Research Papers

Vector Evaluated Particle Swarm Optimization (VEPSO) of Supersonic Ejector for Hydrogen Fuel Cells

[+] Author and Article Information
Srisha Rao M V

Department of Aerospace Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, Karnataka PIN 560012, Indiasrisharao@aero.iisc.ernet.in

G. Jagadeesh1

Department of Aerospace Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, Karnataka PIN 560012, Indiajaggie@aero.iisc.ernet.in


Corresponding author.

J. Fuel Cell Sci. Technol 7(4), 041014 (Apr 08, 2010) (7 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4000676 History: Received January 17, 2009; Revised August 04, 2009; Published April 08, 2010; Online April 08, 2010

Fuel cells are emerging as alternate green power producers for both large power production and for use in automobiles. Hydrogen is seen as the best option as a fuel; however, hydrogen fuel cells require recirculation of unspent hydrogen. A supersonic ejector is an apt device for recirculation in the operating regimes of a hydrogen fuel cell. Optimal ejectors have to be designed to achieve best performances. The use of the vector evaluated particle swarm optimization technique to optimize supersonic ejectors with a focus on its application for hydrogen recirculation in fuel cells is presented here. Two parameters, compression ratio and efficiency, have been identified as the objective functions to be optimized. Their relation to operating and design parameters of ejector is obtained by control volume based analysis using a constant area mixing approximation. The independent parameters considered are the area ratio and the exit Mach number of the nozzle. The optimization is carried out at a particular entrainment ratio and results in a set of nondominated solutions, the Pareto front. A set of such curves can be used for choosing the optimal design parameters of the ejector.

Copyright © 2010 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

The Pareto front: (a) efficiency versus the compression ratio and (b) comparison with certain nozzle exit Mach numbers

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

The optimal design parameters: (a) Mach number at the exit of the nozzle and (b) the area ratio

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Stagnation pressure ratio of secondary and primary fluids at section 1, α

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Schematic of a constant area ejector

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Plot for efficiency versus CR at ω=0.5



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In