i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 1 1 5 3 3 e1 1 5 5 0

Available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/he

Numerical model for the performance prediction of a PEM fuel

cell. Model results and experimental validation

Alfredo Iranzo a,*, Miguel Munoz b, Felipe Rosa a, Javier Pino a

a
Energy Engineering Department, School of Engineering, University of Seville, Camino de los Descubrimientos s/n, 41092 Seville, Spain
b
INTA e National Institute for Aerospace Technology, Ctra. San Juan del Puerto-Matalascanas km 33, 21130 Mazagon (Huelva), Spain

article info abstract

Article history: This work presents a Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) model developed for a 50 cm2
Received 10 December 2009 fuel cell with parallel and serpentine flow field bipolar plates, and its validation against
Received in revised form experimental measurements. The numerical CFD model was developed using the
22 April 2010 commercial ANSYS FLUENT software, and the results obtained were compared with the
Accepted 22 April 2010 experimental results in order to perform a model validation. A single parameter, namely
Available online 23 May 2010 the reference exchange current density, was fitted to calibrate the model results. All
other model parameters were determined from technical data sheets, literature survey,
Keywords: or experimental measurements. A discussion on different validation issues and model
Fuel cell parameters is provided. The results of the numerical model show a good agreement
Numerical model with the experimental measurements for the different bipolar plates and range of
CFD operating conditions analysed. However, inaccuracies in the results in the mass-
Computational Fluid Dynamics transport polarization region were observed, presumably when liquid water in the
Bipolar plates channels produces a blockage effect that cannot be modelled with the multiphase flow
model currently implemented.
2010 Professor T. Nejat Veziroglu. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction transportation applications [3]. However, there are different

Fuel cells are devices where electrochemical reactions trans-
form chemical energy available in fuels into electrical energy.
Fuel cells are not limited by the thermodynamic restrictions of
conventional power generation systems, such as the Carnot
efficiency, meaning that fuel cells can be operated with higher
efficiency for energy conversion. Additionally, the environ-
mental impact is low as no combustion processes occur and
no pollutants are generated [1,2]. This is why fuel cells have
attracted significant interest from researchers, industry and
governments during the last few decades, as they are
considered to be one of the most promising alternative clean
power generation devices for portable, mobile and stationary
applications. As an example, polymer electrolyte membrane
fuel cells (PEMFCs) present numerous advantages for
technological barriers that are limiting the implementation of
fuel cell systems into the global energy markets. Apart from
a need for cost reductions, cell durability and degradation are
major concerns to be addressed, where heat and water
management must be carefully investigated as they are
known to dramatically affect cell durability [4,5]. In order to
overcome these limitations, significant research efforts and
investments are being performed. Experimentation has
a fundamental importance in fuel cell research, and numer-
ical modelling and simulation are also demonstrating a major
contribution. It allows researchers and engineers to gain
further insight and understanding into the highly coupled,
non-linear physical and chemical aspects of fuel cells, as well
as to perform design optimization. Among the different
modelling strategies and tools available, Computational Fluid

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 34 954 487471; fax: 34 954 487247.

E-mail address: aip@esi.us.es (A. Iranzo).
0360-3199/$ e see front matter 2010 Professor T. Nejat Veziroglu. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.04.129
11534 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 1 1 5 3 3 e1 1 5 5 0

Nomenclature u,v,w velocity components, m/s

2 uPt catalyst utilization
A area, m
V volume, m3
ac surface-to-volume ratio, m2/m3
V voltage, V
a water activity
x,y,z spatial coordinates, m
C2 inertial resistance factor, 1/m
yi mass fraction of specie i
Di diffusivity of specie i, m2/s
[i] molar concentration of specie i, mol/m3
F Faraday constant, C/mol
h enthalpy, J/mol Greek letters
hc free convection heat transfer coefficient, W/m2 K a exchange transfer coefficient
I current, A e porosity
i current density, A/m2 d catalytic layer thickness, m
i0 volumetric reference exchange current density, A/ g concentration exponent
m3 f generic variable in NeS equation
k gas permeability, 1/m2 l water content
Mw molecular weight, kg/kmol 4 electric potential, V
mPt platinum load, kg/m2 m dynamic viscosity, Pa s
p pressure, Pa q stoichiometric factor
p c, capillary pressure, Pa r density, kg/m3
psat saturation pressure, Pa s electric conductivity, 1/(U m)
pv vapour pressure, Pa h overpotential, V
Qv volume flow, mlN/min Gf diffusivity of variable f
R volumetric transfer current, A/m3 Dx mesh spatial resolution, m
R universal gas constant, J/K-mol
Subscripts/superscripts
Rc contact resistance, U
a anode
r catalyst particle radius, m
avg average
rs pore blockage exponent
c cathode
rw condensation rate, kg/m3s
l liquid phase
Sf source of variable f
m membrane phase
s liquid water volume fraction
s solid phase
T temperature, K
ref reference
t time, s

Dynamics (CFD) is arising special interest due to its powerful
capabilities for fuel cell performance evaluation and para-
metric design optimization [6].
However, PEMFC modelling with CFD is known to be
a complex task. In particular, some of the main concerns
when working on CFD modelling for PEMFCs are related to the
quality, accuracy, and trust of the solution obtained. This is
not only linked to the accuracy and reliability of the physical
models used, but also to issues such as mesh dependency
results, discretization errors, convergence errors, and others.
Besides, application uncertainties, namely uncertainties in
the definition of the model parameters, have a direct influence
on the accuracy of the results. A relative high number of
parameters must be used in a comprehensive FC model. Some
of them can be known with accuracy but others must be
assumed or calculated with a certain degree of uncertainty. All
the three factors together make CFD PEMFC modelling
a complex task, which must be in the end accomplished by
validating the numerical results against experimental
measurements. Once the model is validated, it can be further
used for design evaluation, optimization, and for gaining
understanding on the complex highly coupled physical and
electrochemical processes occurring in a fuel cell [6].
The objective of this work is to present PEM CFD model
results validated against experimental measurements. The
issues presented above regarding PEMFC CFD modelling are
discussed for the case under study.
2. Model development
The fuel cell model used is based on CFD techniques, so that
the physical and electrochemical phenomena occurring in the
cell are being solved numerically. A review on computational
heat and mass transfer modelling for PEMFCs is found in
Siegel [7] and Wang [8]. The CFD software ANSYS FLUENT has
been used, with its built-in PEMFC module. The authors have
applied the PEMFC model implemented in the software to
perform the numerical simulations of the different bipolar
plates and operating conditions. Therefore, the main work
carried out was focused not on physical modelling enhance-
ments, but on the assessment of basic Best Practice Guidelines
for Computational Fuel Cell Dynamics (CFCD) and model
validation, having a minimum number of model parameters
to fit the experimental data. Research efforts were therefore
focused on the accurate determination of as many parameters
as possible examining the influence of the uncertainties in the
final solution, so that the fuel cell model better reproduces the
real phenomena taking place in the cell.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 1 1 5 3 3 e1 1 5 5 0 11535

2.1. Geometry and mesh generation

The geometry of two commercial 50 cm2 cells was generated,

accounting for bipolar plates, flow channels, gas diffusion
layers (GDLs), electrodes or catalytic layers (CLs) and
membrane. Both cells are identical but for the flow field
design. A plan view of the bipolar plate (BP) with parallel flow
field design is shown in Fig. 1 for the real cell and the CAD
geometry model. This is also shown in Fig. 2 for the five-path
serpentine flow field.
A hexahedral mesh was generated, and a detailed mesh
independence analysis was carried out in order to assess the
suitability of the meshing strategy and resolution. The
appropriate number of in-plane and through-plane mesh
elements was addressed, and final mesh-independent results
were achieved with a 1.8 millions elements mesh.
Fig. 3 shows a general view of the 3D mesh and a cross-
section of the MEA can be seen in Fig. 4. The minimum cell
angle (internal angle between contiguous cell faces in a hex-
ahedral element, with optimum value of 90 ) is 19 and the
maximum element aspect ratio is 2500. Cell angle is satisfac-
Fig. 2 e Five-path serpentine bipolar plate. Real photograph
tory for solver convergence and accuracy according to general
and superimposed CAD model. Channel and land width is
CFD Best Practice Guidelines [9]. Aspect ratio is high given the
0.71 mm and 0.86 mm, respectively. Total thickness is
small through-plane dimensions of the catalyst layer, and its
9.5 mm. Inlet and outlet locations are marked with red
effects and consequences are addressed in the next section.
circles (real cell picture) and black arrows (CAD model). The
plates for anode and cathode are placed in a cross-flow
2.1.1. Best Practice Guidelines
layout. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this
A number of CFD Best Practice Guidelines for different appli-
figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
cations have been derived and published in order to ensure
this article.)
the quality of CFD results [9,10]. However, such guidelines are

not yet available in an extensive and detailed manner for fuel

cell modelling. This constitutes a definite need and a working
point of future work. For example, Kamarajugadda and
Mazumder [11] compared the accuracy and efficiency of
various strategies of implementing a membrane model. They
performed a grid independence study concluding that 5
computational cells within the CL and 40 computational cells
within the membrane were necessary for grid independent
solutions for the model they analysed. Such work is a good
example of what is needed for the appropriate use of CFD for
fuel cell modelling. A set of guidelines, still to be derived for

