4.7 Article

Performance of unit PEM fuel cells with a leaf-vein-simulating flow field-patterned bipolar plate

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
Volume 44, Issue 43, Pages 24036-24042

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.07.120

Keywords

Fuel cell; Bipolar plate; Flow field; Biomimicry; Power density; Water management

Funding

  1. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Education [2017R1D1A1A02019323]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [2017R1D1A1A02019323] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study was conducted to investigate the performance of 25-cm(2)-unit polymer electrolyte fuel cells, the bipolar plate of which has a flow field that simulates leaf veins. The test flow fields were serpentine, parallel, and net leaf flow fields mimicking ginkgo and dicotyledonous leaves. The maximum power density for the ginkgo flow field was 7% lower than that for the serpentine flow field, and 40% higher than that for the parallel flow field under normal operating conditions. However, the air-feeding power required by the ginkgo was only 3% of that required by the serpentine. The usable power density for the ginkgo flow field was the highest among all flow fields. Additionally, the water-removal capability of the ginkgo flow field was superior to that of the parallel and net leaf flow fields, but inferior to that of the serpentine flow field. Furthermore, the amount of water remaining in the flow field channels was found to be correlated to the length of the unit channel. Therefore, the ginkgo pattern can be considered to be an optimal flow field design for the fuel cell. (C) 2019 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available