Computational Fluid Dynamic Modeling and Parametric Optimization of Hydrogen Adsorption in Stationary Hydrogen Tanks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates hydrogen storage enhancement through adsorption in porous materials by coupling the Dubinin–Astakhov (D-A) adsorption model with H2 conservation equations (mass, momentum, and energy). The resulting system of partial differential equations (PDEs) was solved numerically using the finite element method (FEM). Experimental work using activated carbon as an adsorbent was carried out to validate the model. The comparison showed good agreement in terms of temperature distribution, average pressure of the system, and the amount of adsorbed hydrogen (H2). Further simulations with different adsorbents indicated that compact metal–organic framework 5 (MOF-5) is the most effective material in terms of H2 adsorption. Additionally, the pair (273 K, 800 s) remains the optimal combination of injection temperature and time. The findings underscore the prospective advantages of optimized MOF-5-based systems for enhanced hydrogen storage. These systems offer increased capacity and safety compared to traditional adsorbents. Subsequent research should investigate multi-objective optimization of material properties and system geometry, along with evaluating dynamic cycling performance in practical operating conditions. Additionally, experimental validation on MOF-5-based storage prototypes would further reinforce the model’s predictive capabilities for industrial applications.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".