1. Introduction
Recently, the demand for portable electronic devices and electric vehicles has significantly increased, leading to a surge in the annual demand for Li-ion batteries, which serve as energy storage media [
1,
2]. Owing to the high frequency of human interaction with these Li-ion batteries, enhancing safety in accordance with the demand for Li-ion batteries has become a crucial issue [
3,
4]. Among the various issues related to Li-ion batteries, thermal reactions are a significant concern because they are directly linked to user safety [
5,
6]. Various systems and catalysts are currently being investigated to minimize the hazard of thermal reactions. To improve battery safety, a system for monitoring battery temperature was developed [
7,
8]. A catalyst that absorbs heat has been developed to stabilize the battery temperature and thereby delay the occurrence of thermal reactions [
9,
10]. However, the efficient prevention of fire incidents resulting from battery heating remains a challenge. Although research on the materials used for battery cases is essential for enhancing battery safety, it is not commonly conducted.
Because Li-ion batteries exhibit differences in heat generation depending on the usage conditions, controlling heat generation is essential for battery safety [
11,
12]. However, explosions in portable electronic devices occur frequently, posing life-threatening risks, especially in the case of high-temperature heating, such as in cell phones and electric vehicles. A major safety issue known as thermal runaway occurs due to localized heat accumulation caused by the heat generation inside the battery outpacing the heat dissipation [
13]. The battery temperature can increase to a maximum of 700 °C. Consequently, the material for battery cases has been changed from aluminum, which has a low melting point (670 °C), to stainless steel (AISI304, 1400 °C), resulting in enhanced battery safety during high-temperature heating [
14,
15]. Therefore, a viable approach for enhancing battery safety is by improving the battery case materials.
Stainless steel is classified based on its principal constituent phase into the austenite, ferrite, martensite, or duplex series. Among the stainless steels used for battery cases, AISI304, which belongs to the austenite series, is the most popular [
16,
17]. Austenite stainless steels display excellent corrosion resistance but are susceptible to sensitization due to insufficient high-temperature strength (170 MPa at 700 °C); furthermore, they undergo stress-induced transformation to martensite [
18,
19]. On the other hand, the ferrite and martensite series exhibit low corrosion resistance but are highly robust and display excellent high-temperature strength. The duplex series exhibits both excellent corrosion resistance and high-temperature strength (330 MPa at 700 °C) but presents challenges for process control [
20,
21]. The performance differences among the various types of stainless steel used should be distinguished according to the intended application. Therefore, to ensure stability at temperatures as high as 700 °C in Li-ion battery thermal reactions, materials that exhibit high strength and corrosion resistance at room temperature, as well as at high-temperature conditions, should be used.
Duplex stainless steel, consisting of austenite and ferrite, exhibits superior strength, corrosion resistance, and high-temperature strength. The excellent mechanical and electrochemical properties of duplex stainless steel are beneficial for battery safety during thermal reactions. Duplex stainless steel is graded according to its pitting resistance equivalent number (PREN). Super-duplex stainless steel (SDSS) (PREN, 40–50) exhibits excellent strength (780 MPa at room temperature), corrosion resistance (up to 50 years in seawater), and high-temperature strength, making it a suitable material for improving the safety of Li-ion batteries [
19,
22]. Among super duplex stainless steels, AISI2507, which has a chemical composition of 25 wt.% Cr and 7 wt.% Ni, shows a PREN of 42. Originally developed for marine plant materials, the application of AISI2507 in various other fields is being studied to exploit its outstanding characteristics [
23,
24]. Nillson investigated the volume fraction and corrosion resistance of SDSS under various heat treatment conditions, and Fande examined its microstructural characteristics after welding [
20,
21]. However, although numerous studies have been conducted on this topic, research on the plating behavior depending on the presence of secondary phases is lacking.
AISI304, which is utilized for constructing Li-ion battery cases, exhibits low electrical conductivity; therefore, to impart electrical conductivity, Ni plating has been employed [
25,
26]. However, owing to the stress induced by AISI304 processing, Ni plating does not result in favorable characteristics. Wang and Lee Ni studied the properties of Ni-plated AISI304 [
27,
28]. Although various characteristics of AISI304 have been extensively investigated, research on the Ag coating and processing of AISI2507 is scarce. Hence, AISI2507 processing and coating should be studied to evaluate its applicability as a material for Li-ion battery cases.
