Two‐Phase Flow Modeling of Direct Methanol Fuel Cell Anode Compartment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A quasi two‐dimensional numerical model was developed to predict the two‐phase flow behavior within the anode compartment of direct methanol fuel cells (DMFCs). Different void fraction correlations were employed to examine and estimate the pressure drop, flowrate and methanol concentration variations across the fuel channels. By comparing the modeling results with experimental data, it was discovered that the calculated pressure drop values were highly dependent on the type of void fraction correlation utilized. The best experimental agreement was achieved when using the “separated” flow modeling approach with a void fraction correlation that accounted for surface tension and capillary effects. The “homogenous” flow modeling methodology on the other hand, was found to be inadequate and in all cases, underestimated the two‐phase pressure drop. The model demonstrated that the acceleration and gravitational pressure losses had the lowest and highest impact on the overall two‐phase pressure drop, respectively. The frictional pressure loss effects only started to appear at higher fuel flowrates and at elevated operating current densities. It was also revealed that increasing the cell's operating current density while maintaining the fuel flowrate, would significantly increase the overall two‐phase pressure drop with negligible impact on the net methanol concentration across the anode compartment.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".