4.5 Article

Effect of Baffle Pattern Applied to Cathode Parallel Channel on PEMFC Performance

出版社

KOREAN SOC PRECISION ENG
DOI: 10.1007/s40684-023-00534-3

关键词

Polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell; Parallel channel; Baffle; Flow field; Computational fluid dynamics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many efforts have been made to improve the performance of polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs) by enhancing mass transport properties. This study focused on the use of various baffle patterns in parallel channels to improve mass transfer in PEMFCs. The results showed that all analyzed baffle patterns improved PEMFC performance, with the staggered pattern located near the outlet and with a wide gap between baffles showing the best performance and lower pressure drop in the cathode flow field.
Many efforts have been made to improve the performance of polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs). One approach has been the enhancement of the mass transport property by applying various channel designs and modifying them. Of those channels, the parallel channel as applied in PEMFCs has a low pressure drop and poor mass transfer property. To improve the mass transfer, a baffle that forces the reactant flow into the gas diffusion layer (GDL) from the channel can be installed in the parallel channel. In this study, various parallel channels designed with different baffle patterns and the effect was assessed by the PEMFC performance. All the baffle patterns analyzed in this study improved the performance of the PEMFC. However, depending on the baffle pattern, the reactant transfer and the current density of the PEMFC were affected differently. The staggered baffle pattern showed the best PEMFC performance among the analyzed models; when the staggered pattern was located near the outlet and the gap between the staggered baffles was wide, the PEMFC performance was further improved and the pressure drop of the cathode flow field was also lower than with the other baffle patterns.

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

4.5
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