Journal of Power Sources 510 (2021) 230396

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Power Sources

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

Wall-function method used to simplify the solid oxide fuel cell model
Shuanglin Shen a, *, Xiaokun Zhang a, Keqing Zheng a, Yihan Ling b, c, Shaorong Wang c
a
School of Electrical and Power Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou, 221116, China
b
School of Materials Science and Physics, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou, 21116, China
c
Jiangsu Province Engineering Laboratory of High Efficient Energy Storage Technology and Equipments, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou, 221116,
China

H I G H L I G H T S

• Wall function method is introduced to simplify SOFC model.

• Validation results show simplified model gives same results to traditional 3D model.
• Wall function method allows coarse mesh to reduce computation storage and time.
• Wall function method allows introduction of more reaction details to improve accuracy.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Numerical model is a powerful tool in the solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) study, but its application is seriously
Solid oxide fuel cell restricted by the tremendous demand of computational resources and time due to the high aspect ratio of
Numerical model functional layers. In this paper, the wall-function method widely used in turbulent flow model is introduced to
Wall function method
simplify the SOFC model. By analyzing the similarity in SOFC functional layers to the viscous flow nearby wall, a
Reduce order model
set of wall functions is developed to calculate the generating current in functional layers instead of the traditional
complex partial differential equations. Compared with traditional full 3D model, the simplified model based on
wall-function method shows similar accuracy but uses only about one third mesh elements and spends less than a
half of solution time. Numerical results show that there are two important advantages for the wall-function
method: 1) it allows a coarse mesh which can significantly reduce the computational storage and time; 2) it
allows the introduction of other information in wall-functions and uses denser points in thickness direction which
can considerably improve the accuracy of model.

1. Introduction
The solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) is a promising electricity generation
technology owing to its high energy conversion efficiency, high power
density, low harmful gas emission and fuel flexibility [1,2]. However,
many problems (e.g. sealing [3], durability [4], metal interconnector
[5], thermal management [6] and so on) still restrict its commerciali­
zation. Mathematical model is an important tool for SOFC study and
application [7], it can help us understanding the physical process,
optimizing design and operation parameters [8], developing the com­
ponents or materials [9], and controlling the SOFC system [10].
Enormous advancements have been made in the numerical modeling
of SOFCs, and a couple of papers well reviewed previous numerical
works. For example, Sadik Kakac et al. summarized works at micro-
modeling and macro-modeling of SOFCs [8], Jinliang Yuan et al.
introduced the development of multiscale SOFC modeling and gave their
perspectives on the modeling development [11], Julia Savioli and
Graeme W. Watson reviewed latest advancements in the computational
modeling of SOFC components [9], Jingbo Wang et al. summarized the
state-of-the-art meta-heuristic algorithms used in the parameter identi­
fication of SOFCs [10] and S. B. Beale et al. reviewed the state of art of
solid oxide cell models from simple lumped parameters model to com­
plex 3D model and discussed the mothed of model validation by
experiment [12]. Babak Ghorbani and Krishna Vijayaraghavan gave a
list of review papers on SOFCs modeling [13]. However, the balance
between accuracy and calculation time is still an important problem for

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: shensln@cumt.edu.cn (S. Shen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2021.230396
Received 15 April 2021; Received in revised form 10 August 2021; Accepted 16 August 2021
Available online 21 August 2021
0378-7753/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
S. Shen et al. Journal of Power Sources 510 (2021) 230396

