MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2263557100 · doi:10.1149/ma2014-01/14/640

Thermal Contact Resistance Between Gas Diffusion Layer and Graphite Bipolar Plate: Modeling and Experiments

2014· article· en· W2263557100 on OpenAlexaff
Hamidreza Sadeghifar, Majid Bahrami, Ned Djilali

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdhesion, Friction, and Surface Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceThermal contact conductanceComposite materialWavinessContact resistancePorosityGaseous diffusionThermalLayer (electronics)Thermal resistanceFuel cellsEngineeringThermodynamicsChemical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An analytic, mechanistic robust model is developed to predict the thermal contact resistance (TCR) between fibrous porous media such as GDLs and flat surfaces. The model, which accounts for the salient and realistic geometrical parameters, mechanical deformation, and thermal spreading/constriction resistances, is successfully validated with new experimental data of the TCR between GDLs and graphite bipolar plates. Several parametric studies are performed to reveal the effect of fiber specifications such waviness and also GDL properties on the TCR. For instance, it is found that, interestingly enough, fiber length does not have any effect on TCR at constant porosity. From the parametric studies, the critical values of key parameters effective on TCR are also identified, which can be very useful in GDL manufacturing and fuel cell design in viewpoint of heat management. The presented model can be readily plugged into fuel cell models for simulations and modeling purposes. Overall, the model is developed in a general form to be also applicable, with only minor modifications, to other fibrous media such as fibrous catalyst layers, metal foams, and heat exchangers.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.565
Threshold uncertainty score0.710

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.216 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS Meeting AbstractsSame topicAdhesion, Friction, and Surface InteractionsFrench-language works237,207