Fig. 1 e Parallel bipolar plate with 25 channels and 24 ribs

in the land area. Real photograph and superimposed CAD
model. Channel width is 2.0 mm and land width 0.8 mm.
Total thickness is 9.5 mm. Inlet and outlet locations are
marked with red circles (real cell picture). The plates for
anode and cathode are placed in a cross-flow layout. (For
interpretation of the references to colour in this figure Fig. 3 e Hexahedral mesh generated for the cell CFD model
legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this with parallel flow field BP. The mesh contains 1.8 million
article.) elements.
11536 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 1 1 5 3 3 e1 1 5 5 0
Fig. 4 e Mesh detail (MEA). From top to bottom: anode BP
channel, GDL, anode catalyst, membrane (anode and
cathode sides), cathode catalyst, GDL, cathode BP channel.
Mesh elements in the catalytic layers are seen as a fine line
given the small through-plane dimensions. The
membrane features a middle in-plane interface to handle
the non-conformal mesh, as anode and cathode sides of
the cell are placed in a cross-flow layout.
fuel cell applications, should be of general validity up to the
possible extent.
A major drawback when performing mesh dependency
analysis is the computing power needed. It is well known that
computational requirements for fuel cell CFD modelling can
be very high for real 3D cells. Especially for stack simulations,
the computing power needed is in a first approach linearly
scalable with the number of cells. Therefore meshes with
several million cells are typically required for a detailed
modelling, and this makes parallel computing necessary.
Most commercial CFD software present good parallel scal-
ability, but the computing power still poses a limit for stack
modelling and even for single cells with a relatively high
number of channels. CFD simulations with up to 1.0 billion
mesh elements have been already reported for different
applications, though for pure aerodynamic or hydrodynamic
applications with therefore less transport equations. Such
enormous computing resources are not generally available. As
an example, up to date only small-scale stacks have been
resolved as stated by Shimpalee et al. [12]. From this and other
works on single cells, it can be concluded that around one
million cell elements are needed for the resolution of each
unit cell for typical 50 cm2 units. But the necessary Best
Practice Guidelines should be derived and applied in a case-to-
case basis in order to better estimate this number. Very large-
scale simulations of a 200 cm2 PEFC using a 23.5 million nodes
mesh for a 24-channel, 3-pass serpentine flow field, were
reported by Wang and Wang [13]. The massive parallel
computations were carried out in a PC-Linux cluster with 32
CPU. Meng and Wang [14] also exploited the idea of massive
parallel computing for CFD fuel cell simulations and also
reached the same number of 1 million mesh elements for
a small-scale single cell of 50 cm2 with serpentine flow field. It
is remarkable the fact that they performed a mesh indepen-
dence study in order to ensure mesh independent results.
Such activities must be further developed in order to present
a general CFD Best Practice Guidelines for fuel cell modelling.
It should be mentioned that many other issues must be
considered when performing such kind of analysis. The dis-
cretization method used (Finite Difference Method, Finite
Volume Method, Finite Element Method), the resulting
computational strategy, the resulting mesh and the element
type, also introduce significant challenges.
For the numerical results reported in the present work,
a basic analysis of this type was performed. Different CFD-
related issues were addressed in order to ensure good quality
results, minimising the effect of the CFD-inherent sources of
errors in the results.
First, a mesh dependence analysis was performed, using
a set of three meshes with subsequent increased spatial
resolution (Dx). The through-plane dimension was especially
considered. Meshes with 0.5, 1.0 and 1.8 million elements
were used. The results in the cell voltage for two given current
densities still differed in more than 5% between the two finest
meshes. A forth mesh with finer resolution would have been
needed to completely address the mesh independent results,
but this could not be accomplished given the known limita-
tion of computing power. Therefore, the mesh with 1.8 million
elements was used for the final simulations.
Second, the most suitable numerical scheme was ana-
lysed. First order (upwind) and second order numerical
schemes were used. It is widely known that upwind schemes
suffer from poor accuracy. This is due to the so-called
numerical diffusion, as the discretization of the convective
term in the transport equation results in an additional diffu-
sion-like term, adding a numerical diffusion to the solution.
However, the differences in the cell voltage prediction using
both schemes at two different current densities were not
significant, with differences below 0.2%. This is presumably
related to the high aspect ratio of fuel cells, as stated by Wang
[8]. A careful analysis of local profiles of selected variables
would be however necessary in order to fully address this.
Third, single and double precision solvers were used
searching for possible differences in the results. The fact that
meshes present elements with very high aspect ratios, espe-
cially in the catalytic layers due to the small through-plane
dimensions, makes double precision solvers recommended.
However, for the case under analysis presenting aspect ratios
up to 2500, simulations run with both single and double-
precision solvers resulted in same convergence behaviour and
solution. Therefore single-precision solver was used.
2.2. Governing equations and physical models
The three-dimensional fluid flow and heat transfer is
modelled by means of the resolution of the NaviereStokes
transport equations in its conservative form. The Naviere-
Stokes equations also known as conservation or transport
equations can be written in its general form as:
Z I I Z
v
rf dV rfV,dA Gf Vf,dA Sf dV (1)
vt
V A A V
where f is the transported quantity, t is the time, A the
superficial area, V the volume, Gf is transported quantity
diffusivity, and Sf is the source of f. The first term in
the equation corresponds to the transient transport of f, the
second term to the transport by convection mechanism,
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 1 1 5 3 3 e1 1 5 5 0 11537

the third term represents the transport of f by diffusion, and The electrochemistry is modelled by computing the reac-
the fourth term represents the source (or sink) of f. tants oxidation and reduction rates taking place at the cata-
The different transport equations are assembled by using lyst surfaces. The source terms in the equations, or transfer
the appropriate variables, as shown in Table 1 for the main currents, are calculated according to the general Butler-
fluid transport variables. Additionally, two potential equa- eVolmer equations.
tions are solved for the solid phase ( j solid) and the
!gan
membrane phase ( j membrane), respectively. H2   
  Ran ian eaan Fhan =RT  eacat Fhan =RT (5)
ref
H2 ref
V, sj V4j Rj 0 (2)
!gcat
where s is the electric conductivity, 4 the electric potential O2   aan Fh =RT 
Rcat icat e cat
eacat Fhcat =RT (6)
and Rj the volumetric transfer current. ref
O2 ref
Two additional transport equations are solved for the
modelling of multiphase flow, namely water liquid saturation Source terms for the chemical species (H2, O2, H2O) are
(see Eq. (10)) and water content. added to account for the electrochemical reaction:
The complete set of transport equations solved in the
analysis is therefore: mass continuity, momentum in (x, y, z) Mw ; H2
SH2  Ranode (7)
2F
directions, energy, chemical species (H2, O2, H2O), solid phase
potential, membrane phase potential, liquid saturation, and
Mw ; O2
water content. For the steady-state simulations presented in SO2  Rcathode (8)
4F
this work the transient term is not included in the model as
variables do not vary with time. Mw ; H2 O
The fluid flow pressure drop in GDLs and CLs is mainly SH2 O  Rcathode (9)
2F
governed by flow in porous media, represented by adding
A saturation model approach was used for the liquid water
a negative source in the momentum equations [8]:
formation and transport. The conservation equation for the
  liquid water volume fraction or water saturation, s, is solved.
m 1
Si  vi C2 rvmag vi (3)
k 2
verl s !
V,rl V l s rw (10)
where Si is the source term in i direction, k is the permeability, vt
m the kinematic viscosity, r the fluid density, C2 the inertial where the subscript l stands for liquid water, and rw is the
resistance factor, vi the velocity in i direction and vmag the condensation rate, modelled as a function of the difference
velocity magnitude. For the velocity ranges typically found in between vapour partial pressure and saturation pressure.
fuel cell GDL and catalytic layers only the viscous loss is Inside the porous zones the capillary diffusion term must
significant, and therefore the pressure drop in the GDL is replace the convective term in Eq. (10) to correctly account for
proportional to the local fluid velocity. The StefaneMaxwell the transport phenomena inside GDL, where liquid water
equation is governing the multi-species diffusion in the GDL transport is mainly driven by capillary forces:
[15], although the model presented in this work calculates
 
