Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Grain Selection Growth of Soft Metal in Electrochemical Processes

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read In solid-state Li batteries, stacking pressure makes deposited Li adopt a slow-diffusion (001) texture, and a soft amorphous Li-Si seed layer restores the fast (101) texture and improves critical current density.

desk verdict Beautiful EBSD, but the load-stress mechanism is quantitatively unsupported: the DFT surface-energy anisotropy is computed at ~3% strain, while the experiments apply 5 MPa that elastically strains Li by ~0.04%. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10839 v1 pith:G4SXTFVN submitted 2024-11-16 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Minghao Zhang , Karnpiwat Tantratian , So-Yeon Ham , Zhuo Wang , Mehdi Chouchane , Ryosuke Shimizu , Shuang Bai , Hedi Yang
show 5 more authors
Zhao Liu Letian Li Amir Avishai Lei Chen Ying Shirley Meng
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords grainselectiongrowthphase-fieldmodellithiummetalanodesolid-statebatterysurfaceenergyanisotropycriticalcurrentdensityamorphousLi-SiseedlayerEBSDtextureanalysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proposes a thermodynamic account of which crystallographic texture wins when soft metals like lithium are electrodeposited, and uses that account to explain a known bottleneck of solid-state Li batteries. The central claim is that under the multi-MPa stacking pressure used in solid-state cells, lattice strain raises the surface energy of the fast-diffusing (101) orientation enough that slow-diffusing (001) grains win the growth competition, and this texture is what limits the room-temperature critical current density (the current beyond which the cell fails). The authors support the claim with a phase-field grain-growth model fed by first-principles (DFT) surface energies and diffusion barriers, and with electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) measurements showing (001)-dominated Li at 25 °C switching to (101)-dominated Li at 80 °C. They then show that an amorphous Li$_x$Si$_{1-x}$ seed layer, which softens the substrate and relieves strain in the Li, restores (101) texture at room temperature and raises the critical current density. If right, the work turns stack pressure into a texture-control parameter and gives a concrete rule for designing seed layers by bulk modulus and amorphicity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the energy-density difference between two adjacent grains, $\Delta U_{12} = \Delta\Gamma_{\mathrm{surface}} + \Delta F_{\mathrm{strain}}$, with surface term $(E_{S,1}-E_{S,2})/h$ and strain term $\sigma_y[\varepsilon_1-\varepsilon_2]$. The strain term is closed by an exponential relation between intrinsic strain and atomic mobility, $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{intrinsic}} = \varepsilon_c + (\varepsilon_T-\varepsilon_c)\exp(-\beta D_i/(LR))$, so faster-diffusing grains store less strain energy. This driving force is embedded in an Allen-Cahn-type phase-field model in which grain-boundary mobility $L_q$ follows an Arrhenius law from DFT diffusion barriers and the gradient-energy coefficient $\kappa_q$ grows with DFT surface energy; layer-by-layer activation of the computational domain mimics progressive electrodeposition and lets the two energy terms compete over deposition time.

