MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3026332254 · doi:10.1149/ma2019-03/1/88

(Invited) Exploring the Impact of Mechanical Pressure on the Performance of Anode-Free Lithium Metal Cells

2019· article· en· W3026332254 on OpenAlexaff
A. J. Louli, Matthew Genovese, Rochelle Weber, J. R. Dahn

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFuel Cells and Related Materials
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnodeLithium (medication)ElectrolyteMaterials scienceMetalLithium metalElectrodeStack (abstract data type)Chemical engineeringChemistryMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research on lithium metal batteries has made a resurgence in the quest to surpass the energy density of conventional lithium ion batteries. Many reports in the literature utilize Li-metal cells with significant excess lithium, thereby artificially inflating the cycling efficiency and cycle life of such cells since lost lithium inventory can be replaced from a vast reservoir. However, utilizing significant excess lithium can drastically reduce the energy density of Li-metal cells even below that of conventional Li-ion as shown in Figure 1; at 200% excess lithium, the theoretical volumetric capacity of Li of 2060 mAh/L becomes 687 mAh/L, lower than the volumetric capacity of graphite of 719 mAh/L. Clearly cells with significant excess lithium are not poised to succeed conventional lithium ion cells in delivering superior energy density. In contrast, anode-free cells do not utilize excess lithium and thus can deliver the maximum theoretical capacity of lithium metal. In an anode-free cell, the lithium ions stored in the positive electrode plate on a bare current collector during the first charge to form a lithium metal anode in-situ. 1,2 As such, lithium metal is not required during the construction of anode-free cells, resulting in a cheaper, safer and more practical Li-metal cell. In this work, we evaluate anode-free Li-metal pouch cells (NMC532||Cu) with operando pressure measurements constrained to different stack pressures between 75-2205 kPa with two different electrolytes, 1M LiPF 6 fluoroethylene carbonate: diethyl carbonate (FEC:DEC 1:2) and 1M LiPF6 fluoroethylene carbonate:bis(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) carbonate (FEC:TFEC 1:2). Increasing the initial average pressure from 75 to 2205 kPa was found to generally improve cycling performance, with the most significant benefits achieved up to 1205 kPa. Cells containing FEC:TFEC electrolyte exhibited a superior initial plating efficiency than FEC:DEC cells. The benefit of constraining cells containing FEC:TFEC electrolyte is shown in Figure 1. Although generally beneficial, we found that the effect of increased pressure on the performance of cells with different solvent systems was not equal, particularly at high pressures, indicating that the physical properties of the electrolyte play an important role in cells constrained to higher pressures between 1205 and 2205 kPa. This work presents anode-free cells which deliver a larger energy density than conventional Li-ion cells for 50 cycles. Figure 1

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS Meeting AbstractsSame topicFuel Cells and Related MaterialsFrench-language works237,207