Patent ID: 12249684

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS AND EXAMPLES

The following descriptions and examples are merely representations of potential embodiments of the present disclosure. The scope of such a disclosure and the breadth thereof in terms of claims following below would be well understood by the ordinarily skilled artisan within this area.

As noted above, the present disclosure is a major shift and is counterintuitive from all prior understandings and remedies undertaken within the lithium battery (and other energy storage device) industry. To the contrary, the novel devices described herein provide a number of beneficial results and properties that have heretofore been unexplored, not to mention unexpected, within this area. Initially, though, as comparisons, it is important to note the stark differences involved between prior devices and those currently disclosed and broadly covered herein.

SHORT CIRCUIT EVENT EXAMPLES

Comparative Example 1

A cathode for a lithium iron phosphate battery was obtained from GB Systems in China. The aluminum tab was removed as an example of a commercial current collector, and the thickness, areal density and resistance were measured, which are shown in Table 1, below. The aluminum foil was then touched with a hot soldering iron for 5 seconds, which was measured using an infrared thermometer to have a temperature of between 500 and 525° F. There was no effect of touching the soldering iron to the current collector. The thickness, areal density and resistance were measured. The material was placed in an oven at 175° C. for 30 minutes and the shrinkage measured. A photograph was taken and included inFIG.6A.FIG.5aprovides a representation of the traditional current collector within such a comparative battery.

Comparative Example 2

An anode for a lithium iron phosphate battery was obtained from GB Systems in China. The copper tab was removed as an example of a commercial current collector, and the thickness, areal density and resistance were measured, which are shown in Table 1, below. The copper foil was then touched with a hot soldering iron in the same way as Example 1. There was no effect of touching the soldering iron to the current collector. The thickness, areal density and resistance were measured. The material was placed in an oven at 175° C. for 30 minutes and the shrinkage measured. A photograph was taken and included inFIG.6B. As in Comparative Example 1,FIG.5Aprovides a representation of the internal structure of such a battery. The thickness of the current collector is significant as it is a monolithic metal structure, not a thin type as now disclosed.FIG.5Bprovides a representation of the traditional current collector within such a comparative battery.

Example 1

Polypropylene lithium battery separator material was obtained from MTI Corporation. The material was manufactured by Celgard with the product number2500. The thickness, areal density and resistance were measured, which are shown in Table 1, below. The separator was then touched with a hot soldering iron in the same way as Example 1. Touching the thermometer to the current collector created a small hole. The diameter was measured and included in Table 1. The thickness, areal density and resistance were measured. The material was placed in an oven at 175° C. for 30 minutes and the shrinkage measured. A photograph was taken and included inFIG.7A.

Example 2

Ceramic coated polyethylene lithium battery separator material was obtained from MTI Corporation. The thickness, areal density and resistance were measured, which are shown in Table 1, below. The separator was then touched with a hot soldering iron in the same way as Example 1. Touching the soldering iron to the current collector created a small hole. The diameter was measured and included in Table 1. The thickness, areal density and resistance were measured. The material was placed in an oven at 175° C. for 30 minutes and the shrinkage measured. A photograph was taken and included inFIG.7B.

Example 3

Ceramic coated polypropylene lithium battery separator material was obtained from MTI Corporation. The thickness, areal density and resistance were measured, which are shown in Table 1, below. The separator was then touched with a hot soldering iron in the same way as Example 1. Touching the soldering iron to the current collector created a small hole. The diameter was measured and included in Table 1. The thickness, areal density and resistance were measured. The material was placed in an oven at 175° C. for 30 minutes and the shrinkage measured. A photograph was taken and included inFIG.7C.

Example 4

Aluminized biaxially oriented polyester film was obtained from All Foils Inc., which is designed to be used for helium filled party balloons. The aluminum coating holds the helium longer, giving longer lasting loft for the party balloons. The thickness, areal density and resistance were measured, which are shown in Table 1, below. The film was then touched with a hot soldering iron in the same way as Example 1. Touching the soldering iron to the current collector created a small hole. The diameter was measured and included in Table 1. The thickness, areal density and resistance were measured. The material was placed in an oven at 175° C. for 30 minutes and the shrinkage measured. A photograph was taken and included inFIG.8A. Compared to the commercially available aluminum current collector of Comparative Example 1, this material is 65% thinner and 85% lighter, and also retreats away from heat, which in a lithium ion cell with an internal short would have the effect of breaking the internal short.

