research papers
Liion halfcells studied operando during cycling by smallangle neutron scattering
^{a}Chair of Technical Electrochemistry, Department of Chemistry and Catalysis Research Center, Technische Universität München, Lichtenbergstrasse 4, Garching 85748, Germany, and ^{b}Heinz MaierLeibnitz Zentrum (MLZ), Technische Universität München, Lichtenbergstrasse 1, Garching 85748, Germany
^{*}Correspondence email: stefan.seidlmayer@frm2.tum.de
Smallangle neutron scattering (SANS) was recently applied to the in situ and operando study of the charge/discharge process in Liion battery fullcells based on a pouch cell design. Here, this work is continued in a halfcell with a cycled versus a metallic lithium counter electrode, in a study conducted on the SANS1 instrument of the neutron source FRM II at the Heinz MaierLeibnitz Zentrum in Garching, Germany. It is confirmed that the SANS integrated intensity signal varies as a function of graphite lithiation, and this variation can be explained by changes in the squared difference in scattering length density between graphite and the electrolyte. The scattering contrast change upon graphite lithiation/delithiation calculated from a multiphase neutron scattering model is in good agreement with the experimentally measured values. Due to the finite coherence length, the observed SANS contrast, which mostly stems from scattering between the (lithiated) graphite and the electrolyte phase, contains local information on the mesoscopic scale, which allows the development of lithiated phases in the graphite to be followed. The shape of the SANS signal curve can be explained by a core–shell model with stepwise (de)lithiation from the surface. Here, for the first time, Xray diffraction, SANS and theory are combined to give a full picture of graphite lithiation in a halfcell. The goal of this contribution is to confirm the correlation between the integrated SANS data obtained during operando measurements of an Liion halfcell and the electrochemical processes of lithiation/delithiation in microscaled graphite particles. For a deeper understanding of this correlation, modelling and experimental data for SANS and results from Xray diffraction were taken into account.
Keywords: smallangle neutron scattering; SANS; batteries; lithium; graphite; lithiation process.
1. Introduction
The increased research interest in Liion batteries has triggered the development of new methods to study the detailed processes occurring inside a battery cell. Smallangle neutron scattering (SANS) has recently been used for studying battery materials in situ and operando in functional batteries (Sacci et al., 2015; Bridges et al., 2012; Zhu et al., 2019; Risse et al., 2019). The SANS technique gives information on the phase distribution on a mesoscopic scale and is thus complementary to neutron diffraction, which gives information regarding (global) phase existence and properties on an atomic scale. Both methods probe a sample volume typically of the order of 1 cm^{3} in order to obtain results with sufficient statistics. In earlier work (Seidlmayer et al., 2015), we performed the first in situ scattering experiments with a fullcell Liion battery composed of a graphite anode and an NMC111 (LiNi_{0.33}Mn_{0.33}Co_{0.33}O_{2}) cathode. It was shown that the graphite component dominates the scattering signal of an NMC111/graphite fullcell. A core–shell model was proposed, describing the scattering contrast from the nearsurface region of the graphite active material particles (here referred to as shell) and the surrounding electrolyte phase, with a local resolution based on the SANS signal coherence length. In this followup work, our aim is to answer several questions which remained unresolved in that report. Could the signal have been influenced by factors other than the e.g. the cathode active material? Can we assume that the electrode represents a sufficiently homogeneous system in the SANS measurements, so that SANS is really representative of any given graphite particle in the cell? Moreover, is the postulated quadratic dependence of the integrated intensity on the squared difference of scattering length density valid? In this article, we combine Xray diffraction (XRD) and SANS in order to view the lithiation of graphite from a new perspective. A new theoretical model supports the experimental results.
Several SANS studies of carbonbased anode active materials for Liion batteries have been conducted in the past. For example, Nagao et al. (2006) used ex situ SANS and other techniques to study hard carbon anode active materials. More recently, Sacci et al. (2015) employed in situ SANS to study the solid–electrolyte interface (SEI) formation on graphite, and earlier Bridges et al. (2012) used the same approach to examine SEI evolution in nanosized pores in hard carbon anode active materials by following changes in the scattering length density. In these studies, the authors implicitly assumed that the scattering signal from the contributing materials scales with the squared difference in scattering length density, weighted by the material a relationship which, to the best of our knowledge, is derived for the first time in the present work (see Appendix A). The first operando SANS data recorded during the cycling of an Li/graphite halfcell were reported by Wang et al. (2012). For graphite, the coexistence of various Li_{x}C phases or stages has long been determined by in situ XRD (Dahn, 1991; Dahn et al., 1990). To explain the lithiation process of graphite, Heß & Novak (2013) considered the graphite particles as homogeneous and proposed that the lithiation of a graphite particle for each given stage proceeds from the outside to the centre of the graphite particle. The existence of such a lithiation front, which always separates two distinct phases, has also been supported by numerical simulations with an advanced lithium solidphase masstransport model (Bohn et al., 2013). This suggests that a stable front of (lithiated) graphite phases can proceed through a graphite particle even at high charge rates (at Crates of ca 0.7 C; Crate is understood as current over capacity, as usual). This is often called the `shrinking core model', but it may not necessarily be valid with different carbonbased anode materials (e.g. multidomain mesocarbon microbeads) or at different rates, for which other lithiation patterns on the singleparticle level have also been reported (Harris et al., 2012). Recently, multiple coexistent phases in lithiated graphite have been reported in neutron diffraction experiments as well, described as a phase inhomogeneity or graphite phase gradient (Zinth et al., 2017).
