Improvement of the Process Model for the Ohmic Loss of the Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The process model is defined as an analytical solution for the governing equations of an electrochemical system which is used to predict the impedance characteristics of the system and identify the relation between different parts of the measured impedances and physicochemical properties and operating conditions [1, 2]. Despite various attempts made towards presenting a process model for proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cells, no complete process model is introduced yet [1, 3]. We have focused on developing such a process model by separately modeling the three losses: ohmic, activation, and mass transport. Our first process model of the ohmic loss [3] required an estimation of the water concentration in the catalyst layer which cannot be readily determined experimentally. Moreover, while the water transport in the catalyst layer was considered in the governing equations of the membrane, the water flux from the membrane towards the catalyst layer was not considered in the water flux equation of the catalyst layer. In this study, the ohmic-loss model presented before is improved by calculating the water concentration in the catalyst layer from other inputs as well as considering the water flux from the membrane in the catalyst layer equation. In the new model, the equivalent circuit extracted from the theoretical relation determined for the impedance of the ohmic loss still has the same format as the model presented before [3] (see Figure 1). However, the elements of the equivalent circuit have different theoretical definitions. In the following equations, subscripts m, cl, and GDL represent the membrane, catalyst layer and cathode gas diffusion layer properties, respectively. l, D, M, F, T and j denote the thickness, diffusion coefficient, molecular mass, Faraday’s constant, temperature and current density, respectively. ρ, σ and λpresent the density, electrical conductivity and water content, respectively. Also, a = 0.5193 exp(1268(1/303-1/T)) b = 0.326 exp(1268(1/303-1/T)) α = 2.5/(22F) β = ρmDm/Mm The model is compared against the measured impedances obtained for a 7.98-cm2cell operated at the 90% relative humidities for the anode and cathode, three different temperatures (65 °C, 70 °C and 75 °C), and two potentials (0.7 V and 0.75 V). The measured impedances are reported in the frequency span of 10-0.01 Hz as the ohmic loss is dominant in this range [3]. The results in Figure 2 show an excellent agreement between the theoretical predictions and the measured impedances. References S.M. Rezaei Niya, M. Hoorfar, J. Power Sources, 240, 281 (2013). P. Agarwal, M. Orazem, J. Electrochem. Soc., 139, 1917 (1992) S.M. Rezaei Niya, M. Hoorfar, Electrochimica Acta, 120, 193 (2014). Figure 1
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".