What would settle it

Deposit Li in anode-free solid-state cells at fixed 25 °C while sweeping the stacking pressure from roughly 0.3 MPa to 10 MPa, and map the grain texture by EBSD or XRD: the model predicts a crossover from (101)-dominant to (001)-dominant selection once surface-energy anisotropy crosses a critical threshold. Seeing no pressure-driven texture switch, or a switch at very different pressures or temperatures, would falsify the load-stress anisotropy mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that grain selection in electrodeposited soft metals is set by a competition between surface-energy density and mobility-related intrinsic strain energy, and that external load stress tilts the competition by changing surface-energy anisotropy. In solid-state Li cells the winner under load at room temperature is the (001) orientation, which has the highest Li self-diffusion barrier (0.14 eV), so the deposited metal is kinetically constrained; at elevated temperature, strain-energy relief from faster diffusion overtakes surface energy and (101) grains dominate. The paper further claims that a 500 nm amorphous Si layer, lithiating to Li$_x$Si$_{1-x}$ with 0.50 < x < 0.79 and bulk modulus below 30 GPa, softens the interface enough to keep (101) selection at 25 °C, and demonstrates improved rate capability in anode-free full cells.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative predictions rest on the assumed exponential relation between atomic mobility and intrinsic strain relief (Eq. S9), with the fitting constant $\beta$ set to 1 and strain limits taken as 0.2 without calibration against stress or grain-growth measurements; a different form or different constants would move the predicted 25 °C/80 °C texture switch and the pressure-texture phase map.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At room temperature, anode-free solid-state Li cells on bare Cu should deposit a (001)-textured layer whose high diffusion barrier limits plating and stripping kinetics, which is why their critical current densities stay below roughly 1.5 mA/cm².
  • Heating the cell to 80 °C flips the winning texture to (101), and the paper's EBSD measurements confirm that switch.
  • Because Na and K surface energies respond far less to lattice strain, their room-temperature solid-state deposition should stay (101)-dominated, which makes Na a promising candidate for anode-free solid-state cells.
  • A seed layer that is amorphous, electronically conductive, lithophilic, and softer than about 30 GPa in bulk modulus should restore (101) texture at room temperature; the paper demonstrates this with amorphous Li$_x$Si$_{1-x}$ (0.50 < x < 0.79).

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not say this, but the mechanism implies that stack pressure is a tuneable texture switch: a pressure sweep at fixed temperature should move a cell from (101)-dominant to (001)-dominant deposition, so texture could be engineered by pressure alone.
  • The same strain-relief logic suggests that any low-modulus, lithiated amorphous interlayer, not only Si, should restore fast-diffusion texture; the paper's four design criteria give a screening rule for testing other seed materials.
  • A direct extension would be to correlate the (101)-to-(001) texture crossover with critical current density in the same cell, which would test whether texture, rather than interfacial contact alone, is the rate-limiting factor.
  • Because the crossover temperature depends on the uncalibrated strain-mobility constant, in-situ stress or strain measurements during Li deposition could calibrate the model and sharpen its quantitative phase map.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a thermodynamic framework and phase-field model for grain selection during electrodeposition of soft metals (Li, Na, K), in which grain growth is governed by competition between surface energy and an atomic-mobility-dependent intrinsic strain energy (Eq. 2/S9). The model is used to predict that under high stacking pressure in solid-state batteries, Li deposition at 25 °C selects (001)-oriented grains because strain-enhanced surface-energy anisotropy outweighs the low diffusion barrier of (101); at 80 °C, or on a soft amorphous Li0.7Si0.3 seed layer, (101) grains dominate. These predictions are compared with PFIB-EBSD texture measurements of Li deposited in anode-free solid-state cells at 25 °C and 80 °C, with a liquid-electrolyte control, and with rate-performance tests of Si-seeded cells. The EBSD data show the predicted temperature-dependent texture switch and 50% (101) texture with the Si seed layer at 25 °C.

Significance. The manuscript combines DFT-derived surface energies and diffusion barriers with a phase-field model and original cross-sectional EBSD measurements, a rare direct characterization of Li texture in solid-state cells. If the proposed mechanism is quantitatively correct, the work offers a design principle—soft amorphous seed layers with bulk modulus below 30 GPa—that is falsifiable and directly relevant to anode-free solid-state batteries. The experimental methodology (PFIB-EBSD at 7 kV with pattern matching) is a valuable contribution. The main caveats are the uncalibrated fitting constants in the intrinsic-strain and phase-field bridging equations and the missing stress-to-strain bridge between the 5 MPa stack pressure and the 3% lattice-strain DFT inputs; these issues prevent the paper's quantitative predictions from being taken at face value.