2. Experimental
Li/graphite pouch halfcells were built in an argonfilled ca 1 × 1 cm sized neutron beam passes (for dimensions see the caption of Fig. 1). The potatoshaped particles had a mean diameter of 22 µm as determined by laser diffraction particle sizing (RetschHoriba LA950). The electrodes were separated by a polyolefine separator (Celgard C2013) which was soaked in an electrolyte composed of ethylene carbonate/ethyl methyl carbonate (3:7 wt%) with 1 M LiPF_{6} and 2 wt% vinylene carbonate (BASF LP572). The theoretical areal capacitance of the was 1.63 mA h cm^{−2} (based on a theoretical capacity of 360 mA h g^{−1}). The thickness of the copper foils used was 12 µm (MTI Corporation) and the Al foil (MTI Corporation) in the pouch casing was 40 µm thick. The overall thickness of the Li/graphite cell used in this experiment was ∼1 mm.
The halfcells consisted of a graphitecoated copper foil (SGL Carbon T157) as the and a metallic Li foil of 450 µm thickness (Rockwood Lithium) as the counter electrode. The latter was contacted electronically by a copper currentcollector tab at the side of the electrode, located outside the area through which theFor comparative measurements, a symmetric Li/Li cell was built, in which the 450 µm thick Li foils were also supported on a copper currentcollector frame with a central window of the same dimensions as for the Li/graphite cell. The smaller electrode in each of the two cells was 6.76 cm^{2} in all cases. The cells were cycled with a potentiostat (Biologic, France). Prior to the SANS experiments, the Li/graphite halfcell underwent two formation cycles at C/10 (≡ 0.16 mA cm^{−2}) and two cycles at C/5 (≡ 0.32 mA cm^{−2}) between 0.01 and 1.5 V. The Li/Li cell did not undergo any formation prior to the SANS experiments.
All operando SANS experiments were undertaken on the SANS1 instrument at the FRM II of the Heinz MaierLeibnitz Zentrum (MLZ) in Garching, Germany (Gilles et al., 2006; Mühlbauer et al., 2016; Heinemann & Mühlbauer, 2015). Measurements were performed with a neutron wavelength of 6 Å and a sampletodetector distance of 8 m (the same value was chosen for the collimation) to cover a medium q range of 0.068–0.934 nm^{−1} [q = (4π/λ) sinθ, where θ is half the scattering angle and λ is the wavelength of the incident beam]. Accumulated signals from this q range were saved every 3 min to a data file and data reduction, including calibration, was performed with the BerSANS software (Keiderling, 2002). In general, the signal was normalized with respect to the detector and it was corrected for the fluctuating beam intensity, which was measured at the beam entrance, i.e. normalization was done with respect to the `empty' beam.
In the operando SANS experiment with the Li/graphite cell, the preformed was lithiated from 1.5 to 0.01 V with a constant current (CC) at a rate of C/5, followed by a constant voltage phase (CV) with a cutoff current corresponding to C/10. Subsequently, the was delithiated at a constant current corresponding to C/5. Finally, after a short period in OCV (open circuit voltage) condition, the graphite was lithiated (CCCV) and delithiated (CC) with C/2 in order to examine the SANS signal evolution at higher rates. This last cycle could not be fully completed due to limited beam time. After the SANS experiment, the Li/graphite halfcell was taken to an Xray diffractometer (Empyrean, PANalytical, Almelo, Netherlands) at the Materials Science Laboratory of the MLZ, equipped with an Mo Xray tube (λ = 0.71 nm, Kα_{1} and Kα_{2}) operated at 40 mA and 55 kV, where it was cycled at C/5 as in the SANS experiment while collecting operando XRD patterns in transmission mode every 6 min.
The symmetric Li/Li cell underwent no formation and was brought directly to the SANS instrument and cycled at a i.e. at 0.32 mA cm^{−2}). The cell was cycled first for 2 h in one direction and then for a further 2 h in the other direction. The Li transfer in the Li/Li cell happened at an overvoltage of ∼100 mV.
corresponding to that of C/5 for the Li/graphite halfcell (3. Results and discussion
3.1. XRD measurements
Fig. 2 shows an operando Xray diffractogram of the Li/graphite halfcell which was measured in a setup like that shown in Fig. 1. During cycling at the relatively low Crate of C/5 there are clear transitions from the lower lithiated phases to LiC_{12} and then to LiC_{6}. Thus, at higher lithiation (x > 0.2) LiC_{12} and LiC_{6} are the two phases present in the sample. The data in Fig. 2 show the range of d spacings around the (00l) reflections of graphite and the lithiated graphite phases. At the beginning of the lithiation process (from left to right), a noncontinuous gradual shift of the 002 reflection of graphite with a lattice spacing of d ≃ 3.35 Å towards higher values is observable. A first discontinuity appears around d ≃ 3.43 Å (at x ≃ 0.1). A second discontinuity is visible at d ≃ 3.50 Å (at x ≃ 0.2), shortly before the lattice spacing of LiC_{12} is reached at d ≃ 3.53 Å and the 002 reflection of LiC_{12} appears. With increasing degree of lithiation, the 001 reflection of LiC_{6} gradually starts to appear at d ≃ 3.70 Å (from x ≃ 0.5) while the LiC_{12} reflection gradually disappears until full lithiation is achieved.
While the XRD data provide averaged phase distribution information which is consistent with the literature (Dahn, 1991; Senyshyn et al., 2013; Dahn et al., 1990), they provide no insight into the spatial distribution of the various phases on a particlescale level. We did not observe the occurrence of more than two coexisting graphite stages, as observed, e.g. by Wilhelm et al. (2018) at low temperatures. Therefore, we assume that the lithiation within the graphite particles, as well as that within the entire electrode, is homogeneous. However, the for observing phase fractions in our XRD experiment is limited and phases with a small volume share might not have enough scattering power to be seen.
