MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3114268298 · doi:10.1149/ma2020-0251000mtgabs

Creep Deformation of Lithium Foil at Moderate Pressures (< 2 MPa) and Temperatures (30-50°C)

2020· article· en· W3114268298 on OpenAlexaff
Shaochen Ding, Logan Fairgrieve‐Park, Michael D. Fleischauer

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAluminum Alloys Composites Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreepMaterials scienceLithium (medication)Composite materialElectrodeDeformation (meteorology)ElectrolyteCompression (physics)Chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lithium metal is receiving significant research attention as a potential next generation negative electrode material in lithium ion batteries because it can offer a ~50% increase in cell energy density compared to conventional graphite electrodes. There are, however, a number of mechanical challenges using lithium metal electrodes. Mechanical stack pressure is required to ensure good contact between solid-state electrodes and electrolytes. Moderate to high stack pressures (e.g. < 10 MPa) can also supress void formation during fast charging and discharging.1 Creep, the plastic deformation of a material under constant pressure, improves battery performance by preventing and filling voids, but can also lead to decreased performance if lithium is unable to sustain the required stack pressure, and potentially cell shorting if lithium is e.g. extruded beyond the current collectors. Creep deformation rates are highly dependent on homologous temperature and pressure. Lithium metal has a relatively low melting point (181°C) / high homologous temperature at common cell temperatures which should result in substantial lithium creep deformation. Previous studies have characterized both the tensile creep properties of lithium foils2 and compressive creep properties of bulk lithium rods.3 Significant barrelling of the high aspect ratio lithium rods (initial height:width of 4:1 to 1:1) during compression made it difficult to determine the applied pressure on the lithium, obscuring the relationship between pressure and creep rate.3 These important studies increased our collective understanding of the mechanical properties of lithium, but are not necessarily reflective of the compressive creep of lithium foils in a cell environment. Here, we report on the compressive creep of lithium foil within an electrochemical cell at commercially relevant stack pressures and temperatures. Compressive creep deformation of low aspect ratio (1:40 to 1:10; initially 0.3 – 2.5 mm thick, 13 mm diameter) lithium metal foils was measured in hermetically sealed, rigid but flexible cells at temperatures between 30 - 110°C and applied pressures between 1 - 2 MPa. Creep testing was performed by integrating a Conflat-style electrochemical cell4 featuring welded bellows and an optical window with an Instron 5966 Universal Testing System (which measures / controls force and displacement). Creep rates were determined using the time-dependent displacement data after reaching a constant applied force. Two methods to convert force to pressure will be described, including the use of an inline camera to measure the lithium-compressive piston contact area. Creep deformation was observed at all tested temperatures, and all pressures above 1 MPa. Creep rates were on the order of a few tenths of a micron per hour, which while small, implies very limited device lifetime with thin lithium layers. Lithium metal may not be physically strong enough for use in high energy density all solid-state devices. 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0030.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS Meeting AbstractsSame topicAluminum Alloys Composites PropertiesFrench-language works237,207