4.8 Article

Optical sensors for operando stress monitoring in lithium-based batteries containing solid-state or liquid electrolytes

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-28792-w

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Research Council (ERC) [670116-ARPEMA]
  2. International Balzan Prize Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study presents a method for investigating chemo-mechanical stress in battery electrodes during operation. Optical fiber sensors embedded in the electrodes are used to monitor the stress, providing potential applications in battery diagnosis and design.
The study of chemo-mechanical stress taking place in the electrodes of a battery during cycling is of paramount importance to extend the lifetime of the device. This aspect is particularly relevant for all-solid-state batteries where the stress can be transmitted across the device due to the stiff nature of the solid electrolyte. However, stress monitoring generally relies on sensors located outside of the battery, therefore providing information only at device level and failing to detect local changes. Here, we report a method to investigate the chemo-mechanical stress occurring at both positive and negative electrodes and at the electrode/electrolyte interface during battery operation. To such effect, optical fiber Bragg grating sensors were embedded inside coin and Swagelok cells containing either liquid or solid-state electrolyte. The optical signal was monitored during battery cycling, further translated into stress and correlated with the voltage profile. This work proposes an operando technique for stress monitoring with potential use in cell diagnosis and battery design. Chemo-mechanical stress within Li-based batteries detrimentally affects the performance and lifetime of these devices. Here, the authors propose an operando technique using optical fibers embedded in electrodes for internal stress monitoring of cells containing either solid or liquid electrolytes.

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