Review on Fault Diagnosis for Flooding and Drying in Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells
-
摘要: 质子交换膜燃料电池水淹和膜干是其在运行过程中最常见的故障. 首先,阐述了质子交换膜燃料电池中水的产生和传输机理,概括了水淹和膜干故障的影响因素,列举并分析了基于电压、压力降和阻抗的水淹和膜干诊断指标及各自的优缺点,并从内部结构和电荷传输方面介绍了水淹和膜干对质子交换膜燃料电池的危害;其次,讨论了水淹和膜干故障基于模型、基于实验和基于数据驱动的3种诊断方法及其适用范围,另外分析了缓解水淹和膜干故障的常用措施;最后,对水淹和膜干故障进行了总结和展望,并指出基于数据驱动的在线诊断方法、适于故障诊断的模型建立、大尺度电堆及多堆间水淹和膜干故障的诊断及高效精准的故障诊断指标的探索有待深入研究.Abstract: In running proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs), the flooding and drying are the most common faults. Firstly, water generation and transfer mechanism in PEMFCs are elaborated, and the impact factors of flooding and drying faults are generalized. The diagnostic indicators for flooding and drying in terms of voltage, pressure drop, and impedance are listed with the analysis on their merits and demerits. In addition, the damages caused by flooding and drying faults are presented from the perspective of internal structure and charge transport. Next, the model-based, experimental-based, and data-driven diagnostic methods for flooding and drying faults and their application range are discussed. Moreover, popular mitigation strategies for flooding and drying are analyzed. Finally, the researches on flooding and drying are summarized and their prospects are presented. Of these researches, online diagnostic approaches based on data-driven, model establishment for fault diagnosis, flooding and drying diagnosis in large-scale stacks and multi-stacks, and the efficient and accurate diagnostic indicators need further studies.
-
青藏铁路的开通对促进青藏高原的交通与经济建设发挥了重要作用. 为进一步提高其运输能力和效益,青藏铁路格拉段电气化工程提上日程. 青藏铁路格拉段穿越青藏高原多年冻土地段546.43 km,地质条件复杂,路基的冻胀融沉病害严重[1-2]. 由于接触网支柱桩基础承担的上部荷载较小且桩长较短,在长期冻融循环约束冻胀作用下易产生冻拔失稳或破坏[3]. 如何保证接触网支柱桩基础的冻拔稳定性是青藏铁路格拉段电气化改造工程中的关键问题[4-5].
目前,在冻土地基中桩基冻拔方面,国内外学者已通过现场试验、模型试验与数值模拟的方法取得了一定的研究成果:Lu等[6]通过引入关于层状饱和土的状态向量、静态波向量和反射-透射矩阵(RTM)的基本解,建立层状冻土与单桩相互作用的第二类Fredholm积分方程,并对其进行了数值求解;Zhou等[7]采用现场试验与数值模拟的方法研究了热管对青藏高原多年冻土区输电塔基热力学特性的影响;王腾飞等[8-10]研究了季节冻土区光伏支架螺旋桩基础在单向冻结条件下的冻拔响应及半螺旋桩的抗冻拔理论计算方法;为减小桩基冻拔量,锥形桩与扩底桩逐渐被应用于工程实践中,许健等[11-16]采用模型试验、理论分析及数值模拟的方法对冻土区锥形桩与扩底桩的抗冻拔性能及其影响因素进行深入研究,并对扩底桩的优化选型进行总结分析. 上述研究中,桩周土体都产生水平方向的对称冻胀. 然而,铁路接触网支柱桩基是设置于既有路基中的柱型构件,其稳定性受路基与边坡2个方向冷(热)量的共同影响,桩周土体产生水平方向的非对称冻胀. 关于多年冻土区既有路基活动层在二维冻融过程中桩基受力变形方面的研究成果较少.
鉴于此,本文通过大比例模型试验,对多年冻土区不同桩型的接触网支柱桩基在冻融作用下的相关热力学特性开展研究. 探讨在冻拔作用下等截面圆形桩、直锥柱形桩及曲锥柱形桩的抗冻拔效果,得到接触网支柱桩基础的地温、冻拔位移、切向冻胀力的分布规律,揭示接触网支柱桩基在冻融循环作用下的受力变形机理.
1. 试验设计
1.1 试验土样与试验装置
为更好地体现青藏铁路路基土体对接触网桩基础的影响,试验用土取自青藏铁路沱沱河车站,接触网下部基础钻孔施工试验的现场. 试验土体的最大干密度为1.92 g/cm3,其中,小于0.075 mm粒径的颗粒占5.6%,根据土工试验方法标准(GB/T 50123—2019)[17],该土样定义为含细粒土砂(SF). 试验所用低温环境箱的内尺寸为3.2 m (长) × 1.7 m (宽) × 1.9 m (高). 制作1.6 m (长) × 1.0 m (宽) × 1.0 m (高)的模型箱,置于低温环境箱,模型箱四周均覆盖保温隔热材料. 为模拟多年冻土,采用2个冷浴系统分别模拟控制环境温度与多年冻土层的温度.
