4.8 Review

Identifying soft breakdown in all-solid-state lithium battery

Journal

JOULE
Volume 6, Issue 8, Pages 1770-1781

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.joule.2022.05.020

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  2. Canada Research Chair Program (CRC)
  3. Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI)
  4. Ontario Research Fund (ORF)
  5. GLABAT Solid -State Battery Inc.
  6. University of Western Ontario
  7. Changhong Wang acknowledges Banting Post-doctoral fellowships [BPF-180162]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper discusses the overlooked issue of soft breakdown in all-solid-state lithium batteries (ASSLBs) and proposes an effective method for diagnosis. By analyzing the significant effect of critical parameters, a testing benchmark is established to guide scientific understanding and engineering design.
Recent years have witnessed significant advances in all -solid-state lithium batteries (ASSLBs). However, soft breakdown hidden in ASSLBs has been overlooked in most previous research. More-over, existing assessment criteria are insensitive to detecting soft breakdown. Here, we first discuss the current status of ASSLBs and highlight the challenges of evaluating the soft breakdown phenomenon with the existing evaluation method. A simple but effective strategy-cyclic voltammetry-is then proposed to diag-nose soft breakdown in all-solid-state symmetric cells. To establish a standard testing protocol, several critical parameters that have not been well emphasized thus far, including areal capacity, thick-ness, and porosity of solid electrolytes, are numerically analyzed to understand their significant effect on the energy density of practical all-solid-state pouch cells. With these understandings, we establish a definitive testing benchmark with the aim of guiding the research efforts toward in-depth scientific understanding and practical engineering design.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available