4.7 Article

Simulation study of proton exchange membrane fuel cell cross-convection self-humidifying flow channel

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESEARCH
卷 45, 期 3, 页码 4036-4047

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/er.6059

关键词

flow channel optimization; heat and mass transfer; PEMFC; self‐ humidifying flow channel; water management

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51505196, 51875259]
  2. Foundation of State Key Laboratory of Automotive Simulation and Control [20180103]
  3. Science Fund of State Key Laboratory of Automotive Safety and Energy [KF1819]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The proton conducting membrane in the fuel cell is crucial and requires water for conductivity, but an imbalance in water content can lead to reduced performance and lifespan. To address this issue, a self-humidifying channel has been designed to redistribute humid gas between different channels to enhance the efficiency of the fuel cell.
The proton conducting membrane is the core component of the fuel cell. It needs water to maintain conductivity. Excessive water content inside the fuel cell will block the membrane surface and reduce the output power of the fuel cell. On the other hand, if the water content is too low, the internal resistance of the fuel cell will increase, which will reduce the performance and service life of the fuel cell. Considering the above problems, it is necessary to humidify the air and hydrogen gas before entering the fuel cell, but humidification is to prevent the membrane at the gas inlet from becoming dry. Although proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) generates enough water, most of the gas is not completely saturated. This paper designs a self-humidifying channel to redistribute the distribution of humid gas between different channels, and used FLUENT to simulate the heat and mass transfer, electrical conduction in the fuel cell. The effect of the self-humidifying flow channel location on the PEMFC water and heat distribution is analyzed and evaluated.

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