Journal of Power Sources 243 (2013) 451e457

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Power Sources
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jpowsour

A comparison of Fuel Cell Testing protocols e A case study: Protocols used by the U.S. Department of Energy, European Union, International Electrotechnical Commission/Fuel Cell Testing and Standardization Network, and Fuel Cell Technical Team
Ira Bloom a, *, Lee K. Walker a, John K. Basco a, Thomas Malkow b, Antonio Saturnio b, Giancarlo De Marco b, Georgios Tsotridis b
a b

Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL 60439, USA European Commission, Directorate-General Joint Research Centre, Institute for Energy and Transport, Postbus 2, NL-1755 ZG Petten, The Netherlands

h i g h l i g h t s 
The aging behavior of PEM stacks was evaluated using four duty cycles.  Testing lasted 200 h for each duty cycle.  The change in stack performance depended on the time at full power.

a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history: Received 19 April 2013 Received in revised form 4 June 2013 Accepted 5 June 2013 Available online 14 June 2013 Keywords: Polymer-electrolyte membrane fuel cells Fuel cell testing Test protocols Fuel cell durability

a b s t r a c t
Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne) and the Joint Research Centre-Institute for Energy and Transport (JRC-IET) collaborated to understand the aging behavior of polymer-electrolyte membrane stacks when operated under different duty cycles. The duty cycles were that used by the U.S. Department of Energy (DST) and the US Fuel Cell Council; the New European Drive Cycle (ECE R15); that used in IEC-TS62282-7-1 (IEC) and Fuel Cell Testing and Standardization Network; and the one proposed by the US Driving Research and Innovation for Vehicle Efficiency and Energy Sustainability Fuel Cell Technical Team (FCTT). The stacks were cycled using the duty profile in each protocol for 200 h; stack performance was measured every 100 h. Analysis of the relative changes in the average cell potentials at 180 A showed that the rate of performance decline could be ordered as IEC > ECE R15, the latter being slightly greater than or approximately equal to DST and FCTT. Comparing this ordering to the length of time at full power in the duty cycle with the degradation rates shows that they are related. Most likely, the underlying cause of performance decline can be attributed to the manner in which the product water interacts with the stack components. Ó 2013 Published by Elsevier B.V.

1. Introduction Polymer-electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel cells are being developed and characterized by many organizations throughout the world for transportation applications. Thus, effective communication and understanding of the test results are becoming more important as the pace of development accelerates. Several organizations in the United States and Europe are developing test protocols to characterize the performance and

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 630 252 4516; fax: þ1 630 972 4516. E-mail address: ira.bloom@anl.gov (I. Bloom). 0378-7753/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Published by Elsevier B.V. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.06.026

durability of PEM stacks. A review on this topic has been published [1] and shows the types of protocols used to assess the durability of cell components, cells, and stacks. In a previous study [2], we compared the results obtained from two protocols used to measure the polarization behavior of the PEM stack; one used by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and one used by Fuel Cell Testing and Standardization Network (FCTestNet) [3,4]. Briefly, the method used by DOE starts at opencircuit voltage (OCV); the current increases in 10 equally spaced steps to the maximum, rated current (Imax) for the stack; the current then decreases in the same number of steps to OCV. Both the current-increasing and -decreasing curves are reported. The FCTestNet protocol starts at almost any current greater than zero