3.2. SANS measurements
The same cell was measured in different lithiation states in an operando SANS experiment in order to provide mesoscopic information. Fig. 3 shows the scattering, i.e. the macroscopic scattering dΣ/dΩ as a function of the wavevector q for the Li/graphite halfcell. The figure shows an exponential decrease in the macroscopic scattering when going to larger q values, which then levels off to a constant background at ca 0.0075 cm^{−1}. The exponential drop follows a q^{−m} law, where the exponent m can be determined to be m = 3.8 (fit of all data points to c_{0} + c_{1}q^{−m}, where c_{0} and c_{1} are constants) using the software SASfit (Breßler et al., 2015). This is very close to the classical Porod scattering with m = 4. Interestingly, there is a significant difference in the SANS signal between the lithiated and delithiated graphite states. This is clearly discernible in the difference curve in Fig. 3 (green symbols), where the SANS signal in the halfcell from the fully lithiated graphite is always below the one from the lithiumfree graphite.
In order to better compare the difference between the various graphite phases during cycling, we can define an integral measure of the SANS signal which combines all data points into one value. We thus determine the integrated intensity Γ, which we obtain by integrating the normalized scattering dΣ/dΩ over the q range highlighted in grey in Fig. 3 (here 0.11–0.89 nm^{−1}). The integration range was limited in order to exclude data points with a large error.
integrated in this work from 0.11 to 0.89 nm^{−1}.
The upper line (red) in Fig. 4 shows how the integrated intensity Γ of the SANS signal for the Li/graphite halfcell varies continuously and reversibly during a full lithiation and delithiation cycle at C/5. For comparison, the evolution of the SANS signal of the symmetric Li/Li cell cycled at the same is shown on the same axis, based on the transferred charge during cycling (2 h in each direction for the Li/Li cell, instead of ca 5 h in the case of the Li/graphite halfcell). The maximum variation in the integrated intensity Γ [see equation (1)] for the Li/graphite halfcell between x = 0 (fully delithiated) and x = 1 (fully lithiated) is 1.2 × 10^{−9} nm^{−2} and thus much higher than the variation observed for the Li/Li cell, which would only amount to 0.2 × 10^{−9} nm^{−2} when the slope of the measured data is extrapolated to x = 1. Note also that the integrated intensity Γ of the Li/graphite halfcell is reversible, whereas that of the Li/Li cell increases monotonically, and the absolute level of the integrated intensity Γ from the Li/graphite cell is significantly higher.
Upon closer inspection of Fig. 4 it is apparent that the integrated intensity Γ does not return to the same value after one cycle, which we believe is due to the following phenomenon. In a symmetrical Li/Li cell made from two fresh Li foils, the following surface modification occurs upon cycling: both electrodes start with a perfectly flat Li surface (darkgrey area in the inset of Fig. 4), but during cycling a microdendritic or mossy Li structure (lightergrey structures) grows on the Li foil onto which lithium is being deposited, i.e. over the course of one cycle, the formation of lithium dendrite and mossy lithium can be observed on both Li foils of the Li/Li cell, consistent with the literature (Wandt et al., 2015; Steiger et al., 2014). Since these dendrites are of the order of micrometres, we can surely reject any direct visibility in the SANS signal. However, the growth of mossy Li results in an increase in surface area which can explain the continuous increase in the integrated intensity of the SANS signal of the Li/Li cell over the cycle shown in Fig. 4 (blue line). We therefore believe that the contribution to Γ produced by the surface area increase of the lithium electrode is responsible for the increase in Γ after one cycle (i.e. at x = 0) observed for the Li/graphite cell (red line). Nevertheless, owing to the overall very high integrated intensity for the Li/graphite cell, this signal contribution from the Li counter electrode is rather minor and the contributes the most to the SANS signal, which will be discussed below.
3.3. Detailed examination of the operando Li/graphite cell data
The upper panel of Fig. 5 shows how the operando measured SANS integrated intensity varies with the degree of lithiation of the for a Crate of C/5 (red line/symbols) and for a rate of C/2 (green line/symbols). Here, the integrated intensities of the SANS signals are normalized to the first value at x = 0 and the estimated error (see Experimental, Section 2) is given by the error bars; the lines represent a smoothed Savitzky–Golay fit (Savitzky & Golay, 1964) based on thirdorder polynomials. For comparison, the curves of potential versus degree of lithiation (x) are shown in the lower panel, exhibiting clearly visible plateaus for the various lithiation and delithiation stages of graphite. The dashed vertical lines mark the beginning of the phase transitions to LiC_{12} at x ≃ 0.2 and to LiC_{6} at x ≃ 0.5, which were observed in the above in situ XRD measurements (see Fig. 2). For the higher rate of C/2, increasing overpotentials make it more difficult to identify the plateaulike transitions between these phases.
During lithiation both integrated intensity curves drop by roughly 15% and feature an S shape with a lower slope in the middle section. The delithiation curve rises quickly at the beginning and then more slowly until the pure delithiated graphite is obtained again at an absolute level which is slightly above its initial value (see the above discussion of this phenomenon), amounting to a total scattering intensity rise of 19%. This clearly demonstrates that the integrated intensity of the SANS signal depends on both the state of charge (SOC) of the
and on the charge/discharge direction. In the following we will relate this signal variation to the change in scattering length density during cycling.4. Comparison of measured and theoretically predicted SANS signals
In a typical SANS experiment, interferencelike patterns of nanoscaled particles are observed at low q, followed by an exponential drop at larger q above the constant incoherent background. In our study, no such distinct features are observed between q = 0.1 and 0.4 nm^{−1} in Fig. 3 and the SANS data show only an exponential Porod scattering behaviour. Above 0.4 nm^{−1} only background scattering is observed. This is because the graphite particles studied here (tens of micrometres) are large in comparison with 1/q and the lowest achievable q values are still too high (corresponding to 1/q of a few hundred nanometres) to resolve these features, as illustrated in Fig. 6. The q range in our experiments was limited to a single sampletodetector distance in order to have the high time resolution required for operando SANS data at Crates of C/5 and C/2. In other experiments where a larger q range could be measured, similar scattering features have been observed.