species diffusivities according to [16,17]: verl s Ks3 dpc
V, rl Vs rw (11)
vt ml ds
  1:5
pref Tref
Di e1:5 1  srs Dref
i (4) where K is the permeability and pc the capillary pressure
p T
computed as a function of s according to the Leverett function
where e is the porosity and rs is the pore blockage exponent [19]. As a first approach the liquid velocity Vl in Eq. (10) is
[18]. assumed to be equivalent to the gas velocity inside the gas
Volumetric sources are added to the energy equation, channel, so that the liquid droplets would behave as a fine mist,
accounting for reaction heat generation at the cathode CL with gas a liquid phases sharing the same velocity field. This is
(heat of reaction at the anode CL is very low and thus a major drawback, especially when liquid water partially
neglected), Joule effect, and latent heat in case phase change blocks the channels, either in the form of films, slugs or drop-
occurs. lets, as the model lacks a true multiphase flow (Euler-
ianeEulerian type) capable of accounting for such effects.
The blocking of the porous media and the flooding of the
reaction surface are modelled by multiplying the porosity and
Table 1 e Main fluid transport equations used in CFD
the active surface area by a factor (1-s). Species diffusivities are
analysis.
also corrected with s to account for the pore blockage (see Eq. (4)).
Equation Variable
Different expressions [16] were used for the modelling of
Continuity 1 transport properties in the membrane. Water content (l) is the
x-Momentum u (Velocity in x-direction) most important variable as almost all property expressions
y-Momentum v (Velocity in y-direction) depends on it. The empirical correlation of Springer et al. [20]
z-Momentum w (Velocity in z-direction)
was used, which is a polynomial fit of empirical data
Energy h (Enthalpy)
describing the relationship between water activity on the
Chemical specie i (i H2, O2, H2O) yi (Mass fraction of i)
membrane and water content:
11538 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 1 1 5 3 3 e1 1 5 5 0

l 0:043 17:18a  39:85a2 36a3 a < 1 change with compression or operating conditions (GDL
(12)
l 14 1:4a  1 a > 1 porosity and electric conductivity for example) with laws that
are difficult to characterize. Moreover, through-plane and in-
where a is the water activity, defined in the model as [16]:
plane values typically vary even by orders of magnitude, such
a Pv =Psat 2s (13) us electric conductivity in non-isotropic bipolar plates and
GDLs. Therefore, material properties represent a significant
The model equations described in this section (Eqs. (1)e(13))
degree of uncertainty in FC modelling.
constitute the modelling framework implemented in the
Table 2 lists the values for the parameters used in the
software used for the analysis [16].
present work. The materials physical properties (density,
Water management is known to be one of the most
heat capacity, electric conductivity, thermal conductivity)
important issues in the design and operation of a fuel cell, and
were available from the cell supplier technical specifications
its comprehensive modelling remains an unresolved chal-
(with the accuracy restrictions mentioned above). GDL
lenge in PEMFC model development despite the progresses
porosity and permeability were detailed as well in the tech-
made in recent years [6,8]. Both water transport in the MEA
nical data sheets. The properties of Nafion-117 including
and CL, GDL and channels are critical, but not yet resolved in
equivalent weight are also well known.
terms of comprehensive modelling capabilities. The water
Gas diffusion coefficients for the gases were estimated
balance in the cell must ensure an appropriate hydration of
from the literature [26], as well as the pore blockage exponent,
the membrane in order to ensure proton conductivity, espe-
where a value of 2.0 was used [18]. The contact angle for
cially in Nafion membranes where protons travel through the
multiphase flow was calculated for the PTFE content of the
membrane only if attached to water molecules (electro-
GDL according to the correlation obtained by Kumbur et al.
osmotic drag). The drying out of the MEA causes a high
[27]. The calculated contact angle for the GDL-gaseliquid
protonic resistivity and therefore loss of cell performance,
interface was 110 for the specified PTFE content (see Section
besides accelerated membrane degradation because of
3.1).
pinhole formation. A minimum water content in the electro-
The surface-to-volume ratio of the CL (Pt catalyst surface
lyte is then required, but an excess of water content produces
area or electrochemical surface area ECSA) was estimated
the well-known flooding phenomena in the cathode electrode
based on geometrical considerations, as no cyclic voltamme-
and GDL, where liquid water blocks the pores and catalyst
try measurements were available. The expression used was:
sites causing a decrease in the oxygen transport and reaction
rate. The cell performance drops as a result of the increase in h  i

ac 4pr2 mPt =d= rPt 3=4pr3
uPt (14)
the concentration polarization. This is particularly important
at high current densities where water is being produced in the
where ac is the catalyst surface-to-volume ratio, r is the radius
cathode at higher rates. In order to control cathode flooding
of the catalyst particle (2.5 nm was assumed), mPt is the plat-
a micro porous layer (MPL) placed between CL and GDL can be
inum load, d is the CL thickness, r is the catalyst density, and uPt
used to improve water evacuation from the cathode electrode,
is an efficiency of the Pt catalyst utilization. All the parameters
as well as ensuring better electrical and mechanical contact
in this equation were known (Table 2) but for the efficiency uPt.
[21]. Additionally, the GDL is treated with hydrophobic poly-
An initial value of uPt was set to 0.5, which is conservative
mers (PTFE) to enhance the water removal capabilities [22].
according to catalyst technology state-of-the-art in 2003,
The electro-osmotic drag induces a water content gradient in
where values of 0.75e0.90 were typical [28,29]. Older technol-
the membrane with lower water concentration at the anode
ogies were only achieving values of 0.1e0.5. The estimation is
side, and anode humidification can be then used to avoid
a source of uncertainty, so simulations were run for different
membrane dehydration. Thinner membranes such as Nafion-
values of uPt in the range 0.5e0.7 and no significant variations
111 features the ability of compensate water content gradients
in the polarization curve under the conditions analysed were
by means of back-diffusion mechanisms, but for thicker
observed. It must be mentioned that the term iref in Eqs. (5) and
membranes such as Nafion-112 or Nafion-117 back-diffusion
(6), with units A/m3, intrinsically includes the constant ac, so
is minimised. An appropriate water balance must therefore be
that iref iref,sac, where iref,s is the reference exchange current
maintained within the cell to ensure an appropriate perfor-
density based on the active surface of the catalyst with units A/
mance, since both flooding and drying-out result in an overall
m2. That means that the effect of ac, which certainly influences
performance loss [23]. Recent reviews of water management
the charge transfer source term, is already included in the term
issues in fuel cells and the associated voltage degradation can
iref that was used as model parameter for validation. The
be found in [22,24,25].
variation of ac in this framework is consequently not affecting
iref in the exchange current density equations (5) and 6, and
2.3. Model parameters hence the independence of the results on the value of upt for the
range and conditions tested.
The governing equations and physical models implemented Electrochemical-related parameters in the ButlereVolmer
contain different parameters that must be specified. Finding equation (reference exchange current density i0, concentra-
correct values for the parameters involved in the equations is tion exponent g and exchange transfer coefficients a) are
still one of the main issues in FC modelling. They can be in electrode and catalyst-dependent. It is known that the elec-
general estimated in a certain range, but only very few are trochemistry of the cell is controlled by the cathode oxygen
really well known even for technical data sheet available from reduction reaction (ORR) whereas the anode oxidation reac-
the cell material suppliers. Additionally, some parameters tion (HOR) is occurring very fast on Pt-catalysts, up to six
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 1 1 5 3 3 e1 1 5 5 0 11539

Table 2 e Model parameters used in the simulations.

