Research Paper

Comparison of Performance Losses Between Ultrasonic and Thermal Bonding of Membrane Electrode Assemblies in Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells

[+] Author and Article Information
Casey Hoffman

Center for Automation Technologies and Systems,
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute,
110 8th Street, Troy, NY 12180

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by Advanced Energy Systems Division of ASME for publication in the Journal of Fuel Cell Science and Technology. Manuscript received September 16, 2012; final manuscript received April 20, 2013; published online June 17, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Jacob Brouwer.

J. Fuel Cell Sci. Technol 10(4), 041004 (Jun 17, 2013) (10 pages) Paper No: FC-12-1095; doi: 10.1115/1.4024567 History: Received September 16, 2012; Revised April 20, 2013

Ultrasonic bonding of low-temperature PEM membrane electrode assembly (MEA) components together has been shown previously to cut both cycle time and energy input of that manufacturing step by over an order of magnitude as compared to the industry standard of thermal pressing. This paper compares performance between ultrasonically and thermally bonded low-temperature MEAs and characterizes the performance losses from the new bonding process. A randomized, full factorial experiment was designed and conducted to examine performance of MEAs with 10 cm2 active area while varying three factors: bonding method (ultrasonically and thermally pressed using previously optimized bonding parameters), membrane condition (dry and conditioned Nafion® 115), and electrode catalyst loading (0.16 and 0.33 mg Pt/cm2). Ultrasonic MEAs performed as well as their thermal MEAs across all tested current densities with pure oxygen supplied to the cathode. However, thermal MEAs outperformed ultrasonic MEAs at current densities above 0.4 A/cm2 with air supplied to the cathode. Impedance spectroscopy, cyclic voltammetry, and flow sensitivity analyses were used to characterize the performance losses of the ultrasonic MEAs. The data suggest the presence of oxygen diffusion losses above 0.4 A/cm2 when air was supplied to the cathode. Ultrasonic MEAs were three times more sensitive to changes in air flow rate on the cathode than the thermally MEAs. Increasing the platinum catalyst loading from 0.16 to 0.33 mg Pt/cm2 resulted in a performance enhancement of approximately 20 mV and 65% greater electrochemical surface area. Understanding the effect of ultrasonic bonding on various performance losses will help optimize the MEA bonding process. Analysis of specific losses present for ultrasonic MEAs may also provide insight into the design of MEA components for ultrasonic bonding.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Snelson, T., 2011, “Ultrasonic Sealing of PEM Fuel Cell Membrane Electrode Assemblies,” Ph.D. thesis, Department of Mechanical, Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Krishnan, L., Snelson, T., Puffer, R., and Walczyk, D., 2010, “Durability Studies of PBI-Based Membrane Electrode Assemblies for High Temperature PEMFCs,” Proceedings of the 6th Annual IEEE Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE), Toronto, Canada, August 21–24, pp. 21–26. [CrossRef]
Snelson, T., Pyzza, J., Krishnan, L., Walczyk, D., and Puffer, R., 2011, “Ultrasonic Sealing of Membrane Electrode Assemblies for High-Temperature PEM Fuel Cells,” Proceedings of the ASME 8th International Fuel Cell Science, Engineering and Technology Conference, Brooklyn, NY, June 14–16, ASME Paper No. FUELCELL2010-33229.
Beck, J., Walczyk, D., Hoffman, C., and Buelte, S., 2012, “Ultrasonic Bonding of Membrane Electrode Assemblies for Low Temperature PEM Fuel Cells,” J. Fuel Cell Sci. Tech., 9(5), p. 051005. [CrossRef]
SGL Group, 2007, “SIGRACET, GDL 24 & 25 Series Gas Diffusion Layer,” SGL Technologies GmbH, Wiesbaden, Germany, http://www.servovision.com/fuel_cell_components/gdl_24_25.pdf
Hoffman, C. and Walczyk, D. “Direct Spraying of Catalyst Inks for PEMFC Electrode Manufacturing,” Proceedings of the ASME 9th International Conference on Fuel Science, Engineering and Technology (FuelCell2011), Washington, DC, August 7–11, ASME Paper No. FuelCell2011-54416, pp. 911–917. [CrossRef]
DuPont, 2009, “DuPont Fuel Cells,” accessed September 26, 2012, www2.dupont.com/FuelCells/en_US/assets/downloads/dfc101.pdf
Barrio, A., Paddondo, J., Mijangos, F., and Lombrana, J. I., 2009, “Influence of Proton Exchange Membrane Preconditioning Methods on the PEM Fuel Cell Performance,” J. New Mat. Electrochem. Syst., 12, pp. 87–91.
Gavach, C., Pamboutzoglou, G., Nedyalkov, M., and Pourcelly, G., 1989, “AC Impedance Investigation of the Kinetics of Ion Transport in Nafion Perfluorosulfonic Membranes,” J. Membrane Sci., 45, pp. 37–53. [CrossRef]
Benchmarking and Best Practices Center of Excellence, 2012, “Manufacturing Fuel Cell Manhattan Project,” ACI Technologies, Inc., www.dodb2pcoe.org/pdf/MFCMP_Report.pdf
Williams, M. V., Kunt, H. R., and Fenton, J. M., 2005, “Analysis of Polarization Curves to Evaluate Polarization Sources in Hydrogen/Air PEM Fuel Cells,” J. Electrochem. Soc., 152(2005), pp. A635–A644. [CrossRef]
Gamburzev, S., and Appleby, A. J., 2002, “Recent Progress in Performance Improvement of the Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell (PEMFC),” J. Power Source, 107, pp 5–12. [CrossRef]
Kocha, S. S., Vielstich, W., Lamm, A., and Gasteiger, H. A., 2003, Handbook of Fuel Cells, Vol. 3, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, pp. 538–565.
Gasteiger, H. A., Kocha, S. S., Sompalli, B., and Wagner, F. T., 2005, “Activity Benchmarks and Requirements for Pt, Pt-Alloy, and Non-Pt Oxygen Reduction Catalysts for PEMFCs,” Appl. Catal. B Environ., 56(10), pp 9–35. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Schematic of the MEA setup prior to ultrasonic bonding

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

(a) Labeled component diagram of ultrasonic bonding system and (b) actual system used for research

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

(a) Schematic of standard five-layer PEMFC MEA architecture and (b) dimensioned (cm) drawing of low-temperature MEA

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

(a) 400 kN hot press used to bond MEAs and (b) schematic of MEA in press prior to thermal sealing

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Cell testing hardware

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

MEA polarization curves for optimized ultrasonic and thermal MEAs using conditioned membrane, high-loaded electrodes (0.36 mg Pt/cm2), 2.0/2.0 stoich, and atmospheric pressure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

CV scan of ultrasonically bonded MEA (black) with thermal pressed MEA data (gray) overlaid

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Impedance scan data at 0.6 A/cm2 (semicircular shape) for an ultrasonically bonded MEA with high electrode loading and conditioned membrane

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

IR-corrected plot showing performance losses at high current densities of an ultrasonically bonded MEA consisting of conditioned membrane and high catalyst-loaded electrode tested with 2.0/2.0 stoich at 1 atm pressure



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