Characterizing Electrode Materials and Interfaces in Solid-State Batteries

Alsaç, Elif Pınar [Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA (United States)]; Nelson, Douglas Lars [Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA (United States)]; Yoon, Sun Geun [Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA (United States)] (ORCID:0000000262228962); Cavallaro, Kelsey Anne [Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA (United States)]; Wang, Congcheng [Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA (United States)]; Sandoval, Stephanie Elizabeth [Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA (United States)] (ORCID:0000000208955237); Eze, Udochukwu D. [Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA (United States)]; Jeong, Won Joon [Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA (United States)]; McDowell, Matthew T. [Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA (United States)] (ORCID:0000000155523456)

doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.4c00584

DOE OSTI · 2524535

Characterizing Electrode Materials and Interfaces in Solid-State Batteries

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Solid-state batteries (SSBs) could offer improved energy density and safety, but the evolution and degradation of electrode materials and interfaces within SSBs are distinct from conventional batteries with liquid electrolytes and represent a barrier to performance improvement. Over the past decade, a variety of imaging, scattering, and spectroscopic characterization methods has been developed or used for characterizing the unique aspects of materials in SSBs. These characterization efforts have yielded new understanding of the behavior of lithium metal anodes, alloy anodes, composite cathodes, and the interfaces of these various electrode materials with solid-state electrolytes (SSEs). This review provides a comprehensive overview of the characterization methods and strategies applied to SSBs, and it presents the mechanistic understanding of SSB materials and interfaces that has been derived from these methods. This knowledge has been critical for advancing SSB technology and will continue to guide the engineering of materials and interfaces toward practical performance.

Explore related subjects

25 ENERGY STORAGE Batteries Electrodes Electrolytes Liquids Materials

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Alsaç, Elif Pınar [Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA (United States)], Nelson, Douglas Lars [Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA (United States)], Yoon, Sun Geun [Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA (United States)] (ORCID:0000000262228962), Cavallaro, Kelsey Anne [Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA (United States)], Wang, Congcheng [Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA (United States)], Sandoval, Stephanie Elizabeth [Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA (United States)] (ORCID:0000000208955237), Eze, Udochukwu D. [Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA (United States)], Jeong, Won Joon [Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA (United States)], McDowell, Matthew T. [Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA (United States)] (ORCID:0000000155523456). 2025-02-04. Characterizing Electrode Materials and Interfaces in Solid-State Batteries. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.4c00584

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related reports

DOE OSTI2026

An immersed interface method for microstructure-scale electrochemical battery models: numerical formulation and performance portable implementation

We present the numerical formulation, verification, and performance portable implementation of an immersed interface method for microstructure scale electrochemical modeling of batteries. The innovation in this approach is the resolution of chemical species and electrostatic potential discontinuities at active interfaces without the use of interface conforming unstructured grids. A unified formulation on Cartesian grids for all domains (electrodes and electrolyte) is used with interfacial flux conditions applied using volume fraction or “color” function gradients. We have developed one dimensional and two dimensional test cases with analytic solutions for electrochemical modeling using which we verified the consistency and accuracy of our scheme. Our solver is also validated against solutions from a macroscale model and an unstructured multi-subdomain solver for a full lithium ion cell. We then demonstrated the utility of our solver on an image-based complex battery electrode microstructure at high charging rate. Our technique also exhibits good scalability on distributed memory architectures using central processing units (CPU), with problem sizes up to 1.8 billion degrees of freedom and with 5400 ranks. Initial performance studies of our open-source performance portable solver showed about 70 times speed up using a graphics processing unit (GPU) compared to single compute core for a problem with 4 million cells.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗

DOE OSTI2026

Solvation-guided inhibition of manganese dissolution of lithium- and manganese- rich cathode via cyclic carbonate molecular engineering

Lithium and manganese-rich (LMR) layered oxides represent a leading class of high-energy cathode materials, but their practical realization is fundamentally limited by severe manganese (Mn) dissolution, a process that triggers structural degradation and rapid capacity fade. While mitigation efforts have predominantly focused on interfacial engineering, the intrinsic contribution of bulk electrolyte solvation to this degradation pathway remains largely unexplored, primarily due to the difficulty of deconvolving its effects from concurrent cathode-electrolyte interphase (CEI) formation. Here, we report an experimental design to isolate the role of solvation. We systematically varied the electrolyte solvent solvation power by substituting the strongly coordinating ethylene carbonate (EC) with its weaker coordinating fluorinated derivatives, fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) and trans-4,5-Difluoro-1,3-dioxolan-2-one (DFEC), while maintaining a consistent interfacial chemistry. Remarkably, the electrolyte formulated with the weakest solvent, DFEC, exhibits superior cycling stability, suppressing Mn dissolution by up to 63% relative to the conventional EC-based system. Post-mortem analysis unequivocally attributes this performance enhancement to the preservation of the LMR cathode's structural integrity, a direct consequence of mitigated Mn dissolution. This work provides conclusive evidence that modulating bulk electrolyte solvation is a potent and direct strategy for stabilizing LMR cathodes, establishing a vital design principle for next-generation battery systems.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗

DOE OSTI2026

Geothermal district energy systems coupled with seasonal underground thermal energy storage: a U.S. techno-economic screening by climate and geology

In the United States, cooling-dominated commercial building loads can cause geothermal heat pump-based district energy systems to accumulate a long-term subsurface thermal imbalance, motivating the incorporation of seasonal underground thermal energy storage. We developed a transferable workflow to evaluate geothermal district systems that pair ground heat exchangers with seasonal underground thermal energy storage. Using standardized hourly loads for seven commercial buildings and a uniform cost framework, we simulated ten U.S. cities with a physics-based ground heat exchanger model, subsurface storage simulations, and economic assessment to isolate the roles of climate and hydrogeology. In cooling-dominated cities, underground thermal energy storage supplied the majority of annual cooling, cutting electricity use and summer peaks substantially while achieving levelized costs comparable to or below conventional chiller-boiler plants. In cooler climates, the storage share shrunk, required borefield size and costs rose, and levelized cost of energy increased nearly linearly with declining underground thermal energy storage fraction, indicating storage fraction as the primary economic lever. Sensitivity analysis showed capital risk dominated by borefield drilling and surface heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning and piping, with underground thermal energy storage costs secondary. This workflow provides a transparent foundation for site-specific design and screening of next-generation geothermal district energy systems.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