The SANS signals at the lowest q value start directly in the Porod region, where the particle size is of the order of 1/q or larger, so that the scattering can be written as
and is thus proportional to the object surface A_{surface} and Δρ^{2}. The experimentally determined exponent of −3.8 (see discussion of Fig. 3) is close to the theoretical value of −4. The relative SANS contrast of material A in a matrix B can be described by the squared difference of scattering length densities which is the squared scattering contrast,
where ρ_{A} and ρ_{B} are the materialspecific scattering length densities of materials A and B. The dependence of the macroscopic scattering on Δρ^{2} was used earlier for simple particle scattering (Grillo, 2008) and more recently for scattering from micrometresized battery materials (Seidlmayer et al., 2015; Sacci et al., 2015). In Appendix A, a new and detailed mathematical derivation is given for the scattering from a multiphase material with large particles, i.e. for typical Liion battery active materials as investigated here, which confirms the proportionality of the SANS scattering (and also of the integrated intensity) to the squared difference in scattering length density Δρ^{2}. This is also true for the general case and independent of the experimentally motivated Porod equation above.
A major difference from standard SANS data evaluation is that our sample volume cannot be seen as one matrix domain with nanoscaled inhomogeneities, because the dimensions of the graphite particles (and of most Liion battery active materials) are large in comparison with the neutron coherence length. In the SANS experiments shown here, the transverse coherence length given by l_{coh} = λL/(4d_{C}) is 120 nm, based on the used wavelength λ = 6 Å, the collimation length of L = 8 m and the collimation aperture diameter of d_{C} = 10 mm. This coherence length, which is illustrated in Fig. 6, is much smaller than the graphite particle size or the electrode thickness. Thus, the contributions of the electrodes or of particles far away from each other add up only incoherently. The volume of coherent interaction for which the scattering laws are valid is limited by the coherence length, so to get the overall from the measured sample, we sum the scattering contributions from all coherence volumes in the sample. As a consequence, for the delithiated Li/graphite halfcell one must sum the independent contributions of the relevant interfaces in the cell, which are proportional to the local values of Δρ^{2} (with the appropriate constant, c_{2}, which is in fact a function of q and c_{0, other} for the background, as shown in Appendix A),
where the first term on the righthand side refers to the graphite particle/electrolyte interface, the second term to the lithium surface/electrolyte interface and the last term to the contributions from the background [note that equation (4) corresponds to equation (18) in Appendix A where we have inserted the explicit electrode names]. From this, the integrated intensity Γ can be written as
Here, we have only considered one interface between the graphite active material and the electrolyte (graph./electr.) and another one between the Li foil and the electrolyte (Li/electr.). This is a valid simplification because other interfaces do not contribute significantly to the overall scattering signal, as will be discussed by considering the theoretical Δρ^{2} values listed in Table 1. Furthermore, it should be noted that upon lithiation the graphite/electrolyte interface term in equation (5) will have to be replaced by a term describing the LiC_{12}/electrolyte interface and, ultimately, by a term describing the LiC_{6}/electrolyte interface. The separator and the binder polymer are chemically inert (at least during a few cycles) and do not change upon cycling.

Table 1 lists the scattering length density ρ for the different materials in our Li/graphite and Li/Li cells, as well as the squared difference Δρ^{2} (referred to as the squared scattering contrast) for the different material interfaces between any given phase A and an interfacing phase B (ρ values calculated with the software SASfit). The squared scattering contrast for the interface between the various graphite phases and the electrolyte is by far the largest, ranging from 26 to 40 × 10^{20} cm^{−4} (first three rows in Table 1). On the other hand, the squared scattering contrast for the interface between the various graphite phases is negligible, with values of <0.4 × 10^{20} cm^{−4} (second and thirdlast rows in Table 1). Finally, the squared scattering contrast from the Li/electrolyte interface has an intermediate value, but its value of approximately 5 × 10^{20} cm^{−4} is still rather small compared with that of the graphite phases with the electrolyte. In the following, we will compare the scattering signal calculated from these values with the measured results.
From Table 1 and the Li/Li cell measurement, we can estimate that the contrast from (lithiated) graphite Li_{x}C_{6} to the electrolyte is the major contribution to the SANS integrated intensity, as according to Table 1 all signal changes are proportional to the difference in Δρ^{2} upon lithiation. Table 1 shows a Δρ^{2} decrease of 19% when graphite changes from unlithiated graphite (C) to LiC_{12} (squared scattering contrast relative to largest value decreasing from 100 to 81%, see first and second rows of the last column in Table 1) and another Δρ^{2} decrease of 15% to LiC_{6} (see second and third rows of the last column in Table 1), equating to a total Δρ^{2} decrease of 34% upon the complete lithiation of graphite to LiC_{6}. While a large drop in the SANS signal upon lithiation is indeed observed (see Fig. 5), the overall drop in the integrated intensity of the SANS signal is only approximately onehalf of what would be predicted on the basis of the calculated Δρ^{2} decrease. This is due to the fact that, in this simple approximation, we have not considered the background signal and the effect of a finite coherence length.
However, a careful application of equation (5) should allow us to calculate the expected signal change in more detail. The parameters we had not considered in the above simple approximation are the factors c_{2}′ and the background , which contain information about the volume fractions and the detailed geometry of their respective contributions in relation to the overall sample. For this, one can first carefully evaluate equation (5) for the Li/graphite halfcell in which graphite is in its delithiated state, considering only the contributions from the Li/electrolyte and graphite/electrolyte interfaces, as well as additional information which is available for the three terms on the righthand side of equation (5).
