MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066280941 · doi:10.1115/fuelcell2011-54489

The Effect of Flow Channel Surface Properties and Structures on Water Removal and Fuel Cell Performance

2011· article· en· W2066280941 on OpenAlexaff
Brooks R. Friess, Samuel C. Yew, Mina Hoorfar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSurface Modification and Superhydrophobicity
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrolyteCathodeWettingChemical engineeringWater transportMaterials scienceProton exchange membrane fuel cellGraphiteWater flowEnvironmental scienceComposite materialEnvironmental engineeringChemistryFuel cellsElectrodeEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel cell is a zero emission power generation system that has long been considered as a replacement for conventional fossil fuel combustion systems. However, before constituting a viable market for commercial use, the fuel cell efficiency and reliability need to be improved significantly. It has been shown that water management has significant effect on the power and reliability of the cell as the electrolyte membrane must be well hydrated to allow for ion transfer while excess water blocks the activation sites on the cathode side. The latter effect is known as flooding which occurs at large current densities and compromises the normal operation of the fuel cell. To enhance water management, a prodigious amount of numerical models and experimental studies have been conducted to optimize the properties and structures of different layers. One of the key results of these studies has been the design of the flow field patterns on relatively hydrophobic surface of a graphite plate which is believed to provide a better mechanism for removing water droplets from the cathode flow channel. However, the wettability gradient between the catalyst layer (i.e., hydrophilic) and the flow channel (which is currently hydrophobic) introduces problems as the water droplets formed at the catalyst layer will not likely detach and hence create a film of liquid that will block the activation sites. If the flow channel is made out of a material that is more hydrophilic than the catalyst layer, water removal and transport will be enhanced as water naturally moves from low surface energy to high surface energy sites. Another major factor in controlling water in the PEM fuel cell is the flow field architecture. There has also been a large amount of research on different types of the flow field architectures. However, there have been no studies on the relative performance gains provided by changing the surface properties and the architecture separately. This paper presents an experimental analysis comparing two different flow fields with different surface properties, i.e., a hydrophilic gold flow channel and a hydrophobic graphite flow channel. The paper will also compare three different hydrophilic flow channel architectures: an open gold parallel flow channel, an aluminum foam filled parallel flow channel, and a woven wick filled parallel flow channel. This work will result in finding the optimum geometry and surface properties for achieving maximum performance in the flooding regime.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.167 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSurface Modification and SuperhydrophobicityFrench-language works237,207