Channel-to-Channel Pressure Differences in Serpentine Minichannel Flow Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the inter-connected factors that can lead to failures in the flow plates of PEM fuel cells is the pressure differences that exist between adjacent flow channels. These pressure differences lead to stresses in the channel supports, i.e., the ribs, which can be important in the presence of stresses arising due to other factors such as temperature gradients in the flow plates. In order to investigate the magnitudes of the pressure differences across the supports and the places where the maximum pressure differences occur, the flow and pressure variations in various forms of serpentine channels, these channels having a rectangular cross-sectional shape, have been numerically calculated. The presence of the diffusion layer has been ignored and the flow has been calculated using a commercial finite-element software package using the governing equations written in dimensionless form. Solutions have been obtained for various values of the Reynolds number for each of the flow geometries considered for two channel height-to width ratios (one and three). Except for the flow in the vicinity of the bends in channels, the pressure has been found, as is to be expected, not vary significantly across the channel cross-section. The difference between the center point dimensionless pressure in a given channel with those at the same longitudinal position in the adjacent channels has been determined. The dependence of the highest dimensionless pressure difference between channel on the input parameters has been examined.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".