Presentation Number: es166 Presentation Title: Post-Test Analysis of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials Principal Investigator: Ira Bloom (Argonne National Laboratory) Presenter Ira Bloom, Argonne National Laboratory Reviewer Sample Size A total of six reviewers evaluated this project. Approach to performing the work—the degree to which technical barriers are addressed, the project is well-designed, feasible, and integrated with other efforts. The reviewer stated that the concerns, issues, and the goals were clearly defined. The method to evaluate the final product was also clearly identified. The reviewer said that the approach is good and is following standard methodology (test, dismantle, observe, and perform diagnostics). The reviewer noted that the investigative approach was determined during development of the project. Overall, experimental means used appear logical and have yielded the ability to conclude the behavior of a LIB package as it is subjected to intentional abuse. The reviewer commented that this is an effort to develop an understanding of how cells react to abuse using two different cathodes and two different binders. Another question was how processing affects abuse tolerance. The approach has been carefully laid out. The reviewer pronounced the approach of the post-test analysis to be good, and it addresses important issues related to abuse events. However, the reviewer believed the materials used should be more aggressive, especially the selection of a carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC)-graphite anode. This material is not advanced, and the approach is most likely repeating substantial work that has been covered by various other organizations. Emphasis on higher energy anodes and cathode pairs is advisable as well as alignment with new materials from CAMP or the Advanced Manufacturing Facility.
Figure 3-12 - Presentation Number: es166 Presentation Title: Post-Test Analysis of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials Principal Investigator: Ira Bloom (Argonne National Laboratory)
3-68 Electrochemical Energy Storage The reviewer commented that only one type of abuse tests (i.e., overcharge) was performed. The work can be improved by leveraging Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) facilities and performing more types of abuse tests (e.g., thermal and mechanical abuse tests). Technical accomplishments and progress toward overall project and DOE goals—the degree to which progress has been made, measured against performance indicators and demonstrated progress towards DOE goals. The reviewer said that the PIs made good progress on comparing physical and chemical response of batteries with different types of binders under battery abuse conditions. The reviewer stated that good progress had been achieved by the ANL, ORNL, and SNL team this past year. ORNL made cells using two different binders and processes, SNL performed abuse testing, and ANL conducted post-mortem analysis. The reviewer stated that excellent progress was made toward program goals as they were outlined. The cell manufacturing, testing effort, and analysis work proceeded almost as scheduled. The team designed work and performed experimental efforts to meet established objectives for the fiscal year. However, some delays in outcome are reported. It remains for the team to establish a plan to address these delays. The reviewer observed that this project is in the very early stages so there are only a modest number of results. A number of diagnostics has been carried out on the two binders, and differences are observed, but it is too early to develop insights, in the opinion of the reviewer. A good question has been raised—what causes grain boundary corrosion—for future analysis. Transition metals were seen at the anode, which can be a useful diagnostic of abuse along with details of the morphology. Plating can be observed, but quantitative trends are hard to make out. One interesting result this reviewer noted is that binder failure seems to be important.
[
b] The reviewer stated that no future research slides were provided although this project continues until September 30, 2018 (only 50% complete). This appears to be an unfortunate oversight on behalf of the PI.
Additionally, the proposed future work from the 2016 presentation was not addressed in this 2017 presentation. The plan is to look at Li-iron-phosphate (LFP) composition next year with different combinations of binder. It was not clear to the reviewer whether the plans will yield new insights, especially at a fundamental level. Relevance—Does this project support the overall DOE objectives of petroleum displacement? The reviewer mentioned that understanding the potential negative response to real world abuse scenarios for this technology and identifying ways to significantly reduce that response are critical to public acceptance of this technology. This project fully supports that need. 3-70 Electrochemical Energy Storage The reviewer asserted that the introduction of LIBs into the transportation sector will result in lightweighting of designed vehicles, which serves to conserve energy, whether it be petroleum or other energy source. However,
this project is one that is focused on energy storage, regardless of generating source. The reviewer viewed battery safety as critical for widespread adoption of EVs and the displacement of petroleum. Projects such as this serve as a tool to determine overall safety and post-cycling analysis. The reviewer stated that an effective post-analysis procedure is important for battery development and will help accelerate the EV adoption.
The reviewer remarked that the project supports DOE objectives. It is important to perform failure analysis on batteries so that we can move forward in the development of an affordable battery that can meet DOE goals. It seems useful, but it was unclear to the reviewer how knowing the various responses to abuse will help make safer batteries. The reviewer further noted that the project team will test different additives, but again, was unsure how looking at morphology changes will add knowledge.