4.8 Article

Analysis of geometric and electrochemical characteristics of lithium cobalt oxide electrode with different packing densities

期刊

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
卷 328, 期 -, 页码 46-55

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2016.07.119

关键词

Li ion battery; Synchrotron nano-computed tomography; Calendering; Packing density; Geometric characteristics

资金

  1. US National Science Foundation [1335850]
  2. DOE Office of Science [DE-AC02-06CH11357]
  3. Directorate For Engineering
  4. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys [1335850] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To investigate geometric and electrochemical characteristics of Li ion battery electrode with different packing densities, lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2) cathode electrodes were fabricated from a 94:3:3 (wt%) mixture of LiCoO2, polymeric binder, and super-P carbon black and calendered to different densities. A synchrotron X-ray nano-computed tomography system with a spatial resolution of 58.2 nm at the Advanced Photon Source of the Argonne National Laboratory was employed to obtain three dimensional morphology data of the electrodes. The morphology data were quantitatively analyzed to characterize their geometric properties, such as porosity, tortuosity, specific surface area, and pore size distribution. The geometric and electrochemical analysis reveal that high packing density electrodes have smaller average pore size and narrower pore, size distribution, which improves the electrical contact between carbon-binder matrix and LiCoO2 particles. The better contact improves the capacity and rate capability by reducing the possibility of electrically isolated LiCoO2 particles and increasing the electrochemically active area. The results show that increase of packing density results in higher tortuosity, but electrochemically active area is more crucial to cell performance than tortuosity at up to 3.6 g/cm(3) packing density and 4 C rate. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.8
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