Italy, and the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Staffell, I.; Scamman, D.; Velazquez-Abad, A.; Balcombe, P.; Dodds, P.E.; Ekins, P.; Shah, N.; Ward, K.R.
The role of hydrogen and fuel cells in the global energy system. Energy Environ. Sci. 2019, 12, 463–491.
[CrossRef]
2. Ramadhani, F.; Hussain, M.A.; Mokhlis, H.; Hajimolana, S. Optimization strategies for solid oxide fuel cell
(SOFC) application: A literature survey. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 76, 460–484. [CrossRef]
3. El-Hay, E.A.; El-Hameed, M.A.; El-Fergany, A.A. Optimized parameters of SOFC for steady state and
transient simulations using interior search algorithm. Energy 2019, 166, 451–461. [CrossRef]
4. Agwa, M.A.; El-Fergany, A.A.; Sarhan, M.G. Steady-state modeling of fuel cells based on atom search
optimizer. Energies 2019, 12, 1884. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8127 21 of 23

5. Shen, P.K. PEM fuel cell catalyst layers and MEAs. In PEM Fuel Cell Electrocatalysts and Catalyst Layers:
Fundamentals and Applications; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; pp. 355–380. [CrossRef]
6. Wang, M.; Park, J.H.; Kabir, S.; Neyerlin, K.C.; Kariuki, N.N.; Lv, H.; Stamenkovic, V.R.; Myers, D.J.; Ulsh, M.;
Mauger, S.A. Impact of catalyst ink dispersing methodology on fuel cell performance using in-situ x-ray
scattering. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 2019, 2, 6417–6427. [CrossRef]
7. Xu, S.; Wang, Y.; Wang, Z. Parameter estimation of proton exchange membrane fuel cells using eagle strategy
based on JAYA algorithm and nelder-mead simplex method. Energy 2019, 173, 457–467. [CrossRef]
8. Uzunoglu, M.; Alam, M.S. Fuel-cell systems for transportations. In Power Electronics Handbook, 4th ed.;
Rashid, M.H., Ed.; Elisevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 1091–1112. [CrossRef]
9. Chandan, A.; Hattenberger, M.; El-kharouf, A.; Du, S.; Dhir, A.; Self, V.; Pollet, B.G.; Ingram, A.; Bujalski, W.
High temperature (HT) polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells (PEMFC)-a review. J. Power Sources 2013,
231, 264–278. [CrossRef]
10. Chen, F.; Yu, Y.; Gao, Y. Temperature control for proton exchange membrane fuel cell based on current
constraint with consideration of limited cooling capacity. Fuel Cells 2017, 17, 662–670. [CrossRef]
11. Shen, X.; Zhang, X.; Lie, T.T.; Li, G. Mathematical modeling and simulation for external electrothermal
characteristics of an alkaline water electrolyzer. Int. J. Energy Res. 2018, 42, 3899–3914. [CrossRef]
12. Aouali, F.Z.; Becherif, M.; Ramadan, H.S.; Emziane, M.; Khellaf, A.; Mohammedi, K. Analytical modelling
and experimental validation of proton exchange membrane electrolyser for hydrogen production. Int. J.
Hydrog. Energy 2017, 42, 1366–1374. [CrossRef]
13. Lee, W.-Y.; Park, G.-G.; Yang, T.-H.; Yoon, Y.-G.; Kim, C.-S. Empirical modeling of polymer electrolyte
membrane fuel cell performance using artificial neural networks. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2004, 29, 961–966.
