4.3 Article

Pressure drop and flow distribution characteristics of single and parallel serpentine flow fields for polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells

Journal

JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Volume 26, Issue 9, Pages 2995-3006

Publisher

KOREAN SOC MECHANICAL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1007/s12206-012-0706-y

Keywords

Polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell; Serpentine flow field; Under-rib convection; Flow distribution; Pressure drop; Flow network model

Funding

  1. second stage of Brain Korea 21 (BK21) Project
  2. Daegu University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study numerically investigates pressure drop and flow distribution characteristics of serpentine flow fields (SFFs) that are designed for polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells, which consider the Poiseuille flow with secondary pressure drop in the gas channel (GC) and the Darcy flow in the porous gas diffusion layer (GDL). The numerical results for a conventional SFF agreed well with those obtained via computational fluid dynamics simulations, thus proving the validity of the present flow network model. This model is employed to characterize various single and parallel SFFs, including multi-pass serpentine flow fields (MPSFFs). Findings reveal that under-rib convection (convective flow through GDL under an interconnector rib) is an important transport process for conventional SFFs, with its intensity being significantly enhanced as GDL permeability increases. The results also indicate that under-rib convection can be significantly improved by employing MPSFFs as the reactant flow field, because of the closely interlaced structure of GC regions that have different path-lengths from the inlet. However, reactant flow rate through GCs proportionally decreases as under-rib convection intensity increases, suggesting that proper optimization is required between the flow velocity in GCs and the under-rib convection intensity in GDLs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available