Example 5

Dreamweaver Silver 25, a commercial lithium ion battery separator was obtained. It is made from a blend of cellulose and polyacrylonitrile nanofibers and polyester microfibers in a papermaking process, and calendered to low thickness. The separator was then touched with a hot soldering iron in the same way as Example 1. Touching the thermometer to the current collector did not create a hole. The thickness, areal density and resistance were measured. The material was placed in an oven at 175° C. for 30 minutes and the shrinkage measured. Compared to the prior art, comparative examples #3-5, these materials have the advantage that they do not melt or shrink in the presence of heat, and so in a lithium ion battery with an internal short, will not retreat to create an even bigger internal short. Such is seen inFIG.8B.

Example 6

Dreamweaver Gold 20, a commercially available prototype lithium ion battery separator was obtained. It is made from a blend of cellulose and para-aramid nanofibers and polyester microfibers in a papermaking process, and calendered to low thickness. The separator was then touched with a hot soldering iron in the same way as Example 1. Touching the thermometer to the current collector did not create a hole, as shown inFIG.8C. The thickness, areal density and resistance were measured. The material was placed in an oven at 175° C. for 30 minutes and the shrinkage measured. The advantages of this separator compared to the prior art separators are the same as for Example 2.

TABLE 1ArealShrinkageSolder TipExampleMaterialThicknessDensityResistance(175 C.)Hole SizeCompAluminum30 μm80 g/m2<0.10%No holeExample 1mOhm/squareCompCopper14 μm125 g/m2<0.10%No holeExample 2mOhm/squareExample 1PP24 μm14 g/m2InfiniteMelted7.5 μmExample 2PP ceramic27 μm20 g/m2InfiniteMelted2 μm/1 μmExample 3PE ceramic27 μm20 g/m2InfiniteMelted5 μm/2 μmExample 4Aluminized13 μm12 g/m26.333%2 μmPETOhm/squareExample 5Fiber blend27 μm16 g/m2Infinite2%No holeExample 6Fiber blend23 μm16 g/m2Infinite0%No hole

Comparative Examples 1-2 are existing current collector materials, showing very low resistance, high areal density and no response at exposure to either a hot solder tip or any shrinkage at 175° C.

Examples 1-3 are materials that have infinite resistance, have low areal density and melt on exposure to either 175° C. or a hot solder tip. They are excellent substrates for metallization according to this invention.

Example 4 is an example of an aluminized polymer film which shows moderate resistance, low areal density and shrinks when exposed to 175° C. or a hot solder tip. It is an example of a potential cathode current collector composite film according to this invention. In practice, and as shown in further examples, it may be desirable to impart a higher level of metal coating for higher power batteries.

Examples 5-6 are materials that have infinite resistance, have low areal density, but have very low shrinkage when exposed to 175° C. or a hot solder tip. They are examples of the polymer substrate under this invention when the thickness of the metallized coating is thin enough such that the metallized coating will deteriorate under the high current conditions associated with a short. Additionally, the cellulose nanofibers and polyester microfibers will oxidize, shrink and ablate at temperatures far lower than the melting temperatures of the metal current collectors currently in practice.

Example 5 additionally is made from a fiber, polyacrylonitrile, that swells on exposure to traditional lithium ion carbonate electrolytes, which is also an example of a polymer substrate under this invention such that the swelling will increase under heat and create cracks in the metalized coating which will break the conductive path, improving the safety of the cell by eliminating or greatly reducing the uniform conductive path of the current collector on the exposure to heat within the battery.

Example 7

The material utilized in Example 5 was placed in the deposition position of a MBraun Vacuum Deposition System, using an intermetallic crucible and aluminum pellets. The chamber was evacuated to 3×10-5 mbar. The power was increased until the aluminum was melted, and then the power set so the deposition rate was 3 Angstroms/s. The deposition was run for 1 hour, with four samples rotating on the deposition plate. The process was repeated three times, so the total deposition time was 4 hours. The samples were measured for weight, thickness and resistance (DC and 1 kHz, 1 inch strip measured between electrodes 1 inch apart), which are shown in Table 2 below. Point resistance was also measured using a Hioki 3555 Battery HiTester at 1 KHz with the probe tips 1″ apart. The weight of added aluminum was calculated by the weight added during the process divided by the sample area. This is divided by the density of the material to give the average thickness of the coating.

