Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Lithium iron phosphate”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

25 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

Recent Developments in Lithium-Manganese-Nickel Oxide Electrochemistry: The Alchemy of LiMn 0.5 Ni 0.5 O 2

Efforts have been underway for some time at Argonne National Laboratory to design structurally integrated and stabilized lithium-manganese-nickel-oxide cathode materials. The goal has been to find a cobalt-free, high-capacity cathode for a Li-ion battery that is competitive, both cost- and energy-wise, with lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt-oxide (NMC) and lithium-iron-phosphate (LFP) products. This brief synopsis highlights the remarkable alchemy of LiMn 0.5 Ni 0.5 O 2 resulting from its well-known, slightly disordered layered structure and the recently discovered lithiated spinel phase and totally disordered rock-salt configurations. All three arrangements share a structurally compatible cubic-close-packed oxygen array. The lithiated spinel and layered components provide an intersecting network of two- and three-dimensional channels that facilitate Li + -ion transport, while a minor amount of an extensively disordered rock-salt component likely serves to enhance the structural and electrochemical stability of the electrode. The synopsis also encompasses the historical development of lithiated spinel electrode materials and structurally integrated systems.

Thackeray, Michael M. [Argonne National Laboratory↗
DOE OSTI2026

Energy Storage Cost and Performance Database

In support of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Storage Grand Challenge, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is applying its rich history of battery research and development to provide the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and industry with a guide to current energy storage costs and performance metrics for various technologies. Cost and performance metrics for individual technologies track the following to provide an overall cost of ownership for each technology: cost to procure, install, and connect an energy storage system; associated operational and maintenance costs; and end-of-life costs. These metrics are intended to support DOE and industry stakeholders in making sound decisions about future R&D directions and priorities that move the United States closer to its goal of energy independence. The technologies currently being evaluated are lithium-ion [lithium iron phosphate (LFP) and nickel manganese cobalt (NMC)] batteries, vanadium redox flow batteries, lead-acid batteries, zinc-based batteries, hydrogen energy storage, pumped storage hydropower, gravitational energy storage, compressed air energy storage, and thermal energy storage.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2026

Fast, Controllable, and Modular Solid-State Circuit Breaker Design for Battery Management Systems

Electric power grid is experiencing a growing number of distributed and inertia-free generation resources. To facilitate the growing generation and load demands, and ensure stable operation, energy storage systems, especially behind-themeter-storage (BTMS), have emerged as a potential candidate. BTMS plays a vital role in the grid storage sector and supports high power charging for EVs. However, the potential of thermal runaway and associated safety concerns in the batteries can hamper their widespread adoption. In this work, we provide a solution for a fast and controllable discharge of a cell that was identified as a stressful/faulty, in the battery pack, and fast circuit breaking leveraging the Solid-State Circuit Breaker (SSCB) technology which provides active control over the cell connection as opposed to conventional passive solutions. Testing on the simulation platform successfully validated the concept, demonstrating its efficacy. Controlled discharge testing with 20Ah LiFePO4 Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) cells from 1C-10C current rate on the hardware prototype corroborated simulation results, demonstrating design feasibility and providing essential data for its performance and thermal characteristics, while also revealing limitations that inform areas for further optimization.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Opportunities and challenges for the expansion of LFP battery supply chains

Global markets for energy storage are growing rapidly, with some applications transitioning from traditional LiNi x Mn y Co 1−x−y O 2 (NMC) toward LiFePO 4 (LFP) due to cost, safety, and performance advantages. Battery growth has seeded interest in critical material supplies such as high-purity lithium precursors. In contrast, challenges in securing high-purity iron and phosphorus, historically not considered critical materials, are often overlooked. Precursors must remain inexpensive to maintain LFP's current cost advantage, which leverages the low-cost (∼$\$100$ per t) FeSO 4 byproduct from titanium dioxide manufacturing and will not be available as LFP manufacturing expands. As an alternative, iron is mined primarily for steel manufacturing, for which the existing supply chain and beneficiation process is optimized. LFP batteries require small iron volumes compared to steel (0.11%), but profit margins associated with existing low-cost iron ores and high costs (∼$27 000 per t) associated with low volume high-purity iron oxides may limit interest in manufacturing small volumes of high-purity, specialized iron battery precursors. The complementary LFP precursor, phosphoric acid (H 3 PO 4 ), is primarily utilized in fertilizers. Of the current phosphate ore demand for fertilizers, 4–22.8% would be required to meet projected 2045 LFP H 3 PO 4 demand, suggesting significant supply chain planning is needed to achieve projected demand. If only higher-grade material is considered, demand jumps to 15–77% of current world production. While lithium precursor purity requirements have been evaluated (Li 2 CO 3 is commonly defined as ≥99.5%), “battery grade” iron and phosphorus precursors remain poorly defined, with no internationally accessible and widely adopted standard, further challenging expanding industry by creating manufacturing uncertainty and increasing potential costs.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2026