major comments (4)
  1. [Experimental Procedures, Eq. S9–S10 and 'Temperature analysis for grain selection growth'] The intrinsic-strain relation (Eq. S9) contains an uncalibrated fitting constant β, and the authors set β = 1 with the statement that this 'does not affect the trend of this analysis.' Because β enters the exponent of the strain–mobility relation, the predicted temperature crossover and the phase map of Fig. 4 depend on β, as well as on the assumed yield strength (0.55 MPa), the assumed strain limits (±0.2), and the diffusion pre-factor D0. No sensitivity analysis is given for any of these parameters, so the quantitative predictions—including the location of the strain-energy/surface-energy boundary and the 25 °C versus 80 °C switch—are not secured by the derivation. The manuscript should either calibrate β and the strain limits against independent stress/strain or grain-growth measurements, or systematically show that the qualitative texture predictions are invariant over a plausible parameter range.
  2. [Results & Discussion, 'Load stress induced selective grain growth'; Figs. 3 and S2; Experimental Procedures] The proposed mechanism for the 25 °C (001) texture relies on load-stress-induced surface energy anisotropy computed by DFT at about 3% lattice strain (ref. 16, Fig. S2). The validating experiments, however, are pellet cells with a 5 MPa stack pressure. For Li, with a bulk modulus of about 14 GPa, 5 MPa produces an elastic lattice strain of only about 0.04%, and plastic/creep deformation does not change the lattice constants that enter the DFT surface-energy calculations. The manuscript does not provide a stress-to-strain conversion, a lattice strain measurement, or an argument that the 3% DFT condition is representative of the experimental conditions. At a linear scaling of the surface-energy anisotropy to 0.04% strain, the surface-energy density difference and the strain-energy difference of Eq. S10 would be orders of magnitude too small to favor (001) at 25 °C, contradicting the claimed mechanism. This gap also weakens the seed-layer rationale, which assumes that reducing the substrate bulk modulus lowers the Li lattice strain. The authors should supply experimental strain data or a quantitative mechanical model that connects the applied stack pressure to the lattice strain used in the DFT inputs.
  3. [Experimental Procedures, Eqs. S14–S15] The phase-field mobility and gradient-energy coefficients are assigned through exponential bridging laws, Eq. S14 and Eq. S15, with fitting constants (L1 = 7.5, L2 = 0.27, κ1 = 4.1×10^-9, κ2 = 20) that are chosen solely to keep the normalized values within 0.1–10. These constants are not calibrated against experimental grain-growth data, and the manuscript does not report the actual values of L_q and κ_q for each orientation or test how the simulated grain-proportion statistics (e.g., 57.1% (001) at 25 °C versus 48.7% (101) at 80 °C) depend on these choices. As a result, the quantitative texture fractions and the phase-map boundaries should be regarded as qualitative illustrations rather than parameter-free predictions.
  4. [Experimental Procedures, Eqs. S4–S7] The strain-energy density in Eq. S5 is written as F_strain = σ_y ε - (1/2)E ε_y^2, which is linear in the signed strain ε. With the assumed compressive strain ε_c = -0.2, this expression yields negative strain-energy densities for compressive grains, which is physically inconsistent with a plastic-work density of σ_y|ε|. The derivation of ΔF_strain in Eq. S10 should use the absolute value of the plastic strain (or otherwise justify the sign convention), because the magnitude and even the sign of the strain-energy difference between tensile and compressive grains can change under the current formulation. The authors should clarify this point and verify that the predicted texture selection is not an artifact of the signed-strain energy.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and text] The notation for the silicon seed layer is inconsistent: the abstract uses LixSi1-x (0.50<x<0.79), while the main text refers to Li0.7Si0.3 and Li3.75Si; please use one convention throughout.
  2. [Introduction and Eq. 2] The phrase 'load stress-induced surface energy anisotropy' in the abstract and introduction is not directly tied to Eq. 2/S9, which describes intrinsic strain from atomic mobility; the load-stress connection enters only through the assumed surface-energy change. Please make this distinction explicit.
  3. [Temperature effects section] The statement 'Generally, ΔF_strain is positive and rises as temperature increases' is not obviously true from Eq. S10, since both exponential terms tend toward zero at sufficiently high temperature; please clarify the parameter regime or provide the data underlying Fig. 3A.
  4. [Experimental Procedures, Full cells assembling] The description '75 mg of LPSCl was compressed at 370 MPa' does not specify the area of the pellet; please report the pellet diameter or area so the compaction pressure can be evaluated.
  5. [Data and code availability] For a modeling paper, depositing the phase-field code and fitting scripts in a public repository would improve reproducibility; the current statement only allows requests to the lead contact.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the texture predictions follow from independent DFT inputs and are validated by independent EBSD/literature data, with only uncalibrated model constants as a parameterization limitation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: Eq. 1 (ΔU12 = ΔΓ_surface + ΔF_strain) plus DFT surface energies and self-diffusion barriers from refs 16 and 17 feed a phase-field model, which predicts texture selection; the predictions are then checked against original PFIB-EBSD measurements and literature XRD/pole-figure results. The DFT surface energies and diffusion barriers are external first-principles data, not fit to the paper's own EBSD outcomes, so the central claim is not self-defined. The strain-energy closure in Eqs. S9–S10 is an assumed exponential relation with β set to 1, σ_y = 0.55 MPa, and ε_T − ε_c = 0.4; the paper explicitly states that calibrating β is beyond scope. This is a parameterization and robustness limitation, not a circular reduction: the temperature dependence enters through the Arrhenius relation (Eq. S11), and the predicted 25°C vs 80°C crossover, the liquid-electrolyte (101) outcome, and the seed-layer (101) restoration are nontrivial consequences of combining those inputs. The experiments are independent validations rather than fitted reproductions: 25°C on Cu gives 57.1% (001)-oriented grains, 80°C gives 48.7% (101), and the amorphous LixSi seed layer at 25°C gives 50% (101) grains. No uniqueness theorem, load-bearing self-citation, or ansatz-smuggling citation is used; ref. 32 is only a sputtering-method citation. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited by construction, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is supported by external DFT data and independent EBSD experiments, so it is not circular. However, the quantitative model rests on several uncalibrated parameters and domain assumptions; in particular Eq. S9 and the phase-field bridging constants (Eqs. S14-S15) are chosen by hand, and beta is set to 1 without sensitivity analysis.

