[go: up one dir, main page]
Next Article in Journal
Research into Impact of Leaving Waste Rocks in the Mined-Out Space on the Geomechanical State of the Rock Mass Surrounding the Longwall Face
Next Article in Special Issue
Development of Manganese-Coated Graphite Electrode in a Dual-Chambered Fuel Cell for Selenite Removal and Bio-Electricity Generation from Wastewater Effluent by Bacillus cereus
Previous Article in Journal
Case Study of Backup Application with Energy Storage in Microgrids
Previous Article in Special Issue
Flow around an Oscillating Cylinder at Low Reynolds Number with Forced Convection: Effect of Corner Radius and Reynolds Number
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 15
Issue 24
10.3390/en15249520
energies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

A Review on the Numerical Studies on the Performance of Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell (PEMFC) Flow Channel Designs for Automotive Applications

by
Suprava Chakraborty
1,
Devaraj Elangovan
1,
Karthikeyan Palaniswamy
2,
Ashley Fly
3,
Dineshkumar Ravi
4,
Denis Ashok Sathia Seelan
4 and
Thundil Karuppa Raj Rajagopal
4,*
1
TIFAC-CORE, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore 632014, India
2
Department of Automobile Engineering, PSG College of Technology, Coimbatore 641004, India
3
Aeronautical and Automotive Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough LE11 3TU, UK
4
Department of Automotive Engineering, School of Mechanical Engineering, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore 632014, India
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2022, 15(24), 9520; https://doi.org/10.3390/en15249520
Submission received: 3 November 2022 / Revised: 8 December 2022 / Accepted: 13 December 2022 / Published: 15 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Modelling and Computations of Fluid Mechanics for Energy System)
Browse Figures
Figure 1
<p>Various components of a PEMFC [<a href="#B9-energies-15-09520" class="html-bibr">9</a>].</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Annual global sales of FCEVs since 2017 and the projection until 2032 [<a href="#B25-energies-15-09520" class="html-bibr">25</a>].</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Major applications of fuel cells along with sources of hydrogen production to run the system [<a href="#B9-energies-15-09520" class="html-bibr">9</a>].</p> "> Figure 4
<p>The energy breakdown of a PEMFC [<a href="#B31-energies-15-09520" class="html-bibr">31</a>].</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Important flow field designs used in PEMFCs [<a href="#B33-energies-15-09520" class="html-bibr">33</a>].</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Typical serpentine flow plate design in a fuel cell [<a href="#B56-energies-15-09520" class="html-bibr">56</a>].</p> "> Figure 7
<p>Interdigitated flow field design [<a href="#B56-energies-15-09520" class="html-bibr">56</a>].</p> "> Figure 8
<p>Bio-inspired flow field designs. (<b>a</b>) Leaf flow field configuration 1. (<b>b</b>) Leaf flow field configuration 2. (<b>c</b>) Lung flow field configuration.</p> ">
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Climate change and the major threat it poses to the environment and human lives is the major challenge the world faces today. To overcome this challenge, it is recommended that future automobiles have zero carbon exhaust emissions. Even though battery electric vehicles reduce carbon emissions relative to combustion engines, a carbon footprint still remains in the overall ecosystem unless the battery is powered by renewable energy sources. The proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) is an alternate source for automotive mobility which, similar to battery electric vehicles, has zero carbon emissions from its exhaust pipe. Moreover, the typical system level efficiency of a PEMFC is higher than an equivalent internal combustion powertrain. This review article covers the background history, working principles, challenges and applications of PEMFCs for automotive transportation and power generation in industries. Since the performance of a PEMFC is greatly influenced by the design of the anode and cathode flow channels, an in-depth review has been carried out on different types of flow channel designs. This review reveals the importance of flow channel design with respect to uniform gas (reactant) distribution, membrane proton conductivity, water flooding and thermal management. An exhaustive study has been carried out on different types of flow channels, such as parallel, serpentine, interdigitated and bio-inspired, with respect to their performance and applications.

1. Introduction

Due to its superior potential energy efficiency and absence of exhaust emissions, hydrogen used in fuel cells has been generally recognised as one possible alternative fuel for the twenty-first century [1]. Of the various types of fuel cell available, the proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) is best suited to mobile and transport applications where hydrogen can be used as a fuel [2]. Due to a low theoretical maximum voltage (<1.25 V), a single PEMFC cannot provide useful power or voltage; hence, for the majority of mobility and industrial applications, fuel cell stacks made of multiple PEMFCs in series linked by bipolar plates (BPPs) are used. Fundamental research on the energy conversion and management of fuel cell stacks has garnered increasing interest due to the practical and significant applications of PEMFCs. Wilberforce et al. discussed the development of electric cars and PEMFC cars [3]. Alaswad et al. investigated the development of fuel cell technologies in the transportation sector [4]. For the automotive and portable power industries, PEM fuel cells are being evaluated as a significant sustainable energy solution [5]. Flow field design, among the various components of PEMFCs, has a significant effect on the PEM fuel cell efficiency and performance [6,7]. The theoretical efficiency of a PEMFC is not limited by Carnot efficiency, as in a fuel cell the chemical energy of hydrogen is directly converted into electrical energy. The activation loss, ohmic loss and concentration loss in PEMFCs are the causes of losses in the efficiency and performance variances from the ideal, reversible situation. The concentration loss is partly due to maldistribution of reactants and products across the fuel cell active area. Since a consistent current density distribution can enhance cell performance, better mass transfer of reactants in PEMFCs is highly desirable. To distribute the reactants (hydrogen and oxygen) uniformly over the intended flow field in the reaction zone, an appropriate flow field design is therefore essential [8]. Before an in-depth study on different types of flow field design is presented, the history, components and working principles of PEMFCs, their applications and their corresponding technological challenges have been discussed.

1.1. History

William Robert Grove, who is recognised as the pioneer of fuel cells together with Christian Friedrich Schonbein, invented the “gas battery” in 1838 [9]. It was based on the inverse principles of Faraday’s laws of electrolysis and contained two platinum electrodes that were submerged in a sulphuric acid container. On each electrode, oxygen and hydrogen were added one at a time, and as the current flowed, the amount of water increased in both tubes. His second key finding was that connecting pairs of electrodes in series might increase the voltage drop. In 1889, Ludwig Mond and Carl Langer incorporated a porous mono-conductor electrolyte to improve the design of the fuel cell proposed by Grove. By means of stabilising the electrolyte and tackling the common problem of electrode invasion, the authors achieved 6.00 A/ft2 (0.56A/m2) current density at 0.73 V when perforated platinum electrodes are used. Grove states that the fuel cell must only be powered by pure hydrogen, but coal was an important consideration in their invention as the primary fuel. In 1893, Friedrich Wilhelm Ostwald laid the foundation for fuel cells by speculating on the ideas of electrodes, electrolyte, oxidising and reducing agents, anions and cations, and in 1909 he received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for this work. Following several notable advancements in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, William W. Smith invented the first fuel cell with practical uses in 1896. Further advancements in the technology of fuel cells have been made by many scientists, including the use of zirconium as a solid electrolyte by Walther Nernst and the development of the first molten carbonate fuel cell by Emil Baur in 1921 [10]. The first functional hydrogen–oxygen fuel cell was developed by Francis Thomas Bacon in 1939 through direct conversion of fuel and air into electricity with the help of nickel electrodes and an alkaline electrolyte. Bacon built the first PEMFC stack consisting of 40 cells with a capacity of 5 kW and 60% efficiency in 1959. The NASA Gemini space mission, which ran from 1962 to 1966, made notable use of this configuration, which is largely acknowledged as the first PEMFC [11]. Governments promoted the development of alternative energy sources for dependable and sustainable power production after the oil crisis that occurred in the 1980s, and substantial research on these new technologies was started all over the world with a focus on PEMFCs.

