4.6 Article

A Mathematical Model for Cyclic Aging of Spinel LiMn2O4/Graphite Lithium-Ion Cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE ELECTROCHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 163, 期 13, 页码 A2757-A2767

出版社

ELECTROCHEMICAL SOC INC
DOI: 10.1149/2.1061613jes

关键词

-

资金

  1. international Collaborative Energy Technology R&D Program of the Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) - Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy, Republic of Korea [20158510050020]
  2. Energy Efficiency & Resources Core Technology Program of the Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) - Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy, Republic of Korea [20142010102980]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A mathematical model is developed for the cyclic aging of a spinel LiMn2O4/graphite lithium-ion cell in this study. The proposed model assumes the formation and dissolution of the solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) in the anode, Mn(II) dissolution of the LiMn2O4 cathode active material due to the Mn(III) disproportionation reaction, the effect of deposition of the reduced Mn on the SEI at the anode, and the formation of a cathode-electrolyte interphase (CEI) layer on the cathode. The decrease of the Li-ion diffusion coefficient in the cathode due to the formation of a passive film and the dissolution of the active material are introduced as factors that lead to capacity fading. Temperature effects on the capacity fade parameters and chemical reactions are integrated into this model. The developed model is incorporated into the Newman's Porous Composite Electrode (PCE) framework and implemented in the battery module of COMSOL Multiphysics. The proposed model is used to investigate the effect of variations in the ambient temperature, and of the voltage range of cycling on the capacity fade. In addition, the effect of changes in the volume fraction of cathode active material, the resistance in the cell, and the state of charge of the anode are also studied. (C) 2016 The Electrochemical Society. 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

4.6
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