4.8 Article

Numerical investigation on the feasibility of metal foam as flow field in alkaline anion exchange membrane fuel cell

Journal

APPLIED ENERGY
Volume 302, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117555

Keywords

AAEM fuel cell; Metal foam flow field; 3D multi-phase model; Water management

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51920105010]
  2. Natural Science Foundation for Outstanding Young Scholars of Tianjin [18JCJQJC46700]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study investigates the feasibility of using metal foam flow field to enhance the performance of anion exchange membrane fuel cells, showing significant improvements in membrane hydration, anode water removal, cathode water utilization, and reactant distribution.
Metal foam (MF) material is a promising alternative in fuel cell for its extremely porous structure, high electrical conductivity, controllable permeability and strong mechanical strength. However, there are seldom applications of MF flow field in alkaline anion exchange membrane (AAEM) fuel cell so far. Therefore, a three-dimensional (3D) multi-phase numerical model is implemented to investigate the feasibility of MF flow field in AAEM fuel cell and validated with experimental data from both the literature and this study. The performance of AAEM fuel cell with MF flow field is compared with that with traditional serpentine flow field. The simulation results show that MF flow field is able to improve the performance of AAEM fuel cell significantly, especially at higher current density where the concentration loss is dominant. According to analysis of transports and distributions of reactants and water (including liquid water, membrane water, and water vapor), the MF flow field is proven to be beneficial to membrane hydration, anode water removal, cathode water utilization, and reactant distribution.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available