MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309797354 · doi:10.1149/ma2022-02177mtgabs

(Digital Presentation) The Electrode’s Inhomogeneous Microstructure Effect on Battery Performance

2022· article· en· W4309797354 on OpenAlexaff
Mariam Odetallah, Vikram Singh, Sabine Kuss, Christian Kuß

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicConducting polymers and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrostructureMaterials scienceBattery (electricity)ElectrodeScanning electron microscopeComposite materialLithium-ion batteryLithium (medication)EvaporationNanotechnologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Currently, rechargeable batteries are used in everyday life applications, such as in mobiles, cameras, laptops, and cars. Accordingly, the demand for rechargeable batteries, in particular Lithium-ion batteries, is increasing. Their electrodes consist of at least four different materials: active material, a conductive additive, polymer binder, and current collector. The battery performance in terms of cycling performance, energy density, mechanical integrity, and ionic and electronic mobility depends on these materials. 1 The casting procedure, the multiscale packing during the evaporation process after casting, the accumulation of the conductive additive, the adhesive failure during the charging and discharging process, and the natural irregular shape of the electrode materials produce an inhomogeneous electrode microstructure. 2 This inhomogeneity causes current density variation and a non-uniform Lithium ion concentration leading to damage to the battery structure, reducing the capacity, and degrading the battery. 2 The electrode microstructure and its effect on the battery performance have great importance. As such, several techniques have been developed to investigate electrode microstructure. Each technique gives specific information. Here, we will combine scanning electron microscopy (SEM), scanning electrochemical microscopy (SECM), and battery cycling to study the effect of microstructure on the battery performance. SECM is a high resolution probe technique that scans the electrode surface using an ultra-microelectrode. Thus it can measure the electrode`s local conductivity. 3 , 4 Therefore, we can quantify the inhomogeneous microstructure distribution. Thus, by combining these results with SEM and cycling test results we will be able to find the correlation between the battery performance and the distribution of the microstructure. References: Stein M, Chen CF, Robles DJ, Rhodes C, Mukherjee PP. Non-aqueous electrode processing and construction of lithium-ion coin cells. J Vis Exp . 2016;2016(108):1-10. doi:10.3791/53490 Xiong R, Zhang T, Huang T, Li M, Zhang Y, Zhou H. Improvement of electrochemical homogeneity for lithium-ion batteries enabled by a conjoined-electrode structure. Appl Energy . 2020;270(May):115109. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115109 Ventosa E, Schuhmann W. Scanning electrochemical microscopy of Li-ion batteries. Phys Chem Chem Phys . 2015;17(43):28441-28450. doi:10.1039/c5cp02268a Polcari D, Dauphin-Ducharme P, Mauzeroll J. Scanning Electrochemical Microscopy: A Comprehensive Review of Experimental Parameters from 1989 to 2015. Chem Rev . 2016;116(22):13234-13278. doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.6b00067

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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.223 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS Meeting AbstractsSame topicConducting polymers and applicationsFrench-language works237,207