4.5 Article

Enhancing the Specific Power of a PEM Fuel Cell Powered UAV with a Novel Bean-Shaped Flow Field

Journal

ENERGIES
Volume 14, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/en14092494

Keywords

PEMFC; air-cooled; unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV); specific power; aviation; multiphase

Categories

Funding

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany's Excellence Strategy [EXC 2163/1, 390881007]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated a numerical model of PEMFC for UAVs, finding that the unblocked bean-shaped design performed best with high power density, lightweight, and suitability for aerial applications.
One of the marketing challenges of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for various applications is enhancing flight durability. Due to the superior characteristics of proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs), they have the potential to reach a longer flight time and higher payload. In this regard, a numerical assessment of a UAV air-cooled PEMFC is carried out using a three-dimensional (3-D), multiphase, and non-isothermal model on three flow fields, i.e., unblocked bean-shaped, blocked bean-shaped, and parallel. Then, the results of single-cell modeling are generalized to the PEMFC stack to provide the power of 2.5 kW for a UAV. The obtained results indicate that the strategy of rising air stoichiometry for cooling performs well in the unblocked bean-shaped design, and the maximum temperature along the channel length reaches 331.5 K at the air stoichiometric of 30. Further, it is found that the best performance of a 2.5 kW PEMFC stack is attained by the bean-shaped design without blockage, of which its volume and mass power density are 1.1 kW L-1 and 0.2 kW kg(-1), respectively. It is 9.4% lighter and 6.9% more compact than the parallel flow field. Therefore, the unblocked bean-shaped design can be a good option for aerial applications.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available