4.6 Article

A Comparison of the Performance of Different Morphologies of LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2 Using Isothermal Microcalorimetry, Ultra-High Precision Coulometry, and Long-Term Cycling

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE ELECTROCHEMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 167, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

ELECTROCHEMICAL SOC INC
DOI: 10.1149/1945-7111/ab8620

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NSERC/Tesla Canada IRC program
  2. NSERC
  3. Nova Scotia Graduate Scholarship program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ni-rich positive electrode materials for Li-ion batteries have the dual benefit of achieving high energy density while reducing the amount of Co used in cells. However, limitations in cycle life are still an issue for the widespread adoption of these materials. The benefit of using single crystal materials has been demonstrated for LiNi0.5Mn0.3Co0.2O2 (NMC532), LiNi0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2 (NMC622), and now LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2 (NMC811). This work uses long-term cycling, ultra-high precision coulometry (UHPC), and isothermal microcalorimetry to investigate the effect of particle morphology on the lifetime of NMC811/graphite pouch cells. NMC811 with uncoated single crystal (SC) particles, coated polycrystalline (PC) particles, and a composite bimodal (BM) material are studied with electrolyte systems that have shown excellent cycle life in other NMC materials. Results from this work show that SC cells have improved cycle life in long-term cycling, as well as higher coulombic efficiency (CE) and lower charge endpoint capacity slippage as seen in the UHPC measurements. This correlates well with the isothermal microcalorimetry results, in which SC cells show the lowest parasitic heat flow over a range of uppercutoff voltages. This study suggests excellent lifetimes can be achieved in single crystal NMC811/graphite cells with further electrolyte optimization. (C) 2020 The Author(s). Published on behalf of The Electrochemical Society by IOP Publishing Limited.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available