4.7 Article

Thermodynamical analysis of a hydrogen fueling station via dynamic simulation

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 44, 期 33, 页码 18240-18254

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.04.144

关键词

Hydrogen; Fueling; Simulation; Mobility

资金

  1. Linde Aktiengesellschaft in Pullach, Germany
  2. Linde Gas Division in Pullach, Germany
  3. National Innovation Programme Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology, German Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure (BMVI) [03BV134]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article describes the thermodynamical analysis of a hydrogen (H-2) fueling station (HFS) with cryopump technology. A dynamic, object-oriented computer model of the HFS is developed in Matlab-Simulink. This model calculates, amongst other thermodynamic properties, the temporal and spatial variation of the H-2 temperature and the component temperatures within the HFS. The validation of the computer model with data from a series of measurements at a testing facility confirms a good accuracy of the model. The most important model object is the high pressure pipe through which the H-2 flows. The pipe is modeled and validated in different configurations. The thick-walled pipe material is discretized in radial and axial direction. In comparison to measurements the simulations show acceptable accuracy with an radial discretization length of s < 0.0026 m. In axial direction a discretization length of l < 1.18 m is found to deliver acceptable accuracy of the simulations compared to measurements. Based on the simulation results a new method of controlling the H-2 temperature by mixing two H-2 mass flows with different temperatures is assessed as practicable. The electrical power requirement of the electric heat exchanger in this HFS design is determined. Depending on the load cases it varies between 0.13kWh(el)/(kg H-2) and 0.40kWh(el)/(kg H-2). (C) 2019 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