The MFCs. thus. 1. however. with higher speeds and more hill climbing. 2. The stack was cycled using the conditions shown in Table 2. 1e4 were used to calculate the important characteristics of each protocol.6]. hydrocarbon-free air as oxidant and 99.8 kW. Therefore. The RPTs were performed at t ¼ 0.1.6 0.2 and 2 for fuel and air. the set of assumptions includes the conditions found in busy European cities. Bloom et al. IEC.2 A cmÀ2. All testing used compressed. we found no significant differences between the two methods in the previous study [2]. it would be beneficial to have an experimental comparison of the effects of the electrochemical stresses imposed by the different cycling protocols. The “dry” protocol also uses a lower maximum current density. Duty cycle from IEC62282-7-1 and FCTestNet. issues associated with fuel starvation were minimized. . the level of electrochemical stress imposed by the protocol on the fuel cell or stack may differ. the one used in International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)-TS62282-7-1 and FCTestNet [5.7]. / Journal of Power Sources 243 (2013) 451e457 (Iinitial). such as low engine load and a maximum speed of 50 km hÀ1. these values were different from those given in the test protocol. Any changes in performance were noted. DST2. except that the settling time at 0 A was shortened to 1 min. The stack was “harvested” from the fuel cell system and installed on a test stand in the Fuel Cell Test Facility at Argonne. as compared to that used in the “wet” protocol. under computer control. The objective of this work was to compare the results obtained using four of these methods: the one used by DOE and the US Fuel Cell Council1 (dynamic stress test [DST]) [3].452 I. and finally increases using the same step size to Iinitial. ECE R15. and as the current was decreased likewise in 20-A steps from 200 to 0 A. t (h) Fig. the New European Drive Cycle (European Commission for Europe [ECE] R15) [6. A settling time of 15 min was used at each current level. which may impact the observed performance. This break in testing occurred after 1. The stack was characterized using sequential polarization curves (a reference performance test [RPT]) in the currentincreasing andedecreasing directions.1 A cmÀ2. There also is a “dry” version where the dew point is lower (25% relative humidity). and the one proposed by the US Driving Research and Innovation for Vehicle Efficiency and Energy Sustainability (USDRIVE) Fuel Cell Technical Team (FCTT) (wet protocol only2) [8]. 1. The DOE cycling protocol. For example. Experimentally. Since the MFCs changed slightly before the current increased. The inlet temperature was assumed to be indicative of the stack temperature. In some cases. and FCTT.2 Ratio of current density 1 0. The polarization curves were measured using constant stoichiometries of 1. is based on the power demands from a car driving around a typical American urban area. It was not known a priori. 2. The stack was operated at nominally C is the current at which (average) cell voltage is 0. Data from Figs. with a total of nearly 670 h of operating time in the fuel cell system. 0. there could be differences in the level of humidification. The temperatures and dew points used are given in Table 2. The test profiles were applied in the sequence: DST. relies on self-humidification to keep the membrane hydrated. Dynamic stress test (DST) duty cycle. A crucial part of understanding the performance of a PEM stack is how the performance changes with time. decreases in steps of the same size to 10% of Imax.8 0. Thus. how the results of the tests conducted with the cycling protocols would compare with one another. Many methods to quantify the durability of the PEM stack have been proposed. Thus. respectively. the stack was idle for about 1 month for reasons unrelated to the testing.XX in the initial polarization curve C Current Level – Not to Scale) Not To Scale C C C C OCV 0 60 120 180 Time (s) 240 300 360 Fig. Experimental 2. and. The FCTestNet protocol does not allow the stack to be at OCV.4 0. Table 1 gives a summary of these characteristics. Argonne A commercially available.999% H2 as fuel. 8-kW PEM fuel cell stack was tested at Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne). 1e4. therefore. in the ECE R15 drive cycle. The voltage response of the stack was measured as the current was increased in 20-A steps from 0 to 200 A. to facilitate understanding and accelerate fuel cell adoption in transportation. During the series of tests. The total time that each profile was applied was 200 h. increases to Imax in steps of 10% of Imax. The air and the fuel flows were regulated by mass flow controllers (MFCs). This stack had been used previously as part of a fuel cell system in a forklift truck. These test profiles are shown in Figs. The operating parameters shown reflect the manufacturer’s recommendations. It went into service in the second quarter of 2010 and it was taken out of service in the third quarter of 2011. and 200 h for each profile. opened pre-emptively to increases in demand current. 100. 2 The FCTT “wet” protocol uses 92% relative humidity. The inlet coolant flow rate and temperature were held constant. The other two protocols serve only as a means of benchmarking the performance of the stack. such as time at OCV and rootmean-square (RMS) power. As the table indicates.2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 The US Fuel Cell Council is now part of the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association (FCHEA). Two of protocols used in this study implicitly contain a set of assumptions on how a driver of a fuel-cell-powered car will operate the vehicle. ambient pressure. Stack power at the 200-A setting ranged from about 7 to 8. DST2 represents a repetition of the DST profile to check for variations. from the descriptions above. and only the current-decreasing portion of the measurement is reported. the protocols have significant differences.

