4.7 Article

Secondary flow on the performance of PEMFC with blocks in the serpentine flow field

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 47, 期 67, 页码 28945-28955

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.06.191

关键词

Proton exchange membrane fuel cell; Block; Secondary flow; Serpentine flow field; Numerical simulation

资金

  1. Natural Sci-ence Foundation of Tianjin China [20JCZDJC00470]
  2. Tianjin in China [XC202042]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51906059]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A numerical model of a PEMFC with serpentine flow field was set up in this study. Rectangular or triangular blocks were arranged in the cathode channel to improve cell performance. The results showed that the arranged blocks effectively enhanced reactant mass transfer and the triangular blocks performed better than the rectangular blocks. The blocks arranged in the rear of the turn exhibited the best cell performance, which was attributed to the combined effect of under-rib flow and secondary flow generated by the blocks.
A three-dimensional, two-phase, steady-state numerical model of PEMFC with serpentine flow field was set up. The rectangular or triangular blocks were arranged in the cathode channel to improve cell performance. The results showed that the arranged blocks in the channel can effectively enhance the mass transfer of the reactant, thus improve cell per-formance. The triangular block has better cell performance in comparison with the rect-angular block. The block arranged in the rear of the turn has the best cell performance. The reason for the better cell performance of the arranged block is the combination of the under-rib flow and the secondary flow generated by the block. The secondary flow generated by the block is the main reason for the region near the block. Meanwhile, the under-rib flow is the main reason for the region far away from the block.(c) 2022 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