[CrossRef]
14. El-Fergany, A.A.; Hasanien, H.M.; Agwa, A.M. Semi-empirical PEM fuel cells model using whale optimization
algorithm. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019, 201, 112197. [CrossRef]
15. Gao, F.; Blunier, B.; Miraoui, A. Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells Modeling; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.:
Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013. [CrossRef]
16. Amphlett, C.; Mann, R.F.; Peppley, B.A.; Roberge, P.R.; Rodrigues, A. A model predicting transient responses
of proton exchange membrane fuel cells. J. Power Sources 1996, 61, 183–188. [CrossRef]
17. Zhang, L.; Wang, N. Application of coRNA-GA based RBF-NN to model proton exchange membrane fuel
cells. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2018, 43, 329–340. [CrossRef]
18. Priya, K.; Sathishkumar, K.; Rajasekar, N. A comprehensive review on parameter estimation techniques for
proton exchange membrane fuel cell modelling. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 93, 121–144. [CrossRef]
19. Ritzberger, D.; Striednig, M.; Simon, C.; Hametner, C.; Jakubek, S. Online estimation of the electrochemical
impedance of polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells using broad-band current excitation. J. Power Sources
2018, 405, 150–161. [CrossRef]
20. Taleb, M.A.; Béthoux, O.; Godoy, E. Identification of a PEMFC fractional order model. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy
2017, 42, 1499–1509. [CrossRef]
21. Al-Baghdadi, M.A.R.S. Modelling of proton exchange membrane fuel cell performance based on
semi-empirical equations. Renew. Energy 2005, 30, 1587–1599. [CrossRef]
22. Geem, Z.W.; Noh, J.-S. Parameter estimation for a proton exchange membrane fuel cell model using GRG
technique. Fuel Cells 2016, 16, 640–645. [CrossRef]
23. Ye, M.; Wang, X.; Xu, Y. Parameter identification for proton exchange membrane fuel cell model using particle
swarm optimization. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2009, 34, 981–989. [CrossRef]
24. Bouaicha, A.; Allagui, H.; Aglzim, E.-H.; Rouane, A.; Mami, A. Validation of a methodology for determining
the PEM fuel cell complex impedance modelling parameters. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2017, 42, 12738–12748.
[CrossRef]
25. Kandidayeni, M.; Macias, A.; Khalatbarisoltani-Boulon, A.L.; Kelouwani, S. Benchmark of proton exchange
membrane fuel cell parameters extraction with metaheuristic optimization algorithms. Energy 2019,
183, 912–925. [CrossRef]
26. Li, J.; Gao, X.; Cui, Y.; Hu, J.; Xu, G.; Zhang, Z. Accurate, efficient and reliable parameter extraction of
PEM fuel cells using shuffled multi-simplexes search algorithm. Energy Convers. Manag. 2020, 206, 112501.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8127 22 of 23

27. Miao, D.; Chen, W.; Zhao, W.; Demsas, T. Parameter estimation of PEM fuel cells employing the hybrid grey
wolf optimization method. Energy 2020, 193, 116616. [CrossRef]
28. Fathy, A.; Elaziz, M.A.; Alharbi, A.G. A novel approach based on hybrid vortex search algorithm and
differential evolution for identifying the optimal parameters of PEM fuel cell. Renew. Energy 2020,
146, 1833–1845. [CrossRef]
29. Chen, Y.; Wang, N. Cuckoo search algorithm with explosion operator for modeling proton exchange
membrane fuel cells. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2019, 44, 3075–3087. [CrossRef]
30. Fawzi, M.; El-Fergany, A.A.; Hasanien, H.M. Effective methodology based on neural network optimizer for
extracting model parameters of PEM fuel cells. Int. J. Energy Res. 2019, 43, 8136–8147. [CrossRef]
31. Rao, Y.; Shao, Z.; Ahangarnejad, A.H.; Gholamalizadeh, E.; Sobhani, B. Shark smell optimizer applied to
identify the optimal parameters of the proton exchange membrane fuel cell model. Energy Convers. Manag.
2019, 182, 1–8. [CrossRef]
32. El-Fergany, A.A. Extracting optimal parameters of PEM fuel cells using salp swarm optimizer. Renew. Energy
2018, 119, 641–648. [CrossRef]
33. El-Fergany, A.A. Electrical characterisation of proton exchange membrane fuel cells stack using grasshopper
optimizer. IET Renew. Power Gener. 2018, 12, 9–17. [CrossRef]
34. Ali, M.; El-Hameed, M.A.; Farahat, M.A. Effective parameters’ identification for polymer electrolyte
membrane fuel cell models using grey wolf optimizer. Renew. Energy 2017, 111, 455–462. [CrossRef]
35. Turgut, O.E.; Coban, M.T. Optimal proton exchange membrane fuel cell modelling based on hybrid Teaching
Learning Based Optimization-Differential Evolution algorithm. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2016, 7, 347–360. [CrossRef]
36. Sun, Z.; Wang, N.; Bi, Y.D. Srinivasan, parameter identification of PEMFC model based on hybrid adaptive
differential evolution algorithm. Energy 2015, 90, 1334–1341. [CrossRef]
37. Restrepo, C.; Konjedic, T.; Garces, A.; Calvente, J.; Giral, R. Identification of a proton-exchange membrane
fuel cell’s model parameters by means of an evolution strategy. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2015, 11, 548–559.
