MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2237137155 · doi:10.1149/ma2015-01/1/56

Modeling Diffusivity in Catalyst Layer of a PEMFC Based on a Unit Cell Approach

2015· article· en· W2237137155 on OpenAlexaff
Sina Salari, Claire McCague, Mickey Tam, Jürgen Stumper, Majid Bahrami

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFuel Cells and Related Materials
Canadian institutionsAutomotive Fuel Cell Cooperation (Canada)Simon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProton exchange membrane fuel cellThermal diffusivityElectrolyteCatalysisMaterials scienceMembrane electrode assemblyHydrogenChemical engineeringDiffusionMembraneChemistryElectrodeThermodynamicsOrganic chemistryEngineeringPhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells (PEMFC) convert the reaction energy of hydrogen and air to electricity without harmful emissions. PEMFC rely on a membrane-electrode assembly (MEA) constructed from multiple layers of micro/nano porous materials and associated interfaces. The MEA includes a polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) that conducts protons, a composite nano-structured catalyst layer (CL), and a fibrous gas diffusion layer (GDL) that distributes reactant gases and collects current. The production cost and limited durability of the platinum catalyst layer is a significant challenge for the commercialization of hydrogen fuel cells. The greater the activity of the Pt nanoparticles, the lower the required Pt loading on the carbon support, and the lower the production costs for the catalyst layer. Hydrogen and oxygen reactants diffuse to the catalyst Pt particles. Existing models for the diffusivity of CL are either not accurate or computationally demanding, making them difficult to use for CL optimization. In this study, the CL is represented by unit cells based on porosimetry and analysis of SEM images of CL structure. The mass diffusion problem is analytically solved for the unit cell to calculate effective diffusivity of CL. Unlike other simple models which use porosity as the only input to calculate diffusivity the proposed model considers the pore size distribution as well as structure of CL, which improves the accuracy. The model presented in this study shows results within acceptable accuracy respect to published experimental data.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.263
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS Meeting AbstractsSame topicFuel Cells and Related MaterialsFrench-language works237,207