4.8 Article

Temperature dependent ageing mechanisms in Lithium-ion batteries - A Post-Mortem study

期刊

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
卷 262, 期 -, 页码 129-135

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.03.112

关键词

High-power Lithium-ion batteries; Ageing mechanisms; Electrode polarization; Arrhenius; Post-Mortem analysis; Battery life-time

资金

  1. Robert Bosch GmbH for providing the cells within the common research project (ReLiOn) - German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) [03X4619C]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effects of temperatures in the range of -20 degrees C to 70 degrees C on the ageing behaviour of cycled Lithium-ion batteries are investigated quantitatively by electrochemical methods and Post-Mortem analysis. Commercial 18650-type high-power cells with a LixNi1/3Mn1/3Co1/3O2/LiyMn2O4 blend cathode and graphite/carbon anode were used as test system. The cells were cycled at a rate of 1 degrees C until the discharge capacity falls below 80% of the initial capacity. Interestingly, an Arrhenius plot indicates two different ageing mechanisms for the ranges of -20 degrees C to 25 degrees C and 25 degrees C to 70 degrees C. Below 25 degrees C, the ageing rates increase with decreasing temperature, while above 25 degrees C ageing is accelerated with increasing temperature. The aged 18650 cells are inspected via scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy dispersive X-ray analysis (EDX), inductively coupled plasma (ICP), measurements of electrode thickness and X-ray diffraction (XRD) after disassembly to learn more about the chemical reasons of the degradation. The effect of different temperatures on the electrode polarizations are evaluated by assembling electrodes in pouch cells with reference electrode as a model system. We find that the dominating ageing mechanism for T < 25 degrees C is Lithium plating, while for T > 25 degrees C the cathodes show degeneration and the anodes will be increasingly covered by SEI layers. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.8
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