First, from other experiments (Seidlmayer et al., 2015) we know that the inactive background contribution from the pouch, current collectors, separator and electrolyte alone is typically between 20 and 30% of the total scattering signal for a pouch cell. Because the cells used here and in the previous experiments were similar, we estimate a value of 30% for the background term . Second, from Fig. 4 one can see that the integrated intensity of the Li/Li cell on an absolute scale (∼2.4 × 10^{−9} nm^{−2}) is approximately 40% of that of the Li/graphite cell (∼5.9 × 10^{−9} nm^{−2}). After subtracting the background, we thus get a contribution of 10% for the Li/electrolyte term. Third, we attribute the remaining 60% to the graphite/electrolyte interface term. There is a small error because we do not account for the second Li interface, but we neglect it for the moment since the scattering contrast of the Li/electrolyte interface is in any case smaller than that of the graphite/electrolyte interface. Using the above estimates, the different terms in equation (5) can be approximated as follows:
Here, we insert the measured integrated intensity of Γ = 5.9 × 10^{20} cm^{−4} in the delithiated graphite state and the squared scattering contrasts from Table 1, i.e. = 39.99 × 10^{20} cm^{−4} and = 4.68 × 10^{20} cm^{−4}, and then separately calculate the constants c_{2}′.
For the graph./electr. interface,
For the Li/electr. interface,
The integrated intensity for the graphite/Li halfcell with graphite in the fully lithiated state (LiC_{6}) can now be calculated by inserting = 26.20 × 10^{20} cm^{−4},
Here, Δρ^{2} and are given in the units above, so that the integrated intensity Γ is given in units of 10^{−9} nm^{−2}. Thus, for the halfcell with fully lithiated graphite (x = 1, i.e. LiC_{6}), one gets a total integrated intensity of 4.7 × 10^{−9} nm^{−2}. This represents a drop of −21% in the integrated intensity Γ, which is reasonably close to the measured value of −15% in Fig. 5 (red curve). The integrated intensity drop to halfway at x = 0.5 (contrast of LiC_{12} particle to electrolyte) is projected to be −11%, which is again close to the experimentally observed −7%. The change in integrated intensity is reversible upon delithiation, except for a remaining absolute difference of 0.3 × 10^{−9} nm^{−2} at x = 0 after one C/5 cycle, which is probably the result of a changed background contribution from the Li anode (due to increased surface roughness caused by lithium plating).
4.1. Explaining the shape of the curve
Above, it was shown how contrast changes determine scattering, but the limited area of coherent interaction has not been taken into account yet. In fact, two constraints apply: the limited coherence length, and the fact that only the interface between the active material and the electrolyte contributes significantly to scattering. Thus, the overall scattering Γ only varies when the contrast changes within a surface shell of the active material particle (compare Fig. 6 with Fig. 9 in Appendix A). This surface shell has the extension of one coherence length into the particle. In Figs. 7 and 8, the integrated intensity Γ is plotted in detail for lithiation and delithiation of graphite, with the data being normalized to the first integrated intensity value of the C/5 curve.
or integral intensityFig. 7 (upper part) shows the lithiation of graphite in detail, if it were to proceed from the outside to the inside of the particle. For simplicity only two stages are shown. Upon lithiation LiC_{12} starts to build at the surface and the front propagates into the particle. When the particle is saturated with LiC_{12}, LiC_{6} will start to propagate from the surface to the inside. Three distinct points can be identified where the shell contrast and integrated intensity change. Point 1 marks the full lithiation of the shell with LiC_{12}; thereafter, the integrated intensity should stay constant since the shell remains unchanged. Point 2 marks the onset of LiC_{6} formation near the surface, which continues until point 3 which marks the completion of LiC_{6} in the shell, after which the integrated intensity remains unchanged again. A surface shell limited by a coherence length of 120 nm represents a share of 3% of the total volume of a 22 µm particle. Accounting for particle size variation, let us assume twice that figure, i.e. a roughly 6% share of shell volume. The 6% share is represented by the shaded areas in Figs. 7 and 8. From theory, point 1 is where the complete particle consists of LiC_{18} (x = 0.33) plus the 6% shell that is already LiC_{12}, thus for point 1 we get x = 0.33 + (0.5 − 0.33) × 6%, i.e. x = 0.34. Point 2, where the whole particle is LiC_{12}, lies at x = 0.5, and point 3, where the shell is filled up to LiC_{6}, lies at x = 0.5 + (1 − 0.5) × 6%, i.e. x = 0.53. From the XRD experiment we see that the onset of LiC_{12} is earlier, already at x ≃ 0.2, which could be due to incomplete lithiation and other effects as discussed below.
During delithiation, which is shown in detail in Fig. 8, we start from the fully lithiated particle and begin to delithiate the outer shell. The contrast varies until the shell has changed to LiC_{12} at point 1′. The next change in contrast at point 2′ occurs after the particle is completely transformed into LiC_{12} and more delithiation will create lower lithiated phases at the surface. From theory, point 1′ should lie at x = 0.97 (half the shell from 100%) and point 2′ at x = 0.5.
In Figs. 7 and 8, the shape of the model with a plateau in the SANS integrated intensity is reproduced by the experiment, even though the shape is somewhat distorted. Points 1 (when shifted to x = 0.2 as suggested by XRD) and 1′ agree fairly well with the experimental curves, but the other points are shifted slightly and the very simple model is not able to describe the experimental results in full.
4.2. Distortion of the curve and validity of assumptions
The deviation of the experimentally observed integrated intensity from the simple core–shell model can be attributed to several effects. First, the size of the graphite particles in the sample is represented by a size distribution with a standard deviation of 11 µm around the mean particle size (by volume) of 22 µm. Thus, the ratio of coherence shell volume to particle volume varies substantially (6.5:3.2:2.2% for 11:22:33 µm) and the shape of the integrated intensity curve is smoothed out. Furthermore, incomplete lithiation in the inner volume of the particle would lead to an earlier onset of new phases at the surface during lithiation, resulting in a shift of the reference points to the left. From the XRD experiment we know that LiC_{12} forms already at x ≃ 0.2, which means that the particle is not fully lithiated up to LiC_{18} which would be at x ≃ 0.33. The incomplete lithiation can shift and smooth the curve, especially at high Crates, as indeed observed in Fig. 5. Furthermore, the SANS data represent all particles in the electrode where across the electrode dimension might vary, though at low rates this should be negligible. We have assumed stable phases that coexist in separated domains during cycling, which is confirmed by the XRD data which show distinct and coexistent phases within the cell under test for the chosen rates. Also, we have neglected volume changes of the phase geometry so far, but we have considered the density change for the scattering length density calculation. The volume change of graphite upon lithiation, which is up to 13% (Dolotko et al., 2012), could indeed influence the SANS signal because the surface of all particles and thus the volume of the shell increases. However, the experimental data show no increase in SANS integrated intensity with lithiation due to surface growth, but instead a decrease in intensity which can only be explained by the discussed change in scattering length density contrast. The experimentally observed values for the change in the integrated intensity are, however, lower than expected from the contrast change alone. This observation might be explained by a superposition with the volume change effect.
5. Summary
In the past, we had shown that the SANS integrated intensity signal from an NMC/graphite pouch cell varies with the state of charge, which we had hypothesized to be mostly due to changes upon graphite (de)lithiation (Seidlmayer et al., 2015). To confirm this hypothesis, we conducted analogous experiments with an Li/graphite halfcell, thereby removing any contribution of the NMC cathode. The signal changes are similar to those observed in our 2015 study (Seidlmayer et al., 2015), which can now be attributed clearly to graphite lithiation. Operando XRD data obtained on the same halfcell confirm a homogeneous lithiation/delithiation across the entire electrode because the diffraction pattern shows only the subsequent evolution of one or at most two graphite stages at a time and not the coexistence of multiple stages. Based on a previously reported qualitative model to describe the SANS signal, we have developed a full theoretical model which explains the SANS integrated intensity signal from an Liion battery cell, showing that it is proportional to the squared difference in scattering length density.
For the Li/graphite cell examined here, the SANS integrated intensity signal stems mostly from the interface of the electrolyte phase with the (lithiated) graphite phase, and is restricted by the coherence length to a surface shell of the particle (i.e. to a shell thickness corresponding to the coherence length). This enables the SANS method to obtain information about the progress of lithiation across the graphite particles.
This model is applicable for materials where the particle sizes are (much) larger than the transverse coherence length of the experimental setup (120 nm in the experimental data discussed here). In the context of lithiumion batteries, this means that it applies to many anode and cathode active materials (e.g. graphites, NCMs), while it does not apply to most conductive carbons. The measured overall difference of the SANS integrated intensity signal during cycling of the Li/graphite cell agrees to within 30% of the theoretically predicted values from contrast variation upon graphite lithiation. The observed signal shape with plateaulike features is explained qualitatively by the core–shell model with a finite coherence length. The SANS data analysis suggests that graphite stage coexistence evolves directly on a particle scale. This shelltocore lithiation of graphite particles confirms the current view in the literature (Grimsmann et al., 2018; Bauer et al., 2017, 2016).
SANS, as a nondestructive measurement method, could also be used for other active materials such as Si in the future, where the understanding of the lithiation process is key to stable cycling. The compatibility of the method with thin pouch cells enables tests of materials in a realistic cell environment.
APPENDIX A
Development of a theoretical model of SANS for battery materials
In general, SANS is used to study mesoscopic structures on the length scale of 1–300 nm. The usual application of SANS is e.g. to study nanoparticles in suspensions or precipitates in a solid matrix with such typical dimensions. SANS is well suited for an operando measurement because of the high neutron Other smallangle neutron scattering techniques, such as very small angle neutron scattering and ultrasmallangle neutron scattering, which resolve even smaller q and have a longer coherence length, could be used to apply this measurement concept to even larger particles. Here, the SANS method is deployed for a mesoscopic system with layers up to 100 µm thick consisting partly of smaller active particles with dimensions in the range of tens of micrometres.
Starting from the well known SANS fundamentals, we can derive some simple relations. We start with the macroscopic scattering Σ/dΩ; this is proportional to the squared scattering amplitude f, which is the Fourier integral of the scattering length density ρ (Grillo, 2008; Kostorz, 1979; Frielinghaus, 2012). Usually, one integrates over the sample volume and normalizes to this volume, but here the sample volume cannot be seen as one domain because the dimensions of the battery materials are large compared with the neutron coherence length. We calculate the transverse coherence length as l_{coh} = λL/(4d_{C}) = 120 nm with a wavelength λ = 6 Å, a collimation length L of a few metres (e.g. 8 m) and a collimation aperture d_{C} = 10 mm in diameter.
dThe contributions of the anode, the cathode or particles far away from each other add up only incoherently. The volume of coherent interaction where the scattering laws are valid is limited by the coherence length, so to get the overall V_{coh}. This approach also follows the work of Majkrzak and coworkers who described a similar incoherent sum for neutron reflectometry with a small coherence length and large objects (Fitter et al., 2006; Majkrzak et al., 2006). To calculate this, we imagine a mesh (fine enough) with N_{mesh} elements where each element k is the centre of such a coherence volume. The dimensions of the mesh and the coherence volume are shown in 2D in Fig. 9, where particles of one phase (e.g. active material) are shown against a background phase (e.g. electrolyte). Note that for small enough particles [Fig. 9(a)] the integral is always approximately the same. For a larger particle [Fig. 9(b)], the integral can be very different, e.g. from a onephase or twophase region. We write down for the general case, and normalize by dividing by the sample volume V, following the literature [e.g. Grillo (2008) and Frielinghaus (2012)], and also by dividing by the number of mesh elements per coherence volume which is V_{coh}/V_{mesh}:
from the system we sum (incoherently) the (coherent) scattering contributions from all coherence volumesHere, ρ(r) = ρ_{0} + Δρ_{i} because we express the locally varying scattering length density ρ(r) as the contrast to a reference phase.