In general. 6 and 7.  C flow or constant (cathode/anode) stoichiometry) at (cathode/anode) b constant pressure DST 80 64/73a 64/73 64/73 64/73 Constant stoichiometryc Constant flowd Constant stoichiometry Constant flow 50. Typical changes in the polarization behavior of the stack are shown in Figs. As described above for the 8-kW stack. This minimal extent of hysteresis is typical of that observed throughout this work.8 kW. the profiles were used sequentially for 200 h each to “age” the stack. 40. respectively. The inlet coolant flow rate and temperature were held constant.I. 5.1 5232.2 (low current) to 1. s 360 3600 1200 60 Energy. / Journal of Power Sources 243 (2013) 451e457 100 90 80 70 453 Table 1 Characteristics of the cyclic test profiles used in this study. b The minimum current specified in the IEC protocol is 20% of the maximum current. Period 2.7 Time at OCV. The test results are treated separately for the two time periods. The coolant outlet temperature was considered to be indicative of the temperature of the stack. Dew point Maximum protocol  C utilization.02 A cmÀ2 (w2% of the maximum current).0/83. The effective utilizations at the high current levels were 83. The RPTs were performed at t ¼ 0. under computer control. hydrocarbon-free air as oxidant and 99. 3. c The stoichiometry changed with current: the fuel stoichiometry varied from 4. These curves were taken during the first DST aging period. FCTT duty cycle (wet).3 1154. c The minimum current specified in the FCTT protocol is 0. issues associated with fuel starvation were minimized. W (cycle) 3734. 4. This stack was used as part of a round-robin test to compare the polarizationcurve results obtained by many organizations using standard test protocols and had been operated for about 900 h before being used for this experiment. 20. taken in the current-increasing and currentdecreasing directions. s (% of cycle at OCV) 15 (4.75 and 2. are shown in Fig. there is minimal hysteresis between the curves. Similar to the procedure at Argonne.0/83. The voltage response of the stack was measured at currents of 2. a polarization curve was used to characterize the stack performance at the start of Period 2 and served as a reference point for the following polarization curves.4% and 50% for fuel and air.4 50.0 4019. Wh cycleÀ1 300.75 for fuel and air. New European Driving Duty Cycle (ECE R15). all testing used compressed.2) 0 (0)b 455 (37. Time. A settling time of 15 min was used at each current level.1. 100. increasing and -decreasing directions. the second use of the DST profile. This profile was adapted from the original ECE R15 cycle by relating speed to power and squaring the pulses. 160 and 200 A.2 (high current). The MFCs. 3. Stack power at the 200-A setting ranged from about 5 to 8. 120. As can be seen from the figure. . for the cathode and anode gases. the air stoichiometry varied from 2. The temperatures and dew points used are given in Table 3.a Profile name DST IEC ECE R15 FCTT Time per cycle. The stack was operated at nominally ambient pressure. was tested at the Joint Research Centre-Institute for Energy and Transport (JRC-IET).2. 80. Polarization curves. s Fig. Bloom et al.6 5193.4 2.999% H2 as fuel. JRC-IET A 10-kW polymer-electrolyte fuel cell (PEMFC) stack. The air and the fuel flows were regulated by mass flow controllers (MFCs).4 50. % temperature. These dew point temperatures correspond to relative humidity values of 50 and 74%.9 62. Results 3. As at the beginning of Period 1. Mode (constant Test Temperature. opened pre-emptively to increases in demand current. Since the MFCs changed slightly before the current increased. the stack was characterized using sequential polarization curves (an RPT) in the current- IEC 80 ECE R15 80 FCTT a 80 Fig. Argonne After using three sequential polarization curves to characterize the stack’s operating characteristics.6 5959. The test period before the break in testing is denoted as Period 1. The polarization curves were measured using constant stoichiometries of 1.5 to 2. and that after the break.0/83. 10.4 50. b The inlet pressure for the anode and cathode gases was 100 kPa (gauge). s 20 1800 25 30 %Rated Power 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 a The power and energy values are from the 8-kW fuel cell stack used in this study. respectively. d Gas flow was held constant. and 200 h for each profile. which was designed for transportation. The figures show the changes arising from using the DST profile and those arising from the ECE Table 2 Operating conditions for the 8-kW stack.0/83. the performance of the stack decreased with age. and as the current was decreased in the reverse of the steps given.2 RMS power.9) 0 (0)c Time at full power. on the order of only w12 mV. respectively. respectively.

