MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391663160 · doi:10.1149/ma2023-022434mtgabs

How to Make a Single-Layer Pouch Cell That Matches the Performance of a Commercial Li-Ion Cell

2023· article· en· W4391663160 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew D. L. Garayt, Michel B. Johnson, Lauren Laidlaw, Mark A. McArthur, S. Trussler, Jessie Harlow, J. R. Dahn, Chongyin Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Technologies Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLayer (electronics)PouchIonCellMaterials scienceComputer scienceNanotechnologyChemistryBiologyAnatomyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) have exploded in popularity due to the consumer electronics and electric vehicle industries, many resources are poured into research. While the simplest cell format requiring the least amount of active material to make in a research laboratory to study various aspects of the cell is usually the coin cell, it is far from the most representative of commercial LIBs. Oftentimes, coin cells are made with a large negative electrode overhang to reduce the risk from positive/negative electrode misalignment, but the overhang region can cause Li+ to become effectively trapped at higher C-rates1. While this is a necessary trade-off in today’s commercial LIB manufacturing, the overhang area is normally a much smaller fraction of the total negative electrode area in a commercial cell than in a laboratory coin cell, which can lead to discrepancies in cycle testing. Moreover, during assembly of commercial stacked or wound cells, there is always a region in which one side of a double-sided coating, typically the negative, is not needed and thus a single-sided electrode should be used. However, not all manufacturers eliminate the outward-facing second side and elect to simply use double-sided coatings throughout. Therefore, studying the effects of excess electrode in single-layer pouch cells will be explored in this presentation. In this presentation, cells made in various formats (coin and stacked pouch) will be compared to single-layer pouch cells made with and without negative electrode overhang. Single-layer pouch cells are the easiest format for assembling full cells without overhang because they are neither too small nor too big for positive/negative electrode alignment to be difficult. Moreover, single-layer pouch cells made with double-sided coatings (without overhang) and cycled using Ultra-High Precision Coulometry (UHPC) will be shown to have poor cycling. This is for two reasons: 1) for a double-sided negative, the outward-facing coating of the electrode can trap Li+ just like the overhang on the inward-facing coating; and 2) the outward-facing positive can be deintercalated and provide more capacity than desired2, possibly even surpassing the negative/positive areal capacity ratio. Single-layer pouch cells with no overhang are shown in Figure 1a to outperform all other cell formats tested, retaining 90% of their original capacity after 500 cycles at C/3 and 40 °C, and have the lowest difference in capacity between typical C/3 and C/20 checkup cycles as shown in Figure 1b. The stacked pouch cells in Figure 1 are composed of 3 positive and 4 negative electrodes that are all double-sided, meaning there are two outward-facing negative electrode coatings that can trap Li+, possibly resulting in the much poorer capacity fade to 80% after 500 cycles illustrated in Figure 1a. Thus, single-layer pouch cells without overhang give the most realistic cycling results for the tested electrode materials. Figure 1. C/3 cycling of full cells of various formats denoted in the legend. Plotted in (a) is the normalized discharge capacity and (b) is the difference in areal discharge capacity between the C/20 checkup cycle and preceding C/3 cycle. REFERENCES Gyenes, B., Stevens, D.A., Chevrier, V.L., and Dahn, J.R. (2015). Understanding Anomalous Behavior in Coulombic Efficiency Measurements on Li-Ion Batteries. J Electrochem Soc 162, A278–A283. 10.1149/2.0191503jes. Smith, A., Stüble, P., Leuthner, L., Hofmann, A., Jeschull, F., and Mereacre, L. (2023). Potential and Limitations of Research Battery Cell Types for Electrochemical Data Acquisition. Batter Supercaps e202300080. doi.org/10.1002/batt.202300080. 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.004

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 AbstractsSame topicAdvanced Battery Technologies ResearchFrench-language works237,207