This content is not included in your SAE MOBILUS subscription, or you are not logged in.
A PEM Fuel Cell Laminar and Turbulent Models Comparison, Aiming at Identifying Small-Scale Plate Channel Phenomena: A Mesh Independent Configuration
ISSN: 0148-7191, e-ISSN: 2688-3627
Published April 12, 2011 by SAE International in United States
Annotation ability available
Computational Fluid Dynamics is a powerful instrument for PEM fuel cell systems development, testing and optimization. Considering the complication due to the multiple physical phenomena involved in the cell's operations, a good understanding of the micro-scale fluidic behavior in boundary layers is recommended: pressure drop along the reactants gas channels and the cooling channels has a sensible effect on parasite load in fuel cell systems (i.e. the power absorbed by the pump supplying the gases), as well as an important role in thermal transport. A correct thermal and fluid dynamic boundary layer prediction on the channel walls and the other contact surface with porous layers requires usually a dense finite element volumes discretization near wall, especially if laminar flows occur: therefore, the boundary layer computational cost tends to be the major one.
In this paper an electro-chemical, thermal and fluid dynamic model of a PEM fuel cell portion is used to test two different CFD approaches: the standard one, using a laminar model solver, requiring a fine mesh at the wall to adequately capture the boundary layer curves, and a turbulent model, in which, despite of considering turbulent aspects, the availability of wall functions could allow to coarsen the discretization, getting anyway to a realistic prediction of the flow behaviour. The comparison of the two strategies has been performed by considering both the fluid-dynamics and the electrochemistry: the former has been investigated considering a variation of boundary layer cell numbers till reaching a mesh independence, whereas the latter has been analyzed by referring to the geometry that has been used to validate the fuel cell analytical model implemented. The whole process has been carried out through the use of a mesher (Altair Hypermesh) and a CFD software (Cd Adapco Star-CCM+) in conjunction with Mathworks MATLAB (in charge of simulating the electrochemistry).
The model used and described in this paper has been validated through a comparison with analytical results from the currently available literature (mentioned as references) and with experimental data coming from a real fuel cell test performed by the research group.
The experiments carried out have clearly shown that using a turbulent solver from a fluid dynamic point of view might be an interesting solution in order to save some computational time, while preserving a good results quality; however, from the electrochemical point of view, such a strategy revealed a major discrepancy in the polarization curves, with unreliable results both from a quantitative and a qualitative point of view.
In conclusion, the adoption of a turbulent fluid-flow solver for the solution of a laminar fluid-flow inside a PEM fuel cell cannot be considered valid in order to obtain realistic cell performances results from the numerical solution.
CitationVigna Suria, O., Testa, E., Repici, G., Peraudo, P. et al., "A PEM Fuel Cell Laminar and Turbulent Models Comparison, Aiming at Identifying Small-Scale Plate Channel Phenomena: A Mesh Independent Configuration," SAE Technical Paper 2011-01-1177, 2011, https://doi.org/10.4271/2011-01-1177.
- Min, C.H. He, Y.L. Liu, X.L. Yin, B.H. Jiang, W. Tao, W.Q. “Parameter Sensitivity Examination and Discussion of PEM Fuel Cell Simulation Model Validation. Part II: Results of Sensitivity Analysis and Validation of the Model” J. Power Sources 160 2006 374 385 2006 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2006.01.080
- Lum, K.W. McGuirk, J.J. “Three-dimensional Model of a Complete Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Fuel-Cell Model Formulation, Validation and Parametric Studies” J. Power Sources 143 103 124 2005 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2004.11.032
- Schwarz, D.H. Djilali, N. “Three-Dimensional Modelling of Catalyst Layers in PEM Fuel Cells: Effects of Non-Uniform Catalyst Loading” Int. J. Energy Research 33 631 644 2009 10.1002/er.1497
- Dutta, S. Shimpalee, S. Zee, J.W. “Numerical Prediction of Mass-Exchange between Cathode and Anode Channels in PEM Fuel Cell” Int. J. of Heat and Mass Transfer 44 2029 2042 2001
- Noren, D.A Hoffman, M.A. “Clarifying the Butler-Volmer Equation and Related Approximations for Calculating Activation Losses in Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Models” J. Power Sources 152 175 181 2005 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2005.03.174
- Dawes, J.E. Hanspal, N.S. Family, O.A. Turan, A. “Three-Dimensional CFD Modelling of PEM Fuel Cells: An Investigation into the Effects of Water Flooding” J. Chemical Engineering Science 64 2781 2794 2009 10.1016/j.ces.2009.01.060
- EG&G Technical Services Inc. “Fuel Cell Handbook” 7th U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory West Virginia 2004
- Sivertsen, B.R. Djilali, N. “CFD-Based Modelling of Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells” J. Power Sources 141 65 78 2005 10.1016/jpowsour.2004.08.054
- Wei, Yuan Yong, Tang Minqiang, Pan Zongtao, Li Biao, Tang “Model Prediction of Effects of Operating Parameters on Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell Performance” J. Renewable Energy 35 656 666 2010 10.1016/j.renene.2009.08.017
- Springer, T.E. Zawodzinski, T.A. Gottesfled, S. “Polymer Electrolyte Fuel Cell Model” J. Electrochem. Soc 138 8 2334 2342 1991
- Ramousse, J. Lottin, O. Didierjean, S. Maillet, D. “Heat Sources in Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) Fuel Cells” J. Power Sources 192 435 441 2009 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2009.03.038
- STAR-CCM+ User Guide (Version 5.04.006)
- Gostick, J.T. Fowler, M.W. Pritzker, M.D. Ioannidis, M.A. Behra, L.M. “In-Plane and Through-Plane Gas Permeability of Carbon Fiber Electrode Backing Layers” J. Power Sources 162 228 238 2006 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2006.06.096
- Nitta, I. Himanen, O. Mikkola, M. “Contact Resistance between Gas Diffusion Layer and Catalyst Layer of PEM Fuel Cell” J. Electrochemistry Communications 10 2008 47 51 2008 10.1016/j.elecom.2007.10.029