4.7 Article

Repetitive bending test of membrane electrode assembly for bendable polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell

Journal

JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
Volume 47, Issue -, Pages 323-328

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jiec.2016.11.048

Keywords

Polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell (PEMFC); Membrane electrode assembly (MEA); Bending fatigue; Carbon cloth; Bendable fuel cell

Funding

  1. Global Frontier R&D Program on Center for Multiscale Energy System - NRF [2016M3A6A7945505, 2015M3A6A7065442]
  2. NRF grant - MSIP [2014R1A2A2A04003865]
  3. New & Renewable Energy Core Technology Program of KETEP from MOTIE, Republic of Korea [20143030031340, 20133030011320]
  4. IAMD at Seoul National University
  5. BK21 plus
  6. Ministry of Science & ICT (MSIT), Republic of Korea [2V05210] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)
  7. National Research Foundation of Korea [2017R1A2B2003363] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Membrane electrode assemblies (MEAs) with carbon paper and cloth for bendable polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell were characterized as it is subject to repetitive bending. The performance of the MEA with carbon paper was decreased significantly while the MEA with carbon cloth remained constant after repetitive bending. Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy revealed ohmic and charge transfer resistances of the MEA with carbon paper were increased by repetitive bending. Such performance degradation is due to physically observed damages in carbon paper and its detachment from the MEA, which was not in the MEA with carbon cloth due to its intrinsic flexibility. (C) 2016 The Korean Society of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available