4.6 Article

An Analytical Method to Determine Tortuosity in Rechargeable Battery Electrodes

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE ELECTROCHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 159, 期 5, 页码 A548-A552

出版社

ELECTROCHEMICAL SOC INC
DOI: 10.1149/2.jes113224

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation, NSF CMMI [0856491]
  2. Directorate For Engineering
  3. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn [0856171] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  4. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn
  5. Directorate For Engineering [856491] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In high energy density, lowporosity, lithium-ion battery electrodes, the underlying microstructural tortuosity controls the macroscopic charge capacity, average lithium-ion diffusivity, and macroscopic resistivity of the cell, particularly at high discharge rates and power densities. In this paper, an analytical framework is presented to extend widely used empirical tortuosity relations such as the Bruggemann relation to incorporate the effects of the mesoscale tortuosity through analytical integration along the width of the electrode (in the limit of high porosities), and integration along a statistically representative tortuous path (in the limit of low porosities). The framework presented herein enables to establish analytical tortuosity-porosity relations that combine the constitutive properties of the individual components. As an example application, the macroscopic tortuosity-porosity relation of a mixture of two porous particle systems of widely different length scales and well-known individual tortuosity constitutive equations, one displaying mesoscale porosity (the carbon black-electrolyte mixture) and a second one displaying microporosity (the electrochemically active phase), are combined into a self-consistent macroscopic tortuosity expression that is in agreement with recently reported empirical measures of tortuosity. (C) 2012 The Electrochemical Society. [DOI: 10.1149/2.jes113224] 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

4.6
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