Open Access

The measurement of the active material volume fraction in composite electrodes of lithium-ion battery cells is difficult due to the small (sub-micrometer) and irregular structure and multi-component composition of the electrodes, particularly in the case of blend electrodes. State-of-the-art experimental methods such as focused ion beam/scanning electron microscopy (FIB/SEM) and subsequent image analysis require expensive equipment and significant expertise. We present here a simple method for identifying active material volume fractions in single-material and blend electrodes, based on the comparison of experimental equilibrium cell voltage curve (open-circuit voltage as function of charge throughput) with active material half-cell potential curves (half-cell potential as function of lithium stoichiometry). The method requires only (i) low-current cycling data of full cells, (ii) cell opening for measurement of electrode thickness and active electrode area, and (iii) literature half-cell potentials of the active materials. Mathematical optimization is used to identify volume fractions and lithium stoichiometry ranges in which the active materials are cycled. The method is particularly useful for model parameterization of either physicochemical (e.g., pseudo-two-dimensional) models or equivalent circuit models, as it yields a self-consistent set of stoichiometric and structural parameters. The method is demonstrated using a commercial LCO–NCA/graphite pouch cell with blend cathode, but can also be applied to other blends (e.g., graphite–silicon anode).

This article presents a comparative experimental study of the electrical, structural and chemical properties of large‐format, 180 Ah prismatic lithium iron phosphate (LFP)/graphite lithium‐ion battery cells from two different manufacturers. These cells are particularly used in the field of stationary energy storage such as home‐storage systems. The investigations include (1) cell‐to‐cell performance assessment, for which a total of 28 cells was tested from each manufacturer, (2) electrical charge/discharge characteristics at different currents and ambient temperatures, (3) internal cell geometries, components, and weight analysis after cell opening, (4) microstructural analysis of the electrodes via light microscopy and scanning electron microscopy, (5) chemical analysis of the electrode materials using energy‐dispersive X‐ray spectroscopy, and (6) mathematical analysis of the electrode balances. The combined results give a detailed and comparative insight into the cell characteristics, providing essential information needed for system integration. The study also provides complete and self‐consistent parameter sets for the use in cells models needed for performance prediction or state diagnosis.