1.2 模型桩与测试元件布设
为降低接触网支柱桩基的冻拔力,改变普通等截面圆形桩在活动层的桩基截面形状,本次试验中共设置3种截面形式的模型桩,分别为等截面圆形桩Z1、圆锥柱形桩Z2及曲锥柱形桩Z3. 根据模型试验相似原理,土质、含水量及环境温度与现场实际情况一致,现场接触网支柱桩基预设计桩长8 m,桩径0.55 m. 模型桩采用有机玻璃加工制作,桩身材料的密度、弹性模量与导热系数分别为1.18 g/cm3、2.56 GP和0.19 W/(m·℃). 结合现有的试验条件,将模型试验的几何相似比取为1∶10. 模型桩的具体尺寸及应变片布设见图1所示. 沿桩身同一深度处对称布设BE120-3AA-P300型号应变片,利用同一深度处相同的温度变化来消除温度对应变片的影响,其中一片沿桩身轴向贴在外表面(测量片),另一片沿桩身环向贴于相应的位置(温度补偿片). 在应变采集仪中采用半桥接线法.
试验采用PT100温度传感器测试土体温度,精度为 ± 0.1 ℃. 图2为模型桩及测试元件布设图,温度传感器共布设3个断面,从左到右依次为断面A、断面B与断面C,每个断面有2个测温孔,分别位于路基与边坡上. 环境箱内布设3个环境温度测点. 在桩顶布设2个位移传感器实时测试桩顶的竖向与水平位移,在Z1与Z2桩之间、Z2与Z3桩之间分别布设3个位移计,测试路基、路肩及边坡土体的位移. 根据文献[7]的研究成果,距桩3.4 倍桩径处土体的冻胀位移基本不受桩体影响,故本试验中模型桩之间的相互影响忽略不计.
2. 试验方法步骤
选取青藏高原沱沱河地区一年内正弦气温变化函数为
Ta(t)=−2.5+12.0sin(2πt/8640+π/2), (1) 式中:-2.5为年平均气温,12.0为气温振幅,t为时间,h.
模型试验共设计3个冻融循环,正式试验前通过多次预试验可得:若时间相似比取1∶10,即模型试验中3.6 d模拟现场的1年,土体的冻融深度达不到30 cm;当时间相似比取1∶6时,冻融深度约为30 cm. 因此,将模型试验的时间相似比取为1∶6,即模型试验中10.0 d模拟现场的1年. 模型试验中环境箱温度按式(2)控制.
T(t)=−2.5+12.0sin(2πt/240+π/2). (2) 试验步骤主要包含:
步骤1 准备试验. 按试验设计加工制作试验模型箱,模型箱四周均粘贴保温隔热材料,底部设计冷浴管路;按各模型桩的设计尺寸加工有机玻璃模型桩,桩周粘贴布设BE120-3AA-P300型号应变片;将现场取回的土样配备足量含水量为15%的试验用土,将其搅拌充分均匀后用塑料布包裹并静置72 h.
步骤2 土样分层填筑压实及测设元件布设. 在模型箱内壁涂抹凡士林,以此来消除模型箱边界对土体的约束作用. 试验填土初始含水量15%,分10层填筑,压实度按0.93控制,模型箱内壁粘贴软皮尺以控制土层的填筑厚度,桩身附近的土体采用橡皮锤击实. 填筑过程中,温度及位移传感器按图2进行布设.
步骤3 模型箱底板与顶板温度的控制. 将底板温度调为−2 ℃恒温控制,顶板调制为10 ℃, 静置30 d,形成初始温度场.
步骤4 开始试验. 按T(t) 调节环境温度实现土体的冻融变化.
步骤5 试验数据的自动采集. 自动实时采集冻融循环过程中应变、温度传感器与位移传感器的读数.
3. 试验结果分析
3.1 温度场分布
试验中断面A、B、C的温度场分布基本一致,以断面B桩Z2附近路基与边坡上2个测温孔的温度场进行分析. 图3为断面B路基与边坡测温孔不同深度土层温度随时间的变化曲线,其中第17天的数据缺失. 由图3可以看出:整个试验共进行30.0 d,为3个冻融循环,随着T(t)的变化,不同深度土层温度随时间也呈正弦状分布,能较好地模拟现场实际地温的变化情况;各土层温度的变化相对于环境温度出现滞后现象,且随深度的增加,滞后效应越明显;下冷板能较好地控制模型下部土层的地温,路基与边坡2个测温孔深90 cm处的平均地温约为−1.5 ℃ .
