4.6 Article

Influence of Initial Porosity on the Expansion Behavior of Electrodes in Lithium-Ion Batteries

期刊

出版社

ELECTROCHEMICAL SOC INC
DOI: 10.1149/1945-7111/acd2fe

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During the charging or discharging of a lithium-ion battery (LIB), the volume of the electrodes can change due to lithiation or delithiation, which has a significant impact on the battery's lifetime. Factors such as initial porosity, particle shape, and silicon content affect the thickness change of various electrode materials.
When charging or discharging a lithium-ion-battery (LIB), lithiation or delithiation of the electrodes takes place. Especially in the case of anode active materials, lithiation often leads to a significant volume increase. The latter can cause a rearrangement of the particles. Although the volumetric changes of state-of-the-art cathode materials have been found to be smaller than for anodes, they remain relevant. The combined volumetric changes of anodes and cathodes are an important factor influencing the lifetime of LIBs. An electrochemical dilatometer was used to measure the thickness change of various electrode active materials under minimal constant pressure (approximate to 16 kPa): graphite, silicon-graphite (SiG) composite electrodes, and high-voltage spinel lithium-nickel-manganese-oxide (HVS-LNMO). The influencing factors investigated included the initial porosity of the electrodes, the particle shape of graphite, and the silicon content in the case of the silicon-graphite composite electrodes. Regarding all investigated electrodes, the initial electrode porosity is shown to correlate negatively with the irreversible thickness change during the initial cycles. The thickness change in each electrode was constant over the post-formation cycles, regardless of the initial porosity. Spherical particles in graphite resulted in slightly higher thickness changes than flake-type particles. The thickness change of SiGs increased linearly with silicon content.

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