4.8 Article

Study of the charging process of a LiCoO2-based Li-ion battery

期刊

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
卷 160, 期 2, 页码 1349-1354

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2006.02.087

关键词

Li-ion battery; charging; LiCoO(2); high rate; low temperature

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A three-electrode Li-ion cell with metallic lithium as the reference electrode was designed to study the charging process of Li-ion cells. The cell was connected to three independent testing channels, of which two channels shared the same lithium reference to measure the potentials of anode and cathode, respectively. A graphite/LiCoO(2) cell with a C/A ratio, i.e., the reversible capacity ratio of the cathode to anode, of 0.985 was assembled and cycled using a normal constant-current/constant-voltage (CC/CV) charging procedure, during which the potentials of the anode and cathode were recorded. The results showed that lithium plating occurred under most of the charging conditions, especially at high currents and at low temperatures. Even in the region of CC charging, the potential of the graphite might drop below 0 V versus Li(+)/Li. As a result, lithium plating and re-intercalating of the plated lithium into the graphite coexist, which resulted in a low charging capacity. When the current exceeded a certain level (0.4C in the present case), increasing the current could not shorten the charging time significantly, instead it aggravated lithium plating and prolonged the CV charging time. In addition, we found that lowering the battery temperature significantly aggravated lithium plating. At -20 degrees C, for example, the CC charging became impossible and lithium plating accompanied the entire charging process. For an improved charging performance, an optimized C/A ratio of 0.85-0.90 is proposed for the graphite/LiCoO(2) Li-ion cell. A high C/A ratio results in lithium plating onto the anode, while a low ratio results in overcharge of the cathode. (c) 2006 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