Parameter Units Value Source
3
BP density kg/m 1990 [50]
BP specific heat capacity J/(kg K) 710 [50]
BP thermal conductivity W/(m K) 120 [50]
BP electric conductivity 1/(U m) 92,600 [50]
BP thickness mm 9.5 In-situ measurement
BPeGDL contact resistance (parallel) U m2 4.56e6 In-situ measurement [34]
BPeGDL contact resistance (serpentine) U m2 3.52e7 In-situ measurement [34]
GDL density kg/m3 321.5 [51]
GDL porosity e 0.82 [51]
GDL electric conductivity 1/(U m) 280 [51]
GDL viscous resistance (anode) 1/m2 1.0e12 [51],a
GDL viscous resistance (cathode) 1/m2 3.86e12 [51],a
GDL wall contact angle deg 110 [27]
GDL thickness mm 420 [51]
CL surface-to-volume ratio m2/m3 1.25e7 Eq. (13)
CL thickness (anode) mm 6.0 [52]
CL thickness (cathode) mm 12.0 [52]
Membrane density kg/m3 1980 [53]
Membrane thermal conductivity W/(m K) 0.16 [54]
Membrane equivalent weight kg/kmol 1100 [53,55]
Membrane thickness mm 175 [53,55]
Open circuit voltage V 0.98 In-situ measurement [34]
H2 diffusivity m2/s 8.0e5 [26]
O2 diffusivity m2/s 2.0e5 [26]
H2O diffusivity m2/s 5.0e5 [26]
Pore blockage saturation exponent e 2.0 [18]
Concentration exponent (anode) e 0.5 [30]
Concentration exponent (cathode) e 1.0 [56e58]
Charge transfer coefficient (anode) e 1.0 In-situ measurement [34],b
Charge transfer coefficient (cathode) e 1.0 In-situ measurement [34]
Reference exchange current density (anode) A/m3 5.6e12 Assumed from cathode valueb
Reference exchange current density (cathode) A/m3 5.6e7 Experimental fit (model parameter)
Reference exchange current density (anode), referred to cm2Pt mA/cm2Pt 448e5 Assumed from cathode valueb
Reference exchange current density (cathode), referred to cm2Pt mA/cm2Pt 448 Experimental fit (model parameter)

a From technical data sheet for air, and adapted for H2 and O2 according to Darcys law equation.
b Estimated from in-situ measurements for the cathode. As ORR in the cathode is controlling the electrochemistry of the cell (anode HOR
kinetics is much faster for the operating conditions used [40]) the parameters for the anode can be estimated without significant errors in the
cell final performance.

orders of magnitude faster. ORR is therefore the limiting
electrochemical process and requires a more detailed knowl-
edge of the BV equation parameters. The concentration
exponent was set to 1.0 for both ORR and HOR [30], whereas
the exchange transfer coefficient was obtained experimen-
tally from the correspondent Tafel plot [31]. The reference
exchange current density could also be determined from the
Tafel plot, but it is known that results obtained are not accu-
rate [32] and therefore i0 was used as a model parameter to
calibrate the numerical results against experimental
measurements.
Other parameters such as the bipolar plateeGDL contact
resistance were determined via experimental measurements
according to the method described in [33]. It is important to
include the BPeGDL contact resistance in the model, as it is
known to account for a relevant loss in the overall ohmic cell
voltage [33]. The values measured for the bolts torque used
(4.5 N m) were 4.56e6 U m2 for the parallel flow field plate
and 3.52e7 U m2 for the serpentine flow field plate. BP and
GDL materials and compression force were the same in both
cases, but the channel-to-land ratio varies significantly (2.70
in parallel flow field and 0.94 in serpentine flow field),
accounting for the differences in the values of the contact
resistance measured. This reflects the fact that the channel-
to-land ratio is an important engineering design parameter,
representing a trade-off between gas reactant transport and
contact resistance:
Rc Vloss =Acontact i (15)
In order to provide a comparison between the relative
importance of the bipolar plate bulk and contact electric
resistances, in the serpentine flow field bipolar plate analysed
the bulk resistance of the bipolar plate (9.5 mm thick, electric
conductivity 93,200 1/(U m)) represents only about 30% of the
ohmic resistance (10 mV loss for 0.8 A/cm2 current density),
whereas contact resistance represents about 70% of the
resistance (27.2 mV loss for 0.8 A/cm2 current density).
A detailed comparison of the relative contribution of the
contact resistance to the overall cell ohmic resistance (bulk
materials electric resistance, electric contact resistance,
protonic MEA resistance) for the cells simulated in this work is
given in [34], where for the cases analysed contact resistance
accounts up to 25% of the overall ohmic resistance in the
parallel flow field configuration depending on the operating
11540 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 1 1 5 3 3 e1 1 5 5 0

conditions, whereas materials bulk electric resistivity repre-
sents 25% of the ohmic losses and MEA protonic resistivity
represents the 50% of the overall ohmic losses.
The model was also based on different assumptions:
steady-state conditions, laminar flow in flow field channels,
Darcys type diffusion with negligible inertial forces contri-
bution, no material properties modification under cell
compression conditions (torque applied in bolts were 4.5 N m).
Additional significant assumptions were inherently applied
given the current limitations of the modelling capabilities:
mist conditions of the multiphase flow in flow field channels
(no droplets, films, or slugs are formed), isotropic and homo-
geneous properties of bipolar plate, GDL and CL, and no effect
of Knudsen diffusion in GDL and CL.
cell was also defined in the simulation (4.0 bar, absolute). Both
potentiostatic and galvanostatic boundary conditions can be
defined in the model. In order to calculate the different points
of the polarization curve, steady-state solutions are obtained
for low electric current densities, and after convergence
subsequent stationary solutions are obtained by raising the
average electric current. Galvanostatic boundary conditions
were used for convenience as this is representative of the real
operation mode of the experimental test station, where the
electronic load demands a certain electric current defined by
the set point. Table 3 presents the summary of the boundary
conditions used in the simulations.
2.5. Hardware requirements

2.4. Boundary conditions
The boundary conditions were defined to set the operating
point of the fuel cell. Each point of the polarization curve was
defined by setting the current density being drawn from the
cell. Using the Faraday equation and the stoichiometric
factors, the reactant volume flows were determined for each
current density:
Qv;H2 6:97IqH2
Qv 16:7Iqair
Qv;O2 3:49IqO2
where Qv is the reactant volume flow (mlN/min), I is the cell
current (A), and q is the stoichiometric factor.
In order to obtain a complete polarization curve different
points were calculated. For humidified reactants the corre-
sponding water vapour was added as a mass fraction at the
inlet gases. Fixed temperature boundary conditions were
applied at the bipolar plateecurrent collector surface and inlet
reactants, with a value equal to the operating temperature of
the cell (60  C). At the cell outer surface ambient conditions
were assumed, with a heat transfer coefficient of 5.0 W/m2 K
and ambient temperature 25  C. The operating pressure of the
The simulations were carried out in a Quad-core HP worksta-
tion with 4.0 GB RAM and 2.40 GHz CPU, running Windows XP
Operating System with SP2. The solver allocated 3.0 GB RAM for
the 1.8 million elements mesh. Typical wall clock computing
times are 24 h for the first point of the polarization curve as the
solution must converge from a dummy initial guess, using low
relaxation factors at the beginning of the simulation. The initial
point to be calculated corresponds to the lowest current
density, as multiphase and liquid transport effects are less
(16)
significant and convergence is therefore faster. Further points
in the polarization curve use previous results at lower current
(17) densities as initial conditions so that the converged solution is
faster to achieve, with typical wall clock computing times of
(18) 4e6 h. The complete process is programmed in a script file so
that the solver automatically runs all the points in batch mode.
3. Experimental
3.1. Test station and cell description
The experimental work was conducted with a test station
located at the Fuel Cell Laboratory at INTA.
The cell consisted of graphite bipolar plates from Electro-
Chem Inc., where two designs e parallel and five-channel

Table 3 e List of boundary conditions used in the simulations.

H2 2.0 RH 100% H2 1.5 RH 0% H2 1.5 RH 60% H2 2.0 RH 60%

O2 10.0 RH 100% Air 5.0 RH 0% Air 3.5 RH 60% O2 10.0 RH 60%

Anode voltage (V) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Cat current density (A/cm2) 0.1e1.0 0.1e1.0 0.1e1.0 0.1e1.0
An inlet vol flow (mlN/min)a 6:97  2:0  I QvH2 Oa 6.97  1.5  I 6:97  1:5  I QvH2 Oa 6:97  2:0  I QvH2 Oa
Cat inlet vol flow (mlN/min) 3:49  10:0  I QvH2 Oc 16.7  5.0  I 16:7  5:0  I QvH2 Oc 3:49  10:0  I QvH2 Oc
An/Cat inlet T (K) 333.15 333.15 333.15 333.15
An relative humidity (%) 100 0 60 60
Cat relative humidity (%) 100 0 60 60
An/Cat outlet press (bar, absolute) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
BP/current collector T (K) 333.15 333.15 333.15 333.15
BP external side hc (W/m2 K) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Ambient T (K) 298.15 298.15 298.15 298.15