SOFC modeling. Fully three-dimensional (3D) model offers the highest 2. Method
resolution and accuracy, but needs much more computation resources
and times [14], which make it impractical to be used in the SOFC stack. 2.1. Traditional 3D SOFC model
Reducing the order of SOFC model is an effective trade-off between
the accuracy and computation time. A common approach is to reduce A SOFC usually comprises two electrode layers, an electrolyte layer,
the physical equations or geometry according to physical features and two gas channels and two interconnectors. The 3D geometry for a planar
some assumptions. For example, David L. Damm and Andrei G. Fedorov SOFC repeating unit is shown in Fig. 1. The electrode layers can be
developed a reduced-order transient thermal model by assuming a divided to diffusion layer and functional layer, and the electrochemical
constant gas velocity and 1D cell geometry [15], M. Roos et al. devel­ reaction only occurs at functional layer.
oped a 2D fuel cell stack model by the volume averaging method [16], A traditional 3D SOFC model comprises a CFD (computational fluid
Hua Li et al. reduced the 3D model to 2D model by the spatial smoothing dynamics) sub-model and an electrochemical reaction sub-model. The
method [17,18], Zijing Lin et al. developed a fully coupled stack model CFD sub-model usually includes the continuity equation, momentum
in which the model grids were reduced by using a simplified species conservation equation, energy conservation equation and species con­
transport equation [19,20]. Kevin Lai et al. [21] and Wee Choon Tan servation equation, and mathematical expressions of these equations are
et al. [22] respectively developed simple stack models in which the listed in Table 1.
model grids were reduced by simplifying the physical equations, Xinfan The electrochemical reaction sub-model for SOFC usually includes
Jin et al. developed a reduced order model for syngas-fueled SOFC by the Butler-Volmer equation and charge transport equations for ion and
assuming the electrochemical reaction occurs at the interface of elec­ electron. The Butler-Volmer equation is used to describe the electro­
trodes and electrolyte [14]. Milewski, J. and Szczesniak, A. developed a chemical reaction at electrodes and given as Eq. (1):
0D reduced order model by an equivalent electric circuit method [23]. ( )γ [ ( ) ( )]
C αnF (1 − α)nF
Xiong, Xingyu et al. introduced an alternative mapping method to jgen = i0 exp ηact − exp − ηact (1)
Cref RT RT
develop a multi-physics and multi-dimensional model by using
back-propagation neural networks. In this method, the conventional
Where i0 is the exchange current density, C and Cref are the concentra­
model is divided into two layer models: a full physics but reduced
tion and reference concentration of species, ηact is the activation over­
dimensional model and a reduced physics but fully dimensional model,
potential and can be calculated by Eq. (2) as:
and the two layer models both can be solved much more rapidly and
robustly [24,25]. Another approach is to reduce the order of SOFC ηact = ϕE − ϕI − Eeq (2)
model by a projection-based mathematical method [14]. For example,
Wenxiao Pan et al. introduced a general approach to develop where ϕE and ϕI are electronic and ionic potentials and are calculated by
reduced-order model for SOFC by the sensitivity analysis on the input charge transport equations respectively as:
parameters and the multi-element probabilistic collection method [26],
− ∇(σe ∇ϕE ) = Se (3)
B. J. Koeppel et al. developed a reduced-order model for SOFC stack by
the response surface approach [27], Maciej Lawrynczuk introduced two − ∇(σi ∇ϕI ) = − Se (4)
reduction method to develop reduced-order discrete-time model for
SOFCs [28]. where Se = Ave × jgen at functional layers and Ave is the electrochemical
The huge demands of computation resources and time for 3D SOFC reaction area at per unit volume.
model are mainly because of the very high aspect ratio of SOFC com­ The exchange current density at functional layers can be calculated
ponents (e.g. ~10 μm thick but 10 cm long electrolyte layer) and by an Arrhenius equation as [32,33]:
coupled multi-physics [15,19]. A common method to reduce the
computation resources is to reduce the dimension of SOFC components,
such as the 2D, 1D or 0D model and boundary (or interface) electro­ Table 1
chemical reaction assumption [14,29–31]. This method can effectively The mathematical expressions of CFD sub-model for SOFC [19].
reduce the computation resources and times, but will result in the Equations Mathematical expressions
decrease of model accuracy. Continuity equation ∇⋅(ρu) = Sm (8)
In this paper, a new method to reduce the computation resources and ∑
Sm = Si at functional layers
time is proposed by introducing the “wall-function method” which is Momentum conservation
i
ρ(u ⋅∇u) = − ∇p + ∇(μ∇u) + Sb (9)
widely used in turbulent flow. Then, a simplified 3D SOFC model is μ
Sb = − u at porous layers
developed by this method and compared with experimental data in lit­ K ( )
Energy conservation
eratures and numerical results given by a traditional full 3D SOFC ∇⋅[u(ρE +p)] = ∇⋅ keff ∇T −
∑
hj J j + Sh (10)
model. The comparison results show that this “wall-function method” j
Sh = Re Δhele + Re ηact,a/c + I2 Rohm at functional layers
can give similar results with the full 3D model, while effectively reduce Sh = I2 Rohm at other layers
computation resources and times. Species conservation ∇⋅Ni + ρ(u ⋅∇)Yi = Si Ni = − ρDi,eff ∇Yi (11)
Si = Ave × jgen × ν × Mi at functional layers

Fig. 1. The 3D geometry of a planar SOFC repeating unit.