An Accelerated Testing and Analysis Framework for Qualification of Battery Materials

The continuously growing demand for batteries used within automotive, aviation, and grid applications has exacerbated the need to supplement critical battery material feedstocks, such as those for anode and cathode active materials. New or supplementary material sources, however, universally comprise unique material properties that can significantly affect the lifetime and performance of resultant batteries. As such, the influence of composition, microstructure, and morphology on electrochemical performance should be characterized quickly and accurately to accelerate commercialization of new material sources. This work introduces a tiered framework to quickly assess new material viability and understand the influence of physicochemical properties on battery performance. The Tier 1 testing described here is rapid and lower-effort to quickly recognize materials with fundamental flaws and potentially disqualify them. Later testing would require more time and effort but provide higher fidelity information with a goal of validating materials for specific applications. A case study examining various commercial sources of LiFePO4 (LFP) is presented, using Tier 1 of the protocol to identify rapid electrochemical and physicochemical signals that correlate with performance and to provide early go/no-go decisions on LFP materials without the need for long-term cycling data.

25 - ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2026

An Accelerated Testing and Analysis Framework for Qualification of Battery Materials Part I: A Case Study with LFP Cathodes

The growing demand for batteries used within automotive, aviation, and grid applications has exacerbated the need to supplement critical battery material feedstocks, such as those for anode and cathode active materials. New or supplementary material sources, however, universally comprise unique properties that can affect the lifetime and performance of resultant batteries. Even minor differences between new sources and established supplies can delay qualification, making it difficult for new suppliers to commercialize and resulting in a less resilient supply chain. Accordingly, the influence of composition, microstructure, and morphology on electrochemical performance should be characterized quickly and accurately to accelerate commercialization of new sources. This work introduces a tiered framework to assess new material viability and understand the influence of physicochemical properties on battery performance. The Tier 1 testing described here is rapid and low-effort to recognize materials with fundamental flaws and potentially disqualify them. Later testing would require more effort but provide higher-fidelity information with a goal of application-based validation. A case study examining commercial sources of LiFePO4 (LFP) is presented, using Tier 1 of the protocol to identify rapid electrochemical and physicochemical signals that correlate with performance and provide early go/no-go decisions for LFP materials without requiring long-term cycling.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2025

Electrolyte Vapor Induced Passivation and Transition Metal Redox on Electrode Active Materials

The gaseous environment that battery electrodes are exposed to is critical to their electrochemical performance, and yet, the impact of vapor-phase components in the glovebox is relatively unexplored. In this study, we examine how the surface of Li 4 Ti 5 O 12 and LiFePO 4 composite electrodes evolve upon exposure to 1 M LiPF 6 in ethylene carbonate:dimethyl carbonate electrolyte vapors in an argon-filled glovebox. Spatially resolved X-ray photoemission electron microscopy and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy reveal that even brief (15 minutes) contact with electrolyte vapor initiates the formation of a LiF film and changes the oxidation state of transition metals at the particle surface. Notably, these modifications occur selectively on active material particles and not on binder or conductive carbon, underscoring the specificity of vapor-induced reactions. Prolonged exposure to electrolyte vapor over the course of 1 week yields thicker, more chemically complex interphases containing both LiF and lithium oxyfluorophosphate species (Li x PO y F z ). Subsequent electrochemical testing shows that vapor-induced passivation layers influence first cycle capacities, lithium (de)insertion overpotentials, and charge-transfer resistance values. In conclusion, these results indicate that vapor–electrode interactions may be a source of variability in electrochemical behavior over time and suggest that other, more reactive electrode materials may also be susceptible to interactions with electrolyte vapor.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