MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4315700951 · doi:10.3390/su15021448

Lumped Parameter Modeling of SAE J2601 Hydrogen Fueling Tests

2023· article· en· W4315700951 on OpenAlexaff
Shanshan Deng, Feng Li, Hao Luo, Tianqi Yang, Feng Ye, Richard Chahine, Jinsheng Xiao

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicHybrid Renewable Energy Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Liaoning ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCompressed hydrogenHydrogenStorage tankMechanicsHydrogen storageThermodynamicsHeat transferMaterials scienceMass transferMATLABChemistryPhysicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The safety of hydrogen storage is essential for the development of fuel cell vehicles. A mathematical model for a compressed hydrogen storage tank is established based on the mass conservation equation, the energy conservation equation and the real gas equation of state. Using the Matlab/Simulink platform, a dual-zone lumped parameter model, which divides the tank into a hydrogen gas zone and a tank wall zone, is established. The initial conditions of the MC Default method hydrogen filling from SAE J2601 are utilized in the lumped parameter model for numerical simulation. Five cases are studied, including two different tanks. One case used the Lookup table for hydrogen refueling, and four cases used the MC Default method for fueling. The hydrogen gas temperature, wall temperature, pressure in the tank and state of charge are obtained during the fueling process. The simulated results show that the dual-zone lumped parameter model can well predict the temperature, pressure and state of charge (SOC) for Type IV tanks with volumes of 249 L and 117 L during refueling. By using the averaged heat transfer coefficient (80 W/(m2·K)) between gas and wall, and the constant heat transfer coefficient (20 W/(m2·K)) between wall and environment, the gas temperature and pressure of our dual-zone lumped parameter model show good agreement with the experiment. The maximum difference between simulated and experimental wall temperatures for five cases is around 2 °C. The experimental wall temperatures were measured on the external surface of the tank, while the simulated wall temperature of the dual-zone lumped parameter model is representative of a mean temperature averaged alone with the radial direction.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicHybrid Renewable Energy SystemsFrench-language works237,207