Validation of a Numerical Model for the Prediction of the Pressure Distribution in PEMFC Flow Field Plates With a Serpentine Channel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much effort has been expended in the past few years upon development of numerical models to obtain the detailed flow, current and temperature distributions in Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Fuel Cell (PEMFC). Therefore, the need for model validation also has increased to gain confidence in the accuracy of the numerical results. In the present work, a numerical model has been developed to study the pressure distribution in the flow field plate (FFP) and gas diffusion layer (GDL) assembly on the cathode side of a PEM fuel cell. The flow field plate has serpentine channels and the porous gas diffusion layer is adjacent to the flow field plate, to deliver the air to the catalyst layer where the electrochemical reaction occurs. Flow crossover of air through the porous GDL under the land from one part of the channel to another can occur, and this flow crossover affects the total pressure drop between the channel inlet and outlet, and the pressure difference between adjacent channels. The flow here has been assumed to be three-dimensional, steady, incompressible, isothermal and single-phase. The flow through the porous GDL has been described using the Darcy model. The governing equations have been written in dimensionless form and solved by using the commercial CFD solver, FIDAP. In parallel, experimental work has been conducted at the Queen’s-RMC Fuel Cell Research Center (FCRC), Canada, for comparison with the numerical results. The cathode FFP has a single serpentine channel. Flow of dry air at 20 °C and at 60 °C has been used for measuring pressure differences at specific locations in the flow field plate. The effects of Reynolds number, based on the mean channel width and the mean velocity at the channel inlet (values between 100 and 1500) have been studied. Other parameters that were considered are the land:channel width ratio (2:1 and 1:1) and the permeability of the GDL (values between 1.0E−19m2 and 1.0E−10m2 used). Good agreement was obtained between the numerical and experimental pressure distributions along the serpentine channel.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".