(Dohun Kim)
1
(Wonjun Ahn)
2
(Jae-Seong Yeo)
2
(Yusong Choi)
2
(Sangbaek Park)
1*
Copyright © 2024 The Korean Institute of Metals and Materials
Key words(Korean)
Carbonized SPAN, thermal stability, thermal battery
1. INTRODUCTION
Thermal batteries, designed to operate at high temperatures (400–500 °C), are ideal
for military applications due to their thermal stability, long shelf life, high output
power, and robust environmental adaptability [1–3]. They are used in advanced weaponry and aerospace systems, including guided bombs,
missiles, and torpedoes [4–7]. Recently, the increasing demand for high-power thermal batteries in advanced technology
weapon systems has highlighted the need for cathode materials capable of superior
output [8]. Although Pyrite FeS2 has been used as a conventional cathode material because of
its abundance, stable discharge performance and good compatibility with electrolytes,
its low capacity, low operating voltage, and poor thermal stability during the discharge
has hampered its application in next-generation thermal batteries [9–11].
Sulfide-polyacrylonitrile (SPAN) is a promising cathode material, offering excellent
cycling stability and efficient sulfur utilization [12]. In Li-S batteries [13], SPAN is notable for its lower polysulfide dissolution, higher conductivity, and
superior compatibility with carbonate electrolytes compared to other sulfur-based
cathodes [14]. Moreover, carbonized SPAN (c-SPAN), produced by thermally annealing sulfur and
PAN in a nitrogen atmosphere, features a stable molecular structure due to covalent
bonding between sulfur and the pyrolyzed PAN backbone[14,15]. This stability makes c-SPAN suitable for high-temperature applications exceeding
300 °C, like Na-S batteries [15,16]. While sulfide-polyacrylonitrile (SPAN) has been recognized as a promising cathode
material for various battery applications, its potential has yet to be revealed in
the context of thermal batteries. Thus, despite its potential, the application of
c-SPAN in thermal batteries remains unexplored.
In this study, we successfully fabricated carbonized SPAN (c-SPAN) under optimized
synthesis conditions, demonstrating its suitability as a cathode material for thermal
batteries. The c-SPAN was synthesized using a straightforward approach involving ball
milling and annealing. Its efficiency was confirmed through comprehensive structural
analysis and thermal stability evaluation. The results showed that the c-SPAN had
excellent thermal stability, remaining stable up to 500 °C under optimal conditions.
We revealed that c-SPAN exhibits significantly improved thermal stability compared
to conventional PAN, remaining stable up to 500°C with optimized sulfur content. Additionally,
we demonstrated that controlling sulfur content is crucial to achieve enhanced thermal
stability. The thermal battery incorporating c-SPAN operated successfully, indicating
its potential applicability in thermal batteries. These results suggest that c-SPAN
could serve as a promising cathode material for future thermal battery technologies.
2. EXPERIMENTAL
2.1. Materials Synthesis
Figure 1(a) illustrates the chemical structure of the raw materials[14] and the fabrication process of the c-SPAN materials. The c-SPAN materials were synthesized
via a ball-milling process[17]. Initially, pure polyacrylonitrile (Sigma-Aldrich) and sulfur (99.5%, Alfa Aesar)
were milled using either a mortar and pestle or a planetary mill (Pulverisette 7,
FRITSCH, Germany) under a nitrogen (N₂) atmosphere. The resulting milled powder was
then subjected to thermal treatment in a tubular furnace at 155 °C for 2 hours under
an argon (Ar) atmosphere. Following this, the temperature was increased to 400 °C
for 6 hours for a secondary thermal treatment to obtain c-SPAN. Additionally, a synthetic
procedure identical to the one described above was used to synthesize c-SPAN treated
at 350 °C under atmospheric pressure, and 400 °C under semi-atmospheric pressure,
respectively. Here, atmospheric pressure and semi-atmospheric pressure refer to 1
atm and 0.5 atm, respectively.
2.2. Material characterization
The morphology of the samples was examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM,
Hitachi S-4800). Structural properties were analyzed by X-ray diffraction (XRD; D8
ADVANCE, BRUKER, Karlsruhe, Germany). Raman spectroscopy was performed using a UniRam
spectrometer (UniThink Inc., UR1207J) with a 532 nm excitation line and an air-cooled
charge-coupled device (CCD) detector. The thermal stability of the samples was assessed
using a thermal analyzer (STA 449 F5 Jupiter/DSC 204 F1 Phoenix). Elemental composition
analysis was conducted with an automatic elemental analyzer (FLASH 2000).
To prepare the thermal battery, the anode consisted of a mixture of 75 wt.% commercial
Li-Si and 25 wt.% LiCl-KCl eutectic salts. The cathode was prepared by combining 22.53
wt.% c-SPAN, 76.32 wt.% of a mixture of LiCl-KCl eutectic salt and MgO, and 1.15 wt.%
SiO₂, followed by pressing into shape. The electrolyte was prepared by mixing 55 wt.%
LiF-LiCl-LiBr eutectic salt with 45 wt.% MgO binder, then pressing in a similar manner.
The final cell assembly included a Li anode, electrolyte, cathode, and current collector
in sequential order. Performance tests were conducted at 500°C under an external pressure
of 150 Kgf, applying a pulsed current sequence of 1.2 A (4 sec) - 0 A (1 sec) - 2.4
A (1 sec).
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Figure 1(b)–(e) shows the SEM images and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) elemental mapping
results of various samples prepared under different milling conditions (mortar/pestle
and planetary ball mill). The SPAN synthesized via planetary ball milling exhibited
particle sizes in the micrometer (μm) scale before thermal treatment, and EDS mapping
revealed that the sulfur and carbon elements were agglomerated separately (Figure 1(b)). The SPAN synthesized using a mortar/pestle exhibited smaller particle sizes compared
to the SPAN prepared via planetary ball milling, with an uneven elemental distribution
similar to that of the planetary ball milling sample (Figure 1(c)). After thermal treatment at 400 °C, the particle size of the c-SPAN synthesized
via planetary ball milling increased overall, and EDS mapping showed a uniform distribution
