4.8 Article

Fabrication, Testing, and Simulation of All-Solid-State Three-Dimensional Li-Ion Batteries

期刊

ACS APPLIED MATERIALS & INTERFACES
卷 8, 期 47, 页码 32385-32391

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsami.6b12244

关键词

solid-state battery; three-dimensional; thin film; inhomogeneity; experiment and modeling

资金

  1. Science of Precision Multifunctional Nanostructures for Electrical Energy Storage (NEES), an Energy Frontier Research Center - U.S. DOE, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences [DESC0001160]
  2. University of Maryland [70NANB10H193]
  3. National Institute of Standards and Technology Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology [70NANB10H193]
  4. U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration [DE-AC04-94AL85000]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Demonstration of three-dimensional all-solid-state Li-ion batteries (3D SSLIBs) has been a long-standing goal for numerous researchers in the battery community interested in developing high power and high areal energy density storage solutions for a variety of applications. Ideally, the 3D geometry maximizes the volume of active material per unit area, while keeping its thickness small to allow for fast Li diffusion. In this paper, we describe experimental testing and simulation of 3D SSLIBs fabricated using materials and thin-film deposition methods compatible with semiconductor device processing. These 3D SSLIBs consist of Si microcolumns onto which the battery layers are sequentially deposited using physical vapor deposition. The power performance of the 3D SSLIBs lags significantly behind that of similarly prepared planar SSLIBs. Analysis of the experimental results using finite element modeling indicates that the origin of the poor power performance is the structural inhomogeneity of the 3D SSLIB, coupled with low electrolyte ionic conductivity and diffusion rate in the cathode, which lead to highly nonuniform internal current density distribution and poor cathode utilization.

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