4.8 Article

Component-/structure-dependent elasticity of solid electrolyte interphase layer in Li-ion batteries: Experimental and computational studies

期刊

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
卷 277, 期 -, 页码 169-179

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.11.120

关键词

SEI; Elasticity; Molecular dynamics; AFM

资金

  1. Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Vehicle Technologies of the U.S. Department of Energy, under the Batteries for Advanced Transportation Technologies (BATT) Program [DE-AC02-05CH11231, 6906363]
  2. General Motors/University of Michigan Advanced Battery Coalition for Drivetrains

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The mechanical instability of the Solid Electrolyte Interphase (SE!) layer in lithium ion (Li-ion) batteries causes significant side reactions resulting in Li-ion consumption and cell impedance rise by forming further SEI layers, which eventually leads to battery capacity fade and power fade. In this paper, the composition-/structure-dependent elasticity of the SEI layer is investigated via Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) measurements coupled with X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) analysis, and atomistic calculations. It is observed that the inner layer is stiffer than the outer layer. The measured Young's moduli are mostly in the range of 0.2-4.5 GPa, while some values above 80 GPa are also observed. This wide variation of the observed elastic modulus is elucidated by atomistic calculations with a focus on chemical and structural analysis. The numerical analysis shows the Young's moduli range from 2.4 GPa to 58.1 GPa in the order of the polymeric, organic, and amorphous inorganic components. The crystalline inorganic component (LiF) shows the highest value (135.3 GPa) among the SEI species. This quantitative observation on the elasticity of individual components of the SEI layer must be essential to analyzing the mechanical behavior of the SEI layer and to optimizing and controlling it. (C) 2014 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