2
S. Shen et al.
( )
RT Ea
i0 = Ai exp −
nF RT
Eeq is the equilibrium potential and calculated by the Nernst equa­
tion as:
RT pH2 RT
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
/ important effect on physical processes at other layers, thus the wall-
Eeq,an = − ln , Eeq,ca = E0 + ln pO2 p0 (6)
nF pH2 O nF
E0 is the standard Nernst potential at temperature T and can be
calculated as [34]:
E0 = 1.253 − 0.00024516 × T
The CFD sub-model and electrochemical reaction sub-model
communicate mainly by the source term (e.g. the generating heat) at
functional layers. Besides, the electrochemical reaction in functional
layers also changes the molar ratio of species, consequently, the physical
properties of gas mixture including density, thermal capacity and gas
diffusivity vary in the fuel cell and reversely affect the solution of the
CFD sub-model. Therefore, the CFD sub-model and electrochemical re­
action usually are solved together.
2.2. Characteristics of planar SOFC physical field
A lot of numerical studies find that the planar SOFC not only has a
special geometry structure but also its physical field shows some
particular features. The analysis on these characteristics of SOFC is
helpful to simplify the traditional 3D model, so some important char­
acteristics in electrodes and functional layers are given as following:
(1) The electrodes are porous, so that the electrochemical reaction
can occur at the electrode inside instead of the electrode/elec­
trolyte boundary. The optimal porosity is about 30% for the
electrochemical catalytical layer (or functional layer) and about
60% for the diffusion layer [35,36].
(2) The electrochemical catalytical layer (or functional layer) is
much thin, typically smaller than 20 μm [37,38]. The thickness of
electrochemical catalytical layer is far smaller than its width and
length (e.g. typical 10 cm), so there is a very high aspect ratio in a
SOFC.
(3) The electrochemical reaction only occurs at thin functional
layers. Therefore, the electrical current only generates or con­
sumes in functional layers, as well as reactants and products.
(4) In the functional layer, the electrical current transfers mainly in
the direction perpendicular to the electrolyte, so the in-plane
current is far smaller than the through-plane current and can be
neglected.
(5) In the functional layer, gases (reactants and products) transport
mainly in the direction perpendicular to the electrolyte. Besides,
the concentration loss of gases transportation in the functional
layer is small owing to the high diffusivity of gases.
(6) In the functional layer, the temperature gradient perpendicular to
the electrolyte is very small due to the high thermal conductivity
of electrode.
The functional layer, at where the electrical current generates, is
very important to the accuracy of SOFC models. But the high aspect ratio
and complex physical processes in functional layers require a very fine
mesh and large amount of computational resources, and this problem
always hinders the development of SOFC models.
However, the aim of most numerical works is usually to optimize the
total performance or parameters distribution in whole cells, rather than
the detailed physical process and local distribution of parameters (e.g.
species, potential, generated current) in the functional layer. In this case,
the complex physical process in functional layers can be treated as a
significant source for the whole fuel cell, meanwhile, previous given
characteristics show that the physical phenomenon in functional layers
Journal of Power Sources 510 (2021) 230396
is similar with the turbulent flow in a very thin layer nearby the wall
(5)
where the viscous effect predominates over the flow. In order to simu­
lated the viscous effect nearby the wall, the wall-function method was
proposed and widely used in the practical simulation. For SOFC, the
electrochemical reaction dominates in functional layers and shows an
function method can be introduced to the SOFC model.
2.3. The wall-function method
(7) The wall-function method is widely used to treat the turbulent flow
nearby the wall. In this method, the wall effect on the flow is described
by several wall functions to avoid the direct solution of flow equations
near wall layer. There are two main advantages of wall-function
method: first, it economizes the computational time and storage; and
second, it allows the introduction of additional information, such as wall
roughness, mass and heat transfer through wall, and so on [39].
Similarly, if physical processes at functional layers are described by
several simple functions instead of the complex differential equations
given in traditional 3D model, the computational time and storage can
be greatly reduced. For example, a simple Butler-Volmer equation is
usually used to described the electrochemical reaction by assuming that
electrochemical reaction only occurs at the electrode/electrolyte inter­
face [40]. But this assumption is difficult to introduce some detailed
information (e.g. micro structure of electrode, change of activation layer
[37], distribution of species and potential) into the reaction by only
using the exchange current density, consequently the accuracy of model
with this assumption will be seriously decreased. However, the
wall-function method can make sure the accuracy according to its sec­
ond advantage, because detailed information can be easily considered
by modifying wall functions.
According to characteristics given in the previous section, control­
ling equations in functional layers can be simplified as following.
(1) The momentum equation in functional layers:
The velocity is very small and can be neglected, so the pressure is
constant in functional layers. Thus:
u = 0, ​ p = Const (12)
(2) The species conversion equation in functional layers:
According to equation (12), the species conversion equation (11) can
be simplified as:
( )
− ∇⋅ ρDi,eff ∇Yi = Ave × IA/C × Mi (13)
In functional layers, the species gradient perpendicular to electrolyte
predominates the gas transfer, thus:
∂Yi ∂Yi ∂Yi ∂Yi
≫ and ≫ (14)
∂y ∂z ∂y ∂x
Therefore, gases transport only along the direction perpendicular to
electrolyte is considered and the species equation is given as:
( )
d dY
− ρDi,eff i = Ave × jgen × ν × Mi (15)
dy dy
(3) The charge conversion equation in functional layers:
The in-plane current is neglected in functional layers, so change
transport equations (3) and (4) are changed to:
d
(
dϕ
)
− σ e E = Ave × jgen (16)
dy dy
3
S. Shen et al. Journal of Power Sources 510 (2021) 230396