1.2. Working Principle

The main operating principles and operating temperatures of several fuel cell designs are shown in Table 1.
The demand for sustainable energy has increased interest in fuel cells more than ever in the modern era [18]. Figure 1 illustrates the PEMFC’s operating principle. PEMFC’s functionality relies on the transport of H2 in the form of two protons (2H+) and two electrons (2e−) from the anode to the cathode. The protons are transported through a proton exchange membrane electrolyte with the release of electrons through an external circuit [19].
H2 → 2H+ + 2e−
When H+ ions migrate to the acidic electrolyte, the electrons are compelled to proceed in the direction of the cathode [20]. Thus, electricity flows in the external circuit. Water is created at the cathode side by the interaction of oxygen, hydrogen ions and electrons with a stream of external gas flow:
O2 + 4H+ + 4e− → 2H2O
The two main electrochemical processes may be combined to give [21]:
2H2 + O2 → 2H2O
The hydrogen and oxygen/air enter the PEMFC through their corresponding flow channels and they spread through gas diffusion layer (GDL). The hydrogen gas liberates H+ ions at the catalyst site of the anode, which are permitted to pass through the proton exchange membrane electrolyte to the cathode domain. The electrons which are released during the formation of the protons from hydrogen are taken into the external circuit which results in the flow of electric current. The various components of the PEMFC are shown in Figure 1. The protons available at the cathode side combine with the electrons from the external circuit and O2 to form water. The product, water, is then expelled from the fuel cell exhaust via the cathode flow channel. The efficiency of a PEMFC is greatly dependent on the conductivity of the proton through the membrane electrolyte. The membrane should be optimally hydrated for efficient transfer of protons, whilst not over saturating and flooding the fuel cell; thus, water management of the electrolyte becomes crucial to maximising performance [22].

1.3. Applications

Fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) are being developed by many automotive manufacturers, with Hyundai, Honda and Toyota among the most well-known and technologically sophisticated. Pre-series quantities of cars and buses are being manufactured and are already on the market [23]. By 2032, it is anticipated that more than 5 million FCEVs would have been sold on the market, as depicted in Figure 2. In contrast, about 3 million electric vehicles were sold worldwide in 2020 [24].
PEMFC-based cars are particularly appealing because, in addition to having zero emissions, they might provide the same driving range as combustion engines with similar refilling times (15 times quicker than current battery fast charging) [26]. As a result, even if the performance level is currently quite high, there is still a need for ongoing major increases in dependability (resilience against failures) and durability (lifetime > 5000 h). Compared to battery electric vehicles, FCEVs are presently more expensive to manufacture and the packaging is less effective [27]. Although FCEVs are still yet to realise volume production at rates similar to battery electric vehicles, the DoE (Department of Energy), USA has set goals to help FC-based automotive vehicles to meet the objectives of the United States Driving Research and Innovation for vehicle efficiency and energy sustainability [28] by 2025. One of these goals is to achieve 8000-h reliability at a mass production cost of $35/kW for FCEVs. Stack power of the fuel cell, driving range and temperature for cold-start may be viewed as the major factors in evaluating their performance. In Table 2, these variables are compared for the aforementioned FCEVs.
In general, there are four primary sectors where fuel cells are used: industrial, commercial applications, transportation and residential construction. Figure 3 illustrates many applications of fuel cells as well as the primary energy sources used to generate the necessary hydrogen for use as the primary fuel.

2. Technological Challenges

The most commonly used catalyst in PEMFCs is platinum (Pt); its high price and limited supply mean that significant research and development efforts are being put into minimising platinum usage whilst maximising performance. The conveyance of generated liquid water, followed by drying and flooding of PEMFC components (water management), is the next factor that greatly determines the performance, efficiency and durability of PEMFCs [30]. Drying of the fuel cell membrane reduces ionic conductivity of protons, while excess water results in flooding and higher resistance for mass transport; a balance in the quantity of water should therefore be maintained. Additionally, managing the waste heat produced by PEMFCs is crucial to avoid overheating [31]. PEMFCs typically operate in a temperature range of 65 °C to 85 °C. Higher temperatures may result in performance loss due to membrane drying or melting of the polymer membrane [32]. Figure 4 depicts an approximation of the heat losses at the exhaust of a PEMFC with an efficiency of 45%.
Designs for the flow fields in PEMFCs include single straight, parallel, serpentine, interdigitated, pin, spiral, cylindrical, radial, natural inspired, square tubular and fractal. Figure 5 displays the most common PEMFC flow field configurations [33]. The flow field’s design has a significant impact on the performance of a PEMFC, which has led to several changes to enhance its performance. In this article, the performance of PEMFC is examined in relation to various conventional flow field designs, modified flow field designs, hybrid flow field designs and new flow field designs.

