MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000610573 · doi:10.1149/1945-7111/ab6557

Optimizing Porous Transport Layer Design Parameters via Stochastic Pore Network Modelling: Reactant Transport and Interfacial Contact Considerations

2020· article· en· W3000610573 on OpenAlexafffund
Jason Keonhag Lee, Aimy Bazylak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of The Electrochemical Society · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicHybrid Renewable Energy Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPorosityMaterials scienceElectrolyteElectrolysisChemical engineeringWettingPermeability (electromagnetism)Contact angleSurface roughnessComposite materialMembraneChemistryElectrode

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, we designed sintered titanium powder-based porous transport layers (PTLs) for polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) electrolyzers by tailoring the powder diameter and porosity via a new approach. We examined how the PTL powder diameter and porosity influence reactant transport and PTL-catalyst layer (CL) interfacial contact by using a stochastic generation model combined with a pore network model. We enhanced reactant transport by increasing powder diameter and porosity, as shown through increases in single- and two-phase permeabilities of liquid water. Compared to the impact of increasing the powder diameter, increasing the PTL porosity dominated the impact on permeability of liquid water. However, we observed a trade-off to the benefits of increasing the powder diameter such that larger powders led to a higher surface roughness at the PTL-CL interface. From this work, we recommend that the PTL powder diameter and porosity must be strategically selected for the desired target operating conditions of the PEM electrolyzer. We recommend a PTL with d P = 25 μ m and ε = 26.5% for an electrolyzer cell operating at non-starvation conditions, and a PTL with d P = 25 μ m and ε = 40.5% for an electrolyzer cell operating at starvation conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.811
Threshold uncertainty score0.856

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations67
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of The Electrochemical SocietySame topicHybrid Renewable Energy SystemsFrench-language works237,207