of sulfur and carbon elements (Figure 1(d)). In contrast, the c-SPAN prepared using a mortar/pestle exhibited similar SEM morphology
but relatively lower uniformity in sulfur and carbon distribution compared to the
planetary ball milling sample (Figure 1(e)).
To assess the thermal stability of the various samples, thermogravimetric analysis
(TGA) was conducted over a temperature range of 25–1000 °C (Figure 2). As shown in Figure 2(a), the untreated SPAN, regardless of the milling method, exhibited a significant weight
loss of 77.5% around 200 °C, which is attributed to the sublimation of unreacted sulfur
[16]. After thermal treatment, the c-SPAN synthesized via planetary ball milling demonstrated
enhanced thermal stability up to 500 °C, with only about a 3.3% weight loss at 100
°C, primarily due to moisture evaporation (Figure 2(b)). This improved thermal stability can be attributed to the stable structure resulting
from the chemical bonding of sulfur to the PAN-derived turbostratic carbon matrix
[14,15]. Additionally, the bond dissociation energy of the C–S bond (272 kJ/mol) is higher
than that of the S–S bond (251 kJ/mol), further contributing to the enhanced thermal
stability [16].
The c-SPAN annealed at 400 °C showed a weight loss of 74.1% in the higher temperature
range of 500–1000 °C, which can be attributed to the desorption of sulfur chemically
bonded to the PAN-derived carbon matrix[16,18]. In contrast, the thermal stability of c-SPAN samples prepared using a mortar/pestle
was relatively poor compared to those synthesized via planetary ball milling (Figure 2(c)). This could be due to the sublimation of sulfur that is unevenly distributed, or
agglomerated within the carbon matrix, as indicated by the EDS mapping results.
Previous studies have indicated that increasing the sulfur content covalently bonded
within the carbon framework is essential to enhance the electrode's capacity [14]. To achieve higher sulfur content in the samples, we adjusted the pressure and thermal
treatment temperature of the c-SPAN samples. Figure 3(a) shows the SEM image of c-SPAN treated at 400 °C and atmospheric pressure (referred
to as SPAN-400(AP)), revealing particle sizes in the micrometer range. Figure 3(b) and Figure 3(c) display SEM images of c-SPAN treated at 350 °C under atmospheric pressure (SPAN-350(AP))
and 400 °C under semi-atmospheric pressure (SPAN-400(SP)), respectively. The particle
morphology of SPAN-350(AP) and SPAN-400(SP) was similar to SPAN-400(AP), suggesting
that pressure and temperature variations do not significantly impact c-SPAN morphology.
XRD and Raman spectroscopy were employed to determine the crystallinity and physical
characteristics of the samples (SPAN-400(AP), SPAN-350(AP), and SPAN-400(SP)). Figure 3(d) shows the XRD patterns, where all samples exhibited a peak around 25°, corresponding
to the (002) plane of the graphite structure [19]. Differences were minimal, primarily in peak intensity. Figure 3(e) displays Raman spectra of the samples, with typical S-S bond peaks at 469 and 929
cm?¹ observed in all, confirming the presence of C-S-S bonding in the c-SPAN [19]. Additionally, the D (1348 cm?¹) and G (1590 cm?¹) bands, associated with the carbon
matrix, appeared in all samples, indicating successful c-SPAN synthesis regardless
of conditions [19,20]. Composition analysis (Figure 3(f) and Table 1) showed similar carbon content across the three samples. However, SPAN-350(AP) and
SPAN-400(SP) had about 10% more sulfur than SPAN-400(AP) (41.7%), with 46.4% and 45.6%,
indicating sulfur content increases with adjusted pressure and temperature.
Figure 4 presents the thermal stability of SPAN-400(AP), SPAN-350(AP), and SPAN-400(SP). Despite
the higher sulfur content, the TGA results for SPAN-350(AP) and SPAN-400(SP) (weight
loss of 78.5% and 82.1%, respectively) showed inferior thermal stability compared
to SPAN-400(AP) (weight loss of 77.4%), likely due to the sublimation of unreacted
sulfur. This finding suggests that optimizing sulfur content is critical to improving
thermal stability.
To evaluate c-SPAN's potential in thermal batteries, we fabricated a thermal battery
using the optimized SPAN-400(AP) sample and investigated its properties. Figure 5(a) shows the structure and a photograph of the fabricated thermal battery, where a single
cell consists of a Li anode, electrolyte, cathode, and current collector in sequence.
As demonstrated in Figure 5(b), the thermal battery fabricated with SPAN-400(AP) operated effectively under pulse
current, indicating the suitability of the thermally stable c-SPAN for use in thermal
batteries. Additionally, the internal resistance of the single cells was calculated
using the pulse discharge data, as per Equation R = (V1 – V2)/ (I1 – I2)[8]. Here, R (Ω) represents the internal resistance of a single cell, V1 (V) and V2 (V) are the working voltage and pulse voltage, respectively, and I1 (A) and I2 (A) are the working current and pulse current. Using this equation, the internal
resistance of SPAN-400(AP) was determined, as shown in Figure 5(c). The average internal resistance was calculated to be 72.7 mΩ, which is sufficiently
low for thermal battery applications. These findings indicate that the c-SPAN material
developed in this study holds promise for use in thermal batteries.
4. CONCLUSIONS
This study demonstrates that c-SPAN, synthesized under appropriate conditions, is
a viable cathode material for thermal batteries. The c-SPAN was produced using a straightforward
ball milling and annealing method. Its properties were thoroughly characterized through
microscopic evaluation and TGA analysis. The SPAN-400(AP) sample exhibited enhanced
thermal stability, maintaining stability up to 500°C, highlighting the importance
of appropriate sulfur content. The thermal battery with c-SPAN operated effectively,
showing a minimal voltage drop of 0.17 V and a low internal resistance of 72.7 mΩ.
These findings suggest that the c-SPAN developed here is a promising candidate for
thermal batteries.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Agency for Defense Development – Grant funded by Defense
Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) (UI230017TD).
REFERENCES
Choi Y. S., Yu H. R., Cheong H. W., J. Power Sources,276, 102 (2015)

