MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4391662785 · doi:10.1149/ma2023-022177mtgabs

Covalently Joined Electrode Architectures for Extreme Fast Charging Li-Ion Batteries

2023· article· en· W4391662785 on OpenAlexaff
Yverick Rangom, Michael A. Pope

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrodeIonCovalent bondMaterials scienceOptoelectronicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Li-ion batteries are the backbone of all electric vehicles (EVs) in production today [1]. However, they compete poorly against the few-minute refueling time of fossil fuel powered vehicles [2, 3]. To successfully replace fossil fuel powered vehicles, the EV batteries must support charging rates under the 15-minute mark as determined by the eXtreme Fast Charging (XFC) standard defined by the U.S. Department of Energy [4]. When subjected to XFC charging rates, well-known problems of lithium plating and delamination plague graphite anodes due to local potential gradients and binder degradation respectively [5]. Our work replaces the traditional polymer binder with conductive titanium carbide interconnects that covalently join graphite particles as well as bond them to the current collector [6]. This new architecture demonstrates ~400% increase in electrical conductivity compared to traditional architectures with polymer binders while maintaining interparticle integrity and improving adhesion. The adhesion and mechanical properties are provided by conductive chemical bonds mitigating delamination as these novel bonds suffer less mechanical and chemical degradation under high current rates than adhesion provided by polymer binders. The improved conductivity was also utilized to form a solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) at rates up to 4C reducing the ionic impedance of the SEI interface significantly [7]. The improved graphite electrodes can sustain 15-minute charge maintaining 80% of the specific capacity of the graphite particles for 800 cycles at commercially relevant loadings. Our studies introduce an effective strategy to engineer Li-ion battery electrode architectures that simultaneously improve electrical and ionic conductivity mitigating lithium plating and delamination under XFC charging rate needed for the mass adoption of EVs. Habib, A.A., S. Motakabber, and M.I. Ibrahimy. A comparative study of electrochemical battery for electric vehicles applications. in 2019 IEEE International Conference on Power, Electrical, and Electronics and Industrial Applications (PEEIACON). 2019. IEEE. Balali, Y. and S. Stegen, Review of energy storage systems for vehicles based on technology, environmental impacts, and costs. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2021. 135: p. 110185. Andwari, A.M., et al., A review of Battery Electric Vehicle technology and readiness levels. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2017. 78: p. 414-430. Dufek, E.J., et al., Developing extreme fast charge battery protocols–A review spanning materials to systems. Journal of Power Sources, 2022: p. 231129. Ahmed, S., et al., Enabling fast charging–A battery technology gap assessment. Journal of Power Sources, 2017. 367: p. 250-262. Rangom, Y., Covalently Joined Carbonaceous and Mettalloid Powders by Carbide-Based Interconnects and Method of Fabrication for High-Performance Electrodes. 2021: United States preliminary patent #63/248,293. Rangom, Y., T.T. Duignan, and X. Zhao, Lithium-ion transport behavior in thin-film graphite electrodes with SEI layers formed at different current densities. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, 2021. 13(36): p. 42662-42669. 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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.227 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS Meeting Abstracts→Same topicAdvancements in Battery Materials→French-language works237,207→