4.7 Article

Diffusion-limited C-rate: A criterion of rate performance for lithium-ion batteries

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENERGY STORAGE
卷 56, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.est.2022.105920

关键词

Diffusion-limited C-rate; Rate performance; Decomposed overpotential method; Lithium-ion batteries

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China
  2. National Key Research and Development Program of China
  3. [U1864214]
  4. [2021YFB2401800]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study revisits the diffusion-limited C-rate (DLC) using a Pseudo-Two-Dimensional model and improves the analytical model by incorporating concentration-dependent liquid diffusion coefficient. The rate performance below DLC is not limited by electronic transports and charge transfer processes, but the discharge capacity may severely decay if the solid-state diffusion in the electroactive particles is too slow.
Rate performance is one of the important indexes of lithium-ion batteries. However, the discharge capacity would sometimes collapse after a critical C-rate, which is related to a classic concept termed the diffusion-limited C-rate (DLC). In this work, DLC is revisited using the Pseudo-Two-Dimensional model. The DLC analytical model is improved by incorporating the concentration-dependent liquid diffusion coefficient and shows good effec-tiveness compared with the simulation results. Subsequently, the impact of rate-limiting factors on the rate performance is examined to determine the effective scope of the proposed DLC model. Based on the adjustment of resistance ratios and time constant ratios of different kinetic processes, we find that the rate performance below DLC is hardly limited by electronic transports and charge transfer processes while the discharge capacity below DLC may be severely decayed if the solid-state diffusion in the electroactive particles is too slow. DLC helps identify the 'knee' on discharge capacity curves with discharge C-rate, which is a criterion of rate per-formance in some scenarios.

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

4.7
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