MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2002445305 · doi:10.1115/fuelcell2006-97151

Modelling and Testing a PEM Fuel Cell Fuelled by a Steam Reforming System

2006· article· en· W2002445305 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mariagiovanna Minutillo, Elio Jannelli

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFuel Cells and Related Materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBallard Power Systems
KeywordsSteam reformingCatalytic reformingProton exchange membrane fuel cellWater-gas shift reactionAnodeHydrogen fuel enhancementNuclear engineeringProcess engineeringMethane reformerHydrogen productionHydrogen fuelHydrogenWaste managementFuel cellsEngineeringChemical engineeringChemistryElectrode

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper the performance of a natural gas power system has been discussed. The power generation unit is composed by a fuel cell and a fuel processor integrated in a compact system. The hydrogen generator uses the steam reforming technology. A CO shift converter and a preferential oxidation reactor are used to minimize the CO concentration in the reformate gas. The hydrogen dilution in the reformate gas calls for a modification of the fuel cell feeding system. The dead-end mode is not practicable for the fuel cell operation, but it is necessary to open the anode flow channels. In order to increase the efficiency of the integrated system, the anode off gas mass flow is burned to supply heat for the reforming reaction. The fuel cell performance has been evaluated using the test bed of the University of Cassino. The experimental activity has been focused to evaluate the performance in different operating conditions. A semi-empirical model of the fuel cell has been employed to forecast the fuel cell behaviour with pure hydrogen and reformate gas feeding. The semi-empirical coefficients of the model have been fitted by using the experimental data. The target of the fuel cell modelling has been to develop a tool capable of predicting the performance in different operating conditions. The same tool can be used to identify the areas for design improvements.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.149
Teacher spread0.143 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFuel Cells and Related Materials→French-language works237,207→