a Given the minimum value of the volume flow rate delivered by the test station, actual anode Qv values for 0.1 and 0.2 A/cm2 are larger than
corresponding to the stoichiometric factor. This has been considered in the simulation by defining the real flow rate delivered by the test bench
at the anode inlet boundary condition. Cathode volume flow rates could be set appropriately for all operating conditions in the test station.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 1 1 5 3 3 e1 1 5 5 0
serpentine flow field e were tested. Figs. 1 and 2 show the
bipolar plates designs. Parallel flow fields are known to
present a poor performance in terms of water management,
reactant distribution over the electrode and pressure loss
distribution along the stack [35], but this design was also
selected as the objective of the analysis is the development of
a validated CFCD model suitable for different bipolar plate
designs.
A set of Gas Diffusion Layers from SGL Group (Sigracet 10
CC) 0.42 mm thick were used. GDLs have a porosity of 0.82 and
a 10% PTFE content. The GDL contains a Micro Porous Layer
(MPL) for enhanced performance of the GDLecatalyst layer
(CL) interface. A Catalyst Coated Membrane (CCM) from Baltic
fuel cells was used, with catalyst loading at anode and
cathode electrodes 0.3 mg Pt/cm2 and 0.6 mg Pt/cm2, respec-
tively. The Ionomer/Carbon ratio (I/C ratio) is 1.2/2, with 70%
Pt over carbon and Ionomer/Catalyst ratio 1/4. The high I/C
ratio avoids significant voltage losses from high electrode
proton resistances, especially under low relative humidity
conditions [36]. The membrane material was Nafion-117.
3.2. Experimental tests description
Polarization curves for different conditions were obtained for
the cells under analysis. The experimental methodology fol-
lowed the well established FCTESTnet procedures for single
cells [37].
Hydrogen was used as fuel and air or pure oxygen as
oxidant. The operating pressure was set to 4.0 bar (absolute)
for all cases, and temperature was set to 60  C, constant for all
the current density range. Stoichiometric factors between 1.5
and 2.0 were used for the anode, and between 3.5 and 10.0
were used for the cathode (Table 3). The objective of operating
with high stoichiometric factors was double. First, together
with the use of O2 as oxidant, to achieve operating conditions
free of mass transport losses in order to generate Tafel plots
for the determination of the charge transfer coefficient [34].
Secondly, to minimise the voltage oscillations observed at
high current densities with the parallel flow field plate oper-
ating with air. The oscillations, up to 0.1 V in cases with
cathode stoichiometric factor 5.0, were presumably originated
by mass transport limitations as stated in the work of Kuli-
kovsky [38]. Channel blockage due to liquid water is also
known to induce voltage or power oscillations [39], and
therefore the oscillations were minimised operating at higher
cathode stoichiometric factors. The resulting polarization
curve showing such voltage oscillations cannot be considered
as valid despite the data filtering procedures. This is why
a factor 10.0 was used for the cell with parallel BP, presenting
voltage oscillations of less than 0.01 V at high current densi-
ties. The operation with pure oxygen completely eliminated
the voltage oscillations at all current densities (oscillations at
high current density were less than 1 mV), demonstrating that
the mass transport issues when the cell was operated with air
at high current densities. This effect was remarkable for BPs
with parallel flow field, as it is known to perform worse in
terms of water management and reactant distribution [35].
A data filtering software was applied to voltage measure-
ments. The reproducibility of the results was addressed by
replicating the experiments. The contact BPeGDL resistance
11541
was measured according to [33], where the contact resistance
between GDL and CL was neglected. This is a common
approach, as it is known to present a very small contribution
to the overall resistance [32], in particular in the case under
analysis where the GDL contains an MPL contacting the
electrode.
High frequency resistance was determined from Nyquist
plots via AC impedance spectroscopy. The values obtained
were used for the calculation of the voltage ohmic-correction.
Tafel plots were created and from the slope the value of the
charge transfer coefficient was obtained [31]. Further details
for experimental HFR results, together with the corresponding
Nyquist and Tafel plots for the cells under analysis can be
found in [34].
4. Results and model validation
The need for careful validation of CFD modelling results is
shown in Fig. 5 for the case of H2/air parallel flow field for
stoichiometric factors of 1.5 for the anode and 10.0 at the
cathode, without humidification. Table 4 presents the errors
in voltage prediction for the different simulations in Fig. 5 at
various current densities.
The results using the default model parameters are
labelled CFD model initial. It is clearly observed that the
polarization curve is very far from the experimental
measurements. This represents the fact that the results of
a CFD fuel cell model cannot be trusted unless careful exper-
imental validation is provided. In Fig. 5, the polarization
curves after validation are representing the experimental cell
polarization curve with much better accuracy, although for
a detailed validation analysis the number of numerical IV
points in the polarization curve should be increased. The
ButlereVolmer equation parameter reference current density
was used as model parameter for validation purposes as
stated in Section 2.3. Lastly, the curve obtained after applying
the basic Best Practice Guidelines outlined in Section 2.1.1 is
1.2
CFD model initial
CFD model validation-01
1
CFD model validation-01 BPG
Experimental
0.8
Voltage (V)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Current density (mA/cm2)
Fig. 5 e Polarization curves for the different approaches:
experimental measurements and CFD results for different
model parameters and computational meshes.
11542 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 1 1 5 3 3 e1 1 5 5 0

1.1
Table 4 e CFD model error in voltage prediction.
i (mA/cm2) V Exp (V) Err V val-01 (%) Err V val-BPG (%) 1
Parallel H2 2.0 HR 100% O2 10.0 HR 100%

100 0.76 2.40 0.72 0.9

200 0.66 3.61 5.46 CFD model
0.8
300 0.51 2.56 0.04

Voltage (V)
400 0.25a 45.84a 19.49a 0.7

a Estimated from the experimental results extrapolation. 0.6

presenting an even better accuracy that can be better
observed at higher current densities, as mass-transport
polarization effects are not appropriately reproduced by the
coarser mesh. The kinetic and ohmic-controlled parts of the
curve are well reproduced by both validated simulations, as
the initial mesh was also relatively fine. The previous results
indicate that within the modelling framework presented in
this work, mesh refinement is more critical for reproducing
mass transport phenomena.
In order to characterize the performance of the cell, a set of
polarization curves was obtained in the test station for the
different bipolar plates and representative operating condi-
tions. The results for selected test are presented in Fig. 6.
Additionally, results for the numerical model are shown in
Figs 7e10, together with experimental polarization curves
obtained for the operating conditions modelled. The discus-
sion on the results is provided in Section 5.
Besides overall performance analysis based on polarization
curves, it is also of major importance to understand the local
phenomena occurring in the fuel cell. Three-dimensional
CFCD modelling is an excellent method to approach this, as
experimental techniques are not easy to apply to local
measurements given the small through-plane dimensions of
fuel cells. Results can help scientists and engineers to
understand the complex phenomena in fuel cells, thus
providing useful information for more efficient designs and
operation.
Water and heat management and reactants distribution
among other issues can be analysed by means of CFCD.
Besides, local distributions of field variables can significantly
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Current density (mA/cm2)
Fig. 7 e Experimental and numerical results for parallel
flow field BP. H2/O2 fully humidified. Stoichiometric factors
2.0/10.0 for anode and cathode.
vary even for the same cell when operated at different current
densities. For the case shown in Fig. 10, local distributions of
certain variables have been analysed for 100 mA/cm2 and
1000 mA/cm2. The reactants distribution at the anode and
cathode GDLeCL interfaces presented in Figs. 11 and 12 shows
very different profiles. Membrane temperatures are shown in
Fig. 13 and liquid water contents at the membrane and
cathode CLemembrane interface in Figs. 14 and 15, respec-
tively. In order to investigate the membrane water content
effects, l values at the membrane together with values at the
half-membrane anode and cathode sides are reported in Table
5. The protonic conductivity of the membrane is represented
in Fig. 16 and the overall current density distribution in Fig. 17.
Pressure drop along the channels was also calculated. The
distribution of static pressure in the channel/GDL interface at
anode and cathode sides is shown in Fig. 18 for 1000 mA/cm2,
and overall pressure drops are reported in Table 6 for parallel
and serpentine flow field bipolar plates.

1.1
Serp: an 2.0 RH 99% - cat 10
10 (O2)
(O2) RH 99%
1.1
Serpentin H2 1.5 HR 0% Air 5.0 HR 0%
1 Serp: an 1.5 RH 35% - cat 5.0
5.0 RH
RH 35%
35% 1
CFD model
Serp: an 1.5 RH 0% - cat 5.0
5.0 RH
RH 0%
0%
0.9 0.9
Par: an 1.5 RH 0% - cat
cat 10
10 RH
RH 0%
0%

0.8
0.8
Voltage (V)
Voltage [V]

0.7
0.7

0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4

0.4
0.3

0.3 0.2
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800
i [mA/cm2] Current density (mA/cm2)

Fig. 6 e Selected experimental polarization curves for Fig. 8 e Experimental and numerical results for serpentine
parallel and serpentine flow fields and different operating flow field BP. H2/air without humidification. Stoichiometric
conditions. factors 1.5/5.0 for anode and cathode.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 1 1 5 3 3 e1 1 5 5 0 11543

1.1
Serpentin H2 1.5 HR 60% Air 3.5 HR 60%
1
CFD model
0.9

0.8
Voltage (V)

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Current density (mA/cm2)

Fig. 9 e Experimental and numerical results for serpentine

flow field BP. H2/air with relative humidity 60%.
Stoichiometric factors 1.5/3.0 for anode and cathode.