d
(
dϕ
) the electrochemical reaction in functional layers is treated as source
− σ i I = − Ave × jgen (17) terms and separately calculated by the simplified equations (15)–(17),
dy dy
(19). The fine mesh for functional layers is unnecessary, so the amount
of mesh can be greatly reduced and the computation time and storage
(4) The energy conversion equation in functional layers: also can be greatly reduced.
In this paper, the CFD sub-model and electronic transport equation is
The temperature difference perpendicular to the electrolyte is solved by commercial software Fluent®, and the “wall functions” (Eqs.
neglected in functional layers and electrolyte layer, so (15)–(17), (19)) are solved by a separated code. The communication
between the CFD sub-model and the separated code is implemented by
∂T
=0 (18) user defined function and the schematic diagram of computation pro­
∂y
cedure is shown in Fig. 2a. In the mesh generation, the wall-function
method of turbulent flow requires that the viscous layer nearby wall is
(5) The electrochemical reaction in functional layers: fully enclosed in the first layer mesh. In this model, the whole fuel cell
unit is divided by structured mesh, and the functional layer is separately
The electrochemical reaction is also described by the Butler-Volmer divided into a single layer mesh as shown in Fig. 2b for the convenience
equation as: of data exchange. Total elements of the mesh number are 1690548.
( )γ [ ( ) ( )] equations 15–17 are discretized by the control volume method and
C αnF (1 − α)nF
jgen = i0 exp ηact − exp − ηact (19) calculated by Thomas algorithm [41]. The grid numbers are 20 for both
Cref RT RT
anode and cathode functional layers in the y direction. The code is
solved in each control volume and then returns sources to the CFD
where ηact = ϕE − ϕI − Eeq .
sub-model. The data exchange before each iteration is implemented by
In the wall-function method, effects of electrochemical reaction are
the Fluent Macro “ADJUST”.
considered as source terms in the whole fuel cell model. The three main
source terms are total generating current, amount of gas consumption or
3. Results and discussion
production and amount of generating heat, and can be calculated as:
∑
tFL
3.1. Validation of the wall-function method
Itot (x, z) = Ave × jgen (20)
0
The polarization curves calculated by the full 3D model and wall-
∑
tFL
( ) function method are compared with the experimental data [32,33] in
Si (x, z) = Ave × jgen × ν × Mi = Itot (x, z) × ν × Mi (21) Fig. 3. The model parameters given in Table 2 are same as reference
[33], except the reference concentration and electrode tortuosity. In this
0

∑
tFL paper, the ratio of C/Cref in Eq. (1) is substituted by the molar ratio of
( )
Sh (x, z) = Re Δhele + Re ηact,a/c + I 2 Rohm (22) species, besides the boundary condition for energy conservation equa­
0 tion is constant temperature (1073 K) instead of the adiabatic condition
in Ref. [33].
where tFL is the thickness of functional layers.
The results of both full 3D model and wall-function method agree
In order to get these source terms, equations (15)–(17) and (19)
reasonably with the experimental data in Fig. 3, implying that these
should be solved in functional layers. The generating current jgen is
models and programs are reliable and can be used to study the fuel cell
varied as position y, so equations (15–17) are one-dimensional Poisson’s
performance. The performance given by models is lower than the
equation and can be solved by numerical method easily. The boundary
experimental data when the operating voltage is smaller than about 0.8
conditions are given as following.
V, and the difference rises with the decrease of operating voltage. This
At the interface between diffusion layers and functional layers:
difference may be caused by the constant temperature boundary con­
Yi = Yi,interface (23) dition set in models.
The performance calculated by wall-function method is slightly
ϕE = ϕE,interface (24) higher than that given by full 3D model, but the difference is very small.
Thus, the wall-function method can give similar performance as the full
dϕI 3D model, but costs less computation resources and time. The mesh
=0 (25)
dy number for full 3D model is about 6346076 (the mesh for full 3D model
seeing Appendix I), over three times than that used in wall-function
At the interface between functional layers and electrolyte layer:
method. Moreover, the solution time of wall-function method is much
dYi smaller than that of full 3D model. When the operating voltage is set to
=0 (26)
dy 0.8 V, the solution time of wall-function method is about 3930 s, while
the solution time of full 3D model is about 9172 s.
dϕE
=0 (27)
dy 3.2. Comparison with the full 3D model

dϕI
=0 (28) In order to verify the robustness of wall-function method, the
dy
simplified model with wall-function method is compared with the full
The interface values of species and electrical potential are gotten 3D model at different operating conditions. The neglect of in-plane
from the whole fuel cell model. species and charge transport is a crucial assumption for the wall-
function method, so anode and cathode inlet conditions are varied to
change the species distribution in fuel cell and operating voltages are
2.4. Solution method varied to change the average current density. Comparison results are
shown in Fig. 4 and relative errors of the wall-function method to full 3D
In wall-function method, the CFD sub-model given in Table 1 and the model at different anode inlet flow rates are listed in Table 3 (the rela­
electronic transport equation (3) should be solved in the whole fuel cell; tive errors at different cathode flow rates are given in Appendix II).

4
S. Shen et al. Journal of Power Sources 510 (2021) 230396

Fig. 2. (a) Schematic diagram of computation procedure, (b)the mesh division in the functional layers (CFL: cathode functional layer, EL: electrolyte layer, AFL:
anode functional layer).

