MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3024911995 · doi:10.1149/ma2020-01381607mtgabs

Understanding Fuel-Cell Impedance Spectra Via Numerical Modeling: A Single-Phase Water-Management Study

2020· article· en· W3024911995 on OpenAlexaff
Aslan Kosakian, Luis Padilla Urbina, Aidan Heaman, Marc Secanell

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFuel Cells and Related Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProton exchange membrane fuel cellDielectric spectroscopyPolarization (electrochemistry)ElectrolyteMaterials scienceCathodeAnodeElectrical impedanceNuclear engineeringElectrochemistryChemistryChemical engineeringElectrical engineeringEngineeringFuel cellsElectrode

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cost of hydrogen-fueled proton-exchange-membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs) remains a challenge for the global commercialization of the technology and needs to be reduced to meet the U.S. Department of Energy goals [1]. Cost-reduction can be achieved by incorporating efficient water management, which helps keep the electrolyte hydrated while avoiding cell flooding by product water. Dynamic liquid-water accumulation and electrolyte hydration can be studied via transient polarization [2-6] and ohmic-resistance [2,4-7] curves, in which they induce hysteresis. Analyzing the polarization and resistance data may, however, be challenging due to the overlapping transients of various physical processes occurring in the cell during the voltage and current sweeps. Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) allows the study of the dynamic processes of different time scales separately in the frequency domain and has been widely used for fuel-cell characterization [8-11]. Fuel-cell impedance spectra often exhibit an inductive behavior at low frequencies, which has been shown to be affected by electrolyte hydration [10,12-14]. A recent experimental study [9] showed that the strength of this inductive behavior depends on the anode and cathode RH. Understanding the low-frequency inductance may help improve the water-management strategies for fuel cells. However, this inductive phenomenon has not been investigated in detail with a comprehensive numerical model. In this work, a transient 2D PEMFC model is developed in the open-source fuel-cell modeling software OpenFCST [17] with a thorough validation through dynamic polarization, resistance, and impedance-spectroscopy data at various operating conditions. Unlike other physical EIS models [13-16], the presented model does not rely on parameter fitting to reproduce the experimental impedance spectra. The model also takes the finite-rate water absorption/desorption kinetics of the electrolyte into account, which allows to investigate the effect of the interfacial transport of water on fuel-cell impedance and performance. With the presented model, water-management signatures are identified in fuel-cell impedance spectra under single-phase conditions that help elucidate electrolyte-hydration dynamics. The trends in the simulated effect of anode and cathode RH on the fuel-cell inductance are in agreement with experiments in [9], which verifies the model’s ability to correctly predict the inductive behavior. The low-frequency inductive behavior of fuel cells is shown to be related to the interfacial transport of water in the electrolyte and linked to the electrolyte-hydration and proton-conductivity dynamics in the membrane and in the catalyst layers. Additionally, an ohmic-resistance breakdown is performed with the model using the ohmic-heating-based approach proposed by Secanell et al. [18]. The high-frequency resistance obtained through EIS is shown to be comprised of the membrane resistance and the electronic resistance of other MEA components, but not the protonic resistance of the catalyst layers. Figure: Single-phase water-transport signatures in a fuel-cell-impedance spectrum. References [1] D. Papageorgopoulos. Fuel Cell R&D Overview. U.S. Department of Energy; 2019. [2] C. Ziegler et al. J. Electrochem. Soc. 152.8 (2005): A1555-A1567. [3] H. Yu and C. Ziegler. J. Electrochem. Soc. 153.3 (2006): A570-A575. [4] D. Gerteisen et al. J. Power Sources 187.1 (2009): 165-181. [5] L. Hao et al. J. Power Sources 177.2 (2008): 404-411. [6] J. Hou. Int. J. Hydrogen Energ. 36.12 (2011): 7199-7206. [7] A. Goshtasbi et al. J. Electrochem. Soc. 166.7 (2019): F3154-F3179. [8] D. Malevich et al. J. Electrochem. Soc. 156.2 (2009): B216-B224. [9] A. Schiefer et al. EFCF 2019: Low-Temperature Fuel Cells, Electrolisers, & H2 Processing, Chapter 03 (2019): 179–189. [10] I. Pivac and F. Barbir. J. Power Sources 326 (2016): 112-119. [11] S. M. R. Niya and M. Hoorfar. J. Power Sources 240 (2013): 281-293. [12] B. P. Setzler and T. F. Fuller. J. Electrochem. Soc. 162.6 (2015): F519-F530. [13] C. Bao and W. G. Bessler. J. Power Sources 278 (2015): 675-682. [14] G. A. Futter et al. J. Power Sources 391 (2018): 148-161. [15] A. Baricci et al. Fuel Cells 14.6 (2014): 926-937. [16] J. R. Vang et al. ECS Transactions 68.3 (2015): 13-34. [17] M. Secanell et al. ECS Transactions 64.3 (2014): 655-680. [18] M. Secanell et al. ECS Transactions 69.17 (2015): 157-187. Figure 1

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS Meeting Abstracts→Same topicFuel Cells and Related Materials→French-language works237,207→