4.7 Article

Experimental investigation of the effect of channel length on performance and water accumulation in a PEMFC parallel flow field

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 37, 期 22, 页码 17172-17179

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.08.023

关键词

PEM fuel cell; Parallel flow field; Channel length; Neutron imaging; Water accumulation; Pressure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Longer channels within serpentine flow fields are highly effective at removing liquid water slugs and have little water accumulation; however, the long flow path causes a large pressure drop across the cell. This results in both a significant concentration gradient between the inlet and outlet, and high pumping losses. Parallel flow fields have a shorter flow path and smaller pressure drop between the inlet and outlet. This low pressure drop and multiple routes for reactants in parallel channels allows for significant formation of liquid water slugs and water accumulation. To investigate these differences, a polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell parallel flow field with the ability to modify the length of the channels was designed, fabricated, and tested. Polarization curves and the performance, water accumulation, and pressure drop were measured during 15 min of 0.5 A cm(-2) steady-state operation. An analysis of variance was performed to determine if the channel length had a significant effect on performance. It was found that the longer 25 cm channels had significantly higher and more stable performance than the shorter 5 cm channels with an 18% and an 87% higher maximum power density and maximum current density, respectively. Channel lengths which result in a pressure drop, across the flow field, slightly larger than that required to expel liquid water slugs were found to have minimal water accumulation and high performance, while requiring minimal parasitic pumping power. Copyright (C) 2012, Hydrogen Energy Publications, LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据