Among the various plating metals, Ni displays superior electrical conductivity (IACS, 23.8%) compared to iron (IACS, 1.8%); however, plating with other metals can promote thickness reduction and performance enhancement [
29]. For example, coating with Ag (IACS, 105.0) instead of Ni can lead to reduced thickness and enhanced electrical conductivity. However, being a precious metal, Ag is expensive; therefore, it should be developed under conditions that are conducive to recycling. The minimal degradation of AISI2507 originating from its excellent strength and corrosion resistance render it recyclable. Ag is easily separable from stainless steel due to its high potential, which means that Ag can be easily recovered. The use of SDSS and Ag not only provides excellent performance but also facilitates recycling, thereby reducing the energy consumed in metal production. However, there have been no reported cases of Ag-coated AISI2507.
To manufacture Li-ion cases with improved safety, replacing AISI304 with AISI2507 and coating with Ag instead of Ni is proposed. This study analyzed the impact of secondary phases on the Ag coating and the electrochemical behavior of AISI 2507 after Ag coating via physical vapor deposition (PVD), considering the presence and absence of secondary phases. The formation behavior of the Ag coating layer was analyzed using field-emission scanning electron microscopy (FE-SEM), electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD), atomic force microscopy (AFM), X-ray diffraction (XRD), and glow discharge spectroscopy (GDS). The electrochemical behavior resulting from the Ag coating layer was analyzed using open-circuit potential (OCP) measurements and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS).
3. Results
3.1. Effect of Heat Treatment on Microstructure
The microstructure of SDSS differed according to the heat treatment temperature, whereby the volume fractions of ferrite and austenite and the crystallization of secondary phases were affected [
42,
43]. To analyze the effect of these secondary phases on the performance of the Ag coatings on AISI2507, microstructural analysis was performed using FE-SEM and EBSD, and the results are shown in
Figure 2 [
24,
44]. Austenite (γ) appears as bright-gray islands, whereas ferrite (δ) appears as a dark-gray matrix. Solution heat treatment at 1100 °C resulted in equal fractions of austenite and ferrite, whereas heat treatment at 1000 °C led to the precipitation of secondary phases [
45,
46]. These secondary phases, constituting 10% of the microstructure, are identified as bright white phases along the austenite grain boundaries.
The changes in the volume fractions after heat treatment indicate the locations of secondary-phase crystallization. After heat treatment at 1000 °C, the volume fraction of austenite increased by 8%, whereas that of ferrite decreased by 18% [
20,
47]. During this phase transformation, the volume fractions of secondary phases increased by 10% [
48,
49]. Austenite growth induced the precipitation of secondary phases along the grain boundaries, indicating that the transformation from ferrite to austenite was the driving force behind the crystallization and growth of the secondary phase.
Heat treatment at 1000 °C resulted in the coarsening of austenite, an increase in its fraction, a decrease in the volume fraction of ferrite, and an increase in the precipitation and fraction of secondary phases. Specifically, the 1000 °C heat treatment led to the coarsening of austenite and subsequent precipitation of secondary phases, accompanied by a reduction in the ferrite fraction.
To distinguish the crystallization and morphology of the secondary phases formed at the two heat-treatment temperatures, EBSD analysis was conducted, as shown in
Figure 3 [
30,
50]. In the EBSD Phase-IQ maps, austenite and the secondary phase are red, whereas ferrite and the secondary phase are green. Solution treatment homogenized the austenite morphology, whereas secondary-phase precipitation disrupted this uniformity, causing growth along the austenite boundaries to a fine size of <10 μm. The coarse austenite grains contained fine ferrite (<10 μm), which grew between the austenite grains.
Austenite and ferrite exhibited similar crystallographic orientations, and the internal crystallographic orientation in coarse austenite containing fine ferrite varied [
50,
51]. Consequently, the orientation of the austenite and ferrite combination was influenced by the grain size of ferrite, and austenite grew in similar directions ((111) or (101)) due to its transformation from ferrite. However, the secondary-phase growth deviated from these orientations, crystallizing along the austenite grain boundaries. Secondary phases did not have a specific morphology but exhibited an irregular, elongated morphology.