Table 2
The parameters used in the model calculation [33].
Parameters Value

Geometrical parameters:
Cell length: 40 mm
Channel width 2 mm
Rib width 0.5 mm
Interconnector height 1.3 mm
Thickness of anode diffusion layer 0.38 mm
Thickness of anode/cathode functional layer 0.02 mm
Thickness of electrolyte layer 0.01 mm
Thickness of cathode diffusion layer 0.05 mm
Parameters for electrochemical reaction:
Transfer coefficient for anode and cathode α: 0.5
Concentration dependence coefficient for anode and cathode 0.5
γ:
Anode coefficient for exchange current density Ai: 6.54 × 1011 S m− 2
Cathode coefficient for exchange current density Ai: 2.35 × 1011 S m− 2
Anode activation energy for exchange current density Ea: 140 kJ mol− 1
Cathode activation energy for exchange current density Ea: 137 kJ mol− 1
Surface area to volume ratio of anode Ave: 1.08 × 105 m2 m− 3
Surface area to volume ratio of cathode Ave: 2.6 × 106 m2 m− 3
Fig. 3. The comparison of wall-function method with full 3D model and
Properties of different components:
experimental data in ref. [33].
Porosity of anode diffusion layer ε: 0.35
Porosity of anode functional layer ε: 0.3
The current density calculated by wall-function method is slightly Porosity of cathode diffusion layer ε: 0.35
Porosity of cathode functional layer ε: 0.3
higher than that given by full 3D model and this gap grows with the
Permeability of anode/cathode diffusion layer K: 2 × 1010 m2
increase of output current density (except the case 1E-8 mass flow rate of Permeability of anode/cathode functional layer K: 2 × 1011 m2
anode inlet) shown in Fig. 4. The effect of anode flow rate is greater than Tortuosity for change transport τ: 3.5
that of cathode flow rate, and when the anode flow rate is so small that Boundary conditions:
the fuel is used up, the output current density given by wall-function Anode mass flow rate − 2 × 10− 8 kg s− 1
Cathode mass flow rate 8 × 10− 7 kg s− 1
method is nearly same to that given by full 3D model shown in
Hydrogen molar ratio at inlet 0.95
Fig. 4a. Relative errors of wall-function method to full 3D model shown Oxygen molar ratio at inlet 0.233
in Table 2 are mostly smaller that 10%. The relative error mainly in­ Inlet gas temperature 1073 K
creases with the output current density, and it may greatly increase Top wall of cathode interconnector 0V
Bottom wall of anode interconnector Operating voltage
when the output current density is very small. The obvious dependency
Surrounding wall of cell 1073 K
of the relative error on output current density implies that the wall-
function method can give a higher generating current in the calcula­
tion of electrochemical reaction, consequently the output current den­ current density given by wall-function method is higher than that given
sity given by wall-function method is always higher than that given by by full 3D model, and the mass fractions of hydrogen and oxygen
full 3D model. calculated by wall-function method are slightly smaller than that given
The distribution of the current density and species calculated by by full 3D model. This difference coincides with the result shown in
wall-function method is also compared with the results given by full 3D Fig. 3 that the current density at a same voltage calculated by wall-
model in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6. In this comparison, the anode inlet flow rate is function is slightly higher than that given by full 3D model.
2E-8 kg s− 1 and cathode inlet flow rate is 8E-7 kg s− 1. These figures show According to the Butler-Volmer equation (19), the generating current
that wall-function method can get similar distribution in the fuel cell as is mainly dependent on species concentration and overpotential (elec­
the full 3D model. For example, the current density shown in Fig. 5 in­ trical potential and ionic potential), so the variations of electrical po­
creases from anode inlet to cathode inlet and the electrical current tential, ionic potential and generating current with y (thickness
mainly generates near the rib/channel interface; the mass fraction of direction) in functional layers are plotted in Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 (the var­
hydrogen and oxygen decreases from inlet to outlet shown in Fig. 6. iations of mass fraction of hydrogen and oxygen are given in Appendix
The distribution of current density and species is similar shown in III). The plotting position is about at the central of the cell (wall-
Figs. 5 and 6, but their values at a same position are different. The local

5
S. Shen et al. Journal of Power Sources 510 (2021) 230396

Fig. 4. The comparison of wall-function method with full 3D model at different inlet conditions.

