4.7 Article

Optimal design of a novel M-like channel in bipolar plates of proton exchange membrane fuel cell based on minimum entropy generation

期刊

ENERGY CONVERSION AND MANAGEMENT
卷 205, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enconman.2019.112386

关键词

Geometry optimization; Bipolar plates; Proton exchange membrane fuel cell; Entropy generation; M-like channel

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51676067, 51976055]
  2. Excellent Youth Foundation of Hunan Province Scientific Committee, China [2018JJ1011]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The geometry of the flow channel in bipolar plates (BPs) significantly influences the performance of proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs). Considering this, the present study is aimed at optimizing the flow field in a straight channel by pursuing a minimum entropy generation. In accordance with the optimization strategy established herein, the flow field in a straight channel was optimized by solving the governing equations using COMSOL. Furthermore, a novel M-like channel was designed. Compared with conventional wave-like channels, the M-like channel exhibits lower entropy generation under equal pumping power, which implies higher heat and mass transfer performance. An analysis of the four factors contributing to entropy generation revealed that the irreversibility resulting from the heat transfer process is higher than that from its three counterparts. To further improve the heat and mass transfer performance of the M-like channel, the effects of geometric parameters on the entropy generation were investigated. The polarization curves of the wave-like channel and M-like channel in a single fuel cell were obtained based on the fuel cell and electrolysis module. The numerical results indicated that the maximum power density of the M-like channel is higher than that of the wave-like channel by 21.3%. These results provide effective guidance for the geometric design of a flow field in the BPs of a PEMFC.

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