A quantitative analysis of the grain size with and without secondary-phase precipitation was performed, and the results are presented in
Figure 4. Secondary phases with a BCC and FCC structure formed fine grains (<10 μm, #a on the IPF-IQ map). After secondary-phase crystallization, the grain sizes of austenite and ferrite ranged from 20 to 40 μm (#b). After solution heat treatment, austenite grain sizes were in the range of 20–40 μm (#c) and ferrite grains were from 40 μm (#d). The heat treatment temperature influenced the crystallization of the secondary phases and the grain size.
XRD analysis was conducted to identify the secondary phases, and the results are shown in
Figure 5. The secondary phases were identified as sigma (σ), chi (χ), and CrN. The σ phase appeared at 42° (410) and 46° (212), χ at 47° (411), and CrN at 48° (311). The three secondary phases were observed at 1000 °C, with austenite peaks at 43° (111), 50° (110), and 74° (200) [
30,
45]. The XRD intensities varied with the presence of secondary phases, being higher for austenite at (111) and (110) and ferrite at (111) under solution heat treatment conditions.
The secondary phases grew along the grain boundaries of austenite and into ferrite, thereby reducing the volume fraction of ferrite. Crystallization of the secondary phases was initiated by the segregation of Cr and Mo during austenite growth. The lower Cr and Mo contents in the austenite promoted secondary-phase precipitation at the austenite grain boundaries. The fine, elongated secondary phases (10 ± 4 μm) exhibited a BCC and FCC structure and were composed of σ, χ, and CrN phases, consistent with the literature. σ precipitated at 43.2° (410), χ at 45.4° (212), and CrN grew in both the (411) and (311) directions.
In conclusion, AISI2507 formed uniform austenite after solution treatment. At 1000 °C, three secondary phases, namely σ, χ, and CrN, precipitated along the grain boundaries of austenite as fine grains (<10 μm), increasing their volume fraction by up to 10%.
The secondary phases crystallized and grew during austenite formation. The compositions of the crystallized secondary phases were analyzed using EDS and EPMA, as shown in
Figure 6 and
Table 3, respectively. The crystallized secondary phases exhibited high concentrations of Cr and Mo, whereas Fe was present in lower concentrations. Specifically, the σ phase contained 37.2 wt.% Cr and 8.9 wt.% Mo, indicating that it precipitated owing to the saturation of Cr and Mo. The depletion of Cr and Mo around the σ phase led to the precipitation of the χ phase, which had lower concentrations of Cr and Mo. CrN formed from nitrogen, which was not incorporated into the other two secondary phases. These secondary phases were formed by the segregation of Cr and Mo, which in turn affected the Ag coating and electrical conductivity.
3.2. Effect of Ag Coating
The targeted thickness of the Ag coating layer was 1 μm. Prior to Ag coating, the surface was polished with sandpaper (up to #2000 grit); images of AISI2507 before and after coating are shown in
Figure 7. The surface polishing marks were significantly reduced after Ag coating, indicating a decrease in the surface roughness.
The coating material filled the surface irregularities, thereby reducing the surface roughness. The PVD-applied Ag coating effectively decreased the surface roughness, as shown in
Figure 8 and
Table 4 [
38,
52]. Five repeat AFM measurements were taken over a 500 μm distance and the average values are reported. After solution heat treatment, the surface roughness was 0.10 μm, increasing to 0.15 μm after the precipitation of secondary phases. The presence of secondary phases increased the surface roughness. However, following Ag coating, the surface roughness decreased to 0.05 μm, irrespective of the presence of secondary phases. Thus, the Ag coating effectively reduced surface roughness, consequently affecting the electrical properties of the surface.
Ag exhibits superior electrical conductivity compared with steel, which was confirmed for the Ag coating. The results of the electrical conductivity measurements (
Table 5), conducted using a four-point probe, show that the electrical conductivity of Ag was 8.4% higher than that of Cu. The following equations were used to calculate electrical conductivity and ICAS based on the resistivity of Ag:
After Ag coating with or without a secondary phase, the electrical conductivity increased from 1.8% and 1.9% to 53.6% and 58.8%, respectively. This enhancement was attributed to the Ag coating layer. By coating AISI2507 with 1 μm Ag, electrical conductivity superior to that of pure Ni could be achieved for battery case materials. The electrical conductivity of AISI2507 was influenced by both the coating layer and the substrate. The precipitation of the secondary phases reduced the electrical conductivity from 58.8% to 53.6%. This occurred owing to alloy segregation and increased grain boundaries. The surface roughness also reduced the electrical conductivity by hindering electron movement. Therefore, controlling the surface roughness can improve electrical conductivity as a result of reduced electrical resistance.