Chae S. H., Kang S. H., Cheong H. W., Han Y. S., Yoon D. H., Ceram. Int,43, 4015 (2017)

Kang S. H., Chae S. H., Cheong H. W., Kim K. H., Han Y. S., Lee S. M., Yoon D. H.,
Yi J., Ceram. Int,43, 4023 (2017)

Ko J., Kang S. H., Cheong H. W., Yoon Y. S., J. Korean Ceram. Soc,56, 233 (2019)

Guo S., Guo H., Wang X., Zhu Y., Hu J., Yang M., Zhao L., Wang J., J. Electrochem.
Soc,166, A3599 (2019)

Guo S., Guo H., Wang X., Zhu Y., Yang M., Zhang Q., Chu Y., Wang J., Mater. Lett,249,
81 (2019)

Guo H., Tang L., Tian Q., Chu Y., Shi B., Yin X., Huo H., Han X., Yang C., Wang C.,
Tang K., Wang C., Zhang X., Wang J., Kong L., Lu Z., ACS Appl. Mater. Inter,12, 50377
(2020)

Tian Q., Hu J., Tang L., Guo H., Dong Q., Wang J., Han X., Hu W., Materials Letters,301,
130272 (2021)

Ko J., Kim I. Y., Cheong H., Yoon Y. S., Am. Ceram. Soc,100, 4435 (2017)