通过试验进程中所得的各测点温度,绘制冻融过程中断面B路基与边坡处的等温线分布,如图4所示. 由图可得:试验开始阶段,模型箱底部20 cm 厚的土层处于冻结状态,其他土层都为未冻土,随着环境温度的降低,基础与土体的热量向环境中扩散,冻结锋面下移,土层主要发生自上而下的冻结. 经过一个冻结期后,整个基础完全处于冻结状态. 随着环境温度的升高,模型上部土层融化,路基测温孔第2、3个周期的最大融化深度分别为31.5 cm和28.0 cm,边坡测温孔第2、3个周期的最大融化深度分别为17.0、14.0 cm.
图5为路基与边坡2个测温孔地温沿深度变化的对比曲线. 由图可以看出:冻土上限以上活动层地温正负温变化较剧烈,其中第11、12、19、20 天活动层地温为正值,呈融化状态,第16天活动层地表地温最低,达到 −8.1 ℃. 通过比较2个测温孔的地温数值,发现相同时间同一深度处2个测温孔的数据存在较大的差异,在暖季阶段,边坡测温孔的地温比相同条件下路基测温孔的地温较高;在寒季阶段,边坡测温孔的地温比相同条件下路基测温孔的地温较低,且在活动层内这种现象愈剧烈. 以上说明路基体的冻结(融化)受路基顶面与边坡的2个方向冷(热)量的共同影响,是一个二维冻结(融化)问题,接触网支柱基础路基与边坡两侧的温度场是非对称分布的.
第1个周期,由于土层的填筑与环境箱内初始温度等因素的影响,试验数据的变化规律相对杂乱,在下面的分析中以第10天为起点. 图6(a)为路基、路肩及边坡处土体表层的位移随时间的变化曲线. 由图可知:路基、路肩及边坡处位移变化趋势基本一致,都与环境温度的变化密切相关. 当环境温度为正温阶段,路基、路肩及边坡土体位移基本不变,环境温度降为负温时,土体的冻结速率较快,土层位移迅速发生冻胀,路基、路肩及边坡处土体最大冻胀量分别为2.2、4.3、3.1 mm,其中,路肩处的位移最大. 产生以上现象的原因是环境温度降低时,冷量从路基顶面与边坡2个方向进入路基体,路基土体在2个方向上产生二维冻结,导致路肩处的冻胀位移最大. 当环境温度为正温并升高时,路基、路肩及边坡处土体位移均产生融沉,基本回到冻胀起始前的位移.
图6(b)、(c)为桩顶竖向与水平位移随时间的变化曲线. 由图可知:桩顶位移的变化与土体位移的变化规律基本一致,亦与环境温度的变化密切相关;在第2个冻融周期内桩Z1、Z2、Z3的竖向冻拔量分别为0.26、0.12、0.15 mm,桩Z2、Z3的竖向冻拔量分别为桩Z1的46%、58%,说明直锥柱形桩与曲锥柱形桩在整个冻结过程中有较好的抗冻拔效果;路基土体冻结过程中桩Z1、Z2、Z3的桩顶都会产生较小的水平冻胀位移,分别为0.10、0.13、0.14 mm.
3.2 桩身应力
图7为第2个冻融周期内桩身轴力沿深度的分布曲线. 由图可以看出:活动层土体在冻结融化过程中,桩长范围内的轴力都为拉力,随桩长增加0~0.3 m范围内轴力先增大,随后轴力逐渐减小,即桩长0.3 m断面处是桩身的一个中性点;轴力在整个桩长范围内呈非均匀变化,活动层内(0.3 m以上)桩身各截面的轴力差变化较大,多年冻土层内桩身各截面的轴力差变化较小. 将桩长30.0 cm处的轴力进行比较,结果如图8所示. 由图可以看出:桩身轴力与环境温度有密切的关系,随环境温度逐渐降低,桩身各截面的轴力均逐渐增大,当环境温度升高,桩身各截面的轴力均逐渐降低,其中,第16 天的桩身轴力最大,桩Z1、Z2、Z3在第16 天的轴力分别为5.66、4.56、4.01 kN;与桩Z1相比,桩Z2及桩Z3的轴力分别降低19.4%与27.5%.
图9为温度与桩侧切向应力沿深度的变化曲线. 由图可以看出:与桩身轴力的变化规律相似,活动层内的切向应力为方向向上的冻胀应力,且变化较剧烈,在冻深附近由正值转变为负值,永冻层内的切向应力为方向向下的冻结应力. 是由于随环境温度的降低,活动层内的土体冻结后产生向上的冻胀变形,桩基的存在对土体的自由冻胀产生约束作用,从而在桩侧产生向上的切向冻胀力,永冻层的土体对桩的向上运动或运动趋势有抑制作用,导致桩土之间的冻结应力发挥作用;切向冻胀力的最大值出现在地表附近,桩Z1、Z2、Z3在第16 天的最大切向冻胀应力分别为157.2、153.5、159.4 kPa;活动层内的平均切向冻胀应力为109.3、106.4、97.7 kPa.