3. Numerical Investigation on Flow Field Design

3.1. Parallel Flow Field Channels

The parallel and serpentine flow field channels are the most common flow field patterns for fuel cells [34]. Parallel flow fields, despite being straightforward and having minimal production costs, have reportedly been found to function worse than serpentine flow fields due to the reactant’s uneven distribution [30]. Localised hot areas are frequently caused by the reactant being distributed unevenly. Furthermore, it is documented that parallel flow fields may lead to flooding in cells, particularly under the ribs, where the lowest pressure of the cell is found [35]. However, parallel flow channels do have a low pressure drop. As opposed to parallel flow fields, serpentine flow field channels have a greater pressure drop, which increases reaction activity and improves the reactant’s migration to the GDL at the expense of additional parasitic pumping power. Additionally, this channel design enhances water removal by increasing the pressure drop of cell and reducing the flooding effect. To improve the uniformity of reactant distribution, parallel flow fields’ size and patterns have been changed in a number of research studies [36].
In order to optimise the flow distribution, Bi et al. [37] narrowed the dimensions of the flow field channel at the channel entrance region, which improved the performance of the parallel flow field pattern. The authors claimed that by making the entrance channel narrower, minimal liquid water was seen on the cathode side of the flow field channels, while water was evenly dispersed across the channels of the anode. At the fuel cell stack level, Ramos-Alvarado et al. [38] and Liu et al. [39] investigated how to improve the flow distribution in parallel flow field channels through manifold design. Bifurcation design for a parallel flow field channel was investigated by Ramos-Alvarado et al. [38] though varying the channel size to better use the active area and flow distribution. The authors successfully developed a parallel flow field design with bifurcation that generated higher efficiency than a serpentine flow field design. It has also been found that a parallel flow field with bifurcation required less pumping power than serpentine flow fields. It has also been demonstrated that improving the parallel flow field design with bifurcation produces a more uniform flow distribution. In 2017, Lim et al. [40] published an analysis on the distribution of reactant in modified parallel flow field channels. The authors asserted that the modified parallel flow field produces a more consistent pressure and reactant distributions as compared to a conventional parallel flow field pattern. The impacts of two major designs with two modified headers on the distribution and uniformity of air in a PEMFC’s parallel channel flow were quantitatively examined by Sajid Hossain et al. [41] using Z-type Z-U-type parallel channel topologies.
Lim et al. [42] modelled a PEMFC with a parallel flow field using a 3-D (three-dimensional) computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model. Flow characteristics, current density, temperature and water dispersion were considered in the model. The numerical results demonstrated that modified parallel flow field channels, where the reactant is distributed uniformly throughout the flow field, offer evenly distributed current density generation. Karthikeyan et al. [43] conducted experimental tests on a PEMFC with a parallel serpentine flow field for an effective cross-sectional area of 25 cm2. Using a computational method, Saco et al. [44] evaluated a scaled-up PEMFC with a variety of flow channel designs to maximise the production of power through efficient water management. The authors used four distinct flow channel designs for their numerical investigation. In the first configuration, a parallel serpentine flow channel that has a cross-sectional area of 25 cm2 was primarily expanded to 225 cm2. The other three flow channels investigated in this study were serpentine zig-zag, straight parallel and straight zig-zag. By resolving the equations relating to the governing principles of mass, momentum, energy, species and electrochemistry, the three-dimensional flow through the PEMFC was simulated. The power density created by the straight flow channel with the zigzag flow route was determined to be 0.3758 W cm−2, the highest of the designs taken into consideration. This is because the water was managed well with little pressure loss. A 3-D, two-phase PEMFC model with wave parallel flow field was investigated by Chen et al. [45]. The findings showed that wave parallel flow field channels are generally superior to conventional parallel flow fields in facilitating the transit of reactant gases, eliminating the liquid water collected in microporous layer and preventing the accumulation of thermal stress in the membrane. The gas flow velocity in wave parallel flow field channels is more uniform than that of a conventional parallel flow field because of the periodic geometric properties of the wave flow field channel. Additionally, the results demonstrated that increasing the wave parallel flow fields’ large amplitude and short-wave duration can increase PEMFC output power. Specifically, the maximum power output in the wave parallel flow field was 34.75% greater than that of the traditional parallel flow field at an operating voltage of 0.6 V.
According to experimental findings, Henriques et al. [46] suggested that parallel plus transversal flow field design enhances the performance of fuel cell by 26% over conventional designs. Comparative studies of the three-dimensional PEMFC as a dual-cell, quad-cell and hexa-cell stack were conducted by Lim et al. [47] based on a modified parallel flow field. In order to investigate how the performance of a PEMFC stack changes as the number of cells rises, series connections between dual-, quad- and hexa-cell stacks were made. To investigate how a PEMFC stack generates current density, a CFD model was employed. The findings showed that the current density falls as the number of cells in a stack increases. Using CFD, Selvaraj and Rajagopal [48] examined how the flow fields and humidification of reactants affected the performance of a scaled-up PEMFC, validating results for parallel and counter serpentine flow channels of 24.8 cm2 with data from the literature. By altering the flow field channel parameters, such as width and length of the channel, Martin et al. [36] ran numerical simulations on a parallel flow channel PEMFC in order to investigate the flow physics of the PEMFC. The authors proposed a redesigned PEMFC architecture with parallel flow channels that maximise pressure drop while assuring uniform distribution of flow throughout the PEMFC. Afshari et al. [49] quantitatively evaluated the performance of PEMFCs using metal foam as a distributor and a cathode with a limited flow channel. The three different types of flow field channels—parallel flow field, flow field with flow-restricting baffles and flow channel with metal foam distributor—were computationally examined with the use of the finite volume approach. The authors noticed that the performance and reaction rate for the flow field with baffles were enhanced by uniform distribution of the oxygen in the GDL and catalyst layer. The flow channel with metal foam ensures that current density and oxygen are distributed uniformly throughout the PEMFC’s performance by enhancing the cathode catalyst layer.
The multiphase numerical simulation of a PEMFC was performed by Atyabi and Afshari [50] using a parallel and sinusoidal flow field pattern to analyse the performance of the PEMFC. The investigation was conducted utilising a finite volume technique and the steady state, multiphase and non-isothermal PEMFC model. Ion exchange, pressure, power density, water and thermal management of the PEMFC are some of the characteristics which were compared between the sinusoidal flow field channel and the parallel flow channel. The highest power density was discovered to have been visible for the parallel flow field and the sinusoidal flow field channel. A study was conducted by Ferng et al. [51] to analyse the effects of various flow channel configurations on PEMFC performance. The authors concluded that the step-wise depth design and parallel flow channel considerably improved PEMFC performance. In order to evaluate the local transport properties of a PEMFC, Ghanbarian et al. [52] examined a number of geometrical parameters, such as the channel height and breadth, the number of ribs between two adjacent channels, the number of parallel channels and serpentine twists. Zehtabiyan-Rezaie et al. [53] introduced a series of convergent divergent channels to the parallel flow field design to study the impact of cross-section area. According to the authors, two divergent neighbours were fed by the converging channels because of the pressure.

