IMR Batteries... Safer?

[alvoram]

I just read this interesting piece, thought I'd share it, interesting because some vaping sites label IMR batteries as safer chemistry, and as a bit of a noob, I took that to mean that they were actually safer, when in fact, if you have a charger that doesn't over charge, they are apparently no safer at all... Have a read see what you think, have I misinterpreted it?

Greetings Everyone,

I have seen a lot of threads recently on "IMR" lithium-ion cells. DFiorentino and myself have posted some test results recently (seen here and here, respectively). I also have seen a lot of comments recently that indicate a general misconception of what IMR cells actually are, especially with respect to rate capability and safety. The purpose of this thread is to clarify the issues surrounding the "IMR" designation for lithium-ion cells. I will try to keep the techno-jargin to a minimum, but please feel free to ask clarification questions if I lose you.

Unlike most battery chemistries whose name defines the chemistry of the anode and cathode, the term "lithium-ion" refers to an ever growing class of cell chemistries that utilize different materials to host lithium-ions in the charged and discharged state of the cell. Most lithium-ion cells use graphite or hard carbon as the negative electrode host material (typically referred to as the anode), but the selection of the positive electrode material (typically referred to as the cathode) is much more varied. The following three-letter designations for lithium-ion cell denote what cathode material is used in the cell:

ICR = LiCoO2 (also called LCO)
IMR = LiMn2O4 (also called LMO)
IFR = LiFePO4 (also called LFP)

If you take away one thing from this thread, remember this: The term "IMR" simply indicates that LiMn2O4 is a major component of the cathode. It does not necessarily indicate that a cell has exceptional rate capability or improved safety characteristics, properties often incorrectly associated with cells with the IMR designation.

You can stop reading now, but if you want that statement explained, please read on.

The selection of a particular cathode material generally has implications for the performance (capacity, energy density, rate capability, etc...), reliability (cycle life, calendar life) and safety characteristics. The impact of LiMn2O4 on these properties is discussed below.

Performance

The crystal structure of LiMn2O4 has three-dimensional tunnels that enable rapid diffusion of Li+ through LiMn2O4 particles, and therefore lithium-ion cells made with this material can have better theoretical drain rate capability. Conventional lithium-ion cells use LiCoO2 or variations of that material. Cells with LiCoO2 cathodes are typically designated with the term "ICR". The LiCoO2 type materials have a layered crystal structure that only enables 2D diffusion within the layers, so the overall Li+ diffusion rate is slower. Interestingly, LiFePO4, which is commonly used in high rate cells (think A123), has 1D diffusion of Li+ and an overall low diffusion rate. The only way to make LiFePO4 work is to make the particles very small (i.e. "nano") to reduce the distance that Li+ needs to diffuse. "Why not just make LiCoO2 or LiMn2O4 nano size to get even better rate capability?" I hear you ask. The only reason nano LiFePO4 works is that this material has a lower oxidizing potential (which is why the cell voltage is lower) and therefore it does not chemically react with the electrolyte. LiCoO2 and LiMn2O4 actually oxidize the electrolyte slowly with use, so using a nano-particulate cathode with these materials would greatly accelerate aging due to the higher surface area of the cathode, and the cells would have terrible cycle life.

Now back to LiMn2O4. This material has a lower crystalline density and therefore a lower inherent capacity (mAh/ml) than LiCoO2. If you do a direct replacement of LiCoO2 with LiMn2O4, the capacity of the cell will be reduced by ~15%. But here is the interesting thing: simply doing a direct replacement with LiMn2O4 will not significantly increase the rate capability of a cell. In order to get a real increase in rate capability, you need to design a cell with higher electrode surface area and thinner electrodes because Li+ diffusion in the cathode particles is not the only bottleneck to getting current out of the cell. Using thinner electrodes further reduces the capacity of the cell because you will have a higher fraction of "inert" materials like the separator and current collector. This is why IMR cells typically have ~40% lower capacity than their ICR cousins.

Safety and Reliability

An additional property of LiMn2O4 is that it cannot be overcharged. When a "true" (and I will explain why I put that in quotes later) IMR cell is charged beyond ~4.25 V, no additional capacity will go into the cell. The voltage will simply spike. This is exactly the same case for LiFePO4 cells. Cells that use LiCoO2 and its layered-metal oxide cousins can be overcharged, leading to significant safety issues when these cells are charged above their specified voltages. Cells with LiMn2O4 and LiFePO4 cathodes can be damaged by overcharging (oxidation of the electrolyte leads to increased internal resistance, loss of capacity and shorter cycle life), but overcharging to higher voltage does not make them less safe. This inability to overcharge, combined with the lower total energy density, is why lithium-ion cells with LiMn2O4 and LiFePO4 are generally considered to be "safer".

The last property of LiMn2O4 that I will mention is that in its pure form it tends to have very poor cycle life. There has been a tremendous amount of research that has gone into improving the stability of LiMn2O4 to improve the cycle life of IMR cells, and this has produced cells with reasonably good long term performance. However, the easiest way to get great cycle life out of LiMn2O4 is to blend it with a separate cathode material that contains nickel. This includes the layered cathode materials Li(Nix,Cox,Mnx)O2 (aka NCM or 333), Li(NixCoyAlz)O2 (aka NCA) and Li(NixCoy)O2 (aka NCO). I won't bore you with the details, but it turns out that the oxides containing nickel acts to change the local chemistry around the LiMn2O4 particles and helps to improve stability.

The end result is that most cells called "IMR" actually have a significant fraction of nickel-containing layered metal oxide as a co-cathode. This means that these cells can in fact be overcharged, thus minimizing the perceived safety advantage of the cell.