Table 3
Relative errors of wall function method to full 3D model at different anode inlet flow rates.
Anode: 1E-8 kg s− 1, cathode: 8E-7 kg s− 1

Voltage/V 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95

Iwall/A⋅cm− 2 0.5411 0.5394 0.5165 0.4686 0.4023 0.3256 0.2446 0.1645
− 2
I3D/A⋅cm 0.5415 0.5344 0.5273 0.4454 0.3716 0.2935 0.2119 0.1304
Relative error − 0.07% 0.94% − 2.05% 5.21% 8.26% 10.94% 15.43% 26.15%
− 1 1
Anode: 2E-8 kg s , cathode: 8E-7 kg s−
Voltage/V 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95
Iwall/A⋅cm− 2 0.9852 0.8886 0.7806 0.6682 0.555 0.4435 0.3352 0.2321
I3D/A⋅cm− 2 0.936 0.8416 0.7404 0.6361 0.5303 0.4256 0.323 0.2245
Relative error 5.26% 5.58% 5.43% 5.05% 4.66% 4.21% 3.78% 3.39%
− 1 1
Anode: 3E-8 kg s , cathode: 8E-7 kg s−
Voltage/V 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95
Iwall/A⋅cm− 2 1.1795 1.0378 0.8979 0.7616 0.6302 0.5042 0.3839 0.2698
I3D/A⋅cm− 2 1.086 0.9617 0.8383 0.7165 0.5971 0.4807 0.368 0.2599
Relative error 8.61% 7.91% 7.11% 6.29% 5.54% 4.89% 4.32% 3.81%
Anode: 4E-8 kg s− 1, cathode: 8E-7 kg s− 1

Voltage/V 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95

Iwall/A⋅cm− 2 1.2828 1.1219 0.9668 0.8184 0.6771 0.5427 0.4152 0.2945
− 2
I3D/A⋅cm 1.1636 1.029 0.8948 0.7647 0.6382 0.5154 0.3967 0.2829
Relative error 10.24% 9.03% 8.05% 7.02% 6.10% 5.30% 4.66% 4.10%

discretized in functional layers in Y-direction. The plotting data for wall-

function method are got from the “wall-function” code, and there are 20
points in each functional layer for wall-function method but half of
points are skipped in Figs. 7 and 8.
Electrical and ionic potentials in functional layers given by wall-
function method are almost same with that given by full 3D model
shown in Fig. 7. The change of electrical potential in y direction is
negligible owing to the high electronical conductivity of electrodes. The
ionic potential decreases from anode to cathode and curves become very
sharp near the electrode/electrolyte interface, implying that the elec­
trochemical reaction is fast near this interface. Figure A3 (seeing Ap­
pendix III) shows that the mass fraction from full 3D model is higher
than that from wall-function method but the variation of mass fraction
to y is slight. The difference of mass fraction mainly results from the
different current density of these two methods, however, the effect of
this slight difference on the generating current is negligible.
The plotting of generating current in the thickness direction is given
in Fig. 8, and the generating current increases when near the electrolyte
due to the low ionic conductivity. The difference between these two
methods is tiny, except the last point near electrodes/electrolyte in­
Fig. 5. The distribution of current density at the ADL/AFL interface given by
terfaces, and the last point given by wall-function method is much
(a) wall-function method and (b) full 3D model (ADL: anode diffusion layer,
higher than that given by full 3D model (this case at anode: about
AFL: anode functional layer, unit: A⋅cm− 2).
9.44E8/7.63E8 Am− 3) because the last point for wall-function method is
closer to the electrodes/electrolyte interface. In the numerical calcula­
function: x = 1.467 mm, z = 19.938 mm, full 3D: x = 1.484 mm, z =
tion, each point value represents the value of this control volume, and
19.950 mm). The plotting data for full 3D model are values of control
the total generating current is the sum of all control volume values,
volumes gotten from Fluent program, and there are 8 points in each
therefore, the total generating current calculated by wall-function
functional layer shown in Figs. 7 and 8 due to 8 control volumes

6
S. Shen et al.
Fig. 6. The distribution of hydrogen and oxygen mass fraction at the profile of middle channel given by (a) wall-function method and (b) full 3D model.
Fig. 7. The plotting of electrical potential (a) and ionic potential (b) in functional layers and electrolyte layer.
Fig. 8. The plotting of generating current in functional layers.
method is slightly higher than that calculated by full 3D model due to
more control volumes in the thickness direction. This difference is very
small in a small local region, but the accumulation of this difference in
the whole fuel cell may results in the obvious difference in output cur­
rent density shown in Figs. 3 and 4.
Besides, the generating current at the outer layer of functional layers
shown in Fig. 8 is considerably large, implying that the thickness of
functional layers is insufficient and the electrochemical reaction may
7
Journal of Power Sources 510 (2021) 230396
penetrate into diffusion layers when they are composed of same mate­
rials to functional layers. Actually, the thickness of functional layer
varies in the whole fuel cell and is affected by many factors [37], so a
large thickness of functional layer is recommended in numerical model.
In this paper, the thickness of functional layer is chosen according to
reference [32,33].
Finally, comparison results between wall-function method and full
3D model indicate that the wall-function method can give similar cell
performance and parameters distribution. The small difference of output
current density is mainly caused by the different numbers of control
volumes in the thickness direction and the wall-function method allows
much more control volumes in the thickness direction than the full 3D
model, thus it can give a much finer distribution of generating current in
functional layers, and then should give a more accurate total generating
current and model results than the full 3D model.
4. Conclusion
The wall-function method used in turbulent flow model is introduced
to simplify the calculation of physical processes in functional layers of
SOFC. A set of wall functions is obtained by simplifying traditional
controlling equations according to physical features in functional layers.
A simplified 3D model for a SOFC repeating unit is developed by the
wall-function method and the simplified model is verified by comparing
with experimental data in literature and model results from traditional
full 3D model. The comparison shows that the model results gotten by
wall-function method reasonably agree with experimental data. More­
over, the performance given by wall-function method is similar with that
given by the full 3D model, and relative errors of wall-function method
S. Shen et al. Journal of Power Sources 510 (2021) 230396

