4.6 Article

Electrode scale and electrolyte transport effects on extreme fast charging of lithium-ion cells

期刊

ELECTROCHIMICA ACTA
卷 337, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.electacta.2020.135854

关键词

Extreme fast charging; Lithium-ion batteries; Electrolyte transport; Lithium-plating; High-energy density cells

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) [DE-AC36-08GO28308]
  2. U.S. Department of Energy laboratory [DE-AC02-06CH11357]
  3. Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC [AC07-05ID14517]
  4. U.S. DOE Office of Vehicle Technology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A combination of cell testing and electrochemical-thermal modeling is used to investigate extreme fast charging (XFC) performance for cells with a low loading of 1.5 mAk.cm(-2) and moderate loading of 2.5 mAk.cm(-2). Cells with a low loading of 1.5 mAk.cm(-2) withstand XFC performance remarkably well even up to 9C constant current (CC) charging with high charge capacity, high coulombic efficiency and very little apparent lithium plating. For a moderate loading of 2.5 mAk.cm(-2), the 6C CC charge capacity is poor with significant amounts of visually observed lithium plating. Simulated electrolyte transport properties are revealed to be insufficient and majorly set limitations for XFC performance in case of the moderate and the only simulated higher loadings (>2.5 mAk.cm(-2)). Charging at elevated temperature is shown to be an effective strategy for moderate loading cells enabling good 10-min charge capacity, high coulombic efficiency, and mitigating lithium plating. Lastly, an electrochemical model is used to investigate strategies for enabling 4-6C CC charging for cells incorporating loading beyond 3 mAk.cm(-2). As a result, the combination of an increased cell temperature, reduced electrode tortuosity, and enhanced ion-transport in the electrolyte are most likely required to facilitate XFC for state of the art and future high energy lithium-ion batteries. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. 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