On the Limitations of Volume-Averaged Descriptions of Gas Diffusion Layers in the Modeling of Polymer Electrolyte Fuel Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding of the coupled transport processes that occur in thin gas diffusion layers (GDLs) is necessary to develop improved designs. The traditional technique used to model GDLs is the volume-averaged approximation. However, the applicability of this approach has been long questioned, and the error in the results is unclear. In this work, the limitations of GDL volume-averaged models are examined under single-phase conditions. The lattice Boltzmann method is combined with tomography images of carbon-paper GDLs to assess the existence of a representative elementary volume (REV) in terms of various effective properties. Then, the predictions of GDL volume-averaged and pore-scale formulations are compared by using a CFD model of a differential cell. The results show that a REV cannot be clearly defined. This leads to inhomogeneities in the pore-scale model that the volume-averaged model is not able to capture despite the overall flux through the GDL is similar in both cases.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".