3.2. Serpentine Flow Field Channels

The majority of industrial and automotive applications employ the serpentine flow channel [54]. This is due to the improved reactant and oxidizer distribution that the serpentine flow channel can demonstrate at the anode side and cathode side GDLs, respectively. However, the disadvantage of the serpentine flow field configuration is that, in comparison to parallel flow channels, the pressure loss across it is significantly larger [55]. A basic serpentine flow field design is depicted in Figure 6.
Karvelas et al. [57] conducted a comparison of the flow route designs of parallel, interdigitated and serpentine flow-fields. The authors found that smoothening was significantly more successful in lowering the pressure drop in serpentine geometry than it was in interdigitated or parallel flow fields. A numerical investigation with innovative chaotic structure for serpentine flow channels was carried out by Dong et al. [58], considering the impact of temperature, number of bends and flow channel corner angle on PEMFC performance. It was claimed that the new chaotic structure increased energy efficiency by 6.26% to 8.40%, while also ensuring that the flow channels have a consistent temperature distribution. Through numerical analysis, Selvaraj and Rajagopal [59] looked at how the land to channel (L:C) ratio and flow field affect PEMFC performance. The straight-zig-zag flow field with a 2:2 L:C ratio was determined to have a maximum power density of 0.3250 W cm2 at 0.4 V. In comparison to a straight-zig-zag PEMFC, the oxygen consumption in the cathode flow channels of a serpentine-parallel, a serpentine-zig-zag and a straight-parallel PEMFCs was 77.08%, 10.41% and 42.70% lower, respectively. With a L:C ratio of 2:2, the pressure drops in the flow channels of a serpentine-parallel, a serpentine-zig-zag and a straight-parallel flow field were 78.18%, 95.81% and 48.33% higher, respectively, than those of straight-zig-zag flow fields. Yousef et al. [60] conducted a numerical analysis of the performance of PEMFCs with different flow field configurations including serpentine, parallel and compound channel topologies. The authors compared the numerical results for the aforesaid models based on the polarisation curves of the reactants, the reactant flow distribution and the water molecules in the membrane electrolyte. Their results showed that serpentine and compound flow field channels performed better than PEMFCs with parallel flow field channels.
Khazaee et al. [61] numerically simulated a PEMFC with four-serpentine, single serpentine and two other channel designs with a 24.8 cm2 active area. Their investigation focused on the channel design, gas flow direction, humidity and pressure. The authors took into account three separate relative humidity (RH) ranges, with corresponding values of 100%, 50% and 10%. Additionally, the cross- and counter-flowing gas flow paths were studied. The authors showed that the four-serpentine and single-serpentine flow channels performed better when the reactant had a greater relative humidity. When compared to cross- and counter-flow channels, the PEMFC with serpentine channel performed better. Rostami et al. [62] conducted a numerical analysis of a PEMFC with a serpentine channel with different-sized bends. In order to investigate the effects of the pressure differential and current densities, the bend diameters of the flow field channel were varied between 0.8 and 1.2 mm. It was observed that the serpentine flow field channel gives the optimal performance due to a more uniform distribution of reactants. In order to determine how 25 channels and a 5.1 × 5.1 cm area of a PEMFC performed in relation to the geometric layouts and dimensions of the flow field, Youcef et al. [63] employed a three-dimensional model. Three designs, namely serpentine, interdigitated and parallel with six channel-to-rib width ratios were investigated. Performance was improved in PEMFCs with serpentine configurations; compared to interdigitated and parallel, it rose by 4.6% and 39.1%, respectively. Additionally, rib width expansion and channel narrowing both enhanced cell function. When the channel-to-rib width ratio varied from 2.66 to 0.25, the cell function increased by 120%, 45% and 23% for serpentine, interdigitated and parallel flow field configurations, respectively. Shimpalee et al. [64] examined the impact of the number of gas flow pathways on reactant transport and cell performance in a 200 cm2 PEMFC using a serpentine flow field configuration. It was reported that the local distributions of water content, temperature and current density become more uniform with shorter path lengths or larger number of channels. The performance of PEMFCs was examined by Wang et al. [65] in relation to the influence of design factors in the bipolar plates, such as the number of flow channels in serpentine configuration, the number bends of flow channel and the flow channel width ratio. According to their findings, the single serpentine flow field configuration performed better compared to the double and triple flow field configuration.
Current distribution measurement was employed by Lobato et al. [66] to examine the effects of four flow field designs on PEM fuel cell performance, these were: step serpentine, parallel, pin type and interdigitated. The findings show that the use of pure oxygen can result in a maximum power gain of up to 25% for pin-type or serpentine flow field configurations. Experimental research on the impact of channel and rib widths for a serpentine flow field with an aspect ratio of height/width ranging from 0.5 to 2 has been performed by Hsieh et al. [67]. Shimpalee et al. [68] studied the effects of cross-sectional areas of ribs and channels on the distribution of reactants on the performance of a 25 cm2 PEMFC with a serpentine flow field configuration. The authors showed that the performance of the fuel cell was improved by narrow channels with broad rib spacings. In serpentine flow field design, the impact of the channel cross-section aspect ratio was examined by Manso et al. [69]. It was discovered that the PEMFC performance at high operating voltages is significantly impacted by the channel cross-section aspect ratio. In order to better understand the effect of the single and triple serpentine flow field configuration on the efficiency of PEMFCs, Wang et al. [70] developed a 3=D model. The authors discovered that a lowered channel aspect ratio boosted the gas inlet flow velocity at low operating voltages, enhancing liquid water removal and improving cell performance. A modified serpentine flow field provided by Kahraman and Orhan [71], that divides the route into connected segments, considerably influenced the current study. The uniformity of reactant distribution and cell performance were compared in the current study, which also designed several innovative modified forms. In the research presented by Nam et al. [72], Baz et al. [73] and Abdulla et al. [74], the impacts of under-rib convection flow were the basic premise for building efficient serpentine-type flow fields by maximising the difference in route length between neighbouring channels. According to the aforementioned studies, the under-rib convection and the transfer of reactants to GDL are the two key strategies for enhancing PEMFC performance. Some of the different types of modified forms of serpentine flow fields are tabulated in Table 3.

3.3. Interdigitated Flow Field Channels

The interdigitated flow field channel was initially suggested by Nguyen [86] to improve the transfer of liquid water out of the gas diffusion layer. Reactant is forced from the channel to the GDL through a convection process in an interdigitated flow channel, resulting in improved reactant transportation and water removal [87]. Hu et al. [88] assessed how the interdigitated flow field design affected PEMFC performance. According to their findings, the interdigitated cathode side in the flow field design reduced the liquid water content and increased the oxygen concentration in the gas diffusion layer when compared to straight flow. The interdigitated design is advantageous because it increases reaction activity and improves the performance of the cell, according to Yi et al. [89], who studied the impact of various flow channel designs on the performance of PEM fuel cells. In contrast to diffusion, the convection process is far more effective in overcoming the water flooding effect, and as a result, interdigitated PEMFCs function better than straight-channel PEMFCs. According to Manso et al. [54], a drawback of the interdigitated flow field configuration is the higher consumption of energy to pump the gas, which raises the power requirement to feed the reactants in their respective flow channels and thus lowers efficiency at the system level. A basic interdigitated flow field design configuration is presented in Figure 7.
Karthikeyan et al. [43] analysed single-cell and two-cell PEMFCs with various flow field designs, including serpentine and interdigitated flow field channels, with PEMFC areas of 25 cm2 and 70 cm2 and an experimental L:C of 1:1 and 2:2. Their analysis claimed that the main performance contributing factors are forced convection, cooling and back pressure. Additionally, the authors investigated the effect of scale-up and stack-up in the performance of PEMFCs. In comparison to a single-cell PEMFC, the efficiency of a two-cell PEMFC stack is lower. Sierra et al. [90] numerically investigated the effectiveness of using cylindrical channels. The three distinct cylinders, namely interdigitated, straight and serpentine were considered in their ability to reduce mass transport losses and maintain optimal pressure across the flow field. The authors observed that the circular channel design delivered superior performance due to the ability to discharge liquid water more effectively. The same study also showed that a serpentine cylindrical channel offered a more homogeneous distribution of reactants along the flow channel. Wang et al. [91] investigated how the channel-to-rib width ratio and the geometric aspect ratio affected cell function. The cathode flow field configuration was studied by adjusting the aspect ratio from 0.5 to 2 for both parallel and interdigitated flow field designs, demonstrating that the interdigitated design performs better than parallel design.

3.4. Bio-Inspired Flow Field Channels

An alternative approach was taken by Roshandel et al. [92], who created a bio-inspired pattern for the flow fields within a PEMFC. In comparison to more traditional patterns like parallel and serpentine flow paths, the results obtained utilising the bioinspired flow filed pattern showed that the gas distribution was more uniform in the case of this novel design; thus, high voltage and power density can be reached. The author also identified areas where the design had room for improvement. Using Murray’s Law, which connects the dimensions of the parent channel to the dimensions of the daughter channels, was one method used for designing bio-inspired flow fields [93,94]. Fuel cells [55,95] and microfluidic devices [96,97] have both used this method. Guo et al. [98] created a series of flow field designs for fuel cells that were influenced by the venation structure of a tree leaf and utilised Murray’s Law to establish the correlation between channel dimensions. Murray’s Law was used by Arvay et al. [95] to create certain bio-inspired flow field topologies. Their goal was to create a flow channel arrangement that could maintain a balanced gas distribution across the reaction region and maximise the pressure drop inside the flow channels. According to the findings of their work, using flow field designs that are inspired by nature makes it feasible to disperse the reactants more efficiently with a little pressure drop. In networks with circular cross-sections, Zografos et al. [99] predicted the ideal ratio between the diameters of the parent and daughter vessels using Murray’s Law; as a result, it offered a better design. Ozden et al. designed and investigated the performance of a bio-inspired flow field-based DMFC (direct methanol fuel cell) [100]. The serpentine (anode) and second leaf design (cathode) had the highest peak power density, at 888 W m−2. For contrast, when the serpentine flow field was applied to the anode and cathode, a peak power density of 824 W m−2 was attained. In addition, the lung-based flow field offered the worst performance across all tests of all the set-ups that were studied. Some of the bio-inspired flow field designs are depicted in Figure 8.

