MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767382394 · doi:10.1021/acsami.7b13464

Development of Embedded Fiber-Optic Evanescent Wave Sensors for Optical Characterization of Graphite Anodes in Lithium-Ion Batteries

2017· article· en· W2767382394 on OpenAlexafffund
AbdulRahman Ghannoum, Patricia Nieva, Aiping Yu, Amir Khajepour

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Applied Materials & Interfaces · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicAnalytical Chemistry and Sensors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGeneral Motors of Canada
KeywordsMaterials scienceAnodeFabricationGraphiteHydrofluoric acidLithium (medication)Lithium fluorideOptoelectronicsOptical fiberComposite materialOpticsInorganic chemistryElectrode

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development, fabrication, and embedment of fiber-optic evanescent wave sensors (FOEWSs) to monitor the state of charge (SOC) and the state of health (SOH) of lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) are presented. Etching of FOEWSs is performed using a solution of 40 wt % ammonium fluoride (NH 4 F) and 49 wt % hydrofluoric acid (HF) (6:1), which is found to be superior to an etching solution containing just 49 wt % HF. FOEWSs were characterized using glycerol and found to have the highest sensitivity in a lithium-ion battery when they lose 92% of their transmittance in the presence of glycerol on their sensing region. The physical effect that the FOEWS has on the graphite anode is also investigated and is found to be much more significant in Swagelok cells compared to that in in-house-fabricated pouch cells, mainly due to pressure variation. The FOEWS was found to be most sensitive to the changes in the LIB when it was completely embedded using a slurry of graphite anode material within a pouch cell. The optimized fabrication process of the embedded FOEWS demonstrates the potential of using such sensors commercially for real-time monitoring of the SOC and SOH of LIBs while in operation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.807

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS Applied Materials & InterfacesSame topicAnalytical Chemistry and SensorsFrench-language works237,207