5. Discussion

The need for extensive CFD Best Practice Guidelines and

model validation was addressed in Section 4. The differences
in the experimental polarization curves show the trends
expected. Parallel flow field performs worse than serpentine
flow field as discussed in Section 3.2. With serpentine flow
field BPs, it is observed that reactant humidification enhances
the performance as it prevents the MEA from drying out. The
most outstanding performance is obtained when the cell is
operated with full humidification and pure oxygen, as
concentration polarization is minimised and exchange
current density enhanced (Eq. (6)). All experimental work and
numerical CFD simulations were carried out at 60  C and
4.0 bar (absolute), operating at different reactant stoichio-
metric factors, oxygen concentration, and humidification
conditions as described in Sections 2.4 and 3.2.
Fig. 11 e H2 mass fraction distribution over the anode
catalytic layer for the case in Fig. 10. Top: 100 mA/cm2.
1.1
Serpentine H2 2.0 HR 100% O2 10.0 HR 100%
Bottom: 1000 mA/cm2.
1
CFD model
0.9
Four different validation cases are presented in Figs. 7e10.
0.8 A good agreement between experimental and numerical
Voltage (V)

model results is generally observed, although for a detailed

0.7
validation analysis the number of numerical IV points in the
0.6 polarization curve should be increased.
It is important to mention that after assessing the CFD-
0.5
related parameters by means of Best Practice Guidelines, and
0.4 as many as possible fuel cell model parameters, only the
reference exchange current density was unknown. It was
0.3
therefore used as a model parameter for calibrating the model
0.2 and fitting the experimental data.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
The value of the cathode reference exchange current
Current density (mA/cm2)
density iref
0 that was found by fitting the experimental data is
Fig. 10 e Experimental and numerical results for 448 mA/cm2Pt (Table 2). This value was used for all operating
serpentine flow field BP. H2/O2 with relative humidity 60%. conditions and bipolar plates, as the CCM MEAs used were
Stoichiometric factors 2.0/10.0 for anode and cathode. the same for all numerical simulations and experimental
11544 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 1 1 5 3 3 e1 1 5 5 0
Fig. 12 e O2 mass fraction distribution over the cathode
catalytic layer for the case in Fig. 10. Top: 100 mA/cm2.
Bottom: 1000 mA/cm2.
tests. The cathode reference exchange current density is
limiting the kinetics of the cell at the conditions analysed in
the present study, namely pure hydrogen fuel and rather
high anode catalyst load [40]. Therefore, cell kinetics is rather
independent on the HOR kinetic parameters, and the anode
reference exchange current density was estimated to be five
orders of magnitude larger [40]. The value of the cathode
reference exchange current density is comparable to the
value reported in the literature (see Table 3 in [41] for
a review of values found in the literature) where very closed
values are reported for comparable medium-high catalyst
loads.
The model developed is therefore presenting a single
parameter that was adjusted to match the experimental
results. But despite featuring a unique calibration parameter,
the model is predicting the performance of the cell with good
Fig. 13 e Temperature at the mid-plane of the MEA for the
case in Fig. 10 (K). Top: 100 mA/cm2. Bottom: 1000 mA/cm2.
accuracy for a wide range of operating conditions and
different bipolar plate designs.
This work therefore represents an original contribution, in
the sense that the model developed is not limited to the
analysis of a unique type of cell, but can be extended to
analyse different designs with a certain degree of confidence.
This is of course true as long as correct parameters are
provided for the modelling of new elements (electrodes, GDL,
BP, membrane). However, further validation would still be
needed in order to ensure that results for the new cells are
maintained within a certain range of accuracy.
Additionally, further validation work is also needed given
the complex coupled phenomena of fuel cells, where global
polarization curves do not reveal a comprehensive represen-
tation of the fuel cell phenomena as they describe the integral
result of the coupled physicochemical phenomena. Polariza-
tion curves are therefore not sufficient for a detailed validation
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 1 1 5 3 3 e1 1 5 5 0
Fig. 14 e Liquid water content (l) at the cathode
CLemembrane interface for the case in Fig. 10
(dimensionless). Top: 100 mA/cm2. Bottom: 1000 mA/cm2.
of CFD models [8]. Current density distribution measurements
using segmented current collectors [42,43], species (water)
distributions measurements [44], together with HFR
measurements and liquid phase visualization [45,46], are
experimental tools that can be used for enhanced validation of
CFCD models as they provide much detailed information about
the spatial distribution of relevant variables, which can be
directly used for comparison against numerical results.
An important deviation from the experimental measure-
ments is observed at high current densities in Fig. 10. The
model fails to predict the voltage loss produced by the high
mass-transport polarization. The reason is presumably that
no real multiphase (EulerianeEulerian) model is applied.
Instead, a saturation model is used for the modelling of liquid
water formation. Liquid water behaves then as a fine mist
instead of as water droplets (or even films in the channel
11545
Fig. 15 e Liquid water content (l) at the mid-plane of the
MEA for the case in Fig. 10 (dimensionless). Top: 100 mA/
cm2. Bottom: 1000 mA/cm2.
walls). The fine mist flowing through the channels share the
same velocity field as the gas phase, and therefore no channel
blockage is possible. In order to correctly represent this effect,
a true multiphase model (typically EulerianeEulerian) is
needed. This constitutes one of the most active fields of
research in fuel cell modelling [8].
The reactants distribution above the catalytic layers is
qualitatively presenting the same pattern for the current
densities considered as observed in Figs. 11 and 12. For low
current densities, hydrogen concentrations present high and
uniform values in the electrode region near the channel inlet
as observed at the top of Fig. 11. This is due to the fact that
higher volume flow rates (and therefore stoichiometric
factors) of hydrogen had to be used for 0.1 and 0.2 A/cm2 given
the minimum flow rate limitations of the test station facility
(see Table 3). The oxygen consumption pattern over the
11546 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 1 1 5 3 3 e1 1 5 5 0

electrode is represented in Fig. 12. The linear concentration

decay typical of serpentine flow fields is clearly observed [22],
although for this particular case this effect is not representing
a drawback given the high stoichiometric factor used and the
use of pure reactant.
The membrane temperature distribution is shown in
Fig. 13. For high current densities both membrane tempera-
ture and water content (Fig. 15) are higher given the larger
current being drawn from the cell, which involves more water
being produced and more heat of reaction and Joule heating.
Temperature differences in the MEA operating at low current
densities are within 5  C, but at high current densities are
about 10  C, exceeding the value of 5  C which is generally
considered as a safe limit for ensuring MEA durability [47].
Therefore, the case analysed would fail to ensure MEA dura-
bility and the design and/or operating conditions should thus
be modified. The reason for this limit is the strong dependence
of the membrane conductivity on the hydration level. As
vapour saturation pressure is a function of temperature,
differences in membrane temperature modify the protonic
conductivity. From the water saturation curves, it can be seen
that a 23% variation in the vapour saturation pressure is
obtained within only 5  C temperature difference. This affects
the water activity, where a pv/psat and thus the conductivity.
Local dehydration of the membrane causes undesirable hot
spots, either by increasing the ohmic heat, which further
increase the dry-out of the membrane, or by decreasing the
current density given the reduced conductivity. In both cases
the overall cell performance is dropping [47].
Water content distributions (liquid phase) are shown in
Figs. 14 and 15 for the cathode CLemembrane interface and
membrane mid-plane, respectively. For the operation at high
current densities a local reduction in the water content is
observed near the cathode inlet despite the reactant humidi-
fication used. This local membrane hydration issue near the
channel inlet represents one of the drawbacks of serpentine
flow fields [22]. However, better membrane hydration is
clearly obtained at higher current densities, and higher l
values are observed at the CLemembrane interface than at the
membrane mid-plane. In order to better compare the Fig. 16 e Protonic conductivity at the mid-plane of the MEA
membrane hydration level and through-plane l distributions, for the case in Fig. 10 (1/(U m)). Top: 100 mA/cm2. Bottom:
Table 5 shows the membrane water content at both 100 and 1000 mA/cm2.
1000 A/cm2. Values are given for both anode and cathode half-
membrane sides and for the whole membrane. The higher
water production at the cathode at high current densities densities despite the full reactant humidification, as less
clearly increases the membrane humidification, resulting in water is being produced at the cathode. Additionally, signifi-
the enhanced protonic conductivity observed in Fig. 16. The cant l differences between anode and cathode sides of the
membrane is presenting lower water contents at low current membrane are also observed in Table 5, caused by the electro-
osmotic drag and cathode water production. As the thickness
of Nafion-117 membranes is high, the back-diffusion process
from cathode to anode side is not able to compensate the
Table 5 e Average membrane water content (l) for the water content gradients. This l differences are larger at high
case with serpentine flow field operating with H2 2.0 RH
current densities as electro-osmotic drag effects become more
100% O2 10.0 RH 100%.
important with respect to back-diffusion, and the amount of
Current l l l l Gradient
water generated in the cathode increases. l through-plane
density Membrane Membrane Membrane 100(lc
(mA/cm2) anode side cathode (average)  lavg/lavg) gradients can also be observed by comparing Fig. 14 (cathode
side CLemembrane interface) and Fig. 15 (membrane mid-plane
water content), where the values at the cathode CLemem-
100 5.52 6.72 6.12 9.8%
brane interface are clearly higher at both current densities
1000 7.13 11.41 9.27 23.1%
under analysis.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 1 1 5 3 3 e1 1 5 5 0 11547

