4.6 Article

Toward All-Solid-State Lithium Batteries: Three-Dimensional Visualization of Lithium Migration in beta-Li3PS4 Ceramic Electrolyte

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE ELECTROCHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 165, 期 16, 页码 A3732-A3737

出版社

ELECTROCHEMICAL SOC INC
DOI: 10.1149/2.0301816jes

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) [DE-AC36-08GO28308]
  2. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Laboratory Directed Research and Development
  3. DOE Office of Science User Facility [DE-AC02-05CH11231]
  4. Argonne National Laboratory [DE-AC02-06CH11357]
  5. Colorado School of Mines

向作者/读者索取更多资源

All-solid lithium batteries are an attractive next-generation technology that use ion-conducting solids such as beta-Li3PS4 (LPS) to enable use of a lithium metal anode, which increases theoretical capacity and widens the stable voltage window over traditional lithium-ion systems. These ion-conductive solids also provide increased safety by replacing flammable liquid electrolytes. Although solid-state electrolytes are significantly more stable and dendrite-resistant than traditional liquid electrolytes, lithium anodes in all-solid systems may nevertheless grow dendrites under high stress or repeated cycling, leading to short circuits and premature battery breakdown. For this reason, we study the formation and propagation of Li metal features within solid electrolytes using synchrotron-based X-ray tomography with in-situ current-voltage cycling supported by our custom sample platform. Our results demonstrate the ability of this technique to delineate different layers of the Li/LPS/Li structure with spatial resolution approaching 1 mu m. At this resolution, we are able to detect expansion of voids, especially in early stages of cycling. This expansion of voids is observed throughout the volume of the symmetric cells and visually resembles propagation of cracks resulting from interactions between the Li metal and pre-existing voids in the LPS electrolyte. (C) 2018 The Electrochemical Society.

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