This means, in a multiphase situation, several distinct phases i exist in the volumes V_{i} where the scattering length density ρ_{i} is constant. The scattering contrast Δρ_{i} is thus defined as the difference of the scattering length density ρ_{i} of the phase from a constant noncontributing second phase (matrix or solvent) ρ_{0}. Fig. 9(b) also shows that, for large particles, only those coherence volumes that lie within a boundary zone near the particle surface contain differences in ρ_{i}, so that we can restrict the sum to all the mesh elements N_{m. bound} in this region, following Babinet's principle. This principle states that only the relative contrast matters, so, for example, scattering from a solid sphere surrounded by air is similar to scattering from a spherical void of the same size in a solid bulk. This is true if the particle is one phase and the surrounding electrolyte the other, but we will see that we can assume the same for particles with several lithiated phases because the difference in ρ (and accordingly in Δρ) between e.g. C and LiC_{6} is very small. Following the multiphase literature (Frielinghaus, 2012) we write
The integral is a qdependent scattering function which is integrated over the volumes of the phases containing all the geometric information,
The brackets indicate the statistically averaged value which is of course restricted to the coherence volume, and again for the sum i = j is allowed, while for i ≠ j we have to take the real part of because of the change in the order of the integrals. The incoherent background is represented by the constant c_{0}. We can simplify further by fixing the total number of particles N_{P} and the (average) boundary volume V_{bound} per particle. For large particles V_{bound} is roughly the volume of the shell V_{shell} which lies within one coherence length of the surface. We insert V_{mesh} = V_{bound}/N_{m. bound}N_{P} = V_{shell}/N_{m. bound}N_{P},
Again, c_{0} represents the incoherent background and c_{1} is a constant factor accounting for systematic errors in the sum, e.g. an asymmetric coherence volume (longitudinal, transverse) and overlapping coherence volumes from neighbouring particles. Now, the scattering is a function of squared and mixed Δρ contributions, and the phase volumes times the scattering function . The function is evaluated and averaged over the coherence volumes of the boundary zone. When we assume that there is only a singlephase situation (i.e. one phase of an active particle to the electrolyte matrix background) we obtain the following expression for the scattering where we take the average in the second step:
The result is again a function that depends on the squared difference in scattering length density and the average of the squared phase volume times the q and volumedependent scattering function . We drop the directional property of q here because we deal with the assumption of isotropic scattering.
We outline the following situation. Imagine a singlephase situation (e.g. a single solid phase with Δρ versus electrolyte) where the scattering contributions are given by the average of Δρ^{2} weighted by the squared phase volume and the scattering function representing the geometry. Now, when a second phase is created, we expect the transition to the twosolidphase situation (plus electrolyte which is the matrix and thus the third phase) to be a smooth function, weighting the scattering length density differences by the respective phase volume fractions in all V_{coh}. Finally, if all of the first phase transforms to the second, we are at the singlephase situation again and the averaged term, i.e. the squared volume times the qdependent function , is exactly the same because the phase geometry is the same. In conclusion, the only difference between single phases occupying a similar volume lies in Δρ^{2}. The dependence of the scattering intensity on Δρ^{2} is in line with the findings of Sacci et al. (2015), although they did not consider the effect of coherence length.
The last step to get the total macroscopic scattering of the battery is to sum the contributions of all the components in the battery. Because the pouch foil, separator, Cu and Al foils, electrolyte, and active materials are well separated on the length scale of the coherence length, we can add up these contributions incoherently. We write the scattering
as a superposition of contributions from the relevant interfaces,When individual particles cannot be identified, the factor c_{1}(V_{shell}/V_{coh})N_{P} reduces to V_{shell}/V_{coh}, where the shell volume is given by the coherence length reaching into the actual structure. The relative weight of the summands is thus determined by the volume share (via V_{shell}N_{P}), the surface area (via V_{shell}) and Δρ^{2}. As before, we restrict the multiphase behaviour to only two phases at the interface, e.g. one solid phase and electrolyte. So we can calculate the start, intermediate and end points of the battery system, i.e. Li foil and graphite particles which are lithiated homogeneously in the respective shell volume. We assume that the active material to electrolyte interfaces are dominant and combine all other contributions (including incoherent background from electrodes and other materials) into the constant c_{0, other}, so that we arrive at
In this equation, c_{1}, V_{shell}, N_{P}, V_{1} and are specific to the indicated interfaces, but for simplicity individual indices have been omitted. We can simplify further by defining the factor
For anode/electrolyte (a/e) and cathode/electrolyte (c/e) we arrive at
Now all the geometric information is contained in the factors c_{2} and this information is similar for any phase occupying the same volume (assuming the shape is unchanged). So, from this we could already calculate the difference from the lithiated to the delithiated state. In order to get an integral measure of the scattering we can either use the Porod invariant or use the simple integrated intensity of the scattering over q. With the same reasoning as above, we obtain for the integrated intensity Γ
where again collects all the background (now with the integral over q, denoted by the prime). We can simplify further by defining the factor ,
This leads to
Thus, we can compute the difference in integrated intensity Γ for a transition from the chargedstate phase to the discharged solid state simply by
In the halfcell, the index anode/electrolyte is equal to Li/electrolyte and cathode/electrolyte is equal to graphite/electrolyte. We do not have to know the microscopic structure to compute ab initio when we want to get the difference in integrated intensity ΔΓ, which is just proportional to the weighted difference in Δρ^{2} on the scale of the coherence length. The geometric factor can be fitted to experimental data or derived from additional experiments with the individual materials.
In summary, we have confirmed the hypothesis that the integrated intensity scattering signal is proportional to the difference in Δρ^{2}. The material contributions are weighted by the amount of shell volume at the phase interface or surface where contrast is generated.
Footnotes
‡Current address: Webasto SE, Stockdorf, Germany.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Heinz MaierLeibnitz Zentrum (MLZ) for granting beam time on the SANS1 instrument. We also wish to thank Lukas Karge for reading the manuscript. XRD measurements were performed at the Materials Science Laboratory of the MLZ (operated by TUM and HZG). This work was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) and the Technical University of Munich (TUM) in the framework of the Open Access Publishing Program.
