4.7 Article

A numerical study on uniform cooling of large-scale PEMFCs with different coolant flow field designs

期刊

APPLIED THERMAL ENGINEERING
卷 31, 期 8-9, 页码 1427-1434

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2011.01.009

关键词

Polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells; Cooling plate; Flow field design; Temperature uniformity; Parallel Serpentine flow field; Multi-pass serpentine flow field

资金

  1. Brain Korea 21 (BK21)
  2. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [2010-0012613]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2010-0012613] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A uniform temperature distribution is important to obtain better control and higher performance of polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs). In PEMFCs, more than half of the chemical energy of hydrogen is converted into heat during the electrochemical general:ion of electricity. If not being properly exhausted, this reaction heat overheats the PEMFCs and thus impairs their performance and durability. In general, large-scale PEMFCs are cooled by liquid water that circulates through coolant flow channels in bipolar plates or in dedicated cooling plates. In this study, detailed fluid flow and heat transfer in large-scale cooling plates with 13 cm x 18 cm square area was simulated using a commercial computational fluid dynamics (CFD) code. Based on the CFD simulations, the Performances of six different coolant flow field designs were assessed in terms of the maximum temperature, temperature uniformity, and pressure drop characteristics. The results demonstrated that multi-pass serpentine flow field (MPSFF) designs could significantly improve the uniformity of temperature distribution in a cooling plate compared with the conventional serpentine flow field designs, while maintaining the coolant pressure drop similar. (c) 2011 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