Review



3d model simulating the debinding process  (COMSOL Inc)

 
  • Logo
  • About
  • News
  • Press Release
  • Team
  • Advisors
  • Partners
  • Contact
  • Bioz Stars
  • Bioz vStars
    • 90
      Buy from Supplier

    Structured Review

    COMSOL Inc 3d model simulating the debinding process
    The graphs display the predictions of a multiphysics model on the pressure built-up inside the SRU monoliths (black lines/symbols) during the <t>debinding</t> step (red lines). Below the graphs, the photographs show the integrity of the corresponding SRU monoliths after heat treatment (debinding and sintering steps). a , Case of a SRU monolith manufactured using only graphite as sacrificial material to form the gas channels, b , Case of a SRU monolith manufactured using a 50–50 vol.% mixture of graphite–PMMA as sacrificial material to form the gas channels, and c , Case of a SRU monolith manufactured using only PMMA as sacrificial material to form the gas channels. The SRU presented in Fig. 2c reveals large cracks after debinding/sintering steps which is in good accordance with the model which predicted that SRU monolith manufactured using 100% PMMA would lead to the highest pressure (14 mbar around 200 °C) among the three pore-forming agents investigated, and therefore will be the most likely to fracture. Note that both PMMA and graphite are also contained the electrode tapes which explains why a pressure peak corresponding to graphite removal can also be found in the case of Fig. 2c, for example.
    3d Model Simulating The Debinding Process, supplied by COMSOL Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/3d model simulating the debinding process/product/COMSOL Inc
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    3d model simulating the debinding process - by Bioz Stars, 2026-06
    90/100 stars

    Images

    1) Product Images from "Production of a monolithic fuel cell stack with high power density"

    Article Title: Production of a monolithic fuel cell stack with high power density

    Journal: Nature Communications

    doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-28970-w

    The graphs display the predictions of a multiphysics model on the pressure built-up inside the SRU monoliths (black lines/symbols) during the debinding step (red lines). Below the graphs, the photographs show the integrity of the corresponding SRU monoliths after heat treatment (debinding and sintering steps). a , Case of a SRU monolith manufactured using only graphite as sacrificial material to form the gas channels, b , Case of a SRU monolith manufactured using a 50–50 vol.% mixture of graphite–PMMA as sacrificial material to form the gas channels, and c , Case of a SRU monolith manufactured using only PMMA as sacrificial material to form the gas channels. The SRU presented in Fig. 2c reveals large cracks after debinding/sintering steps which is in good accordance with the model which predicted that SRU monolith manufactured using 100% PMMA would lead to the highest pressure (14 mbar around 200 °C) among the three pore-forming agents investigated, and therefore will be the most likely to fracture. Note that both PMMA and graphite are also contained the electrode tapes which explains why a pressure peak corresponding to graphite removal can also be found in the case of Fig. 2c, for example.
    Figure Legend Snippet: The graphs display the predictions of a multiphysics model on the pressure built-up inside the SRU monoliths (black lines/symbols) during the debinding step (red lines). Below the graphs, the photographs show the integrity of the corresponding SRU monoliths after heat treatment (debinding and sintering steps). a , Case of a SRU monolith manufactured using only graphite as sacrificial material to form the gas channels, b , Case of a SRU monolith manufactured using a 50–50 vol.% mixture of graphite–PMMA as sacrificial material to form the gas channels, and c , Case of a SRU monolith manufactured using only PMMA as sacrificial material to form the gas channels. The SRU presented in Fig. 2c reveals large cracks after debinding/sintering steps which is in good accordance with the model which predicted that SRU monolith manufactured using 100% PMMA would lead to the highest pressure (14 mbar around 200 °C) among the three pore-forming agents investigated, and therefore will be the most likely to fracture. Note that both PMMA and graphite are also contained the electrode tapes which explains why a pressure peak corresponding to graphite removal can also be found in the case of Fig. 2c, for example.

    Techniques Used:



    Similar Products

    3d model simulating the debinding process  (COMSOL Inc)
    90
    COMSOL Inc 3d model simulating the debinding process
    The graphs display the predictions of a multiphysics model on the pressure built-up inside the SRU monoliths (black lines/symbols) during the <t>debinding</t> step (red lines). Below the graphs, the photographs show the integrity of the corresponding SRU monoliths after heat treatment (debinding and sintering steps). a , Case of a SRU monolith manufactured using only graphite as sacrificial material to form the gas channels, b , Case of a SRU monolith manufactured using a 50–50 vol.% mixture of graphite–PMMA as sacrificial material to form the gas channels, and c , Case of a SRU monolith manufactured using only PMMA as sacrificial material to form the gas channels. The SRU presented in Fig. 2c reveals large cracks after debinding/sintering steps which is in good accordance with the model which predicted that SRU monolith manufactured using 100% PMMA would lead to the highest pressure (14 mbar around 200 °C) among the three pore-forming agents investigated, and therefore will be the most likely to fracture. Note that both PMMA and graphite are also contained the electrode tapes which explains why a pressure peak corresponding to graphite removal can also be found in the case of Fig. 2c, for example.
    3d Model Simulating The Debinding Process, supplied by COMSOL Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/3d model simulating the debinding process/product/COMSOL Inc
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    3d model simulating the debinding process - by Bioz Stars, 2026-06
    90/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier

    Image Search Results


    The graphs display the predictions of a multiphysics model on the pressure built-up inside the SRU monoliths (black lines/symbols) during the debinding step (red lines). Below the graphs, the photographs show the integrity of the corresponding SRU monoliths after heat treatment (debinding and sintering steps). a , Case of a SRU monolith manufactured using only graphite as sacrificial material to form the gas channels, b , Case of a SRU monolith manufactured using a 50–50 vol.% mixture of graphite–PMMA as sacrificial material to form the gas channels, and c , Case of a SRU monolith manufactured using only PMMA as sacrificial material to form the gas channels. The SRU presented in Fig. 2c reveals large cracks after debinding/sintering steps which is in good accordance with the model which predicted that SRU monolith manufactured using 100% PMMA would lead to the highest pressure (14 mbar around 200 °C) among the three pore-forming agents investigated, and therefore will be the most likely to fracture. Note that both PMMA and graphite are also contained the electrode tapes which explains why a pressure peak corresponding to graphite removal can also be found in the case of Fig. 2c, for example.

    Journal: Nature Communications

    Article Title: Production of a monolithic fuel cell stack with high power density

    doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-28970-w

    Figure Lengend Snippet: The graphs display the predictions of a multiphysics model on the pressure built-up inside the SRU monoliths (black lines/symbols) during the debinding step (red lines). Below the graphs, the photographs show the integrity of the corresponding SRU monoliths after heat treatment (debinding and sintering steps). a , Case of a SRU monolith manufactured using only graphite as sacrificial material to form the gas channels, b , Case of a SRU monolith manufactured using a 50–50 vol.% mixture of graphite–PMMA as sacrificial material to form the gas channels, and c , Case of a SRU monolith manufactured using only PMMA as sacrificial material to form the gas channels. The SRU presented in Fig. 2c reveals large cracks after debinding/sintering steps which is in good accordance with the model which predicted that SRU monolith manufactured using 100% PMMA would lead to the highest pressure (14 mbar around 200 °C) among the three pore-forming agents investigated, and therefore will be the most likely to fracture. Note that both PMMA and graphite are also contained the electrode tapes which explains why a pressure peak corresponding to graphite removal can also be found in the case of Fig. 2c, for example.

    Article Snippet: To identify the process parameters required to achieve an optimized monolith (avoiding disintegration and warpage during debinding), a 3D model simulating the debinding process was developed using COMSOL Multiphysics.

    Techniques: