MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385071714 · doi:10.1093/micmic/ozad067.682

Twinning and Crack Detection in a Layered Cathode Battery Material with High Resolution FESEM and Low Voltage STEM

2023· article· en· W4385071714 on OpenAlexaff
Meysam Naghizadeh, Raynald Gauvin, Nicolas Dumaresq, Lise Guichaoua, Stéphanie Bessette, Chisu Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueMicroscopy and Microanalysis · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsHydro-QuébecMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExcellenceLibrary scienceSpecial collectionsEngineeringHistoryComputer sciencePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the most important planar defects that can be present in polycrystalline materials are twins. Three kinds of twinning can occur in a polycrystalline solid: I) growth twinning, II) deformation twinning, and III) annealing twinning. Deformation and annealing twins can be formed during mechanical deformation and heat treatment of the crystalline material, respectively. While crystal or growth twinning occurs upon crystal growth from melt or vapor and it either is favored by defects in the growth face or is due to the growth mistakes, which are attributed to the atomic mobility when the atoms do not get to the correct positions [1]. It is believed that twinning can affect the transition metal layered oxide cathode materials during the electrochemical cycling of the battery. Cracks are frequently observed mechanical failures after electrochemical cycling. Most evidence suggests that the twin boundaries are free of voids and cracks in the pristine samples [2, 3]. However, in the present study with the use of low voltage scanning transmission electron microscope (LV-STEM), which can be an effective technique for studying beam sensitive Li-ion battery cathode materials [4, 5], we observed that voids and cracks can be formed before cycling. This crack formation might be attributed to I) the growth twins and their interactions with each other at their intersections and II) the Focused Ion Beam (FIB) related artifacts and therefore, more results and analyses are needed to confirm these observations. Figure 1 shows the morphology of a cathode material powder particle acquired with the Hitachi SU8230 FESEM at 5 kV. As can be seen, the powder particles are almost irregular in shape (Figures 1a and b) which can be related to the presence of twins. Also, in figure 1c, the growth twinning can be seen at relatively low magnification. The most important difference in morphology of growth twin in comparison to deformation and annealing twins is that the growth twin is mostly propagated across the whole surface of the bulk sample. Figure 2 presents the obtained bright-field (BF) and dark-field (DF) images of the powder particle (for which the TEM lamella prepared by the NX-5000 Triple Beam FIB) with the Hitachi SU-9000 dedicated STEM at low voltage of 30 kV and different magnifications. Twin boundaries with different orientations can be observed in this figure. The intersection of these boundaries can be expected and hence, these twin boundaries are able to interact with each other, as illustrated. The twin boundaries/twin boundaries interaction may cause the local strain and therefore, voids and wedge-shaped cracks can be frequently seen in the pristine powder material. These observations might show that the crack formation does not necessarily need the electrochemical cycling-induced strain and twinning interaction can be possibly another mechanism for crack formation. a-c) SE images showing the morphology of a pristine cathode material powder particle at different magnifications. LV-STEM images of a pristine cathode material powder particle illustrating growth twins (yellow arrows), cracks (red arrows), and voids (orange arrows): a) BF mode, b and c) DF and BF modes of the green section at higher magnification, respectively.

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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.811

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicroscopy and MicroanalysisSame topicAdvancements in Battery MaterialsFrench-language works237,207