Fig. 17 e Current density distribution for the case in Fig. 10 Fig. 18 e Static pressure distribution (Pa) over the channel/
(A/m2). Top: 100 mA/cm2. Bottom: 1000 mA/cm2. The sign GDL interface for the case in Fig. 10 at 1000 mA/cm2. Top:
of the current density is negative for convention. anode side. Bottom: cathode side.

The protonic conductivity of the membrane is represented content, and current density. Areas with enhanced or reduced
in Fig. 16. The in-plane distribution is clearly dependent on the water content are directly related to areas with enhanced or
water content shown in Fig. 15, as the model uses the relation reduced current density values.
from Springer et al. [20] where the membrane protonic
conductivity is proportional to the water content. The
conductivity average value is clearly higher for the case with
higher current density, given the enhanced hydration caused Table 6 e Pressure drop results for the case with parallel
by the larger quantity of water produced at the cathode elec- flow field operating with H2 2.0 RH 100%/O2 10.0 RH 100%
and serpentine flow field operating with H2 2.0 RH 60% O2
trode. However, near the channel inlet region the protonic
10.0 RH 60%.
conductivity is presenting lower values at high current
Bipolar plate i (A/cm2) DP anode (Pa) DP cathode (Pa)
densities. This is also related to the lower membrane water
content in this area as discussed previously. Parallel 0.4 0.4 9.6
Fig. 17 shows the resulting current density distribution in Parallel 0.6 0.7 17.5
the in-plane direction. The results for the cell operating Serpentine 0.4 37 589
Serpentine 0.8 108 1705
a higher current density clearly show the coupling between
Serpentine 1.0 142 2748
membrane protonic conductivity, hence membrane water
11548 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 1 1 5 3 3 e1 1 5 5 0
The pressure distribution over the channel/GDL interface
for the case presented in Fig. 10 operating at 1000 mA/cm2 is
shown in Fig. 18. The distribution clearly presents a linear
gradient along the channel length, with pressure drops in the
cathode side much larger (nearly factor 20.0) than in the anode
side, given the different flow rates. Quantitative pressure drop
results at different current densities are presented in Table 6
for parallel flow field and serpentine flow field bipolar plates
(cases shown in Figs. 7 and 10, respectively). Pressure drop in
the serpentine bipolar plate is much larger than in the parallel
bipolar plate, with a difference close to a factor 60.0. The main
reasons are the larger channel-to-land ratio, the shorter flow
path length, and the lower number of bends in the parallel
plate [48,49]. The higher pressure drop of the serpentine flow
field is increasing the power requirements as the parasitic
power loss needed for the reactants circulation through the
cell increases. Nevertheless, the better cell power output
performance with respect to parallel flow field plates is in
general compensating the higher pressure drop. The
quadratic pressure drop dependence on the flow velocity (or
current density) observed in Table 6 is indicating the contri-
bution of inertial losses in addition to friction losses at the
channel walls.
Physical and chemical phenomena in the cell are tightly
coupled as discussed previously and observed in the results
presented, with particular complexity regarding water manage-
ment issues. Not only overall or integral trends as considered in
Section 2.2 are important in the design and operation of fuel cell
systems, but also local distributions both in the in-plane and
through-plane directions inside the cell components.
6. Conclusions
A fuel cell model based on Computational Fluid Dynamics
(CFD) has been developed for a 50 cm2 fuel cell with parallel
and serpentine flow fields, accounting for all major physical
and chemical phenomena affecting fuel cell performance.
Experimental measurements were carried out in a fuel cell
test station in order to obtain polarization curves to charac-
terize the cell performance. Most of the model parameters
were determined from cell supplier information and literature
review. Additional experiments were carried out in order to
obtain other unknown parameters such as the exchange
transfer coefficient. Therefore, only one parameter, the
reference current density, remained unknown. This was used
as a model parameter for validation, so that it was adjusted to
fit the experimental results.
The numerical results obtained from simulations per-
formed for two different bipolar plate designs and operating
conditions showed good agreement with the experimental
data. CFD-related sources of errors were minimised by
running a basic CFD Best Practice Guidelines.
The local variable results have been analysed for a partic-
ular case at two different current densities. Reactant distri-
butions, heat and water management related variables and
current density distributions were discussed.
The simulation model developed can be further applied to
gain insight into the complex coupled process taking place in
fuel cells. This helps the optimization and design processes by
running parametric analysis and what-if? scenarios.
Different operating conditions, geometries, and materials can
be further analysed.
It was also shown that experimental analysis cannot be
substituted, and extensive validation is needed in order to
ensure the accuracy of the model results. Besides, given the
availability of computing resources, the model is currently
limited to single cells and not applicable to stacks.
Acknowledgements
This work has been funded by the Secretariat-General of
Universities, Research and Technology, from Junta de Anda-
luca, under the P08-TEP-4309 project. Authors also acknowl-
edge INTA for its close collaboration in PEMFC CFD modelling
and experimental validation.
references
[1] Larminie J, Dicks A. Fuel cell systems explained. 2nd ed.
Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons; 2003.
[2] Office of Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, National
Energy Technology Laboratory. Fuel cell handbook. 7th ed.;
2004.
[3] Ahluwalia RK, Wang X. Fuel cell systems for transportation:
status and trends. J Power Sources 2008;177(1):167e76.
[4] Schmittinger W, Vahidi A. A review of the main parameters
influencing long-term performance and durability of PEM
fuel cells,. J Power Sources 2008;180(1):1e14.
[5] Wu J, Yuan XZ, Martin JJ, Wang H, Zhang J, Shen J, et al. A
review of PEM fuel cell durability: degradation mechanisms
and mitigation strategies,. J Power Sources 2008;184(1):
104e19.
[6] Djilali N. Computational modelling of polymer electrolyte
membrane (PEM) fuel cells: challenges and opportunities.
Energy 2007;32(4):269e80.
[7] Siegel C. Review of computational heat and mass transfer
modeling in polymer-electrolyte-membrane (PEM) fuel cells.
Energy 2008;33(9):1331e52.
[8] Wang CY. Fundamental models for fuel cell engineering.
Chem Rev 2004;104(10):4727e65.
[9] European Research Community on Flow, Turbulence and
Combustion. ERCOFTAC best practice guidelines for
industrial computational fluid dynamics of single-phase
flows. ERCOFTAC; 2000.
[10] Scheuerer M, Heitsch M, Menter F, Egorov Y, Toth I,
Bestion D, et al. Evaluation of computational fluid dynamic
methods for reactor safety analysis (ECORA). Nucl Eng Des
2005;235(2e4):359e68.
[11] Kamarajugadda S, Mazumder S. On the implementation of
membrane models in computational fluid dynamics
calculations of polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells.
Comput Chem Eng 2008;32(7):1650e60.
[12] Shimpalee S, Ohashi M, Van Zee JW, Ziegler C,
Stoeckmann C, Sadeler C, et al. Experimental and numerical
studies of portable PEMFC stack. Electrochim Acta 2009;54
(10):2899e911.
[13] Wang Y, Wang C-Y. Ultra large-scale simulation of polymer
electrolyte fuel cells. J Power Sources 2006;153(1):130e5.