free parameters (5)
  • beta (fitting constant in intrinsic strain model) = 1
    Controls how fast atomic diffusivity relaxes tensile strain to compressive strain in Eq. S9. Stated as assumed; no calibration or sensitivity analysis is given.
  • A = sigma_y (epsilon_T - epsilon_c) = 2.2e5 J/m3 (sigma_y=0.55 MPa, eps_T-eps_c=0.4)
    Sets the magnitude of the strain-energy-density difference Delta F_strain in Eq. S10. The yield strength and maximum strains are assumed within literature ranges.
  • D0 (diffusion pre-factor) = 1e-15 m2/s
    Used in the Arrhenius relation for Li self-diffusion; taken as a typical reported value, not measured for the films studied.
  • phase-field constants L1, L2, kappa1, kappa2 = L1=7.5, L2=0.27, kappa1=4.1e-9, kappa2=20
    Chosen so L_q and kappa_q fall in the range 0.1-10 for numerical convenience; no independent calibration is provided.
  • grain size L and film thickness h in temperature analysis = 10 um each
    Set to match observed morphology, not directly measured for each sample or used to propagate uncertainty.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Thermal energy density is isotropic and negligible for thin (<50 um) films, so grain selection depends only on surface and strain energy (Eq. S2).
    Stated after Eq. S2; justified by efficient heat dissipation, but not rigorously proven for local grain-scale temperature variations.
  • domain assumption Extrinsic strain and creep anisotropy are negligible compared to surface energy and self-diffusion barriers under high stacking pressure (Eq. S8 and following paragraphs).
    Declared in the Experimental Procedures; if creep anisotropy were comparable, the model's exclusion of extrinsic strain would bias the texture predictions.
  • domain assumption Yield strength is isotropic and elastic strain energy is negligible, so Delta F_strain reduces to sigma_y[epsilon1-epsilon2] (Eqs. S6-S7).
    Needed for the linear form of the strain-energy difference; no supporting measurements are provided for the deposited Li films.
  • domain assumption DFT-calculated surface energies and self-diffusion barriers from refs 16 and 17 are accurate inputs for the phase-field constants.
    The entire texture prediction inherits the accuracy of these external first-principles values, including their strain dependence.
  • domain assumption Nucleation can be represented by only three orientations, (001), (101), and (111), randomly assigned to 75 grains.
    Simplifies the phase-field simulation; other orientations and heterogeneous nucleation are not considered.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Grain Selection Growth of Soft Metal in Electrochemical Processes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G4SXTFVN