3.3 桩型对切向冻胀力的影响分析与讨论
由冻结过程桩基的受力特点可知,桩基冻深处的轴力为切向冻胀总力. 3种桩基础的冻深Zn均约为0.3 m,表1为不同桩型模型桩的受力情况对比. 表中: S 为冻深范围内桩和冻土的接触面积,F为桩基的切向冻胀总力, τ为冻深范围内各桩平均切向冻胀应力. 由表可以看出:桩型的改变可明显降低F,桩Z3的切向冻胀总力最小,桩Z2次之. 桩Z1、Z2、Z3切向冻胀总力之比为1.00∶0.81∶0.71,与S之比呈正相关,且比值接近,τ 之比约等于1∶1∶1.
表 1 不同桩型模型桩的受力对比Table 1. Stress comparison of model piles in different shapes桩 Zn/m S/cm2 F/kN τ/kPa Z1 0.3 518 5.66 109.3 Z2 0.3 447 4.56 106.4 Z3 0.3 427 4.01 97.7 环境温度降低时,桩周土体逐层自上而下低发生冻结. 以第1层土冻结时对桩基的作用力进行分析:当土体冻结时,产生竖向冻胀力V1和水平冻胀力H1,每层土的厚度为ΔH,桩基锥角为 β,如图10所示.
将V1和H1沿桩侧与垂直桩侧分解,则第1层土体作用于桩基础的切向应力和法向应力分别为
{τ1=V1cosβΔH+H1sinβΔH,σ1=H1cosβΔH−V1sinβΔH. (3) 结合式(3)与表1,直(曲)锥柱形桩比等截面圆形桩的抗冻拔效果好的主要原因可归纳为以下2点:
1) 由于锥形桩桩侧斜面的存在,改变了桩基的受力状态,式(3)中V1sin β 表现为拉应力,导致桩侧水平应力减小. 冻土桩基接触面的抗剪强度与法向应力的大小呈正相关. 因此,锥形桩桩土界面的极限抗剪强度相比于等截面桩较低,更易达到极限抗剪强度.
2) 随着桩周土体冻胀变形的发展,若桩土界面达到极限强度,则桩土界面产生滑移. 冻深范围内各桩平均切向冻胀应力的差异较小,但曲锥柱形桩与冻土的接触面积最小,从而导致曲锥柱形桩的切向冻胀总力最小,抗冻拔效果最好.
4. 结 论
1) 路基体的冻结(融化)受路基顶面与边坡 的2个方向冷(热)量的共同影响,是一个二维冻结(融化)问题,接触网支柱桩基础路基与边坡两侧的温度场是非对称分布的,桩基附近的最大融深约为 30.0 cm,边坡测温孔的最大融深约为15.0 cm.
2) 土体与桩顶的位移均与环境温度的变化密切相关. 路基土体的二维冻结现象导致路肩处的冻胀位移最大,路基、路肩及边坡处土体最大冻胀量分别为2.2、4.3、3.1 mm. 等截面圆形桩的竖向冻拔量为0.26 mm,直锥柱形桩与曲锥柱形桩的竖向冻拔量仅为Z1的46%、58%,3根桩的桩顶均产生约为0.10 mm的水平冻胀量.
3) 活动层土体在冻结过程中桩基础整体受拉,冻深处的轴力最大. 等截面圆形桩的最大切向冻胀总力为5.66 kN,与等截面圆形桩相比,直锥柱形桩与曲锥柱形桩分别降低19.4%与27.5%. 切向应力在活动层内为方向向上的切向冻胀应力,永冻层内为方向向下的冻结应力,切向冻胀应力的最大值出现在地表附近.
4) 桩周土体冻融作用下,曲锥柱形桩具有竖向冻拔位移小、切向冻胀总力小的特点,即曲锥柱形桩具有较好的抗冻拔效果. 研究成果可为多年冻土区铁路电气化接触网支柱基础的抗冻拔设计提供参考.