[14] Meng H, Wang CH. Large-scale simulation of polymer
electrolyte fuel cells by parallel computing. Chem Eng Sci
2004;59(16):3331e43.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 1 1 5 3 3 e1 1 5 5 0
[15] Berning T, Lu DM, Djilali N. Three-dimensional
computational analysis of transport phenomena in a PEM
fuel cell. J Power Sources 2002;106(1e2):284e94.
[16] Fluent Inc., Lebannon, New Hampshire, User documentation
v6.3; 2006.
[17] Um S, Wang CY, Chen KS. Computational fluid dynamics
modelling of proton exchange membrane fuel cells. J
Electrochem Soc 2000;147(12):4485e93.
[18] Nam JH, Kaviany M. Effective diffusivity and water-
saturation distribution in single- and two-layer PEMFC
diffusion medium. Int J Heat Mass Trans 2003;46(24):
4595e611.
[19] Pasaogullari U, Wang CY. Liquid water transport in gas
diffusion layer of polymer electrolyte fuel cells. J
Electrochem Soc 2004;151(3):A399e406.
[20] Springer TE, Zawodzinski TA, Gottesfeld S. Polymer
electrolyte fuel cell model. J Electrochem Soc 1991;138(8):
2334e42.
[21] Ramasamy RP, Kumbur EC, Mench MM, Liu W, Moore D,
Murthy M. Investigation of macro- and micro-porous layer
interaction in polymer electrolyte fuel cells. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2008;33(13):3351e67.
[22] Li H, Tang Y, Wang Z, Shi Z, Wu S, Song D, et al. A review of
water flooding issues in the proton exchange membrane fuel
cell,. J Power Sources 2008;178(1):103e17.
[23] Fouquet N, Doulet C, Nouillant C, Dauphin-Tanguy G, Ould-
Bouamama B. Model based PEM fuel cell state-of-health
monitoring via AC impedance measurements. J Power
Sources 2006;159(2):905e13.
[24] Yousfi-Steiner N, Mocoteguy Ph, Candusso D, Hissel D,
Hernandez A, Aslanides A. A review on PEM voltage
degradation associated with water management: impacts,
influent factors and characterization,. J Power Sources 2008;
183(1):260e74.
[25] Dai W, Wang H, Yuan X-Z, Martin JJ, Yang D, Qiao J, et al. A
review on water balance in the membrane electrode
assembly of proton exchange membrane fuel cells. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2009;34(23):9461e78.
[26] Liley PE, Reid RC, Buck E. Physical and chemical data, Perrys
chemical engineers handbook. In: Perry RH, Green D, editors.
, New York: McGraw-Hill; 1984.
[27] Kumbur EC, Sharp KV, Mench MM. Liquid droplet behavior
and instability in a polymer electrolyte fuel cell flow channel.
J Power Sources 2006;161(1):333e45.
[28] Gasteiger HA, Gu W, Makharia R, Mathias MF, Sompalli B.
Beginning-of-life MEA performance e efficiency loss
contributions. In: Vielstisch W, Yokokawa H, Gasteiger HA,
editors. Handbook of fuel cells. Chichester, UK: John Wiley;
2003. p. 593e610.
[29] Kocha SS. Principles of MEA preparation. In: Vielstisch W,
Yokokawa H, Gasteiger HA, editors. Handbook of fuel cells.
Chichester, UK: John Wiley; 2003. p. 538e65.
[30] Koper MTM. Fuel cell catalysis: a surface science approach.
Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley; 2009.
[31] Mench M. Fuel cell engines. 1st ed. Wiley; 2008.
[32] Neyerlin KC, Gu W, Jorne J, Gasteiger HA. Determination of
catalyst unique parameters for the oxygen reduction
reaction in a PEMFC. J Electrochem Soc 2006;153(10):
A1955e63.
[33] Barbir F. PEM fuel cells: theory and practice. 1st ed. Elsevier
Academic; 2005.
[34] Iranzo A, Munoz M, Rosa F, Lopez E. Experimental fuel
cell performance analysis under different operating
conditions and bipolar plate designs. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2010;35(20):11437e47.
[35] Li X, Sabir I. Review of bipolar plates in PEM fuel cells: flow-
field designs. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2005;30(4):359e71.
11549
[36] Liu Y, Murphy MW, Baker DR, Gu W, Ji C, Jorne J, et al.
Evaluation of Proton conduction in PEM fuel cell
cathodes by AC impedance. J Electrochem Soc 2009;156
(8):B970e80.
[37] EUFP5_ProjectENG2-CT-2002-20657, FCTESTNET test
procedures draft v1.4. The fuel cell testing and
standardization network; 2006.
[38] Kulikovsky AA, Scharmann H, Wippermann K. On the origin
of voltage oscillations of a polymer electrolyte fuel cell in
galvanostatic regime. Electrochem Commun 2004;6(7):
729e36.
[39] Trabold TA, Owejan JP, Gagliardo JJ, Jacobson DL, Hussey DS,
Arif M. Use of neutron imaging for proton exchange
membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) performance analysis and
design. In: Vielstisch W, Yokokawa H, Gasteiger HA, editors.
Handbook of fuel cells. Chichester, UK: John Wiley; 2009. p.
658e72.
[40] Gasteiger HA, Panels JE, Yan SG. Dependence of PEM fuel
cell performance on catalyst loading. J Power Sources 2004;
127(1e2):162e71.
[41] Gasteiger HA, Kocha SS, Sompalli B, Wagner FT. Activity
benchmarks and requirements for Pt, Pt-alloy, and non-Pt
oxygen reduction catalysts for PEMFCs. Appl Catal B Environ
2005;56(1e2):9e35.
[42] Higier A, Liu H. Optimization of PEM fuel cell flow field via
local current density measurement. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2010;35(5):2144e50.
[43] Hwnag JJ, Chang WR, Peng RG, Chen PY, Su A. Experimental
and numerical studies of local current mapping on a PEM
fuel cell. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2008;33(20):5718e27.
[44] Park J, Li X, Tran D, Abdel-Baset T, Hussey DS, Jacobson DL,
et al. Neutron imaging investigation of liquid water
distribution in and the performance of a PEM fuel cell. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2008;33(13):3373e84.
[45] Wu J, Yuan XZ, Wang H, Blanco M, Martin JJ, Zhang J.
Diagnostic tools in PEM fuel cell research: part I:
electrochemical techniques. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2008;33
(6):1735e46.
[46] Wu J, Zi Yuan X, Wang H, Blanco M, Martin JJ, Zhang J.
Diagnostic tools in PEM fuel cell research: part II: physical/
chemical methods. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2008;33(6):
1747e57.
[47] Pasaogullari U. Heat and water transport models for polymer
electrolyte fuel cells. In: Vielstisch W, Yokokawa H,
Gasteiger HA, editors. Handbook of fuel cells. Chichester, UK:
John Wiley; 2009. p. 616e30.
[48] Maharudrayya S, Jayanti S, Deshpande AP. Pressure losses in
laminar flow through serpentine channels in fuel cell stacks.
J Power Sources 2004;138(1e2):1e13.
[49] Maharudrayya S, Jayanti S, Deshpande AP. Flow distribution
and pressure drop in parallel-channel configurations of
planar fuel cells. J Power Sources 2005;144(1):94e106.
[50] ElectroChem. Inc. http://fuelcell.com/techsheets/Brochure%
20FC05&25.pdf.
[51] SGL Group. http://www.sglgroup.com/cms/international/
products/product-groups/su/fuel-cell-components/.
[52] QuinTech Fuel Cell Technology. http://www.quintech.de/
englisch/pdf/catalog/fuel-cells-components-applications.
pdf.
[53] DuPont Fuel Cells. http://www2.dupont.com/FuelCells/en_
US/products/nafion.html.
[54] Khandelwal M, Mench MM. Direct measurement of through-
plane thermal conductivity and contact resistance in fuel cell
materials. J Power Sources 2006;161(2):1106e15.
[55] Slade S, Campbell SA, Ralph TR, Walsh FC. Ionic conductivity
of an extruded Nafion 1100 EW series of membranes. J
Electrochem Soc 2002;149(12):A1556e64.
11550 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 1 1 5 3 3 e1 1 5 5 0

[56] Parthasarathy A, Martin CR, Srinivasan S. Investigations of
the O2 reduction reaction at the platinum/nafion interface
using a solid-state electrochemical cell. J Electrochem Soc
1991;138(4):916e21.
[57] Parthasarathy A, Srinivasan S, Appleby AJ, Martin CR.
Pressure dependence of the oxygen reduction reaction at the
platinum microelectrode/nafion interface: electrode kinetics
and mass transport. J Electrochem Soc 1992;139(10):2856e71.
[58] Parthasarathy A, Srinivasan S, Appleby AJ, Martin CR.
Temperature dependence of the electrode kinetics of oxygen
reduction at the platinum/nafion(R) interface e a microelectrode
investigation. J Electrochem Soc 1992;139(9):2530e7.