MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391693768 · doi:10.1016/j.enrev.2024.100073

Progresses on two-phase modeling of proton exchange membrane water electrolyzer

2024· article· en· W4391693768 on OpenAlexaff
Boshi Xu, Tao Ouyang, Yang Wang, Yang Yang, Jun Li, Liangliang Jiang, Chaozhong Qin, Dingding Ye, Rong Chen, Xun Zhu, Qiang Liao

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy Reviews · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicHybrid Renewable Energy Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersChongqing Basic Science and Advanced Technology Research ProgramNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaKey Technologies Research and Development Program
KeywordsProton exchange membrane fuel cellMesoscopic physicsPhase (matter)ElectrolysisComputer scienceProcess engineeringEngineeringFuel cellsChemistryPhysicsChemical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) water electrolyzer is considered promising energy storing means for harnessing variable renewable energy sources to produce hydrogen. Understanding the internal fluid dynamics, which are often challenging to directly observe experimentally, has prompted the use of numerical models to investigate two-phase flow within PEM water electrolyzers. In this study, we provide a comprehensive review of prior research focusing on two-phase modeling of PEM electrolyzers, encompassing both components at mesoscopic scales and the full electrolyzer at the macroscopic level. We delve into the specifics of various modeling approaches for two-phase flow at different scales and summarize and discuss the current state of the art in the field. Presently, two-phase models for the full electrolyzer predominantly employ a macroscopic homogeneous assumption. However, mesoscopic and microscopic models capable of tracking phase interfaces are limited to components. Challenges persist in integrating various modeling scales into a comprehensive electrolyzer model, particularly in coupling two-phase flow between the channels and porous media. Future efforts may focus on developing multi-scale models and simulating two-phase flow under fluctuating input conditions. Additionally, given the structural similarities between PEM water electrolyzers and PEM fuel cells, we compare and discuss differences in two-phase modeling between the two technologies. This work shall offer insights for researchers in the field of two-phase modeling of PEM water electrolyzers.

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)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.278 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations26
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy ReviewsSame topicHybrid Renewable Energy SystemsFrench-language works237,207