Funding information
The following funding is acknowledged: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grant Nos. 03X4633A ExZellTUM and 03XP0081 ExZellTUM II).
References
Bauer, M., Rieger, B., Schindler, S., Keil, P., Wachtler, M., Danzer, M. A. & Jossen, A. (2017). J. Energy Storage, 10, 1–10. CrossRef Google Scholar
Bauer, M., Wachtler, M., Stöwe, H., Persson, J. V. & Danzer, M. A. (2016). J. Power Sources, 317, 93–102. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Bohn, E., Eckl, T., Kamlah, M. & McMeeking, R. (2013). J. Electrochem. Soc. 160, A1638–A1652. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Breßler, I., Kohlbrecher, J. & Thünemann, A. F. (2015). J. Appl. Cryst. 48, 1587–1598. Web of Science CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Bridges, C. A., Sun, X.G., Zhao, J., Paranthaman, M. P. & Dai, S. (2012). J. Phys. Chem. C, 116, 7701–7711. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Dahn, J. R. (1991). Phys. Rev. B, 44, 9170–9177. CrossRef CAS Web of Science Google Scholar
Dahn, J. R., Fong, R. & Spoon, M. J. (1990). Phys. Rev. B, 42, 6424–6432. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Dolotko, O., Senyshyn, A., Mühlbauer, M. J., Nikolowski, K., Scheiba, F. & Ehrenberg, H. (2012). J. Electrochem. Soc. 159, A2082–A2088. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Fitter, J., Gutberlet, T. & Katsaras, J. (2006). Neutron Scattering in Biology: Techniques and Applications. Berlin, New York: Springer. Google Scholar
Frielinghaus, H. (2012). Schriften des Forschungszentrums Jülich, Lectures of the JCNS Laboratory Course, edited by T. Brückel, G. Heger, D. Richter, G. Roth & R. Zorn. Jülich: Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH. Google Scholar
Gilles, R., Ostermann, A., Schanzer, C., Krimmer, B. & Petry, W. (2006). Physica B, 385–386, 1174–1176. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Grillo, I. (2008). Soft Matter Characterization, edited by R. Borsali & R. Pecora, pp. 723–782. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Google Scholar
Grimsmann, F., Gerbert, T., Brauchle, F., Gruhle, A., Parisi, J. & Knipper, M. (2018). J. Energy Storage, 15, 17–22. CrossRef Google Scholar
Harris, S. J., Rahani, E. K. & Shenoy, V. B. (2012). J. Electrochem. Soc. 159, A1501–A1507. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Heinemann, A. & Mühlbauer, S. (2015). J. LargeScale Res. Fac. 1, A10. Google Scholar
Heß, M. & Novák, P. (2013). Electrochim. Acta, 106, 149–158. Google Scholar
Keiderling, U. (2002). Appl. Phys. Mater. Sci. Process. 74, s1455–s1457. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Kostorz, G. (1979). Neutron Scattering. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
Majkrzak, C. F., Berk, N. F., Krueger, S. & PerezSalas, U. A. (2006). Neutron Scattering in Biology: Techniques and Applications, pp. 225–263. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Google Scholar
Mühlbauer, S., Heinemann, A., Wilhelm, A., Karge, L., Ostermann, A., Defendi, I., Schreyer, A., Petry, W. & Gilles, R. (2016). Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 832, 297–305. Google Scholar
Nagao, M., Pitteloud, C., Kamiyama, T., Otomo, T., Itoh, K., Fukunaga, T., Tatsumi, K. & Kanno, R. (2006). J. Electrochem. Soc. 153, A914–A919. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Risse, S., Härk, E., Kent, B. & Ballauff, M. (2019). ACS Nano, 13, 10233–10241. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Sacci, R. L., Bañuelos, J. L., Veith, G. M., Littrell, K. C., Cheng, Y. Q., Wildgruber, C. U., Jones, L. L., RamirezCuesta, A. J., Rother, G. & Dudney, N. J. (2015). J. Phys. Chem. C, 119, 9816–9823. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Savitzky, A. & Golay, M. J. E. (1964). Anal. Chem. 36, 1627–1639. CrossRef CAS Web of Science Google Scholar
Seidlmayer, S., Hattendorff, J., Buchberger, I., Karge, L., Gasteiger, H. A. & Gilles, R. (2015). J. Electrochem. Soc. 162, A3116–A3125. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Senyshyn, A., Dolotko, O., Mühlbauer, M. J., Nikolowski, K., Fuess, H. & Ehrenberg, H. (2013). J. Electrochem. Soc. 160, A3198–A3205. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Steiger, J., Kramer, D. & Mönig, R. (2014). Electrochim. Acta, 136, 529–536. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Trucano, P. & Chen, R. (1975). Nature, 258, 136–137. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Wandt, J., Marino, C., Gasteiger, H. A., Jakes, P., Eichel, R. A. & Granwehr, J. (2015). Energy Environ. Sci. 8, 1358–1367. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Wang, H., Downing, G. R., Dura, J. A. & Hussey, D. S. (2012). Polymers for Energy Storage and Delivery: Polyelectrolytes for Batteries and Fuel Cells, ACS Symposium Series, Vol. 1096, pp. 91–106. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. Google Scholar
Wilhelm, J., Seidlmayer, S., Erhard, S., Hofmann, M., Gilles, R. & Jossen, A. (2018). J. Electrochem. Soc. 165, A1846–A1856. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Zhu, H., Huang, Y., Zhu, H., Wang, L., Lan, S., Xia, X. & Liu, Q. (2019). Small Methods, 3, 1900223. CrossRef Google Scholar
Zinth, V., von Lüders, C., Wilhelm, J., Erhard, S. V., Hofmann, M., Seidlmayer, S., RebeloKornmeier, J., Gan, W. M., Jossen, A. & Gilles, R. (2017). J. Power Sources, 361, 54–60. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
This is an openaccess article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CCBY) Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and source are cited.