to full 3D model are mostly smaller than 10% at different inlet condi­ Si Sources, kg m− 3
tions and operating voltages. These comparison results also show that T Absolute temperature, K
the wall-function method can robustly give similar fuel cell performance Yi Mass fraction of species i
with the full 3D model, while using much less computation storage and
time due to the great reduction of mesh elements. Greek symbol
Besides, the distributions of some key parameters in fuel cells are α Transfer coefficient
compared and highly similar distribution features are given by the wall- ηact Activation overpotential, Volt
function method and full 3D model. The small difference in output ϕ Electrostatic potential, Volt
current density between the wall-function method and the full 3D model σ Electrical conductivity, S m− 1
is also analyzed by comparing distributions of electronic and ionic po­ μ Dynamic viscosity, Pa s
tential, mass fraction and generating current in the thickness direction. ν Stoichiometric ratio
The results show that the small difference in output current density is ρ Density, kg m− 3
mainly caused by different control volumes of functional layers in
thickness direction. The wall-function method allows more control Subscripts
volumes in thickness direction, and then gives a much finer distribution an Parameters in anode
of generating current in functional layers, thus, the wall-function ca Parameters in cathode
method can give a higher output current density than traditional full E Parameters about Electron
3D model. I Parameters about ion

CRediT authorship contribution statement References

Shuanglin Shen: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Vali­ [1] Y. Zhang, B. Chen, D.Q. Guan, M.G. Xu, R. Ran, M. Ni, W. Zhou, R. O’Hayre, Z.
P. Shao, Nature 591 (2021) 246–+.
dation, Writing – review & editing. Xiaokun Zhang: Data curation.
[2] A. Hauch, R. Kungas, P. Blennow, A.B. Hansen, J.B. Hansen, B.V. Mathiesen, M.
Keqing Zheng: Supervision. Yihan Ling: Supervision. Shaorong B. Mogensen, Science 370 (2020) 186–+.
Wang: Supervision, Funding acquisition. [3] M.K. Mahapatra, K. Lu, Mater. Sci. Eng. R Rep. 67 (2010) 65–85.
[4] H. Yokokawa, M. Suzuki, M. Yoda, T. Suto, K. Tomida, K. Hiwatashi, M. Shimazu,
A. Kawakami, H. Sumi, M. Ohmori, T. Ryu, N. Mori, M. Iha, S. Yatsuzuka,
Declaration of competing interest K. Yamaji, H. Kishimoto, K. Develos-Bagarinao, T. Shimonosono, K. Sasaki,
S. Taniguchi, T. Kawada, M. Muramatsu, K. Terada, K. Eguchi, T. Matsui, H. Iwai,
M. Kishimoto, N. Shikazono, Y. Mugikura, T. Yamamoto, M. Yoshikawa,
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
K. Yasumoto, K. Asano, Y. Matsuzaki, K. Sato, T. Somekawa, Fuel Cell. 19 (2019)
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence 311–339.
the work reported in this paper. [5] Z. Yang, Int. Mater. Rev. 53 (2008) 39–54.
[6] A. Faghri, Z. Guo, Int. J. Heat Mass Tran. 48 (2005) 3891–3920.
[7] R. Bove, S. Ubertini, J. Power Sources 159 (2006) 543–559.
Acknowledgments [8] S. Kakac, A. Pramuanjaroenkij, X.Y. Zhou, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 32 (2007)
761–786.
This work is supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of [9] J. Savioli, G.W. Watson, Curr. Opin. Electrochem. 21 (2020) 14–21.
[10] B. Yang, J.B. Wang, M.T. Zhang, H.C. Shu, T. Yu, X.S. Zhang, W. Yao, L.M. Sun,
China (No.2018YFB1502605), Fundamental Research Funds for the Energy Convers. Manag. (2020) 213.
Central Universities (Contact No. 2017XKQY058), National Natural [11] M. Andersson, J. Yuan, B. Sundén, Appl. Energy 87 (2010) 1461–1476.
Science Foundation of China (NSFC, No.51806241) and Science and [12] S.B. Beale, M. Andersson, C. Boigues-Munoz, H.L. Frandsen, Z. Lin, S.J. McPhail,