-
陈维荣,钱清泉,李奇. 燃料电池混合动力列车的研究现状与发展趋势[J]. 西南交通大学学报,2009,44(1): 1-6. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0258-2724.2009.01.001CHEN Weirong, QIAN Qingquan, LI Qi. Investigation status and development trend of hybrid power train based on fuel cell[J]. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, 2009, 44(1): 1-6. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0258-2724.2009.01.001 衣宝廉. 燃料电池的原理、技术状态与展望[J]. 电池工业,2003,8(1): 16-22. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-7923.2003.01.006YI Baolian. Fuel cell:fundamental,technology and prospect[J]. Chinese Battery Industry, 2003, 8(1): 16-22. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-7923.2003.01.006 曾祥坤,王小红,杨晓莉. 国外铁路燃料电池机车车辆的研究进展[J]. 中国铁路,2011(11): 72-75. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-683X.2011.11.020ZENG Xiangkun, WANG Xiaohong, YANG Xiaoli. Research progress of foreign railway fuel cell locomotives and vehicles[J]. Chinese Railways, 2011(11): 72-75. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-683X.2011.11.020 陈维荣,刘嘉蔚,李奇,等. 质子交换膜燃料电池故障诊断方法综述及展望[J]. 中国电机工程学报,2017,37(16): 4712-4721.CHEN Weirong, LIU Jiawei, LI Qi, et al. Review and prospect of fault diagnosis methods for proton exchange membrane fuel cell[J]. Proceedings of the CSEE, 2017, 37(16): 4712-4721. 陈维荣,朱亚男,李奇,等. 轨道交通用多堆燃料电池发电系统拓扑及系统控制与检测方法综述及展望[J]. 中国电机工程学报,2018,38(23): 6967-6980.CHEN Weirong, ZHU Yanan, LI Qi, et al. Review and prospect of structures,control and detection schemes of multi-stack fuel cell power generation system used in rail traffic[J]. Proceedings of the CSEE, 2018, 38(23): 6967-6980. KANDLIKAR S G, GAROFALO M L, LU Z. Water management in a PEMFC:water transport mechanism and material degradation in gas diffusion layers[J]. Fuel Cells, 2011, 11(6): 814-823. doi: 10.1002/fuce.201000172 ENDOH E. Degradation study of MEA for PEMFC under low humidity conditions[J]. Electrochemical and Solid-State Letters, 2004, 7(7): A209-A211. doi: 10.1149/1.1739314 杨代军,汪飞杰,李冰,等. PEMFC电堆加速老化测试及性能恢复现象分析[J]. 同济大学学报(自然科学版),2015,43(2): 273-279.YANG Daijun, WANG Feijie, LI Bing, et al. Accelerated aging test and performance recovery analysis of PEMFC stack[J]. Journal of Tongji University (Nature Science), 2015, 43(2): 273-279. KADYK T, HANKE-RAUSCHENBACH R, KAI S. Nonlinear frequency response analysis of dehydration phenomena in polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells[J]. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2012, 37(9): 7689-7701. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.01.148 PANHA K, FOWLER M, YUAN X Z, et al. Accelerated durability testing via reactants relative humidity cycling on PEM fuel cells[J]. Applied Energy, 2012, 93(5): 90-97. ZHAN Z G, XIAO J S, LI D Y, et al. Effects of porosity distribution variation on the liquid water flux through gas diffusion layers of PEM fuel cells[J]. Journal of Power Sources, 2006, 160(2): 1041-1048. doi: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2006.02.060 ZHAN Z G, XIAO J S, PAN M, et al. Characteristics of droplet and film water motion in the flow channels of polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells[J]. Journal of Power Sources, 2006, 160(1): 1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2005.12.081 CAI Y H, YANG T Q, SUI P C, et al. A numerical investigation on the effects of water inlet location and channel surface properties on water transport in PEMFC cathode channels[J]. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2016, 41(36): 16220-16229. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.04.241 JING S, LIN R, XIA S X, et al. Local resolved investigation of PEMFC performance degradation mechanism during dynamic driving cycle[J]. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2016, 41(7): 4239-4250. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.01.048 ZHANG Q, LIN R, TECHER L, et al. Experimental study of variable operating parameters effects on overall PEMFC performance and spatial performance distribution[J]. Energy, 2016, 115: 550-560. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2016.08.086 ZHAO J, SHAHGALDI S, LI X G, et al. Experimental observations of microstructure changes in the catalyst layers of proton exchange membrane fuel cells under wet-dry cycles[J]. Journal of the Electrochemical Society, 2018, 165(6): F3337-F3345. doi: 10.1149/2.0391806jes 张金辉, 裴普成. 车用质子交换膜燃料电池膜干化和水淹诊断研究[C]//北京汽车工程学会学术年会. 北京: [出版者不详], 2009: 323-331. 华周发. 质子交换膜燃料电池反极现象研究[D]. 