4.6 Article

Study of the Failure Mechanisms of LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2 Cathode Material for Lithium Ion Batteries

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE ELECTROCHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 162, 期 7, 页码 A1401-A1408

出版社

ELECTROCHEMICAL SOC INC
DOI: 10.1149/2.1011507jes

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2 (NMC811) can deliver a high capacity of similar to 200 mAh/g with an average discharge potential of similar to 3.8 V (vs. Li+/Li), making it a promising positive electrode material for high energy density lithium ion batteries. However, electrochemical tests from half cells and full cells show poor cycling performance when charged to potentials above 4.2 V. The calendar and cycle lifetimes of cells are affected by the structural stability of the active electrode materials as well as the parasitic reactions that occur in lithium ion batteries. In order to explore the major failure mechanisms of the material, half cells (coin cells) with control electrolyte and full cells (pouch cells) with control electrolyte and with selected electrolyte additives were tested over four different potential ranges. Isothermal microcalorimetry was used to explore the parasitic reactions and their potential dependence. In-situ and ex-situ X-ray diffraction and scanning electron microscopy were used to investigate the structural and morphological degradation of the materials over cycling. It was found that the dramatic c-axis change of the active material during charge and discharge may not be the major problem for cells that are cycled to higher potentials. The parasitic reactions that arise from the interactions between the electrolyte and the highly reactive delithiated cathode surface at high potentials are suggested as the main reason for the failure of cells cycled above 4.2 V. It should be possible to further improve the performance of NMC811 at high potentials by modifying the cathode surface and/or identifying and using electrolyte blends which reduce parasitic reactions. (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