4.6 Review

Thermal and Chemical Expansion in Proton Ceramic Electrolytes and Compatible Electrodes

期刊

CRYSTALS
卷 8, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cryst8090365

关键词

thermal expansion; chemical expansion; protonic conductors; proton ceramic fuel cells; TEC; CTE; high temperature proton conductors

资金

  1. National Science Centre, Poland [2015/17/N/ST5/02813]
  2. European Commission [2016/22/Z/ST5/00691]
  3. National Science Centre, Poland via M-era.Net network
  4. Centre for Earth Evolution and Dynamics, through the CoE grant from the Research Council of Norway
  5. Colorado School of Mines Foundation via the Angel Research Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review paper focuses on the phenomenon of thermochemical expansion of two specific categories of conducting ceramics: Proton Conducting Ceramics (PCC) and Mixed Ionic-Electronic Conductors (MIEC). The theory of thermal expansion of ceramics is underlined from microscopic to macroscopic points of view while the chemical expansion is explained based on crystallography and defect chemistry. Modelling methods are used to predict the thermochemical expansion of PCCs and MIECs with two examples: hydration of barium zirconate (BaZr1-xYxO3-delta) and oxidation/reduction of La1-xSrxCo0.2Fe0.8O3-delta. While it is unusual for a review paper, we conducted experiments to evaluate the influence of the heating rate in determining expansion coefficients experimentally. This was motivated by the discrepancy of some values in literature. The conclusions are that the heating rate has little to no effect on the obtained values. Models for the expansion coefficients of a composite material are presented and include the effect of porosity. A set of data comprising thermal and chemical expansion coefficients has been gathered from the literature and presented here divided into two groups: protonic electrolytes and mixed ionic-electronic conductors. Finally, the methods of mitigation of the thermal mismatch problem are discussed.

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