Technical Brief

Experimental Characterization Method of the Gas Diffusion Layers Compression Modulus for High Compressive Loads and Based on a Dynamic Mechanical Analysis

[+] Author and Article Information
Younés Faydi, Remy Lachat, Philippe Lesage

Belfort Cedex 90010, France;
Rue Thierry Mieg,
Belfort 90000, France

Yann Meyer

Belfort Cedex 90010, France;
Rue Thierry Mieg,
Belfort 90000, France
e-mail: yann.meyer@gmail.com

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Advanced Energy Systems Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FUEL CELL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received March 7, 2014; final manuscript received September 12, 2015; published online October 27, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Umberto Desideri.

J. Fuel Cell Sci. Technol 12(5), 054501 (Oct 27, 2015) (5 pages) Paper No: FC-14-1028; doi: 10.1115/1.4031695 History: Received March 07, 2014; Revised September 12, 2015

In a proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEMFC), gas diffusion layers (GDLs) play a major role in the overall system performances. This is the reason why many research investigations try to model and optimize the GDL physical properties. Currently, the major drawback of these models is to obtain representative GDL mechanical and physical input parameters under different excitations and, particularly, under dynamic excitations. In this paper, an experimental method using a dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA) is detailed to properly obtain the GDL Young's modulus in compression (or compression modulus) for high compressive loads under dynamic excitation. As an example, a very stiff GDL is characterized and analyzed. Only the first mechanical compression is considered. The GDL compression modulus is clearly nonlinear versus the compressive loads. The dynamic load amplitude has a strong effect on the GDL hysteretic behavior. However, the frequency value of the dynamic excitation seems to have no effect on the GDL compression modulus.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Jordan, L. , Shukla, A. , Behrsing, T. , Avery, N. , Muddle, B. , and Forsyth, M. , 2000, “ Diffusion Layer Parameters Influencing Optimal Fuel Cell Performance,” J. Power Sources, 86(1), pp. 250–254. [CrossRef]
Qi, Z. , and Kaufman, A. , 2002, “ Improvement of Water Management by a Microporous Sublayer for PEM Fuel Cells,” J. Power Sources, 109(1), pp. 38–46. [CrossRef]
Chun, J. , Park, K. , Jo, D. , Kim, S. , and Kim, S. , 2011, “ Development of a Novel Hydrophobic/Hydrophilic Double Micro Porous Layer for Use in a Cathode Gas Diffusion Layer in PEMFC,” J. Hydrogen Energy, 36(14), pp. 1837–1845. [CrossRef]
Akiki, T. , Charon, W. , Iltchev, M. , Accary, G. , and Kouta, R. , 2010, “ Influence of Local Porosity and Local Permeability on the Performances of a Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Fuel Cell,” J. Power Sources, 195(16), pp. 5258–5268. [CrossRef]
Zhou, P. , and Wu, C. , 2007, “ Numerical Study on the Compression Effect of Gas Diffusion Layer on PEMFC Performance,” J. Power Sources, 170(1), pp. 93–100. [CrossRef]
Charon, W. , Iltchev, M. C. , and Blachot, J. F. , 2014, “ Mechanical Simulation of a Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell Stack Using Representative Elementary Volumes of Stamped Metallic Bipolar Plates,” J. Hydrogen Energy, 39(25), pp. 13195–13205. [CrossRef]
Nitta, I. , 2008, “ Inhomogeneous Compression of PEMFC Gas Diffusion Layers,” Ph.D. thesis, Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo, Finland.
Han, K. , Hong, B. , Kim, S. , Ahn, B. , and Lim, T. , 2011, “ Influence of Anisotropic Bending Stiffness of Gas Diffusion Layers on the Degradation Behavior of Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Fuel Cells Under Freezing Conditions,” Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 36(19), pp. 12452–12464. [CrossRef]
Escribano, S. , Blachot, J. , Etheve, J. , Morin, A. , and Mosdale, R. , 2006, “ Characterization of PEMFCS Gas Diffusion Layers Properties,” J. Power Sources, 156(1), pp. 8–13. [CrossRef]
Arvay, A. , Yli-Rantala, E. , Liu, C.-H. , Peng, X.-H. , Koski, P. , Cindrella, L. , Kauranen, P. , Wilde, P. , and Kannan, A. , 2012, “ Characterization Techniques for Gas Diffusion Layers for Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells Review,” J. Power Sources, 213, pp. 317–337. [CrossRef]
Kleemann, J. , Finsterwalder, F. , and Tillmetz, W. , 2009, “ Characterisation of Mechanical Behaviour and Coupled Electrical Properties of Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Fuel Cell Gas Diffusion Layers,” J. Power Sources, 190(1), pp. 92–102. [CrossRef]
El-kharouf, A. , Mason, T. , Brett, D. , and Pollet, B. , 2012, “ Ex-Situ Characterisation of Gas Diffusion Layers for Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells,” J. Power Sources, 218, pp. 393–404. [CrossRef]
Montanini, R. , Squadrito, G. , and Giacoppo, G. , 2011, “ Measurement of the Clamping Pressure Distribution in Polymer Electrolyte Fuel Cells Using Piezoresistive Sensor Arrays and Digital Image Correlation Techniques,” J. Power Sources, 196(20), pp. 8484–8493. [CrossRef]
Gigos, P. , Faydi, Y. , and Meyer, Y. , 2015, “ Mechanical Characterization and Analytical Modeling of Gas Diffusion Layers Under Cyclic Compression,” Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 40(17), pp. 5958–5965. [CrossRef]
ACOEM, 2014, “Metravib,” ACOEM Group, Lyon, France, http://www.metravib.fr
Menard, K. P. , 2008, Dynamic Mechanical Analysis: A Practical Introduction, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
SGL Group, 2014, “ SIGRACET® Fuel Cell Components,” SGL Group—The Carbon Company, Wiesbaden, Germany.
Mason, T. J. , Millichamp, J. , Neville, T. P. , El-kharouf, A. , Pollet, B. G. , and Brett, D. J. , 2012, “ Effect of Clamping Pressure on Ohmic Resistance and Compression of Gas Diffusion Layers for Polymer Electrolyte Fuel Cells,” J. Power Sources, 219, pp. 52–59. [CrossRef]
Rouss, V. , Charon, W. , and Desflots, A. , 2009, “ Characterisation of Mechanical Non-Linearities in a Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell Using Raw Data,” J. Hydrogen Energy, 34(5), pp. 2377–2386. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematic picture of a DMA test machine

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Gripping heads with its contact surface made of three studs

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Dynamic test mode input signal

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Flowchart of experimental approach

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Applied static compressive stress versus sample static compressive strain in dynamic test mode for the initial mechanical compression applied

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Scanning electron microscope image of the GDL top surface after the first mechanical compression cycle (zoom: 20×)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Compression modulus versus applied static stress for a repeatability test and for the initial mechanical compression applied

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Compression modulus versus applied static stress: effect of dynamic forces

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Compression modulus versus applied static compressive stress: loading curve




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In