4.7 Article

Analysis and modeling of calendar aging of a commercial LiFePO4/graphite cell

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENERGY STORAGE
Volume 17, Issue -, Pages 153-169

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.est.2018.01.019

Keywords

Lithium-ion battery; LiFePO4 (LFP)/graphite; Calendar aging; Lifetime model; Dynamic storage conditions

Categories

Funding

  1. Bavarian Ministry of Economy, Media, Energy and Technology under the EEBatt
  2. TUM (Technical University of Munich, Germany)
  3. NTU (Nanyang Technological University, Singapore) within the ICER (International Center of Energy Research)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper presents a comprehensive calendar aging study on a lithium-ion battery with a test duration of 29 months. This aging study was realized with a widely used commercial LiFePO4/graphite cell from Sony/Murata, which promises both long calendar and cycle lifetime, which is especially required for stationary battery applications. The development of the cells' capacity, as well as the resistances, are shown in a static calendar aging study for 17 test points, each with 3 cells, having constant storage conditions of temperature and state of charge. Based on the measurement data, a semi-empirical aging model is presented for the capacity loss and resistance increase, consisting of only 5 parameters which are valid for all storage conditions. An additional dynamic calendar aging study is performed with 9 months test duration for model validation, consisting of 15 test points with varying conditions of temperature and state of charge. The absolute model errors against the validation data points remain below 2.2% for the capacity loss and below 6.9% for the resistance increase for all dynamic validation tests. In conclusion, this calendar aging model allows the prognosis of the calendar lifetime of LiFePO4/graphite batteries in different applications with varying storage conditions over time. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available