Assembly Mechanics and Its Effect on Performance of Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The safe operation and satisfactory cell performance of a proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) depend on suitable assembly pressure. In order to obtain this, different assembly pressures and their effect on cell performance are investigated. The numerical simulation was employed to study the gas diffusion layer (GDL) deformation under different assembly pressures. The effect of assembly pressure on transportation parameters such as GDL porosity and permeability, and final influence on the performance of PEMFC, was studied to obtain optimal assembly pressure. The geometrical model of a single PEMFC channel was established. Parameters such as porosity and permeability of the GDL under different assembly pressures were calculated according to an empirical formula. Finite element analysis (FEA) was used to analyze the effect of different assembly pressures on GDL deformation. The results show that the GDL part under the bipolar plate ribs is deformed to different degrees under the compression of assembly pressure, and the degree of deformation increases as the assembly pressure increases, while the GDL part under the channel is almost not deformed. The distribution of the reactant species concentration in the single PEMFC channel and the polarization curves under different assembly pressures were computed and compared. Reactant species concentrations decrease in the flow direction under all assembly pressures for reaction in the catalyst layer. It is seen from the polarization curves that a fuel cell under an assembly pressure of between 0.5 and 1.0 MPa performs best.
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".