4.7 Article

Poromechanical effect in the lithium-sulfur battery cathode

期刊

EXTREME MECHANICS LETTERS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 359-370

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.eml.2016.05.007

关键词

Lithium-sulfur battery cathode; Precipitation induced volume expansion; Poromechanical effect; Microcrack formation

资金

  1. Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Vehicle Technologies of the US Department of Energy Advanced Battery Materials Research (BMR) Program [DE-EE0006832]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In lithium-sulfur (Li-S) batteries, during discharge, solid sulfur (S-8(s)) gets dissolved and undergoes successive reduction and finally precipitates as lithium sulfide (Li2S) in a typical carbon-based, porous cathode. Deposition of Li2S leads to 80% volume expansion compared to solid S-8(s). During the dissolution-precipitation process, the total volume change of the electrolyte in the pore space can be attributed to two factors: (a) precipitation/dissolution of the solid sulfur phase; and (b) the cathode microstructure shrinks or swells to accommodate the changes in the pore volume resulting from the electrolyte induced hydrostatic pressure. Current lithium-sulfur performance models neglect this contribution. In this work, a computational methodology has been developed to quantify the impact of precipitation induced volume change, pore morphology and confinement attributes in a Li-S cathode. Impact of volume expansion on cell voltage has also been analyzed using a performance model. It is found that the poromechanical interaction significantly affects the second voltage plateau. Cathode microstructures with relatively smaller pores tend to experience less volume expansion, for the same operating conditions. It has been found that non-uniform precipitation may lead to significant pore confinement, which has the potential to cause microcrack formation in the pore walls of a typical carbon-based cathode microstructure. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.7
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