4.8 Article

Probing mass transport processes in Li-ion batteries using electrochemical impedance spectroscopy

期刊

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
卷 514, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2021.230577

关键词

-

资金

  1. Faraday Institution's [FIRG001, EP/S003053/1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines mass transport within LIBs and the use of electrochemical techniques, particularly EIS, to probe mass transport meaningfully. The benefits of using EIS compared to GITT are demonstrated through FEM simulations, with the application of Distribution of Relaxation Times to assign battery processes to EIS spectra.
Electrochemical techniques, such as electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS), are widely applied to probe dynamic processes across a range of systems including lithium-ion batteries (LIBs). Key questions remain on how different degradation phenomena effect the processes that allow LIB to function. One of the key processes that determines the response of batteries is the mass transport, particularly the transport of Lithium within the constituent electrode materials. This study considers mass transport within LIBs, and the extent to which electrochemical techniques, particularly EIS, can be used to meaningfully probe mass transport in LIBs with the aim to serve as a guide for future studies that wish to track changes in mass transport as batteries age and degrade. Herein, the benefits of using EIS compared to the Galvanostatic Intermittent Titration Technique (GITT) are demonstrated using well defined finite element method (FEM) simulations as the basis. Distribution of Relaxation Times was then applied to assign and map battery electrochemical processes to the EIS spectra based on their time constants. Effects such as electrode geometry, mass transport heterogeneities and the overlap between mass transport and other processes are considered and discussed with particular focus on how they affect the extraction of solid Lithium diffusion coefficients.

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