4.6 Article

A Modified Electrochemical Model to Account for Mechanical Effects Due to Lithium Intercalation and External Pressure

期刊

出版社

ELECTROCHEMICAL SOC INC
DOI: 10.1149/1945-7111/abe16d

关键词

mechanical effects; electrochemical model; porosity change; transport distance change; DualFoil model; lithium-ion battery; electrochemomechanical model

资金

  1. Robert Bosch LLC through Bosch Energy Research Network (BERN) [01.01.MS.17]
  2. National Science Foundation [CMMI-1911836]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the coupling between mechanical deformation and electrochemical response in battery cells, proposing a coupled electrochemomechanical model and verifying its effectiveness through simulations. The results demonstrate that mechanical effects significantly impact the electrochemical response of the cell at high charge/discharge rates.
For a battery cell, both the porosity of the electrodes/separator and the transport distance of charged species can evolve due to mechanical deformation arising from either lithium intercalation-induced swelling and contraction of the active particles or externally applied mechanical loading. To describe accurately the coupling between mechanical deformation and the cell's electrochemical response, we extend Newman's DualFoil model to allow variable, non-uniform porosities in both electrodes and the separator, which are dynamically updated based on the electrochemical and mechanical states of the battery cell. In addition, the finite deformation theory from continuum mechanics is used to modify the electrochemical transport equations to account for the change of the charged species transport distance. The proposed coupled electrochemomechanical model is tested with a parameterized commercial cell. Our simulation results confirm that mass conservation is satisfied with the new formulation. We further show that mechanical effects have a significant impact on the cell's electrochemical response at high charge/discharge rates.

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