90 Avg. using the IEC profile caused the greatest apparent rate of change in relative.6 0. A Fig. 8a. These changes in stack 0. and longest hold at full power per cycle (Table 1).7 RPT1 RPT2 These dew point temperatures correspond to relative humidity values of 50 and 74%.5 R15 profile. 2. IEC. 0.75 to 3. The data in the figure represent the stack response in the current-increasing direction. From the data in Fig. From this figure.5 kW. JRC-IET Fig. At lower currents. The change in stack performance was quantified in terms of the change in average cell potential in the ohmic portion of the polarization curve.  C flow or constant (cathode/anode) stoichiometry) at (cathode/anode) constant pressureb DST 65 50/58a 50/58 Constant stoichiometryc Constant stoichiometryd 36. These data are from the stack tested at Argonne and are from RPT1 during the first DST aging period.65 0. respectively. the stack voltage decreases quickly. 3.2.70 0. as expected. a decline in the stack voltage at 180 A was observed. respectively.55 0. c The fuel stoichiometry was 1. With age.3/57. The 200-A point represents the maximum current of the stack and equates to about 8. mass-transfer losses are the dominant contributions. at most. 8a for the profiles used at Argonne. Changes in stack temperature. The polarization curves shown in these figures were taken in the current-increasing direction. at higher currents. which are consistent with the differences in their cycle RMS power levels (Table 1). total current and time for the stack cycled using the New European Driving Cycle protocol at Argonne. From Figs. When the current rapidly increases. 7. The data in the figure represent the stack response in the current-increasing direction. Dew point Maximum protocol  C utilization. Average cell potential vs. The time between RPTs was approximately 100 h. 6 and 7.75 to 4. 12 mV.9 0. To gauge the native performance degradation rate. with RPT0 representing the polarization curve obtained at the beginning of cycling using a particular test profile.4 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 Current. I. The coolant temperature rise was w2. Average cell potential vs.1 36. Similar to the experience at Argonne. total current in the current-increasing and current-decreasing directions. possibly due to a brief increase in masstransfer impedance.1 0. V Mode (constant Test Temperature. total current and time for the stack cycled using the DOE protocol at Argonne.454 Table 3 Operating conditions for the 10-kW stack.80 0.0 Average cell potential. the performance of the stack decreased with time on testing. Bloom et al. Within a short time. The time between RPTs was approximately 100 h.75. 9a shows the typical voltage response during cycling using the DST profile. the voltages at 180 A were normalized to t ¼ 0 for each aging experiment. the air stoichiometry was 2. using both profiles on the 8-kW stack. The difference between the two curves is.85 0. the stack voltage equilibrates. ECE R15. The change in average cell potential at this current was plotted in Fig. / Journal of Power Sources 243 (2013) 451e457 1. cell potential. at Argonne. % temperature. . Similar behavior was seen using the ECE R15 profile and. These observations are not seen during current-decrease transients. 0. there are contributions mainly from activation polarization. for the cathode and anode gases. Typical average cell potential vs. 4. the air stoichiometry varied from 2. 5. b The inlet pressure for the anode and cathode gases was 100 kPa (gauge). The time interval between the successive polarization curves was approximately 100 h. that is. 8b. were also observed during each aging period. 6. the average rate of change in the relative.60 0. average cell voltage consistent with the longest duration. d The fuel and air stoichiometries varied with current: the fuel stoichiometry varied from 1. as expected. the ohmic portion of these polarization curves generally extended from w60 to w180 A.75. average cell potential is shown as a bar chart in Fig. and FCTT tests. Fig. V 0. the temperature difference between the coolant outlet and inlet.95 0. highest energy. and 4  C. greatest RMS power.75 0.50 0 50 100 Current increasing Current decreasing 150 200 250 Current.8 ECE R15 65 a RPT0 0. A Fig.3/57. for the DST.