武汉: 武汉理工大学, 2006. BRÈQUE F, RAMOUSSE J, DUBÉ Y, et al. Sensibility study of flooding and drying issues to the operating conditions in PEM fuel cells[J]. International Journal of Energy and Environment, 2010, 1(1): 1-20. 戴朝华,史青,陈维荣,等. 质子交换膜燃料电池单体电压均衡性研究综述[J]. 中国电机工程学报,2016,36(5): 1289-1302.DAI Chaohua, SHI Qing, CHEN Weirong, et al. A review of the single cell voltage uniformity in proton exchange membrane fuel cells[J]. Proceedings of the CSEE, 2016, 36(5): 1289-1302. PEI P C, LI Y H, XU H C, et al. A review on water fault diagnosis of PEMFC associated with the pressure drop[J]. Applied Energy, 2016, 173: 366-385. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.04.064 宋满存,裴普成,曾夏,等. PEMFC 水淹的阳极气体压力降变化特征预警技术[J]. 农业机械学报,2014,45(7): 340-346. doi: 10.6041/j.issn.1000-1298.2014.07.052SONG Mancun, PEI Pucheng, ZENG Xia, et al. Flooding prediction based on characteristics of hydrogen pressure drop in PEMFC[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Machinery, 2014, 45(7): 340-346. doi: 10.6041/j.issn.1000-1298.2014.07.052 ITO K, ASHIKAGA K, MASUDA H, et al. Estimation of flooding in PEMFC gas diffusion layer by differential pressure measurement[J]. Journal of Power Sources, 2008, 175(2): 732-738. doi: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2007.10.019 宋满存. 质子交换膜燃料电池水淹过程研究及故障诊断系统设计[D]. 北京: 清华大学, 2013. SONG M C, PEI P C, ZHA H S, et al. Water management of proton exchange membrane fuel cell based on control of hydrogen pressure drop[J]. Journal of Power Sources, 2014, 267: 655-663. doi: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.05.094 LI Z L, OUTBIB R, HISSEL D, et al. Data-driven diagnosis of PEM fuel cell:a comparative study[J]. Control Engineering Practice, 2014, 28: 1-12. doi: 10.1016/j.conengprac.2014.02.019 YOUSFI-STEINER N, MOÇOTÉGUY P, CANDUSSO D, et al. A review on PEM voltage degradation associated with water management:impacts,influent factors and characterization[J]. Journal of power sources, 2008, 183(1): 260-274. doi: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2008.04.037 LI Z L, OUTBIB R, GIURGEA S, et al. Fault detection and isolation for polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell systems by analyzing cell voltage generated space[J]. Applied Energy, 2015, 148(1): 260-272. LU Z, KANDLIKAR S G, RATH C, et al. Water management studies in PEM fuel cells,part Ⅱ:ex situ investigation of flow maldistribution,pressure drop and two-phase flow pattern in gas channels[J]. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2009, 34(8): 3445-3456. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.12.025 ANDERSON R, WILKINSON D P, BI X T, et al. Two-phase flow pressure drop hysteresis in an operating proton exchange membrane fuel cell[J]. Journal of Power Sources, 2011, 196(19): 8031-8040. doi: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2011.05.050 GRIMM M, SEE E J, KANDLIKAR S G, et al. Modeling gas flow in PEMFC channels:part Ⅰ-flow pattern transitions and pressure drop in a simulated ex situ channel with uniform water injection through the GDL[J]. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2012, 37(17): 12489-12503. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.06.001 全睿. 车用燃料电池系统故障诊断与维护若干关键问题研究[D]. 武汉: 武汉理工大学, 2011. BOSHKOSKA B M, BOSKOSKI P, ANDREJ D, et al. Dependence among complex random variables as a fuel cell condition indicator[J]. Journal of Power Sources, 2015, 284: 566-573. doi: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2015.03.044 YANG X G, YE Q, CHENG P. In-plane transport effects on hydrogen depletion and carbon corrosion induced by anode flooding in proton exchange membrane fuel cells[J]. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 2012, 55(17): 4754-4765. OWEJAN J P, TRABOLD T A, GAGLIARDO J J, et al. Voltage instability in a simulated fuel cell stack correlated to cathode water accumulation[J]. Journal of Power Sources, 2007, 171(2): 626-633. doi: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2007.06.174 ST-PIERRE J, WILKINSOR D P, KNIGHTS S, et al. Relationships between water management,contamination and lifetime degradation in PEFC[J]. Journal of New Materials for Electrochemical Systems, 2000, 3(2): 99-106. SANCHEZ D G, GARCIA-YBARRA P L. PEMFC operation failure under severe dehydration[J]. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2012, 37(8): 7279-7288. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.11.059 张洪霞,沈承,韩福江,等. 质子交换膜燃料电池的水平衡[J]. 化学通报,2011,74(11): 1026-1032.ZHANG Hongxia, SHEN Cheng, HAN Fujiang, et al. Water balance of proton exchange membrane fuel cell[J]. Chemistry, 2011, 74(11): 1026-1032. PETRONE R, ZHENG Z X, HISSEL D, et al. A review on model-based diagnosis methodologies for PEMFCs[J]. