MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391662591 · doi:10.1149/ma2023-02371718mtgabs

Numerical Reconstruction of Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell Gas Diffusion Layers

2023· article· en· W4391662591 on OpenAlexaff
Danan Yang, Himani Garg, Steven Beale, Martin Andersson

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFuel Cells and Related Materials
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProton exchange membrane fuel cellGaseous diffusionDiffusionMembraneFuel cellsMaterials scienceMechanicsProtonNuclear engineeringChemistryChemical engineeringThermodynamicsPhysicsEngineeringNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flooding and dehydration reduce stability and power performance in Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells (PEMFCs). The Gas Diffusion Layer (GDL) plays a crucial role in facilitating reactant gas transport and removing product water from the electrode. To suit various PEMFCs, GDLs with different shapes have been commercialized. The impact of the GDL structure on the surface-tension-driven water transport behavior remains poorly understood. However, this is one important aspect that can be controlled by proper design. In this study, the GDL performance is investigated by comparing curved and straight carbon fibers within the region. Specifically, an image-processing method extracts porosity, domain size, and fiber diameter from an experimental image-based GDL reconstruction. These parameters are utilized by in-house developed computer codes to stochastically reconstruct curved and straight carbon fiber GDLs, respectively. The real and reconstructed GDLs are compared in terms of pore size distribution, tortuosity, and permeability. Liquid transport in these GDLs and corresponding gas channels is simulated using a volume of fluid method in OpenFOAM 7.0. Figure 1(a) presents the T-shaped simulation domain and top view of three GDLs. Figure 1(b) displays the Cumulative Density Function (CDF) of the pore size distribution for the three GDLs, revealing that the main difference between the three GDLs lies in the pore diameter range of 10-30 µm. Upon completion of the research program, we aim to identify the influence of fiber shape on the GDL transport properties as well as the water behavior inside them. 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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS Meeting AbstractsSame topicFuel Cells and Related MaterialsFrench-language works237,207