XRD analysis confirmed the effects of the coating layer based on measurements taken from 30° to 80°, as shown in
Figure 9. The XRD patterns exhibited Ag peaks at 39.6°, 44.9°, 65.2°, and 78.3° [
53,
54]. The primary growth direction of Ag (111) was aligned with the main FCC growth direction, showing the highest intensity. Because of the thinness of the Ag coating, the intensities of the Ag peaks of (111) were below 200 counts. The Ag coating grew preferentially along the (111) direction, demonstrating its excellent coating capability.
GDS analysis, which is suitable for evaluating the compositional distribution and interfacial elements of surfaces, was used to analyze the impact of the Ag coating. The results, shown in
Figure 10, indicated the presence of a Ag coating with a thin diffusion layer of 3.6 μm (#c), a mixed zone of 0.3 μm (#b), and a thickness of 0.6 μm (#a). The thickness of the Ag coating layer was consistent regardless of the presence of the secondary phases, indicating that the secondary phases did not influence the coating thickness.
Although the secondary phases did not affect the Ag coating thickness, they decreased the electrical conductivity [
29]. The effect on the electrical conductivity is illustrated in
Figure 11. At the microscale, electron movement (blue dashed line) was influenced by both the coating layer and the substrate (dark gray). The secondary phases in the substrate increased the electrical resistance, thereby decreasing the electrical conductivity. The thin Ag coating layer (light gray) of less than 1 μm was affected by the substrate, resulting in a decrease in the ICAS from 58.8% to 53.6%. Therefore, to ensure adequate AISI2507 conductivity for Li-ion battery applications, the microstructure needed to be carefully controlled to minimize the crystallization of the secondary phases.
3.3. Electrochemical Behavior
Given that NaCl solution is widely used as the electrolyte in protocols adhering to the ASTM standard, the electrochemical behavior of 3.5 wt.% NaCl electrolyte solution was analyzed to provide baseline data for this study. The OCP was measured to assess the reactivity after Ag coating, and EIS was employed to analyze the passivation layer on both the Ag coating and AISI2507.
OCP measures the reactivity by identifying the conditions under which oxidation and reduction occur. The potential range for stainless steel is in the range of −0.3–0.2 V, whereas that for silver is 0.77 V [
54,
55]. The OCP was analyzed based on the presence of secondary phases, and the results are shown in
Figure 12. The OCP values were found to be between −0.10 and −0.02 V, being within the potential range for stainless steel. This indicated that, although a Ag coating layer exists, uncoated areas remain where NaCl can react. Thus, the microscopic gaps in the coating allow NaCl to penetrate and participate in the corrosion process.
EIS, which measures resistance changes with frequency, was used to analyze the surface coating and passivation layers. The EIS results, presented in the form of Bode and Nyquist plots, were used to construct the equivalent circuit. The results are presented in
Figure 13 and
Table 6. The Bode plot reveals that the resistance and phase angle change with the frequency. Although the resistance exhibited a minimal change from 10
6 to 10
−1 Hz, variations in the phase angle were observed.
High-frequency resistance, indicative of solution resistance, was measured at 7 Ω, which is in agreement with typical values for 3.5 wt.% NaCl. Subsequently, the resistance of the Ag coating and the passivation layers were determined. The resistance curve is illustrated in
Figure 13c, revealing three distinct resistance stages: the Ag coating layer, the passivation layer of AISI2507, and the base material. The Ag coating layer exhibited a consistent resistance of 10 kΩ, whereas the passivation layer showed varying resistance values of 215 and 247 kΩ. According to the EIS results, the presence of the secondary phases did not significantly affect the Ag coating. However, the passivation layer was affected by secondary phases, displaying non-uniform passivation and decreased resistance.