Example 8

A nonwoven polymer substrate was made by taking a polyethylene terephthalate microfiber with a flat cross section and making hand sheets at 20 g/m2using the process of Tappi T206. These hand sheets were then calendered at 10 m/min, 2000 lbs/inch pressure using hardened steel rolls at 250° F. This material was metalized according to the process of Example 7, and the same measurements taken and reported in Table 8.

Example 9

Material according to Example 5 was deposited according to the process of Example 7, except that the coating was done at a setting of 5 Angstroms/second for 60 minutes. The samples were turned over and coated on the back side under the same procedure. These materials were imaged under a scanning electron microscope (SEM), both on the surface and in cross section, and the images are presented inFIGS.9A,9B, and9C.

Example 10

Materials were prepared according to the procedure of Example 9, except the deposition on each side was for only 20 minutes.

Example 11

The polymer substrate of Example 8 was prepared, except that the sheets were not calendered. The deposition of aluminum is at 5 Angstroms/second for 20 minutes on each side. Because the materials were not calendered, the porosity is very high, giving very high resistance values with a thin coat weight. Comparing Example 11 to Example 8 shows the benefits of calendering, which are unexpectedly high.

TABLE 21 kHzpointAverageAddedDC1 kHzre-coatingweightResistanceResistancesistancethicknessUnitsSampleg/m2Ohms/squareOhms/squareOhmsmicronsExample 73.50.70.50.11.3Example 82.0770.40.7Example 92.20.20.8Example 100.81.70.3Example 110.81000.3

Example 12

The aluminum coated polymer substrate from Example 9 was coated with a mixture of 97% NCM cathode material (NCM523, obtained from BASF), 1% carbon black and 2% PVDF binder in a solution of N-Methyl-2-pyrrolidone. The coat weight was 12.7 mg/cm2, at a thickness of 71 microns. This material was cut to fit a 2032 coin cell, and paired with graphite anode coated on copper foil current collector (6 mg/cm2, 96.75% graphite (BTR), 0.75% carbon black, 1.5% SBR and 1% CMC). A single layer coin cell was made by placing the anode, separator (Celgard 2320) and the NCM coated material into the cell, flooding with electrolyte (60 uL, 1.0M LiPF6in EC:DEC:DMC=4:4:2 vol+2 w. % VC) and sealing the cell by crimping the shell. To obtain adequate conductivity, a portion of the aluminum coated polymer substrate from Example 9 was left uncoated with cathode material and folded over to contact the shell of the coin cell, completing the conductive pathway. The cell was formed by charging at a constant current of 0.18 mA to 4.2 V, then at constant voltage (4.2 V) until the current dropped to 0.04 mA. The cell was cycled three times between 4.2 V and 3.0 V at 0.37 mA, and gave an average discharge capacity of 1.2 mAh.

Example 13

A cell was made according to the procedure and using the materials from Example 12, except the separator used was Dreamweaver Silver 20. The cell was formed by charging at a constant current of 0.18 mA to 4.2 V, then at constant voltage (4.2 V) until the current dropped to 0.04 mA. The cell was cycled three times between 4.2 V and 3.0 V at 0.37 mA, and gave an average discharge capacity of 0.8 mAh. Thus in this and the previous example, working rechargeable lithium ion cells were made with an aluminum thickness of less than 1 micron.

Comparative Example 3

The aluminum tab of Comparative Example 1, approximately 2 cm×4 cm was connected to the ground of a current source through a metal connector contacting the entire width of the sample. The voltage limit was set to 4.0 V, and the current limit to 1.0 A. A probe connected to the high voltage of the current source was touched first to a metal connector contacting the entire width of the sample, and then multiple times to the aluminum tab, generating a short circuit at 1.0 A. The tip of the probe was approximately 0.25 mm2area. When contacted across the entire width, the current flowed normally. On initial touch with the probe to the tab, sparks were generated, indicating very high initial current density. The resultant defects in the current collector only sometimes resulted in holes, and in other times there was ablation but the current collector remained intact. In all cases the circuit remained shorted with 1.0 A flowing. A micrograph was taken of an ablated defect, with no hole, and is shown inFIG.10A. The experiment was repeated with the current source limit set to 5.0, 3.0, 0.6 A, 0.3 A and 0.1 A, and in all cases the result was a continuous current at the test current limit, both when contacted across the entire width of the current collector and using the point probe of approximately 0.25 mm2tip size.

