Practical Considerations in the Development of 3 and 15 Ah Rechargeable Lithium Pouch Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Commercially available Li-ion batteries using graphite or graphite-silicon blended anodes are currently approaching a cell level specific energy of 350 Wh kg−1. EaglePicher previously demonstrated a 2 Ah rechargeable pouch with a lithium metal anode that delivered 375 Wh kg−1 (Crowther, Owen. "Solving Barriers to Commercialization of Cells with Lithium Metal Anodes." 236th ECS Meeting (October 13-17, 2019). ECS, 2019). Further improvements to chemistry and cell design resulted in a 3 Ah pouch with longer cycle life and specific energies above 400 Wh kg−1 (Crowther, Owen. "Rechargeable Lithium Metal Pouch Cell Development." ECS Meeting Abstracts. No. 1. IOP Publishing, 2021). This paper will discuss several new areas that resulted in improved cell performance such as increasing the tab size, optimizing the electrolyte type and amount, and introducing excess lithium metal into the anode. Figure 1 demonstrates the rate capability of the cell with larger tabs to minimize the ohmic resistance. The cell with delivers ~425 Wh kg−1 at low rate and >300 Wh kg−1 at a 6.6C rate. The maximum continuous rate for the cell with the original tabs was 1C. Finally, the initial prototype performance of a 15 Ah rechargeable lithium pouch cell with a specific energy >500 Wh kg−1 will be highlighted. 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".