4.6 Article

Stress Evolution in Lithium-Ion Composite Electrodes during Electrochemical Cycling and Resulting Internal Pressures on the Cell Casing

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE ELECTROCHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 162, 期 14, 页码 A2656-A2663

出版社

ELECTROCHEMICAL SOC INC
DOI: 10.1149/2.0341514jes

关键词

-

资金

  1. United States Department of Energy - EPSCoR Implementation award [DE-SC0007074]
  2. DOE's Vehicle Technologies Program (VTP) within Applied Battery Research (ABR) for Transportation Program
  3. New Jersey Institute of Technology
  4. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) [DE-SC0007074] Funding Source: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Composite cathode coatings made of a high energy density layered oxide (Li1.2Ni0.15Mn0.55Co0.1O2,, theoretical capacity similar to 377 mAh-g(-1)), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF) binder, and electron-conduction additives, were bonded to an elastic substrate. An electrochemical cell, built by pairing the cathode with a capacity-matched graphite anode, was electrochemically cycled and the real time average stress evolution in the cathode coating was measured using a substrate curvature technique. Features in the stress : evolution profile showed correlations with phase changes in the oxide, thus yielding data complementary to in situ XRD studies on this material. The stress evolution showed a complex variation with lithium concentration suggesting that the volume changes associated with phase transformations in the oxide are not monotonically varying functions of lithium concentration. The peak tensile stress in the cathode during oxide delithiation was approximately 1.5 MPa and the peak compressive stress during oxide lithiation was about 6 MPa. Stress evolution in the anode coating was also measured separately using the same technique. The measured stresses are used to estimate the internal pressures that develop in a cylindrical lithium-ion cell with jelly-roll electrodes. (C) The Author(s) 2015. Published by ECS. 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

4.6
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