Comparative Example 4

The copper tab of Comparative Example 2 of similar dimensions was tested in the same way as Comparative Example 3. When contacted across the entire width, the current flowed normally. On initial touch with the probe to the tab, sparks were generated, indicating very high initial current density. The resultant defects in the current collector only sometimes resulted in holes, and in other times there was ablation but the current collector remained intact. In all cases the circuit remained shorted with 0.8 A flowing. A micrograph was taken of an ablated defect, with no hole, and is shown inFIG.10B. The experiment was repeated with the current source limit set to 5.0, 3.0, 0.6 A, 0.3 A and 0.1 A, and in all cases the result was a continuous current at the test current limit, both when contacted across the entire width of the current collector and using the point probe of approximately 0.25 mm2tip size.

Example 14

The inventive aluminum coated polymer substrate material of Example 7 of similar dimensions was tested using the same method as Comparative Examples 3-4. When contacted across the entire width, the current flowed normally. In each case of the touch of the probe to the inventive current collector directly, the sparks generated were far less, and the current ceased to flow after the initial sparks, leaving an open circuit. In all cases, the resultant defect was a hole. Micrographs of several examples of the holes are shown inFIGS.11A and11B. The experiment was repeated with the current source limit set to 5.0, 3.0, 0.6 A, 0.3 A and 0.1 A, and in all cases the result a continuous flow of current when contacted through the full width connectors, and no current flowing through the inventive example when contacted directly from the probe to the inventive current collector example.

The key invention shown is that, when exposed to a short circuit as in Comparative Examples 3-4 and in Example 14, with the prior art the result is an ongoing short circuit, while with the inventive material the result is an open circuit, with no ongoing current flowing (i.e., no appreciable current movement). Thus, the prior art short circuit can and does generate heat which can melt the separator, dissolve the SEI layer, and result in thermal runaway of the cell, thereby igniting the electrolyte. The open circuit of the inventive current collector will not generate heat and thus provides for a cell which can support internal short circuits without allowing thermal runaway and the resultant smoke, heat and flames.

Examples 15 and 16 and Comparative Examples 5 and 6

Two metallized films were produced on 10 micron polyethylene terephthalate film in a roll to roll process. In this process, a roll of the film was placed in a vacuum metallization production machine (an example of which is TopMet 4450, available from Applied Materials), and the chamber evacuated to a low pressure. The roll was passed over heated boats that contain molten aluminum at a high rate of speed, example 50 m/min. Above the heated boats containing molten aluminum is a plume of aluminum gas which deposits on the film, with the deposition rate controlled by speed and aluminum temperature. A roll approximately 500 m long and 70 cm wide was produced through multiple passes until the aluminum coating was ˜300 nm. The coating process was repeated to coat the other side of the film, with the resultant product utilized herein as Example 15 (with the inventive current collector ofFIG.4a depiction of that utilized in this Example). Example 16 was thus produced in the same way, except the metal in the boat was copper (and with the depiction ofFIG.5brepresenting the current collector utilized within this inventive structure). The basis weight, thickness and conductivity of each film were measured, and are reported below in Table 3. The coating weight was calculated by subtracting 13.8 g/m2, the basis weight of the 10 micron polyethylene terephthalate film. The “calculated coating thickness” was calculated by dividing the coating weight by the density of the materials (2.7 g/cm3for aluminum, 8.96 g/cm3for copper), and assuming equal coating on each side.

Comparative Example 5 is a commercially obtained aluminum foil 17 microns thick. Comparative Example 6 is a commercially obtained copper foil 50 microns thick. Comparative Example 7 is a commercially obtained copper foil 9 microns thick.

TABLE 3CalculatedBasisCoatingDCcoatingWeightWeightThicknessResistancethicknessUnitsSampleg/m2g/m2MicronsOhmsMicronsExample 15173110.0810.5Example 162410110.0410.5Comparative4617Example 5Comparative44850Example 6Comparative819Example 7

Example 15, Example 16, Comparative Example 5 and Comparative Example 6 were subjected to a further test of their ability to carry very high current densities. A test apparatus was made which would hold a polished copper wire with radius 0.51 mm (24 AWG gauge) in contact with a current collector film or foil. The film or foil under test was grounded with an aluminum contact held in contact with the film or foil under test, with contact area >1 square centimeter. The probe was connected in series with a high power 400 W resistor of value 0.335 ohms, and connected to a Volteq HY3050EX power supply, set to control current. The current collector to be measured was placed in the setup, with the polished wire in contact with the surface of the current collector at zero input current. The current was increased in 0.2 ampere increments and held at 30 seconds for each increment, while the voltage across the resistor was measured. When the voltage dropped to zero, indicating that current was no longer flowing, the sample was shown to fail. Each of Example 15, Example 16, Comparative Example 5 and Comparative Example 6 were tested. Example 15 failed at a 7 A (average of two measurements). Example 16 failed at 10.2 A (average of two measurements). Neither of Comparative Example 5 nor Comparative Example 6 failed below 20 A. Both Example 15 and Example 16 showed holes in the current collector of radius >1 mm, while neither of the Comparative Examples 5 or 6 showed any damage to the foil. In this example test, it would be advantageous to have a current collector that is unable to carry a current of greater than 20 A, or preferably greater than 15 A or more preferably greater than 12 A.