Summary

Not all IMR cells are created equal. One cannot and should not make generalized statements about their performance, reliability or safety characteristics.

I hope this helps dispel some of the mystery surrounding these cells.

Cheers,
BG

www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?325456-What-exactly-does-quot-IMR-quot-mean

[Perpetua]

I'll have to believe you Alvo . . . all that technical info would fry my brain reading it . . . and I'd still be no wiser.

I do however believe, that any battery ( for anything ) charged in an unsafe manner, has the potential to be dangerous.

[alvoram]

He actually explains it in really simple terms perps, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to understand it... lol

[Karma]

Apr 12, 2012 21:48:45 GMT alvoram said:

He actually explains it in really simple terms perps, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to understand it... lol

Could you just explain it then, in simple consise terms, please?

[alvoram]

The main reason IMR are thought of as safer, is because in it's pure form, they can't be overcharged, but they're very rarely pure, so can still be overcharged. The reason is that pure IMR's have poor cycle lives, so they mix nickel in... "This means that these cells can in fact be overcharged, thus minimizing the perceived safety advantage of the cell."

I'm not sure of the implications of this, or how reliable the information is, which is why I posted it here, in the hope that someone more knowledgeable could confirm this, or set me straight.

[Perpetua]

Apr 12, 2012 21:59:49 GMT alvoram said:

I'm not sure of the implications of this, or how reliable the information is, which is why I posted it here, in the hope that someone more knowledgeable could confirm this, or set me straight.

We'll wait for that wise being to materialise then Alvo.

[Karma]

Apr 12, 2012 22:23:26 GMT Perpetua said:

Apr 12, 2012 21:59:49 GMT alvoram said:

I'm not sure of the implications of this, or how reliable the information is, which is why I posted it here, in the hope that someone more knowledgeable could confirm this, or set me straight.

We'll wait for that wise being to materialise then Alvo.

Tis me, be careful with batteries

[hifistud]

Apr 12, 2012 21:59:49 GMT alvoram said:

The main reason IMR are thought of as safer, is because in it's pure form, they can't be overcharged, but they're very rarely pure, so can still be overcharged. The reason is that pure IMR's have poor cycle lives, so they mix nickel in... "This means that these cells can in fact be overcharged, thus minimizing the perceived safety advantage of the cell."

I'm not sure of the implications of this, or how reliable the information is, which is why I posted it here, in the hope that someone more knowledgeable could confirm this, or set me straight.

Overcharging isn't the be all and end all. As we've shown multiple times on VTTV, the enemy is the direct short and consequent thermal runaway. In IMR, the reaction is slower and less energetic - more "controlled" than with an ICR which will vent violently when pushed to overload. An IMR is far less violent IF it can be pushed into thermal runaway - and so far, we have not been able to get an IMR - even a poor one - to go thermal.

So yes, IMRs are, generally speaking, safer all round than ICR. It's worth reading the battery university articles on the various types - the information there is very accurate.

[alvoram]

Thanks for clearing that up hifi, glad to hear it. I will give the battery universe articles a read tonight. Got to be honest I was a bit shocked that this chap was basically calling most battery retailers liars.

[vereybowring]

From my quick read of it they are basically saying IMR's are not as safe as some would have us believe.
This is true, no battery of any chemistry is completely safe.
IMR's are safer than ICR's which is why they are better for us as long as you use a decent charger.

For me battery safety always comes down to;
Charge correctly using a reliable charger designed for the battery type (the better chargers will refuse to charge a knackered battery).
Use correctly and avoid shorts.
Do not cause physical trauma to the battery, this includes damage to the covering plastic.
Store unused batteries so they cannot short out or get wet etc.
Regularly check your batteries by looking at them to see signs of physical wear and check voltage after charging.
If the battery starts to behave differently from normal, dispose of safely.

[alvoram]

Is it normal for my 18650 batteries to be making a slight noise while charging... I haven't noticed before now, because the house is never quiet. But I have one on charge now and it's making a slight sound, do I need to take it off charge... You have to put your head within 10 cm to hear it btw.

[hifistud]

Apr 13, 2012 14:49:48 GMT alvoram said:

Is it normal for my 18650 batteries to be making a slight noise while charging... I haven't noticed before now, because the house is never quiet. But I have one on charge now and it's making a slight sound, do I need to take it off charge... You have to put your head within 10 cm to hear it btw.

is it the battery or the charger? which charger? There should ideally be no noise at all - and if it is the battery, get it out of there sharpish!

[2risky]

My TR001 charger makes a high-pitched noise for the first ten minutes of charging or so, something to do with the transformer I understand.

I did look it up to see if it was dangerous and apparently it's common with this model and not something to worry about.

[Perpetua]

I wouldn't be happy with that I must confess 2Risky . . . have had a couple of TR-001's and they've never made any noise at all.

Read elsewhere today of folk taking the covering off their batteries to get them to fit into a tube mod, that alarmed me a bit as the covering is there for a reason.

[vereybowring]

Apr 13, 2012 16:22:21 GMT Perpetua said:

I wouldn't be happy with that I must confess 2Risky . . . have had a couple of TR-001's and they've never made any noise at all.

Read elsewhere today of folk taking the covering off their batteries to get them to fit into a tube mod, that alarmed me a bit as the covering is there for a reason.

Indeed, a battery without its insulated cover is a battery that should be safely disposed of and not used at all.

The idiocy of the human race in general never ceases to annoy me.

Bet its the sort of person who will blame the manufacturer if anything goes wrong too.