MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416602663 · doi:10.1149/ma2025-031296mtgabs

Accelerated Life Test Protocol Development for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells Using a Design of Experiment Methodology

2025· article· W4416602663 on OpenAlexaff
Guillaume Jeanmonod, Hangyu Yu, Marie-Lise Tremblay, Sylvio Savoie, Jean-François Labrecque, Jan Van herle

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldMaterials Science
TopicAdvancements in Solid Oxide Fuel Cells
Canadian institutionsHydro-Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDesign of experimentsDegradation (telecommunications)StressorAccelerated life testingHumidityRobustness (evolution)VoltageStress (linguistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) systems can last over five years, making data collection for lifespan predictions time-consuming. Accelerating their degradation is thus essential to advance the development of next fuel cell generations. Accelerated life testing (ALT) reduces the time-to-failure by operating systems outside normal conditions, but it requires a comprehensive understanding of the degradation mechanisms to select proper stressors. Finding critical stressors and understanding their impact on cell aging are also crucial steps in managing and mitigating system degradation. This paper presents an innovative approach to developing ALT protocols for SOFCs through the application of Design of Experiments (DOE) method. A three-parameter two-level full factorial design with a central point is used to investigate the effect of the temperature, and air and fuel humidity as stressors for ALT. Models correlating operating conditions with degradation metrics are developed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) methodology and their predications compared with three validation tests. The voltage evolution of the twelve 1000 h tests used in this work are presented in Figure 1. All three parameters investigated had a significant impact on the ohmic and polarization degradation rate suggesting that the temperature, and air and fuel humidity are good stressor candidate. Results showed that the effect of a particular stressor on the degradation rate can depend on the value of the other stressors. This emphasizes that the interaction between stressors is significant and should be taken into consideration when developing ALT protocols. Comparison between the model degradation rate predictions and that obtained on three validation tests showed that the simple linear model with interaction used in this work was not sufficient to accurately represent and predict the ohmic and polarization resistance degradation rates. Replicates and additional experiments at different operating conditions should be performed to evaluate the lack-of-fit and test higher order models. A similar data analysis procedure could be performed on results from distribution of relaxation time, equivalent circuit analysis, or microscopic imaging to offer a more detailed overview of the degradation induced by the selected stressors. This work highlights the importance of strategic stressor choice and comprehensive experimental design in defining ALT protocols for SOFCs. 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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.203
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS Meeting AbstractsSame topicAdvancements in Solid Oxide Fuel CellsFrench-language works237,207