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2013, 38(17): 7077-7091. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.03.106 郭家兴,朱新坚,曹广益. 质子交换膜燃料电池故障诊断[J]. 电源技术,2008,32(8): 528-531. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-087X.2008.08.011GUO Jixing, ZHU Xinjian, CAO Guangyi. Fault diagnosis of PEMFC[J]. Chinese Journal of Power Sources, 2008, 32(8): 528-531. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-087X.2008.08.011 周苏,任宏伟,裴冯来. 基于诊断用COMSOL模型的PEMFC故障诊断方法研究[J]. 化学工业与工程,2015,32(4): 56-62.ZHOU Su, REN Hongwei, PEI Fenglai. Faults diagnosis method study of PEMFC based on a diagnostic COMSOL model[J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering, 2015, 32(4): 56-62. 魏雨辰,裴冯来,周苏. 基于快速EIS方法和PEMFC模型的故障分类研究[J]. 佳木斯大学学报(自然科学版),2014,32(6): 839-843. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-1402.2014.06.010WEI Yuchen, PEI Fenglai, ZHOU Su. A simulation study on parameters of the cathode diffusion layer in PEMFC[J]. Journal of Jiamusi University (Natural Science Edition), 2014, 32(6): 839-843. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-1402.2014.06.010 GEBREGERGIS A, PILLAY P, RENGASWEMY R. PEMFC fault diagnosis,modeling,and mitigation[J]. IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, 2010, 46(1): 295-303. doi: 10.1109/TIA.2009.2036677 SPRINGER T E, ZAWODZINSKI T A, GOTTESFELD S. Polymer electrolyte fuel cell model[J]. Journal of the Electrochemical Society, 1991, 138(8): 2334-2342. doi: 10.1149/1.2085971 GIURGEA S, TIRNOVAN R, HISSEL D, et al. An analysis of fluidic voltage statistical correlation for a diagnosis of PEM fuel cell flooding[J]. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2013, 38(11): 4689-4696. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.01.060 朱星光. 质子交换膜燃料电池控制策略研究[D]. 成都: 西南交通大学, 2013. HE W S, LIN G Y, VAN N T. Diagnostic tool to detect electrode flooding in proton-exchange-membrane fuel cells[J]. AIChE Journal, 2003, 49(12): 3221-3228. doi: 10.1002/aic.690491221 BARBIR F, GORGUN H, WANG X. Relationship between pressure drop and cell resistance as a diagnostic tool for PEM fuel cells[J]. Journal of Power Sources, 2005, 141(1): 96-101. doi: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2004.08.055 PEI P C, CHEN H C. Main factors affecting the lifetime of proton exchange membrane fuel cells in vehicle applications:a review[J]. Applied Energy, 2014, 125: 60-75. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.03.048 罗良庆. 燃料电池内阻在线测试软件系统与健康状态监测研究[D]. 武汉: 武汉理工大学, 2010. LE CANUT J M, ABOUATALLAH R M, HARRINGTON D A. Detection of membrane drying,fuel cell flooding,and anode catalyst poisoning on PEMFC stacks by electrochemical impedance spectroscopy[J]. Journal of the Electrochemical Society, 2006, 153(5): A857-A864. doi: 10.1149/1.2179200 谭保华. 车用质子交换膜燃料电池湿度软测量研究[D]. 武汉: 武汉理工大学, 2014. 舒芝锋. 燃料电池单片内阻在线测试与PEM含水量软测量研究[D]. 武汉: 武汉理工大学, 2008. LEGROS B, THIVEL P X, DRUART F, et al. Diagnosis and modelling of proton-exchange-membrane fuel cell via electrochemical-impedance-spectroscopy and acoustic-emission measurements[C]//8th International Symposium on Advanced Electromechanical Motion Systems & Electric Drives Joint Symposium. [S.l.]: IEEE, 2009: 1-6. 鲜亮,肖建,贾俊波. 质子交换膜燃料电池交流阻抗谱实验研究[J]. 中国电机工程学报,2010(35): 101-106.XIAN Liang, XIAO Jian, JIA Junbo. An experimental study on AC impedance spectroscopy of proton exchange membrane fuel cell[J]. Proceedings of the CSEE, 2010(35): 101-106. FOUQUET N, DOULET C, NOUILLANT C, et al. Model based PEM fuel cell state-of-health monitoring via AC impedance measurements[J]. Journal of Power Sources, 2006, 159(2): 905-913. doi: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2005.11.035 KURZ T, HAKENJOS A, JEROME K, et al. An impedance-based predictive control strategy for the state-of-health of PEM fuel cell stacks[J]. Journal of Power Sources, 2008, 180(2): 742-747. doi: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2008.02.062 ROY S K, ORAZEM M E. Analysis of flooding as a stochastic process in polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel cells by impedance techniques[J]. Journal of Power Sources, 2008, 184(1): 212-219. doi: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2008.06.014 LEE C Y, LEE Y M. In-situ diagnosis of local fuel cell performance using novel micro sensors[J]. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2012, 37(5): 4448-4456. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.11.098 DEBENJAK A, GAŠPERIN M, PREGELJ B, et al. Detection of flooding and drying inside a PEM fuel cell stack[J]. Strojniški Vestnik-Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 2013, 59(1): 56-64. doi: 10.5545/sv-jme.2012.640 YOUSFI-STEINER N, HISSEL D, MOÇOTÉGUY P, et al. Diagnosis of polymer electrolyte fuel cells failure modes (flooding & drying out) by neural networks modeling[J]. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2011, 36(4): 3067-3075. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.10.077 LI H, TANG Y, WANG Z, et al. A review of water flooding issues in the proton exchange membrane fuel cell[J]. Journal of Power Sources, 2008, 178(1): 103-117. doi: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2007.12.068 BELLOWS R J, LIN M Y, ARIF M, et al. Neutron imaging technique for in situ measurement of water transport gradients within Nafion in polymer electrolyte fuel cells[J]. Journal of the Electrochemical Society, 1999, 146(3): 1099-1103. doi: 10.1149/1.1391727 GEBEL G, DIAT O, ESCRIBANO S, et al. Water profile determination in a running PEMFC by small-angle neutron scattering[J]. Journal of Power Sources, 2008, 179(1): 132-139. doi: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2007.12.124 BAZYLAK A, SINTON D, DJILALI N. Dynamic water transport and droplet emergence in PEMFC gas diffusion layers[J]. Journal of Power Sources, 2008, 176(1): 240-246. doi: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2007.10.066 AFRA M, NAZARI M, KAYHANI M H, et al. 3D experimental visualization of water flooding in proton exchange membrane fuel cells[J]. Energy, 2019, 175: 967-977. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2019.03.128 GARCIA-SALABERRI P A, SANCHEZ D G, BOILLAT P, et al. Hydration and dehydration cycles in polymer electrolyte fuel cells operated with wet anode and dry cathode feed:a neutron imaging and modeling study[J]. Journal of Power Sources, 2017, 359: 634-655. doi: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2017.03.155 AKITOMO F, SASABE T, YOSHIDA T, et al. Investigation of effects of high temperature and pressure on a polymer electrolyte fuel cell with polarization analysis and X-ray imaging of liquid water[J]. Journal of Power Sources, 2019, 431: 205-209. doi: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2019.04.115 张新丰,章桐. 质子交换膜燃料电池水含量实验测量方法综述[J]. 仪器仪表学报,2012,33(9): 2152-2152.ZHANG Xinfeng, ZHANG Tong. Review on water content measurement technology for PEM fuel cell[J]. Chinese Journal of Scientific Instrument, 2012, 33(9): 2152-2152. 李晗,萧德云. 基于数据驱动的故障诊断方法综述[J]. 控制与决策,2011,26(1): 1-9.LI Han, XIAO Deyun. Survey on data driven fault diagnosis methods[J]. Control and Decision, 2011, 26(1): 1-9. ZHENG Z X, PETRONE R, PÉRA M, et al. A review on non-model based diagnosis methodologies for PEM fuel cell stacks and systems[J]. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2013, 38: 8914-8926. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.04.007 LI Z L, OUTBIB R, HISSEL D, et al. Online diag- nosis of PEMFC by analyzing individual cell voltages[C]//Control Conference (ECC), 2013. Zürich: IEEE, 2013: 2439-2444. ZHENG Z X. On-line fault diagnosis of PEMFC stacks via non-model based methods and EIS measurements[D]. Besançon: Université De Franche-Comté, 2014. 刘嘉蔚,李奇,陈维荣,等. 基于概率神经网络和线性判别分析的PEMFC水管理故障诊断方法研究[J]. 中国电机工程学报,2019,39(12): 3614-3622.LIU Jiawei, LI Qi, CHEN Weirong, et al. Research on PEMFC water management fault diagnosis method based on probabilistic neural network and linear discriminant analysis[J]. Proceedings of the CSEE, 2019, 39(12): 3614-3622. HAO L, YU H, HOU J, et al. Transient behavior of water generation in a proton exchange membrane fuel cell[J]. Journal of Power Sources, 2008, 177(2): 404-411. doi: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2007.11.034 李桦,王世学. 不同水传输机理模型下的PEMFC水管理[J]. 工程热物理学报,2013,34(8): 1483-1486.LI Hua, WANG Shixue. Water management of PEMFC under different water transfer mechanism[J]. Journal of Engineering Thermo physics, 2013, 34(8): 1483-1486. BUNMARK N, LIMTRAKUL S, FOWLER M W, et al. Assisted water management in a PEMFC with a modified flow field and its effect on performance[J]. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2010, 35(13): 6887-6896. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.04.027 YAN X H, GUAN C, ZHANG Y, et al. Flow field design with 3D geometry for proton exchange membrane fuel cells[J]. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2019, 147: 1107-1114. doi: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.09.110 -