@misc{pith2026241110839,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Grain Selection Growth of Soft Metal in Electrochemical Processes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G4SXTFVN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10839}
}
read the original abstract

Soft metals like lithium and sodium play a critical role in battery technology owing to their high energy density. Texture formation by grain selection growth of soft metals during electrochemical processes is a crucial factor affecting power and safety. Developing a framework to understand and control grain growth is a multifaceted challenge. Here, a general thermodynamic theory and phase-field model are formulated to study grain selection growth of soft metals. Our study focuses on the interplay between surface energy and atomic mobility-related intrinsic strain energy in grain selection growth. Differences in grain selection growth arise from the anisotropy in surface energy and diffusion barrier of soft metal atoms. Our findings highlight the kinetic limitations of solid-state Li metal batteries, which originate from load stress-induced surface energy anisotropy. These insights lead to the development of an amorphous LixSi1-x (0.50<x<0.79) seed layer, improving the critical current density at room temperature for anode-free Li solid-state batteries through the control of grain selection growth.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10839 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Grain selection growth for Li metal through thermodynamic theory-based phase-field modeling. Phase-field simulations showing the grain evolution during electroplating of Li on a Cu substrate with the SSE, together with surface energy and Li diffusion barrier of each grain. The discrepancy in surface energy is evident at time t = 10 s (refer to the surface energy column in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Liu, J., Bao, Z., Cui, Y., Dufek, E.J., Goodenough, J.B., Khalifah, P., Li, Q., Liaw, B.Y., Liu, P., Manthiram, A., et al. (2019). Pathways for practical high-energy long-cycling lithium metal batteries. Nat. Energy 4, 180–186

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Fang, C., Lu, B., Pawar, G., Zhang, M., Cheng, D., Chen, S., Ceja, M., Doux, J.M., Musrock, H., Cai, M., et al. (2021). Pressure -tailored lithium deposition and dissolution in lithium metal batteries. Nat. Energy 6, 987–994

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Lee, J.Z., Wynn, T.A., Schroeder, M.A., Alvarado, J., Wang, X., Xu, K., and Meng, Y.S. (2019). Cryogenic Focused Ion Beam Characterization of Lithium Metal Anodes. ACS Energy Lett. 4, 489–493

    2019

  4. [4]

    Singh, D.K., Fuchs, T., Krempaszky, C., Schweitzer, P., Lerch, C., Richter, F.H., and Janek, J. (2023). Origin of the lithium metal anode instability in solid -state batteries during discharge. Matter 6, 1463–1483

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Sandoval, S.E., Lewis, J.A., Vishnugopi, B.S., Nelson, D.L., Schneider, M.M., Cortes, F.J.Q., Matthews, C.M., Watt, J., Tian, M., Shevchenko, P., et al. (2023). Structural and electrochemical evolution of alloy interfacial layers in anode-free solid-state batteries. Joule 7, 2054–2073

    2023

  6. [6]

    lithium- free

    Wang, M.J., Carmona, E., Gupta, A., Albertus, P., and Sakamoto, J. (2020). Enabling “lithium- free” manufacturing of pure lithium metal solid -state batteries through in situ plating. Nat. Commun. 11, 1–9

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Wang, G., Song, C., Huang, J., and Park, H.S. (2023). Recent Advances in Carbon -Based Current Collectors/Hosts for Alkali Metal Anodes. Energy Environ. Mater. 6, e12460

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    V., and Carel, R

    Thompson, C. V., and Carel, R. (1996). Stress and grain growth in thin films. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 44, 657–673

    work page 1996

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    V., and Carel, R

    Thompson, C. V., and Carel, R. (1995). Texture development in polycrystalline thin films. Mater. Sci. Eng. B 32, 211–219