[CrossRef]
38. Selem, S.I.; Hasanien, H.M.; El-Fergany, A.A. Parameters extraction of PEMFC’s model using manta rays
foraging optimizer. Int. J. Energy Res. 2020, 44, 1–12. [CrossRef]
39. Gong, W.; Yan, X.; Liu, X.; Cai, Z. Parameter extraction of different fuel cell models with transferred adaptive
differential evolution. Energy 2015, 8, 139–151. [CrossRef]
40. Cheng, J.; Zhang, G. Parameter fitting of PEMFC models based on adaptive differential evolution. Int. J.
Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2014, 62, 189–198. [CrossRef]
41. Askarzadeh, A.; Rezazadeh, A. An innovative global harmony search algorithm for parameter identification
of a PEM fuel cell model. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2012, 59, 3473–3480. [CrossRef]
42. Mohamed, N.; Majid, A.A.; Piah, A.R.M. Data fitting by G1 rational cubic Bézier curves using harmony
search. Egypt. Inform. J. 2015, 16, 175–185. [CrossRef]
43. Kawabata, K.; Ma, L.; Xue, J.; Zhu, C.; Zheng, N. A path generation for automated vehicle based on Bezier
curve and via-points. Rob. Auton. Syst. 2015, 74, 243–252. [CrossRef]
44. Huo, M.; Mengali, G.; Quarta, A.A.; Qi, N. Electric sail trajectory design with Bezier curve-based shaping
approach. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2019, 88, 126–135. [CrossRef]
45. Fürst, Y.; Brandt, S.; Kriegel, M. Thermal modelling of three-way mixing valves using Bézier curves for
parameter estimation applications. J. Process. Control. 2020, 90, 56–62. [CrossRef]
46. Susam, S.O.; Hudaverdi, U.B. A goodness-of-fit test based on Bézier curve estimation of Kendall distribution.
J. Stat. Comput. Simul. 2020, 90, 1194–1215. [CrossRef]
47. Ahn, Y.J. Circle approximation by G 2 Bézier curves of degree n with 2n−1 extreme points. J. Comput. Appl.
Math. 2019, 358, 20–28. [CrossRef]
48. Liu, Y.; Dong, X.C. Approximation of conic section by quartic Bézier curve with endpoints continuity
condition. Appl. Math. 2017, 32, 1–13. [CrossRef]
49. Menesy, A.S.; Sultan, H.M.; Korashy, A.; Banakhr, F.A.; Ashmawy, M.G.; Kamel, S. Effective parameter
extraction of different polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell stack models using a modified artificial
ecosystem optimization algorithm. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 31892–31909. [CrossRef]
50. Askarzadeh, A.; Rezazadeh, A. A grouping-based global harmony search algorithm for modeling of proton
exchange membrane fuel cell. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2011, 36, 5047–5053. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8127 23 of 23

51. Menesy, A.S.; Sultan, H.M.; Selim, A.; Ashmawy, M.G.; Kamel, S. Developing and applying chaotic harris
hawks optimization technique for extracting parameters of several proton exchange membrane fuel cell
stacks. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 1146–1159. [CrossRef]
52. Outeiro, M.T.; Chibante, R.; Carvalho, A.S.; de Almeida, A.T. A new parameter extraction method for accurate
modeling of PEM fuel cells. Int. J. Energy Res. 2009, 33, 978–988. [CrossRef]
53. Huang, X.; Zhang, Z.; Jiang, J. Fuel Cell Technology for Distributed Generation: An Overview; IEEE: Piscataway,
NJ, USA, 2006; pp. 1613–1618. [CrossRef]
54. Morin, G.; Goldman, R. A subdivision scheme for Poisson curves and surfaces. Comput. Aided Geom. Des.
2000, 17, 813–833. [CrossRef]
55. Louzazni, M.; Khouya, A.; Amechnoue, K.; Mussetta, M.; Crăciunescu, A. Comparison and evaluation of
statistical criteria in the solar cell and photovoltaic module parameters’ extraction. Int. J. Ambient Energy
2018, 41, 1–13. [CrossRef]
56. Khandakar, A.; Chowdhury, M.E.H.; Kazi, M.K.; Benhmed, K.; Touati, F.; Al-Hitmi, M.; Gonzales, A.S.P.J.
Machine learning based photovoltaics (PV) power prediction using different environmental parameters of
Qatar. Energies 2019, 12, 2782. [CrossRef]
57. Stacks, H.-S.F.C. H-12 PEM Fuel Cell 12W-Horizon Educational. Available online: https://www.
horizoneducational.com/advancedproducts/h-12-pem-fuel-cell-12w/ (accessed on 12 September 2020).

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).