4.6 Article

Comparison of Single Crystal and Polycrystalline LiNi0.5Mn0.3Co0.2O2 Positive Electrode Materials for High Voltage Li-Ion Cells

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE ELECTROCHEMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 164, Issue 7, Pages A1534-A1544

Publisher

ELECTROCHEMICAL SOC INC
DOI: 10.1149/2.0991707jes

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NSERC
  2. Tesla Motors
  3. Canada Foundation for Innovation under the Major Science Initiative program
  4. McMaster University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Single-crystal LiNi0.5Mn0.3Co0.2O2 (NMC532) with a grain size of 2-3 mu m was compared to conventional polycrystalline uncoated NMC532 and polycrystalline Al2O3-coated materials in this work. Studies were made to determine how single crystal NMC532 material with large grain size could be synthesized. Ultra high precision coulometry (UHPC), in-situ gas measurements and isothermal microcalorimetry were used to make comparative studies of the three materials in Li-ion pouch cells. All the diagnostic measurements suggested that the single crystal material should yield Li-ion cells with longer lifetime. Long-term cycling tests verified these predictions and showed that cells with single crystal NMC532 exhibited much better capacity retention than cells with the polycrystalline materials at both 40 degrees C and 55 degrees C when tested to an upper cutoff potential of 4.4 V. The reasons for the superior performance of the single crystal cells were explored using thermogravimetric analysis/mass spectrometry experiments on the charged electrode materials. The single crystal materials were extremely resistant to oxygen loss below 100 degrees C compared to the polycrystalline materials. The major drawback of the single crystal material is its slightly lower specific capacity compared to the polycrystalline materials. However, this may not be an issue for Li-ion cells designed for long lifetime applications. (C) The Author(s) 2017. Published by ECS. All rights reserved.

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