    1995

  2. [10]

    Thompson, C. V. (1990). Grain growth in thin films. Annu. Rev. Mater. Sci. 20, 245–268

    1990

  3. [11]

    Wang, D., Zhu, C., Fu, Y., Sun, X., and Yang, Y. (2020). Interfaces in Garnet-Based All-Solid- 27 State Lithium Batteries. Adv. Energy Mater. 10, 2001318

    2020

  4. [12]

    Lee, D.N., Kim, K.H., Lee, Y.G., and Choi, C.H. (1997). Factors determining crystal orientation of dendritic growth during solidification. Mater. Chem. Phys. 47, 154–158

    1997

  5. [13]

    -H., Sanchez, A.J., Poli, A., Arruda, E.M., Thouless, M.D., and Dasgupta, N.P

    LePage, W.S., Chen, Y., Kazyak, E., Chen, K. -H., Sanchez, A.J., Poli, A., Arruda, E.M., Thouless, M.D., and Dasgupta, N.P. (2019). Lithium Mechanics: Roles of Strain Rate and Temperature and Implications for Lithium Metal Batteries. J. Electrochem. Soc. 166, A89–A97

    2019

  6. [14]

    Wang, M.J., Chang, J.Y., Wolfenstine, J.B., and Sakamoto, J. (2020). Analysis of elastic, plastic, and creep properties of sodium metal and implications for solid -state batteries. Materialia 12, 100792

    2020

  7. [15]

    Engwall, A.M., Rao, Z., and Chason, E. (2016). Origins of residual stress in thin films: Interaction between microstructure and growth kinetics. Mater. Des. 110, 616–623

    2016

  8. [16]

    Stottmeister, D., and Groß, A. (2020). Strain Dependence of Metal Anode Surface Properties. ChemSusChem 13, 3147–3153

    2020

  9. [17]

    Jäckle, M., Helmbrecht, K., Smits, M., Stottmeister, D., and Groß, A. (2018). Self -diffusion barriers: possible descriptors for dendrite growth in batteries? Energy Environ. Sci. 11, 3400– 3407

    2018

  10. [18]

    Lee, Y.G., Fujiki, S., Jung, C., Suzuki, N., Yashiro, N., Omoda, R., Ko, D.S., Shiratsuchi, T., Sugimoto, T., Ryu, S., et al. (2020). High -energy long -cycling all -solid-state lithium metal batteries enabled by silver–carbon composite anodes. Nat. Energy 5, 299–308

    2020

  11. [19]

    Ham, S.Y., Yang, H., Nunez -cuacuas, O., Tan, D.H.S., Chen, Y.T., Deysher, G., Cronk, A., Ridley, P., Doux, J.M., Wu, E.A., et al. (2023). Assessing the critical current density of all - solid-state Li metal symmetric and full cells. Energy Storage Mater. 55, 455–462

    2023

  12. [20]

    Shi, F., Pei, A., Vailionis, A., Xie, J., Liu, B., Zhao, J., Gong, Y., and Cui, Y. (2017). Strong texturing of lithium metal in batteries. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114, 12138–12143

    2017

  13. [21]

    Zhao, Q., Deng, Y., Utomo, N.W., Zheng, J., Biswal, P., Yin, J., and Archer, L.A. (2021). On the crystallography and reversibility of lithium electrodeposits at ultrahigh capacity. Nat. Commun. 12, 1–10

    2021

  14. [22]

    Fuchs, T., Ortmann, T., Becker, J., Haslam, C.G., Ziegler, M., Singh, V.K., Rohnke, M., 28 Mogwitz, B., Peppler, K., Nazar, L.F., et al. (2024). Imaging the microstructure of lithium and sodium metal in anode -free solid -state batteries using electron backscatter diffraction....