4. Conclusions

A study has been carried out on different types of flow channels, such as parallel, serpentine, interdigitated and bio-inspired, with respect to their performance and applications. It is reported that a landing to channel ratio of 1:1 for serpentine flow channels shows superior characteristics compared to other ratios such as 1:2, 2:1 and 2:2. The serpentine flow channels with multiple passes resulted in better flow distributions at the expense of a higher pressure drop. Parallel flow field channels with straight zig-zag patterns are preferred at the cathode side to overcome higher pressure drops without compromising output powers. These channels also provide better removal of water to reduce the risk of flooding. The drawback of interdigitated flow fields is that higher energy is required to pump the gas, which increases the power requirement to feed the reactants into their respective flow channels and thus reduces the overall efficiency of the PEMFC system. The analysis of the bio-inspired flow field patterns demonstrates that high voltage and power density may be attained while maintaining a more uniform gas distribution in the case of this unique design. It is observed that the flow channel configurations for the cathode and anode have different designs which yield optimal power density. Serpentine flow channels, with either single or multi pass at the anode or straight zig-zag parallel flow configurations at the cathode, exhibit better performances, especially when the fuel cells are scaled and stacked for automotive applications. For future work, the square tubular flow field and mesh type flow field design can be investigated with respect to the different performance parameters of PEMFCs. The effect of a tapper in flow field designs is another important topic that needs to be explored to understand in-depth performance of PEMFCs.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft, methodology, formal analysis and validation, S.C.; conceptualization, investigation, D.E.; supervision and visualization, K.P.; writing—review and editing, A.F.; data curation, D.R.; data curation, D.A.S.S.; data curation, writing—review and editing, T.K.R.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research has not received any external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Royal Academy of Engineering, Newton Funds, UK, for the Industry Academia Partnership Programme (IAPP 18-19/154) for this research contribution.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Pal, N.; Khan, F.A. Hydropower Technology. In Sustainable Fuel Technologies Handbook; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 91–120. ISBN 9780128229897. [Google Scholar]
  2. Wang, X.R.; Ma, Y.; Gao, J.; Li, T.; Jiang, G.Z.; Sun, Z.Y. Review on Water Management Methods for Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 12206–12229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Wilberforce, T.; El-Hassan, Z.; Khatib, F.N.; Al Makky, A.; Baroutaji, A.; Carton, J.G.; Olabi, A.G. Developments of Electric Cars and Fuel Cell Hydrogen Electric Cars. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42, 25695–25734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Alaswad, A.; Baroutaji, A.; Achour, H.; Carton, J.; Al Makky, A.; Olabi, A.G. Developments in Fuel Cell Technologies in the Transport Sector. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2016, 41, 16499–16508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Wilberforce, T.; Alaswad, A.; Palumbo, A.; Dassisti, M.; Olabi, A.G. Advances in Stationary and Portable Fuel Cell Applications. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2016, 41, 16509–16522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Claudea, F.; Ramadan, H.S.; Becherif, M.; Boulon, L. Heat Management Methodology for Enhanced Global Efficiency in Hybrid Electric Vehicles. Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 2017, 10, 325–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ozden, E.; Tari, I. Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell Degradation: A Parametric Analysis Using Computational Fluid Dynamics. J. Power Sources 2016, 304, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Li, X.; Sabir, I. Review of Bipolar Plates in PEM Fuel Cells: Flow-Field Designs. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2005, 30, 359–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kumar, A.; Reddy, R.G. Materials and Design Development for Bipolar/End Plates in Fuel Cells. J. Power Sources 2004, 129, 62–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chowdhury, M.Z.; Genc, O.; Toros, S. Numerical Optimization of Channel to Land Width Ratio for PEM Fuel Cell. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2018, 43, 10798–10809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Pourrahmani, H.; Yavarinasab, A.; Siavashi, M.; Matian, M.; Van Herle, J. Progress in the Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells (PEMFCs) Water/Thermal Management: From Theory to the Current Challenges and Real-Time Fault Diagnosis Methods. Energy Rev. 2022, 1, 100002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Andújar, J.M.; Segura, F. Fuel Cells: History and Updating. A Walk along Two Centuries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2009, 13, 2309–2322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. The Gemini Program (1962–1966). Available online: https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/gemini.html (accessed on 21 September 2022).
  14. Abbasi, H.; Pourrahmani, N. Thermodynamic Analysis of a Trigeneration System Using SOFC and HDH Desalination Unit. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell. U.S. Patent 20060204830A1, 14 September 2006.
  16. Sammes, N.; Bove, R.; Stahl, K. Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cells: Fundamentals and Applications. Curr. Opin. Solid State Mater. Sci 2004, 8, 372–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hamnett, A. Mechanism and Electrocatalysis in the Direct Methanol Fuel Cell. Catal. Catal. Today 1997, 38, 445–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Yin, C.; Gao, Y.; Li, K.; Song, Y.; Tang, H. Experimental Investigation on Local Behaviors of PEMFC with Segmented Cell. Automot. Innov. 2021, 4, 165–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ferriday, T.B.; Middleton, P.H. Alkaline Fuel Cell Technology-A Review. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 18489–18510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Pourrahmani, H.; Bernier, C.M.I.; Van Herle, J. The Application of Fuel-Cell and Battery Technologies in Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs): A Dynamic Study. Batteries 2022, 8, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Pourrahmani, H.; Matian, M.; Van Herle, J. Poisoning Effects of Cerium Oxide (CeO2) on the Performance of Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells (PEMFCs). ChemEngineering 2022, 6, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Pourrahmani, H.; Rajabi, A.; Van Herle, J. A Modified Design of the Gas Flow Channel Geometry for the Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells: A Three-Dimensional Simulation. Sci. Talks 2022, 3, 100068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Pourrahmani, H.; Van Herle, J. The Impacts of the Gas Diffusion Layer Contact Angle on the Water Management of the Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells: Three-dimensional Simulation and Optimization. Int. J. Energy Res. 2022, 46, 16027–16040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Pourrahmani, H.; Van Herle, J. Evaluation Criterion of Proton Exchange Membrane (ECPEM) Fuel Cells Considering Inserted Porous Media inside the Gas Flow Channel. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2022, 203, 117952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sagaria, S.; Costa Neto, R.; Baptista, P. Assessing the Performance of Vehicles Powered by Battery, Fuel Cell and Ultra-Capacitor: Application to Light-Duty Vehicles and Buses. Energy Convers. Manag. 2021, 229, 113767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. GREEN CAR NEWS. Available online: https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1134999 (accessed on 21 September 2022).