Dickson S. A. M., Gover R. K. B., Irvine J. T. S, Chem. Mater,33, 7367 (2021)

Ning H., Liu Z., Xie Y., Huang H., J. Electrochem. Soc,165, A1725 (2018)

Lei J., Chen J., Naveed A., Zhang H., Yang J., Nuli Y., Wang J., ACS Appl. Energy
Mater,4, 5706 (2021)

Jeong S. H., Choi H.-J., Lee S. J., Lee D. P., Eum S.Y., Moon S., Yun J. H., Kim J.-H.,
Korean J. Met. Mater,61, 849 (2023)

Ahmed M. S., Lee S., Agostini M., Jeong M. G., Jung H. G., Ming J., Sun Y. K., Kim
J., Hwang J. Y., Adv. Sci,8, 2101123 (2021)

Zhu T., Dong X., Liu Y., Wang Y. G., Wang C., Xia Y. Y., ACS Appl. Energy Mater,2,
5263 (2019)

Hwang T. H., Jung D. S., Kim J. S., Kim B. G., Choi J. W., Nano Lett,13, 4532 (2013)

Joo S.-J., Son J.-H., Jang J. I., Min B.-K., Kim B.-S., Korean J. Met. Mater,61, 437
(2023)

Chang C. H., Kleppa O. J., Carbon,19, 187 (1981)

Hu Y., Li B., Jiao X., Zhang C., Dai X., Song J., Adv. Funct. Mater,28, 1801010 (2018)

Song J., Yu Z., Gordin M.L., Hu S., Yi R., Tang D., Walter T., Regula M., Choi D.,
Li X., Manivannan A., Wang D., Nano Lett,14, 6329 (2014)

Figures and Table
Fig. 1.
(a) Schematic representation of the c-SPAN fabrication process. SEM images and EDS
mapping data of c-SPAN samples prepared using (b) planetary ball milling and (c) mortar/pestle
before annealing, and (d) planetary ball milling and (e) mortar/pestle after annealing.
Fig. 2.
(a) TGA results of c-SPAN samples before thermal treatment. TGA results of c-SPAN
samples prepared using (b) planetary ball milling and (c) mortar/pestle after annealing.
Fig. 3.
SEM images of c-SPAN samples thermally treated at (a) SPAN-400(AP), (b) SPAN-350(AP),
and (c) SPAN-400(SP). (d) XRD patterns, (e) Raman spectra, and (f) composition analysis
results for the various samples (SPAN-400(AP), SPAN-350(AP), and SPAN-400(SP))
Fig. 4.
Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) results of various c-SPAN samples: SPAN-400(AP) (thermally
treated at 400°C under atmospheric pressure), SPAN-350(AP) (thermally treated at 350°C
under atmospheric pressure), and SPAN-400(SP) (thermally treated at 400°C under semi-atmospheric
pressure).
Fig. 5.
(a) Schematic and photograph of the thermal battery fabricated with SPAN-400(AP).
(b) Pulse discharge curve and (c) internal resistance of the thermal battery using
SPAN-400(AP).
Table 1.
Composition ratios of various c-SPAN samples: SPAN-400(AP) (thermally treated at 400°C
under atmospheric pressure), SPAN-350(AP) (thermally treated at 350°C under atmospheric
pressure), and SPAN-400(SP) (thermally treated at 400°C under semi-atmospheric pressure).
(1) SPAN-400 (AP)
|
|
Component name
|
Average (%)
|
Std. Dev.
|
% Rel. S. D.
|
|
Nitrogen
|
15.139
|
0.035
|
0.236
|
|
Carbon
|
41.522
|
0.103
|
0.252
|
|
Hydrogen
|
0.435
|
0.017
|
4.190
|
|
Sulphur
|
41.797
|
0.538
|
1.288
|
(2) SPAN-350 (AP)
|
|
Component name |
Average (%) |
Std. Dev. |
% Rel. S. D. |
|
Nitrogen
|
14.535
|
0.083
|
0.568
|
|
Carbon
|
41.43
|
0.283
|
0.678
|
|
Hydrogen
|
0.355
|
0.023
|
6.012
|
|
Sulphur
|
46.492
|
0.639
|
1.375
|
(3) SPAN-400 (SP)
|
|
Component name |
Average (%) |
Std. Dev. |
% Rel. S. D. |
|
Nitrogen
|
15.298
|
0.058
|
0.381
|
|
Carbon
|
41.79
|
0.207
|
0.477
|
|
Hydrogen
|
0.46
|
0.011
|
2.440
|
|
Sulphur
|
45.604
|
2.027
|
4.445
|