4.7 Article

Enhancing PEMFC performance through orifice-shaped cathode flow field designs: A multiscale, multiphase simulation study on oxygen supply and water removal

Journal

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
Volume 475, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2023.146147

Keywords

PEM fuel cell; Orifice-shaped flow field; High -power; Mass transfer; Water removal

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study applied a multiscale, multiphase polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) model to compare the cell performance of six different cathode flow field designs. The results showed that the orifice-shaped flow field designs had higher oxygen concentrations and better water removal capabilities compared to conventional flow field designs. Among the orifice-shaped designs, the zigzag pattern between adjacent channels resulted in enhanced performance, outperforming the side-by-side arrangement.
In this study, a multiscale, multiphase polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) model was applied to simulate the cell performance of six cathode flow field designs. These designs included conventional flow field layouts (with trapezoidal and rectangular cross-sections) as well as orifice-shaped flow field designs featuring various narrowing section arrangements. The simulation results indicated that, in general, the orifice-shaped flow field designs yielded higher oxygen concentrations within the cathode side and exhibited superior water removal capabilities compared to conventional flow field designs. This study further revealed that the positioning of the narrowing section significantly influences cell performance, with enhanced performance noted in the orifice-shaped design that incorporated a zigzag pattern between adjacent channels. This pattern outperformed the side-by-side arrangement, implying that the zigzag configuration offers a superior advantage in optimizing oxygen supply and water removal.

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