M. Ni, B. Sunden, A. Weber, A.Z. Weber, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 85 (2021).
Technology Project of Xuzhou (No.KH17004). [13] B. Ghorbani, K. Vijayaraghavan, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 44 (2019) 13700–13727.
[14] X.F. Jin, A. Ku, A. Verma, B. Ohara, K. Huang, S. Singh, J. Electrochem. Soc. 165
Appendix A. Supplementary data (2018) F786–F798.
[15] D.L. Damm, A.G. Fedorov, J. Power Sources 159 (2006) 956–967.
[16] M. Roos, E. Batawi, U. Harnisch, T. Hocker, J. Power Sources 118 (2003) 86–95.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. [17] Z.J. He, E. Birgersson, H. Li, Energy 70 (2014) 478–492.
org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2021.230396. [18] Z. He, H. Li, E. Birgersson, Comput. Chem. Eng. 52 (2013) 155–167.
[19] A. Li, C. Song, Z.J. Lin, Appl. Energy 190 (2017) 1234–1244.
[20] A. Li, Z.J. Lin, Chin. J. Chem. Phys. 30 (2017) 139–146.
Nomenclature [21] K. Lai, B.J. Koeppel, K.S. Choi, K.P. Recknagle, X. Sun, L.A. Chick, V. Korolev,
M. Khaleel, J. Power Sources 196 (2011) 3204–3222.
Ai Coefficient in the Arrhenius equation of exchange current [22] W.C. Tan, H. Iwai, M. Kishimoto, H. Yoshida, J. Power Sources 400 (2018)
135–146.
density, S m− 2 [23] J. Milewski, A. Szczesniak, Energy Convers. Manag. 236 (2021) 10.
Ave Reaction area per unit volume, m2 m− 3 [24] S.H. Song, X.Y. Xiong, X. Wu, Z.Z. Xue, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 46 (2021)
C Concentration of species, mol m− 3 20065–20077.
[25] L. Ba, X. Xiong, Z. Yang, Z. Lei, B. Ge, S. Peng, J. Power Sources 500 (2021).
Di,eff Effective diffusivity of species i, m2 s− 1 [26] W.X. Pan, J. Bao, C.M. Lo, K. Lai, K. Agarwal, B.J. Koeppel, M. Khaleel, J. Power
E0 Nernst potential, Volt Sources 232 (2013) 139–151.
Ea Activation energy in the Arrhenius equation of exchange [27] B.J. Koeppel, C. Lai, A.K.S. Iyengar, Z. Xu, C. Wang, G. Hackett, Use of a reduced
order model (ROM) to simulate SOFC performance in system models, in: S.
current density, kJ mol− 1 C. Singhal, T. Kawada (Eds.), Solid Oxide Fuel Cells 15, Electrochemical Soc Inc,
Eeq The equilibrium potential at electrodes, Volt Pennington, 2017, pp. 2595–2605.
F Faraday constant, 96485C mol− 1 [28] M. Lawrynczuk, Complexity, 2018.
[29] D.H. Jeon, Electrochim. Acta 54 (2009) 2727–2736.
hi Enthalpy of species i, kJ kg− 1 [30] S.H. Chan, K.A. Khor, Z.T. Xia, J. Power Sources 93 (2001) 130–140.
i0 Exchange current density, A m− 2 [31] G. Min, Y.J. Park, J. Hong, Energy Convers. Manag. (2020) 209.
jgen Generating current per volume, A m− 3 [32] Z.G. Zhang, D.T. Yue, G.G. Yang, J.F. Chen, Y.F. Zheng, H. Miao, W.G. Wang, J.
L. Yuan, N.B. Huang, Int. J. Heat Mass Tran. 84 (2015) 942–954.
K Permeability, m2
[33] Z. Zhang, D. Yue, C. He, S. Ye, W. Wang, J. Yuan, Heat Mass Tran. 50 (2014)
keff Effective thermal conductivity, W (m K)− 1 1575–1586.
Mi Molar weigh of species i, kg mol− 1 [34] S.L. Shen, Y. Kuang, K.Q. Zheng, Q.Y. Gao, Solid State Ionics 315 (2018) 44–51.
n Transfer electron number in electrochemical reaction [35] L. Liu, R. Flesner, G.Y. Kim, A. Chandra, Fuel Cell. 12 (2012) 97–108.
[36] X.H. Deng, A. Petric, J. Power Sources 140 (2005) 297–303.
p Pressure, Pa [37] K. Zheng, L. Li, M. Ni, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 39 (2014) 12904–12912.
R Ideal gas constant, 8.314 J (K mol)− 1 [38] Z.-y. Jiang, C.-r. Xia, F.-l. Chen, Chin. J. Chem. Phys. 23 (2010) 217–225.

8
S. Shen et al. Journal of Power Sources 510 (2021) 230396

[39] B.E. Launder, D.B. Spalding, COMPUTER METHODS IN APPLIED MECHANICS [40] N. Russner, S. Dierickx, A. Weber, R. Reimert, E. Ivers-Tiffee, J. Power Sources
ANR ENGINEERING 3 (1974) 269–289. (2020) 451.
[41] T. Wenquan, Numerical Heat Transfer, Xi’an Jiaotong University Press, 2001.