4.8 Article

Multi-length scale microstructural design of micro-tubular Solid Oxide Fuel Cells for optimised power density and mechanical robustness

期刊

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
卷 434, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2019.226744

关键词

Anode microstructure; Knudsen diffusion; Tortuosity factor; Micro-channels; Triple phase boundary; Mass transport

资金

  1. EPSRC [EP/M014045/1, EP/P009050/1, EP/N032888/1]
  2. Royal Academy of Engineering
  3. European Union [654915]
  4. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [654915] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)
  5. EPSRC [EP/N032888/1, EP/M014045/1, EP/P009050/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, we aim to parametrically reveal the dependence of electrochemical performance on a variety of microstructural characteristics at multi-length scale in a micro-tubular solid oxide fuel cell to shed light on the advanced electrode design. Numerical Direct Simulation Monte Carlo method is used on the tomographically-reconstructed 3D microstructure of the anode to characterise the tortuosity factors as a function of the porosity and pore diameter accounting for the Knudsen flow. These are subsequently incorporated in the mass transport in 2D electrochemical simulations. Results show that the Knudsen tortuosity factor is two times larger than that estimated by the continuum physics. High substrate porosity and pore size show unnoticeable effect in facilitating the mass transport provided that the micro-channels span over 60% of the radial thickness. The width and radial distribution of the micro-channels have little influence on the mass transport, but the compactness greatly affects the global performance. Optimal designs are identified as i) 80% micro-channel length and 27% substrate porosity to reach maximum power density (1.18 W cm(-2)) with lowered mechanical strength, or ii) 60% micro-channels length and 27% porosity to obtain a more balanced performance (0.96 W cm(-2)) with better long-term structural integrity.

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

4.8
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