In another test, meant to simulate using these inventive current collectors as a tab connecting the electrode stack of a cell to the electrical devices in use (either inside or outside the cell), Examples 15 and 16 and Comparative Examples 5 and 6 were subjected to a current capacity test along the strip. To prepare the samples for the test, the current collectors were cut into the shape shown inFIG.12, which consists of a strip of material that is four centimeters by on centimeter (4 cm×1 cm), with the ends of the strip ending in truncated right isosceles triangles of side 4 cm. Each of the triangles of the test piece was contacted through a piece of aluminum with contact surface area >1 cm. One side was connected through a 400 W, 0.335 ohm resistor, and this circuit was connected to a Volteq HY3050EX power supply. The voltage was measured across the resistors to measure the current, and the piece was shown to fail when this voltage dropped to zero. For each test, the piece was connected with the power supply set to zero current, and then increased in 0.2 A increments and allowed to sit for 30 seconds at each new voltage, until the sample failed and the current flowing dropped to zero. The test was configured so that the metallized current collectors could be measured with contact either on one side, or on both sides of the metallized current collector. The currents at failure are shown below in Table 4. For materials tested in a 4 cm×1 cm strip, it would be advantageous to provide an internal fuse by limited the amount of current that can flow to be below 20 A, or preferably below 15 A, or more preferably below 10 A, each with either single or double sided contact.

TABLE 4Single Sided FailureDouble Sided FailureVoltageVoltageUnitsSampleVVExample 152.74.5Example 162410Comparative Example 5No failure below 20 ANo failure below 20 AComparative Example 6No failure below 20 ANo failure below 20 A

Examples 17-19 and Comparative Example 8

Cells were made by coating standard foil current collectors and the metallized PET film current collectors from Examples 15 and 16 with electrode materials. NMC 523 cathode materials were prepared using BASF NMC523 (97%), carbon black (2%) and PVDF (1%) in NMP solvent, and coated on the aluminum current collector (15 micron aluminum current collector) and Example 15 were at a basis weight of 220 g/m2, corresponding to a cathode loading density of 3.3 mAh/cm2. Anode materials were prepared by using graphite BTR-918S (94%), carbon black (5%) and PVDF (1%) in NMP solvent, and coating on the copper current collector (18 micron copper current collector) at 118 g/m2, corresponding to an anode loading density of 4.0 mAh/cm2. Four double sided cathodes were prepared, and three double sided anodes and two single sided anodes. These were stacked with Celgard 2500 separator to form small pouch cells, which were then filled with electrolyte and sealed with designed capacity 1 Ah. Four types of cells were made by different combinations of foil materials, and the capacity measured at C/10 and C/5 (that is, 0.1 A and 0.2 A). The cells were formed by charging at 100 mA to 4.2 V, and held at 4.2 V until the current dropped to 10 mA. The fully formed cells were then weighed, and tested for capacity by discharging at C/10, then charging at C/10 and discharging at C/5. These results are shown in Table 5, below.

TABLE 5CathodeAnodeC/10C/5CurrentCurrentCellCapac-Capac-CollectorCollectorWeightityityUnitsSampleGramsmAhmAhComparativeAl FoilCu Foil27924615Example 8Example 17Example 15Cu Foil26.81049751Example 18Al FoilExample 1624.71096853Example 19Example 15Example 1624.71057848

Thus, it has been shown that the Examples provided above exhibit the desirable thickness, metal coating, and conductivity results needed to prevent thermal runaway within an electrolyte-containing battery, thereby providing not only a much safer and more reliable type, but one that requires far less internal weight components than ever before, without sacrificing safety, but, in fact, improving thereupon.

Having described the invention in detail it is obvious that one skilled in the art will be able to make variations and modifications thereto without departing from the scope of the present invention. Accordingly, the scope of the present invention should be determined only by the claims appended hereto.