    2024

  15. [23]

    Deysher, G., Oh, J.A.S., Chen, Y.T., Sayahpour, B., Ham, S.Y., Cheng, D., Ridley, P., Cronk, A., Lin, S.W.H., Qian, K., et al. (2024). Design principles for enabling an anode -free sodium all-solid-state battery. Nat. Energy, 1–12

    2024

  16. [24]

    Yan, K., Lu, Z., Lee, H.W., Xiong, F., Hsu, P.C., Li, Y., Zhao, J., Chu, S., and Cui, Y. (2016). Selective deposition and stable encapsulation of lithium through heterogeneous seeded growth. Nat. Energy 1, 1–8

    2016

  17. [25]

    Hu, X., Gao, Y., Zhang, B., Shi, L., and Li, Q. (2022). Superior cycle performance of Li metal electrode with {110} surface texturing. EcoMat 4, e12264

    2022

  18. [26]

    Xu, C., Ahmad, Z., Aryanfar, A., Viswanathan, V., and Greer, J.R. (2017). Enhanced strength and temperature dependence of mechanical properties of Li at small scales and its implications for Li metal anodes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114, 57–61

    2017

  19. [27]

    Alvarado, J., Schroeder, M.A., Pollard, T.P., Wang, X., Lee, J.Z., Zhang, M., Wynn, T., Ding, M., Borodin, O., Meng, Y.S., et al. (2019). Bisalt ether electrolytes: a pathway towards lithium metal batteries with Ni-rich cathodes. Energy Environ. Sci. 12, 780–794

    2019

  20. [28]

    Singh, D.K., Henss, A., Mogwitz, B., Gautam, A., Horn, J., Krauskopf, T., Burkhardt, S., Sann, J., Richter, F.H., and Janek, J. (2022). Li6PS5Cl microstructure and influence on dendrite growth in solid-state batteries with lithium metal anode. Cell Reports Phys. Sci. 3, 101043

    2022

  21. [29]

    Yang, C., Xie, H., Ping, W., Fu, K., Liu, B., Rao, J., Dai, J., Wang, C., Pastel, G., and Hu, L. (2019). An Electron/Ion Dual-Conductive Alloy Framework for High-Rate and High-Capacity Solid-State Lithium-Metal Batteries. Adv. Mater. 31, 1804815

    2019

  22. [30]

    Wang, Y., Liu, Y., Nguyen, M., Cho, J., Katyal, N., Vishnugopi, B.S., Hao, H., Fang, R., Wu, N., Liu, P., et al. (2023). Stable Anode -Free All-Solid-State Lithium Battery through Tuned Metal Wetting on the Copper Current Collector. Adv. Mater. 35, 2206762

    2023

  23. [31]

    Kim, H., Chou, C.Y., Ekerdt, J.G., and Hwang, G.S. (2011). Structure and properties of Li -Si alloys: A first-principles study. J. Phys. Chem. C 115, 2514–2521. 29

    2011

  24. [32]

    Bao, W., Fang, C., Cheng, D., Zhang, Y., Lu, B., Tan, D.H.S., Shimizu, R., Sreenarayanan, B., Bai, S., Li, W., et al. (2021). Quantifying lithium loss in amorphous silicon thin-film anodes via titration-gas chromatography. Cell Reports Phys. Sci. 2, 100597

    2021

  25. [33]

    Li, J., and Dahn, J.R. (2007). An In Situ X -Ray Diffraction Study of the Reaction of Li with Crystalline Si. J. Electrochem. Soc. 154, A156

    2007

  26. [34]

    Tan, D.H.S., Chen, Y.T., Yang, H., Bao, W., Sreenarayanan, B., Doux, J.M., Li, W., Lu, B., Ham, S.Y., Sayahpour, B., et al. (2021). Carbon -free high-loading silicon anodes enabled by sulfide solid electrolytes. Science (80-. ). 373, 1494–1499

    2021

  27. [35]

    Stallard, J.C., Vema, S., Grey, C.P., Deshpande, V.S., and Fleck, N.A. (2023). The strength of a constrained lithium layer. Acta Mater. 260, 119313

    2023

  28. [36]

    Fang, R., Li, W., Jiao, J., Zhao, L., Yao, Y., and Zhu, J. (2024). