journal article·2020-01-01Open access

Optimizing Porous Transport Layer Design Parameters via Stochastic Pore Network Modelling: Reactant Transport and Interfacial Contact Considerations

J. K. Lee, A. Bazylak

Abstract

In this work, we designed sintered titanium powder-based porous transport layers (PTLs) for polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) electrolyzers by tailoring the powder diameter and porosity via a new approach. We examined how the PTL powder diameter and porosity influence reactant transport and PTL-catalyst layer (CL) interfacial contact by using a stochastic generation model combined with a pore network model. We enhanced reactant transport by increasing powder diameter and porosity, as shown through increases in single- and two-phase permeabilities of liquid water. Compared to the impact of increasing the powder diameter, increasing the PTL porosity dominated the impact on permeability of liquid water. However, we observed a trade-off to the benefits of increasing the powder diameter such that larger powders led to a higher surface roughness at the PTL-CL interface. From this work, we recommend that the PTL powder diameter and porosity must be strategically selected for the desired target operating conditions of the PEM electrolyzer. We recommend a PTL with d P = 25 μm and ε = 26.5% for an electrolyzer cell operating at non-starvation conditions, and a PTL with d P = 25 μm and ε = 40.5% for an electrolyzer cell operating at starvation conditions.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Hybrid Renewable Energy Systems · Fuel Cells and Related Materials · Advanced Battery Technologies Research

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (42)

Show source-provided references
1. Ursua · Proc. IEEE. · 2012 · 100 · 41010.1109/JPROC.2011.2156750 ↗
2. Carmo · Int. J. Hydrogen Energy · 2013 · 38 · 490110.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.01.151 ↗
3. Schmidt · Int. J. Hydrogen Energy · 2017 · 42 · 3047010.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.10.045 ↗
4. Gago · J. Power Sources · 2016 · 307 · 81510.1016/j.jpowsour.2015.12.071 ↗
5. Grigoriev · Int. J. Hydrogen Energy · 2009 · 34 · 496810.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.11.056 ↗
6. Schuler · J. Electrochem. Soc. · 2019 · 166 · F55510.1149/2.1241908jes ↗
7. Babic · J. Electrochem. Soc. · 2018 · 165 · J301610.1149/2.0031815jes ↗
8. Dedigama · Int. J. Hydrogen Energy · 2014 · 39 · 446810.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.01.026 ↗
9. Hwang · J.Power Sources · 2012 · 202 · 10810.1016/j.jpowsour.2011.11.041 ↗
10. Ito · ECS Trans. · 2010 · 33 · 94510.1149/1.3484588 ↗
11. Kang · Energy Environ. Sci. · 2017 · 10 · 16610.1039/C6EE02368A ↗
12. Ito · Int. J. Hydrogen Energy · 2012 · 37 · 741810.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.01.095 ↗
13. Kang · Electrochim. Acta · 2019 · 316 · 4310.1016/j.electacta.2019.05.096 ↗
14. Lettenmeier · J.Power Sources. · 2016 · 311 · 15310.1016/j.jpowsour.2016.01.100 ↗
15. Lettenmeier · Energy Environ. Sci. · 2017 · 10 · 252110.1039/C7EE01240C ↗
16. Majasan · Energy Procedia · 2018 · 151 · 11110.1016/j.egypro.2018.09.035 ↗
17. Mo · Int. J. Hydrogen Energy · 2016 · 41 · 312810.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.12.111 ↗
18. Ojong · Int. J. Hydrogen Energy · 2017 · 42 · 2583110.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.08.183 ↗
19. Suermann · ECS Trans. · 2015 · 69 · 114110.1149/06917.1141ecst ↗
20. Garcia-Navarro · J. Power Sources · 2019 · 431 · 18910.1016/j.jpowsour.2019.05.027 ↗
21. Garcia Navarro · ACS Sustain. Chem. Engin. · 2019 · 7 · 160010.1021/acssuschemeng.8b05369 ↗
22. Zielke · RSC Adv. · 2014 · 4 · 5888810.1039/C4RA12402B ↗
23. Schuler · J. Electrochem. Soc. · 2019 · 166 · F27010.1149/2.0561904jes ↗
24. Lee · Electrochim. Acta · 2018 · 279 · 9110.1016/j.electacta.2018.05.066 ↗
25. Leonard · Electrochim. Acta · 2018 · 276 · 42410.1016/j.electacta.2018.04.144 ↗
26. Panchenko · J. Power Sources · 2018 · 390 · 10810.1016/j.jpowsour.2018.04.044 ↗
27. Seweryn · J. Electrochem. Soc. · 2016 · 163 · F300910.1149/2.0641607jes ↗
28. Panchenko · Energies · 2019 · 12 · 35010.3390/en12030350 ↗
29. Arbabi · J. Power Sources · 2014 · 258 · 14210.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.02.042 ↗
30. Arbabi · J. Electrochem. Soc. · 2016 · 163 · F306210.1149/2.0091611jes ↗
31. Lee · ECS Trans. · 2017 · 80 · 109710.1149/08008.1097ecst ↗
32. Lee · Int. J. Hydrogen Energy · 2017 · 42 · 272410.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.09.114 ↗
33. Nouri-Khorasani · Int. J. Hydrogen Energy · 2017 · 42 · 2866510.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.09.167 ↗
34. Lee · Phys. Rev. Appl. · 2019 · 1110.1103/PhysRevApplied.11.054029 ↗
35. Lee · J. Power Sources · 2019 · 43710.1016/j.jpowsour.2019.226910 ↗
36. Lee · J. Electrochem. Soc. · 2019 · 166 · F100010.1149/2.0161913jes ↗
37. Gostick · Phys. Rev. E · 2017 · 9610.1103/PhysRevE.96.023307 ↗
38. Gostick · Comput. Sci. Eng. · 2016 · 18 · 6010.1109/MCSE.2016.49 ↗
39. Wilkinson · J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. · 1983 · 16 · 336510.1088/0305-4470/16/14/028 ↗
40. Bryant · Phys. Rev. A · 1992 · 46 · 200410.1103/PhysRevA.46.2004 ↗
41. Gostick · J. Power Sources · 2007 · 173 · 27710.1016/j.jpowsour.2007.04.059 ↗
42. Schuler · Adv. Energy Mater. · 2020 · 1010.1002/aenm.201903216 ↗