I. The stack at Argonne was used in a fork-lift truck and may have experienced similar extremes. The stack at JRC-IET was used in a variety of tests. The data in the figure represent the stack response in the current-increasing direction. load and humidity cycling.50 RPT0 0. 4. performance were characterized in terms of polarization curves and are shown in Figs. average cell voltage for the DST and ECE R15 tests at JRC-IET are shown in Fig.65 0.00 3. Bloom et al. using the scale on the right. such as high currents. cell potential at 180 A.45 0. The fact that aged stacks were used also implies that the results would be less likely to be confounded by the rapid initial changes.50 4. (a) Change in relative. The polarization curves shown in these figures were taken in the current-increasing direction. Most likely. (b) Average rate of change in relative average cell potential at 180 A vs. At lower currents. and. V 0.000 -0. The changes in relative. time from the stack tested at Argonne. 9. and the current.00 0. at both sites.040 -0.090 0 50 100 150 200 250 IEC FCTT DST ECE a 80 75 70 250 200 Stack Potetnial. with RPT0 representing the polarization curve obtained at the beginning of cycling using a particular test profile.50 3.060 -0. respectively. 11. (a) Stack potential and current vs. 8. h Time. greater than 0. average cell voltage were 4.85 V cellÀ1.00 DST ECE R15 DST2 IEC FCTT 0. there is a rapid change in performance with time. average cell potential at 180 A vs. During the normal operation of a PEM fuel cell. As the stack ages. A Fig. total current and time for the stack cycled using the DOE protocol at JRC-IET. at higher currents. / Journal of Power Sources 243 (2013) 451e457 455 a Change in rel. s 300 0 50 b 0. 9 and 10 for those arising from the DST and ECE R15 profiles. 8b shows that there was a greater difference in the degradation rates in the stack tested at JRC-IET than the one tested at Argonne. A . fuel starvation. masstransfer losses become significant.010 DST 2 -0. avg. high degradation rates in both stacks are likely a consequence of their histories. performance loss has been attributed to factors such as the loss of the electrochemically active area of the catalyst due to dissolution and/or particle growth [9.75 b 10 x avg. respectively. h 4.50 RPT1 RPT2 1.7 Â 10À4 hÀ1 and 5. the change becomes more linear with time. the degradation rates caused by these profiles are very similar. rate of change of rel.85 0. The lines are meant as an aid to the eye.010 0. cell potential at 180 A 0.55 0.50 0. Comparing these slopes to those shown in Fig. these values are the same. The time between RPTs was approximately 100 h. time from the stack tested at JRC-IET using the DST profile. cell potential.50 2. the performance degradation behavior of a fresh fuel cell stack is proportional to t1/2 where time t denotes the age or test duration. using the same profile. avg.0 Â 10À4 hÀ1 for the DST and ECE R15 profiles. Change in rel: avg: cell voltage at 200 hours= . The average rates of change in the relative. The average rate of change was calculated using the equation. Discussion The observed. hydrogen and oxygen combine to make water and useful electric current.95 0. It is interesting to note that.00 1. The time interval between the successive polarization curves was approximately 100 h. At high operating potentials. possibly.60 0. (b) Average cell potential vs. Initially. In both figures. the differences are due to the differences in the stacks used. V 65 60 150 55 50 100 45 40 35 30 0 100 200 Time.030 -0. The stack potential can be read using the scale on the left. there are contributions from activation polarization.70 0. the ohmic portion of the curves generally extended from w40 to 200 A. making the aging results easier to interpret.10]. At low Current.90 0. In the literature. time for the profiles studied at Argonne.020 -0. 200 Fig. Within experimental error.080 -0. Usually.80 Avg.070 -0.050 -0. the major sources of performance decline in PEM fuel cells are generally attributed to time at high operating potentials and unbalanced water management.40 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 Current.00 2.

Average cell potential vs. 1e4. At the same time. which is both beneficial and detrimental to the performance and life of the cell and stack. there are three factors which could lead to differences in degradation rates: (1) RMS power. erode and dissolve the NafionÒ ionomer electrolyte [12]. again. Bloom et al.45 0. total current and time for the stack cycled using the New European Driving Cycle protocol at JRC-IET. ECE R15. H. In the experiments at Change in avg. time for the profiles studied at JRCIET. the amount of water produced. The research leading to these results also received funding from the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6) of the European Community on research. Walker. 5. Yuan. the IEC/FCTestNet. DE-AC02-06CH11357. it is interesting to note that the two different fuel cell stacks displayed the same behavior. A priori. the performance degradation rates from the duty cycles would be ordered IEC > ECE R15 slightly greater to z DST z FCTT. Acknowledgments Ira Bloom of Argonne wishes to thank his colleagues Drs. more water is produced. and 4  C.1 -0. and leach contaminants from the cell and stack components [13e15]. cell potential at 180 A.75 0. thus. The additional water (humidity) lowers the resistivity of the electrolyte membrane. It also received funding from FP5 under grant contract ENG2-CT-200220657 for the Research and Training Network (RTN) Fuel Cell Testing and Standardization Network (FCTESTNET). Zhang.06 -0. Martin.55 0. References [1] X. The causes of performance decline have to be determined experimentally. cell potential. Myers for many fruitful conversations. ECE R15. the underlying cause of performance decline can probably be attributed to the manner in which the product water interacts with the components of the stack. using time at OCV as the parameter. cause degradation of the catalyst and/or gas-diffusion layers [13]. Wang. The stacks were cycled using the duty profile in each protocol for 200 h. As the current increases. Among other things. cause flooding in the cathode gas flow channels and gas diffusion layer [14]. A Fig. IEC. and demonstration activities under grant contract 020161 for the Fuel Cell Testing. 30 (1) (2011) 227. and the JRCIET. currents. Li. The time between RPTs was approximately 100 h. small amounts of water are produced. obviously are not. T.65 0. S. then. with stack performance being measured every 100 h. the duty cycles would be IEC > FCTT > ECE R15 > DST. Tsotridis. thereby increasing performance. / Journal of Power Sources 243 (2013) 451e457 RPT0 RPT1 RPT2 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 Current. 10.08 -0. V 0. Similarly. If the 5.02 0 -0.04 -0. Power Sources 196 (2011) 9107e9116. [2] I. respectively. Exactly why this water caused the effect is beyond the scope of this study. contrary to observation. 4. technological development. .85 Avg. excess water can shorten the durability of the fuel cell. Comparing this order to the amount of time at full power in the duty cycle with the degradation rates shows that they are related.40 0 I. the excess water can facilitate the growth of catalyst particles through Ostwald ripening [11. G. Kumar and D.-Z. 11. Department of Energy. the majority of the loss may be attributed to one phenomenon or another. Trans. R. ECE R15 > DST z IEC z FCTT. H. Arranged in order of decreasing time spent at full power. 2.95 0. The work at Argonne was performed under the auspices of the U. J. Basco. (2) time at OCV.12 0 50 100 150 200 250 ECE R15 DST Time. If temperature rise was the source of the difference in rates. Fuel Cells Technologies Program Office. coolant temperature increases of w2. However. Safety. such as leaching contaminants or loss of the electrochemically active area. De Marco.90 0. and Quality Assurance (FCTesQA) Specific Targeted Research Project (STREP). L. The work at the JRC-IET was performed within the framework of the JRC Multi-Annual Work Program 2007e2013 under the Fuel Cell Power Chain Integration and Testing “FCPOINT” Direct Action. The data in the figure represent the stack response in the current-increasing direction. for the DST. under Contract No. In the case of the study above. the loss in performance was apparently related to the time spent at full power and.J.456 0. IEC z FCTT > ECE R15 z DST would be the expected order. the European Union and FCTT at Argonne. Electrochem. Even though performance degradation in PEM fuel cells can be a complex process.70 0. Malkow. Soc. Most likely. Change in average cell potential at 180 A vs. then the ordering of the duty cycles by time at maximum power would closely approximate the order of the degradation rates given at the beginning of this discussion. the latter being slightly greater than or approximately equal to DST and FCTT.and 10-s time differences at full power among the DST. The data points are indicated as markers and the least-squares fit to these data are given as solid lines.80 0. h Fig. J.50 0. Some of these effects may be reversible. Examining the data given in Table 1 and shown in Fig. V 0.12] (causes loss of the electrochemically active area). Conclusion Two PEM fuel cell stacks were characterized and aged using the protocols suggested by the DOE/FCHEA. Bloom. G. others. Analysis of the relative changes in the average cell potentials at 180 A showed that the rate of performance decline could be ordered as IEC > ECE R15. and (3) time at maximum power (high current). Argonne. the source of the performance loss cannot be assigned to a given duty cycle characteristic. From the results shown above.02 -0. and FCTT tests were observed. and FCTT duty cycles produce small differences in degradation rates.60 0. the order would be.S. J. contrary to observation.

http://www. 16. Single PEM Cell Testing Protocol (April 2010).P. Holby. M. Chem. D. Xie. Xiaoping Wang. Min. Ball.N.M. 2006).C. R. Myers.J. S. Colbow.pdf. Knights.fchea. Version 30 04 (2010). 158 (2011) B1439eB1455. H. Ha. Electrochem. D. J.-Y. J. Kandlikar.L. Jyoung. / Journal of Power Sources 243 (2013) 451e457 [3] Joint Hydrogen Quality Task Force.2 (Oct.C. Condit. Power Sources 127 (2004) 127e134. Wilkinson. St-Pierre. E.G. [11] Z. K. 2006). 152 (2005) A104eA113. J. Atanassov.K. www. 2010). D. Wood III. E. S.-S.D. Electrochem. 457 [9] J. P. Soc. M. Myers. org/wiki/New_European_Driving_Cycle. Hydrogen Energy 36 (2011) 12427e12435. D. Arisetty. Soc. R. Morgan. [4] FCTESTNET Test Module TM PEFC ST 5-3. [15] T.A. Garofalo. J. J. 160 (2013) F447eF455. Kropf. “Protocol on Fuel Cell Component Testing: Suggested Dynamic Testing Protocol (DTP).M. J. K. Cell Component Accelerated Stress Test and Polarization Curve Protocols for Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Fuel Cells (Dec.J. Ball. Zawodzinski. Bloom et al. [12] J. Z. Kim.L. http://en. Am. Lee. S. N. New European Driving Cycle (12-April-2013). Kariuki. Lu. Gilbert.L. [5] IEC/TS 62282-7-1. Borup. J. . [14] S. 1. Wayne. Subbaraman. Subbaraman.uscar.org/core/import/PDFs/Technical%20Resour ces/Trans-H2Quality-DynamicTestingProfile-04-068A. [13] S. J. Ahluwahlia. D.A. M. D. Soc.I. R.F. 134 (2012) 14823e14833. Gummalla. A. [8] US DRIVE Partnership Fuel Cell Technical Team. J. D. Yang. Smith. php?files_id¼267. Xiaohua Wang. ” Document USFCC 04e068 Rev A (May 1.J. [10] R. Electrochem. S.org/commands/files_download. Int. [6] FCTESTNET PEFC TM SC5-4 Accelerated Aging Procedure for Single Cell V. Cho. T. DeCrane. Soc. [7] Wikipedia.wikipedia. Fuel Cells 11 (2011) 814e823.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.