4.7 Article

Smart cure cycle for reducing the thermal residual stress of a co-cured E-glass/carbon/epoxy composite structure for a vanadium redox flow battery

期刊

COMPOSITE STRUCTURES
卷 120, 期 -, 页码 107-116

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2014.09.037

关键词

Smart cure cycle; Co-cure method; Hybrid composite; Thermal residual stress; Vanadium redox flow battery (VRFB); Co-cured flow frame and bipolar plate

资金

  1. EEWS Research Project of the office of the KAIST EEWS Initiative (EEWS: Energy, Environment, Water, and Sustainability) [EEWS-2014-N01140042]
  2. KI Projects

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The vanadium redox flow battery (VRFB) is considered as one of the most promising energy storage system in the future. It is composed of two endplates and a stack which consists of flow frame (FF), electrode, bipolar plate (BP) and membrane. Because the electrolytes flowing in the stack are sulfuric-acid-based solutions, prevention of leakage is important. The unified structure of the FF and the BP manufactured by co-curing E-glass/epoxy and carbon/epoxy composites not only prevents leakage, but also simplifies assembling process. However, large thermal residual stress is induced due to the difference of coefficients of thermal expansion between E-glass/epoxy and carbon/epoxy composites. In this work, smart cure cycle was developed to reduce the thermal residual stress of the co-cured E-glass/carbon/epoxy structure for VRFB. The deformations of structure fabricated using smart cure cycle were investigated with respect to the degree of cure and post-cure process using the viscoelastic properties of composite materials during post-cure process. In addition, the thermal residual stress and actual bonding temperature were calculated. Using the experimental results of degree of cure and actual bonding temperature, a finite element analysis was performed to verify the stress of the co-cured FF BP structure as a function of the cure cycles. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据