  27. Rietmann, N.; Hügler, B.; Lieven, T. Forecasting the Trajectory of Electric Vehicle Sales and the Consequences for Worldwide CO2 Emissions. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 261, 121038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Pourrahmani, H.; Shakeri, H.; Van Herle, J. Thermoelectric Generator as the Waste Heat Recovery Unit of Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell: A Numerical Study. Energies 2022, 15, 3018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gay, M.; Pourrahmani, H.; Van Herle, J. Fuel Cell and Battery Technologies for a 800 KW Ferry: Two Optimized Scenarios. Sci. Talks 2022, 3, 100039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wang, B.; Seo, B.; Wang, N.; Zamel, K.; Jiao, X.C. Adroher, Fundamentals, Materials, and Machine Learning of Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Fuel Cell Technology. Energy AI 2021, 1, 100014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chakraborty, S.; Dash, S.K.; Elavarasan, R.M.; Kaur, A.; Elangovan, D.; Meraj, S.T.; Kasinathan, P.; Said, Z. Hydrogen Energy as Future of Sustainable Mobility. Front. Energy Res. 2022, 10, 893475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Pourrahmani, H.; Gay, M.; Van Herle, J. Electric Vehicle Charging Station Using Fuel Cell Technology: Two Different Scenarios and Thermodynamic Analysis. Energy Rep. 2021, 7, 6955–6972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wang, Y.; Leung, D.Y.C.; Xuan, J.; Wang, H. A Review on Unitized Regenerative Fuel Cell Technologies, Part-A: Unitized Regenerative Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 65, 961–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Depcik, C.; Cassady, T.; Collicott, B.; Burugupally, S.P.; Li, X.; Alam, S.S.; Arandia, J.R.; Hobeck, J. Comparison of Lithium Ion Batteries, Hydrogen Fueled Combustion Engines, and a Hydrogen Fuel Cell in Powering a Small Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. Energy Convers. Manag. 2020, 207, 112514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Budak, Y.; Devrim, Y. Investigation of Micro-Combined Heat and Power Application of PEM Fuel Cell Systems. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 160, 486–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wang, Y.-J.; Long, W.; Wang, L.; Yuan, R.; Ignaszak, A.; Fang, B.; Wilkinson, D.P. Unlocking the Door to Highly Active ORR Catalysts for PEMFC Applications: Polyhedron-Engineered Pt-Based Nanocrystals. Energy Environ. Sci. 2018, 11, 258–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Maric, R.; Mirshekari, G. Fuel Cell Technology Commercialization. In Solid Oxide Fuel Cells, 1st ed.; Series: Electrochemical energy storage & conversion, 2020; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA; CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group, LLC: Milton Park, UK, 2020; pp. 205–222. ISBN 9780429100000. [Google Scholar]
  38. Lim, B.H.; Majlan, E.H.; Daud, W.R.W.; Husaini, T.; Rosli, M.I. Effects of Flow Field Design on Water Management and Reactant Distribution in PEMFC: A Review. Ionics 2016, 22, 301–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kandlikar, S.G.; Lu, Z. Thermal Management Issues in a PEMFC Stack—A Brief Review of Current Status. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2009, 29, 1276–1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Xu, J.; Zhang, C.; Wan, Z.; Chen, X.; Chan, S.H.; Tu, Z. Progress and Perspectives of Integrated Thermal Management Systems in PEM Fuel Cell Vehicles: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 155, 111908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Islam, M.R.; Shabani, B.; Rosengarten, G.; Andrews, J. The Potential of Using Nanofluids in PEM Fuel Cell Cooling Systems: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 48, 523–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zhang, G.; Yuan, H.; Wang, Y.; Jiao, K. Three-Dimensional Simulation of a New Cooling Strategy for Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell Stack Using a Non-Isothermal Multiphase Model. Appl. Energy 2019, 255, 113865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Andersson, M.; Beale, S.B.; Espinoza, M.; Wu, Z.; Lehnert, W. A Review of Cell-Scale Multiphase Flow Modeling, Including Water Management, in Polymer Electrolyte Fuel Cells. Appl. Energy 2016, 180, 757–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Marappan, M.; Palaniswamy, K.; Velumani, T.; Chul, K.B.; Velayutham, R.; Shivakumar, P.; Sundaram, S. Performance Studies of Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells with Different Flow Field Designs—Review. Chem. Rec. 2021, 21, 663–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kim, K.N.; Jeon, D.H.; Nam, J.H.; Kim, B.M. Numerical Study of Straight-Parallel PEM Fuel Cells at Automotive Operation. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2012, 37, 9212–9227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bachman, J.; Charvet, M.; Santamaria, A.; Tang, H.-Y.; Park, J.W.; Walker, R. Experimental Investigation of the Effect of Channel Length on Performance and Water Accumulation in a PEMFC Parallel Flow Field. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2012, 37, 17172–17179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Imbrioscia, G.M.; Fasoli, H.J. Simulation and Study of Proposed Modifications over Straight-Parallel Flow Field Design. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2014, 39, 8861–8867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bi, H.T.; Sauriol, P.; Stumper, J. Two-Phase Flow Distributors for Fuel Cell Flow Channels. Particuology 2010, 8, 582–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ramos-Alvarado, B.; Hernandez-Guerrero, A.; Juarez-Robles, D.; Li, P. Numerical Investigation of the Performance of Symmetric Flow Distributors as Flow Channels for PEM Fuel Cells. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2012, 37, 436–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Liu, H.; Li, P.; Van Lew, J. CFD Study on Flow Distribution Uniformity in Fuel Distributors Having Multiple Structural Bifurcations of Flow Channels. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2010, 35, 9186–9198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lim, B.H.; Majlan, E.H.; Daud, W.R.W.; Rosli, M.I.; Husaini, T. Numerical Analysis of Modified Parallel Flow Field Designs for Fuel Cells. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42, 9210–9218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sajid Hossain, M.; Shabani, B.; Cheung, C.P. Enhanced Gas Flow Uniformity across Parallel Channel Cathode Flow Field of Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42, 5272–5283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lim, B.H.; Majlan, E.H.; Daud, W.R.W.; Rosli, M.I.; Husaini, T. Numerical Investigation of the Effect of Three-Dimensional Modified Parallel Flow Field Designs on Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell Performance. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2020, 217, 115499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Karthikeyan, P.; Velmurugan, P.; George, A.J.; Ram Kumar, R.; Vasanth, R.J. Experimental Investigation on Scaling and Stacking up of Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2014, 39, 11186–11195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Arun Saco, S.; Thundil Karuppa Raj, R.; Karthikeyan, P. A Study on Scaled up Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell with Various Flow Channels for Optimizing Power Output by Effective Water Management Using Numerical Technique. Energy 2016, 113, 558–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Chen, X.; Yu, Z.; Wang, X.; Li, W.; Chen, Y.; Jin, C.; Gong, G.; Wan, Z. Influence of Wave Parallel Flow Field Design on the Performance of PEMFC. J. Energy Eng. 2021, 147, 04020080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Henriques, T.; César, B.; Branco, P.J.C. Increasing the Efficiency of a Portable PEM Fuel Cell by Altering the Cathode Channel Geometry: A Numerical and Experimental Study. Appl. Energy 2010, 87, 1400–1409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Lim, B.H.; Majlan, E.H.; Daud, W.R.W.; Rosli, M.I.; Husaini, T. Three-Dimensional Study of Stack on the Performance of the Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell. Energy 2019, 169, 338–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Selvaraj, A.S.; Rajagopal, T.K.R. Effect of Flow Fields and Humidification of Reactant and Oxidant on the Performance of Scaled-up PEM-FC Using CFD Code. Int. J. Energy Res. 2019, 43, 7254–7274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Afshari, E.; Mosharaf-Dehkordi, M.; Rajabian, H. An Investigation of the PEM Fuel Cells Performance with Partially Restricted Cathode Flow Channels and Metal Foam as a Flow Distributor. Energy 2017, 118, 705–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Atyabi, S.A.; Afshari, E. A Numerical Multiphase CFD Simulation for PEMFC with Parallel Sinusoidal Flow Fields. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 2019, 135, 1823–1833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ferng, Y.; Su, A. A Three-Dimensional Full-Cell CFD Model Used to Investigate the Effects of Different Flow Channel Designs on PEMFC Performance. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2007, 32, 4466–4476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ghanbarian, A.; Kermani, M.J.; Scholta, J.; Abdollahzadeh, M. Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Fuel Cell Flow Field Design Criteria—Application to Parallel Serpentine Flow Patterns. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 166, 281–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Zehtabiyan-Rezaie, N.; Arefian, A.; Kermani, M.J.; Noughabi, A.K.; Abdollahzadeh, M. Effect of Flow Field with Converging and Diverging Channels on Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell Performance. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017, 152, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Manso, A.P.; Marzo, F.F.; Barranco, J.; Garikano, X.; Garmendia Mujika, M. Influence of Geometric Parameters of the Flow Fields on the Performance of a PEM Fuel Cell. A Review. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2012, 37, 15256–15287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Nguyen, T.V. Water Management by Material Design and Engineering for PEM Fuel Cells. ECS Trans. 2006, 3, 1171–1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Wilberforce, T.; El-Hassan, Z.; Khatib, F.N.; Al Makky, A.; Mooney, J.; Barouaji, A.; Carton, J.G.; Olabi, A.-G. Development of Bi-Polar Plate Design of PEM Fuel Cell Using CFD Techniques. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42, 25663–25685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Karvelas, E.G.; Koubogiannis, D.G.; Hatziapostolou, A.; Sarris, I.E. The Effect of Anode Bed Geometry on the Hydraulic Behaviour of PEM Fuel Cells. Renew. Energy 2016, 93, 269–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Dong, P.; Jia, Y.; Xie, G.; Ni, M. The Energy Performance Improvement of a PEM Fuel Cell with Various Chaotic Flowing Channels. Int. J. Energy Res. 2019, 43, 5460–5478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Selvaraj, A.S.; Rajagopal, T.K.R. Numerical Investigation on the Effect of Flow Field and Landing to Channel Ratio on the Performance of PEMFC. Int. J. Energy Res. 2020, 44, 171–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Vazifeshenas, Y.; Sedighi, K.; Shakeri, M. Numerical Investigation of a Novel Compound Flow-Field for PEMFC Performance Improvement. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2015, 40, 15032–15039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Khazaee, I.; Sabadbafan, H. Effect of Humidity Content and Direction of the Flow of Reactant Gases on Water Management in the 4-Serpentine and 1-Serpentine Flow Channel in a PEM (Proton Exchange Membrane) Fuel Cell. Energy 2016, 101, 252–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Rostami, L.; Mohamad Gholy Nejad, P.; Vatani, A. A Numerical Investigation of Serpentine Flow Channel with Different Bend Sizes in Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Fuel Cells. Energy 2016, 97, 400–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Kerkoub, Y.; Benzaoui, A.; Haddad, F.; Ziari, Y.K. Channel to Rib Width Ratio Influence with Various Flow Field Designs on Performance of PEM Fuel Cell. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 174, 260–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Shimpalee, S.; Greenway, S.; Van Zee, J.W. The Impact of Channel Path Length on PEMFC Flow-Field Design. J. Power Sources 2006, 160, 398–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Wang, X.-D.; Duan, Y.-Y.; Yan, W.-M.; Peng, X.-F. Local Transport Phenomena and Cell Performance of PEM Fuel Cells with Various Serpentine Flow Field Designs. J. Power Sources 2008, 175, 397–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Lobato, J.; Cañizares, P.; Rodrigo, M.A.; Pinar, F.J.; Úbeda, D. Study of Flow Channel Geometry Using Current Distribution Measurement in a High Temperature Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Fuel Cell. J. Power Sources 2011, 196, 4209–4217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Hsieh, S.S.; Chu, K.M. Channel and Rib Geometric Scale Effects of Flow Field Plates on the Performance and Transient. J. Power Sources 2007, 137, 222–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Shimpalee, S.; Van Zee, J.W. Numerical studies on rib & channel dimension of flowfield on PEMFC performance. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2007, 32, 842–856. [Google Scholar]
  80. Manso, A.P.; Marzo, F.F.; Mujika, M.G.; Barranco, J.; Lorenzo, A. Numerical Analysis of the Influence of the Channel Cross-Section Aspect Ratio on the Performance of a PEM Fuel Cell with Serpentine Flow Field Design. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2011, 36, 6795–6808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Wang, X.-D.; Yan, W.-M.; Duan, Y.-Y.; Weng, F.-B.; Jung, G.-B.; Lee, C.-Y. Numerical Study on Channel Size Effect for Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell with Serpentine Flow Field. Energy Convers. Manag. 2010, 51, 959–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kahraman, H.; Orhan, M.F. Flow Field Bipolar Plates in a Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell: Analysis & Modeling. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017, 133, 363–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Nam, J.H.; Lee, K.-J.; Sohn, S.; Kim, C.-J. Multi-pass serpentine flow-fields to enhance under-rib convection in polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells: Design and geometrical characterization. J. Power Sources 2009, 188, 14–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Baz, F.B.; Ookawara, S.; Ahmed, M. Enhancing Under-Rib Mass Transport in Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells Using New Serpentine Flow Field Designs. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2019, 44, 30644–30662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Abdulla, S.; Patnaikuni, V.S. Performance Evaluation of Enhanced Cross Flow Split Serpentine Flow Field Design for Higher Active Area PEM Fuel Cells. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 25970–25984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Freire, L.S.; Antolini, E.; Linardi, M.; Santiago, E.I.; Passos, R.R. Influence of Operational Parameters on the Performance of PEMFCs with Serpentine Flow Field Channels Having Different (Rectangular and Trapezoidal) Cross-Section Shape. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2014, 39, 12052–12060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Karthikeyan, P.; Vasanth, R.J.; Muthukumar, M. Experimental Investigation on Uniform and Zigzag Positioned Porous Inserts on the Rib Surface of Cathode Flow Channel for Performance Enhancement in PEMFC. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2015, 40, 4641–4648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Rahimi-Esbo, M.; Ranjbar, A.A.; Ramiar, A.; Alizadeh, E.; Aghaee, M. Improving PEM Fuel Cell Performance and Effective Water Removal by Using a Novel Gas Flow Field. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2016, 41, 3023–3037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Rahimi-Esbo, M.; Ramiar, A.; Ranjbar, A.A.; Alizadeh, E. Design, Manufacturing, Assembling and Testing of a Transparent PEM Fuel Cell for Investigation of Water Management and Contact Resistance at Dead-End Mode. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42, 11673–11688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Singdeo, D.; Dey, T.; Gaikwad, S.; Andreasen, S.J.; Ghosh, P.C. A New Modified-Serpentine Flow Field for Application in High Temperature Polymer Electrolyte Fuel Cell. Appl. Energy 2017, 195, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Toghyani, S.; Afshari, E.; Baniasadi, E.; Atyabi, S.A. Thermal and Electrochemical Analysis of Different Flow Field Patterns in a PEM Electrolyzer. Electrochim. Acta 2018, 267, 234–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Chang, D.-H.; Wu, S.-Y. The Effects of Channel Depth on the Performance of Miniature Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells with Serpentine-Type Flow Fields. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2015, 40, 11659–11667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Seyhan, M.; Akansu, Y.E.; Murat, M.; Korkmaz, Y.; Akansu, S.O. Performance Prediction of PEM Fuel Cell with Wavy Serpentine Flow Channel by Using Artificial Neural Network. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42, 25619–25629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Alizadeh, E.; Rahimi-Esbo, M.; Rahgoshay, S.M.; Saadat, S.H.M.; Khorshidian, M. Numerical and Experimental Investigation of Cascade Type Serpentine Flow Field of Reactant Gases for Improving Performance of PEM Fuel Cell. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42, 14708–14724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Chowdhury, M.Z.; Timurkutluk, B. Transport Phenomena of Convergent and Divergent Serpentine Flow Fields for PEMFC. Energy 2018, 161, 104–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Nguyen, T.V. A gas distributor design for proton-exchange membrane fuel cells. J. Electrochem. Soc 1996, 143, 103–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Wood, D.L., III; Yi, J.S.; Nguyen, T.V. Effect of Direct Liquid Water Injection and Interdigitated Flow Field on the Performance of Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells. Electrochim. Acta 1998, 43, 3795–3809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Hu, M.; Zhu, X.; Wang, M.; Gu, A.; Yu, L. Three Dimensional, Two Phase Flow Mathematical Model for PEM Fuel Cell: Part II. Analysis and Discussion of the Internal Transport Mechanisms. Energy Convers. Manag. 2004, 45, 1883–1916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Yi, J.S.; Nguyen, T.V. An Along-the-channel Model for Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells. J. Electrochem. Soc. 1998, 145, 1149–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Sierra, J.M.; Figueroa-Ramírez, S.J.; Díaz, S.E.; Vargas, J.; Sebastian, P.J. Numerical Evaluation of a PEM Fuel Cell with Conventional Flow Fields Adapted to Tubular Plates. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2014, 39, 16694–16705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Energies 15 09520 g001 550
Figure 1. Various components of a PEMFC [9].
Figure 1. Various components of a PEMFC [9].
Energies 15 09520 g001
Energies 15 09520 g002 550
Figure 2. Annual global sales of FCEVs since 2017 and the projection until 2032 [25].
Figure 2. Annual global sales of FCEVs since 2017 and the projection until 2032 [25].
Energies 15 09520 g002
Energies 15 09520 g003 550
Figure 3. Major applications of fuel cells along with sources of hydrogen production to run the system [9].
Figure 3. Major applications of fuel cells along with sources of hydrogen production to run the system [9].
Energies 15 09520 g003
Energies 15 09520 g004 550
Figure 4. The energy breakdown of a PEMFC [31].
Figure 4. The energy breakdown of a PEMFC [31].
Energies 15 09520 g004
Energies 15 09520 g005 550
Figure 5. Important flow field designs used in PEMFCs [33].
Figure 5. Important flow field designs used in PEMFCs [33].
Energies 15 09520 g005
Energies 15 09520 g006 550
Figure 6. Typical serpentine flow plate design in a fuel cell [56].
Figure 6. Typical serpentine flow plate design in a fuel cell [56].
Energies 15 09520 g006
Energies 15 09520 g007 550
Figure 7. Interdigitated flow field design [56].
Figure 7. Interdigitated flow field design [56].
Energies 15 09520 g007
Energies 15 09520 g008 550
Figure 8. Bio-inspired flow field designs. (a) Leaf flow field configuration 1. (b) Leaf flow field configuration 2. (c) Lung flow field configuration.
Figure 8. Bio-inspired flow field designs. (a) Leaf flow field configuration 1. (b) Leaf flow field configuration 2. (c) Lung flow field configuration.
Energies 15 09520 g008
Table
Table 1. The principles and the operational temperatures of the different types of fuel cells.
Table 1. The principles and the operational temperatures of the different types of fuel cells.
Type of Fuel CellFuelMembraneOxidization AgentOperational Temperature (°C)
Solid Oxide Fuel Cell [12] H2, COIonconducting ceramicO21000
Carbonate Fuel cell [13] Molten Alkaline meltO2; CO2650
Phosphoric Acid Fuel cell [14]H2Phosphoric acid 200
Direct Methanol Fuel Cell [15]CH3OHIonconducting polymerO280–110
Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell [16]H2 65–85
Alkaline Fuel Cell [17] Caustic potash 20–90
Table
Table 2. Performance parameters of a few successful commercial FCEVs [29].
Table 2. Performance parameters of a few successful commercial FCEVs [29].
Commercial FCEVsStack Power of Fuel Cell (kW)Driving Range (km)Cold-Start Temperature (K)
Hyundai Nexo95391380
SAIC Maxus FCV80115312
Honda FCX Clarity (2017)103366
Toyota Mirai (2021)128402
Table
Table 3. Modified forms of serpentine flow field configurations.
Table 3. Modified forms of serpentine flow field configurations.
Ref. No.Design SchematicAdvantages or Disadvantages
[75]Trapezoidal cross-section shapeEnergies 15 09520 i001Better water management is observed.
[76]Zig-zag positioned porous carbon insertsEnergies 15 09520 i002The design shows effective water removal and improved cell efficiency.
[60]Compound flow fieldEnergies 15 09520 i003It is observed that the water removal is more effective and cell performance is same as serpentines flow field.
[77,78]2-1-channel serpentineEnergies 15 09520 i004High cell performance and efficient water removal has been identified.
[79]Compensated serpentineEnergies 15 09520 i005The proposed design encourages uniform distribution of reactant and product.
[80]Multiple serpentineEnergies 15 09520 i006
Twopath Serpentine		In this design, the decrease in pressure is lower compared to other serpentine designs.
[81] Energies 15 09520 i007
Three-path Serpentine		This design becomes more suitable when the
active area scales up
[64] Energies 15 09520 i008
Six-channel Serpentine		Due mostly to minute variations in membrane hydration, the 13-channel flow-field provided a minor advantage over the 26-channel flow-field. For the 26-channel scenarios that were examined, the performance seemed to be mostly independent of its configuration at similar path lengths. Therefore, one of the key factors for maximising the effectiveness, performance, and longevity of PEMFC is the path length of the flow-field.
Energies 15 09520 i009
13-channel Serpentine
Energies 15 09520 i010
26-channel Serpentine
Energies 15 09520 i011
26-channel complex Serpentine
[82]Wavy serpentineEnergies 15 09520 i012It is observed that the cell efficiency has been improved.
[83]Cascade-type serpentineEnergies 15 09520 i013A consistent current density and efficient water removal has been noted.
[84]Serpentine zig-zagEnergies 15 09520 i014Compared to a parallel zig-zag, there is less water evacuation and less power density.
[59]Serpentine parallelEnergies 15 09520 i015Water accumulation at cathode flow channel is comparatively lower.
[81]Three-path serpentine parallel Energies 15 09520 i016SFF typically outperforms PSFF in terms of cell performance. However, when the channel depth increases, the cell performance becomes comparable because the single routes in PSFF cathode flow fields have enough space to distribute water.
[85]Convergent serpentineEnergies 15 09520 i017More pressure drops are the demerit of the proposed design and uniform current density is the merit of the design.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chakraborty, S.; Elangovan, D.; Palaniswamy, K.; Fly, A.; Ravi, D.; Seelan, D.A.S.; Rajagopal, T.K.R. A Review on the Numerical Studies on the Performance of Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell (PEMFC) Flow Channel Designs for Automotive Applications. Energies 2022, 15, 9520. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15249520

AMA Style

Chakraborty S, Elangovan D, Palaniswamy K, Fly A, Ravi D, Seelan DAS, Rajagopal TKR. A Review on the Numerical Studies on the Performance of Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell (PEMFC) Flow Channel Designs for Automotive Applications. Energies. 2022; 15(24):9520. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15249520

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chakraborty, Suprava, Devaraj Elangovan, Karthikeyan Palaniswamy, Ashley Fly, Dineshkumar Ravi, Denis Ashok Sathia Seelan, and Thundil Karuppa Raj Rajagopal. 2022. "A Review on the Numerical Studies on the Performance of Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell (PEMFC) Flow Channel Designs for Automotive Applications" Energies 15, no. 24: 9520. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15249520

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop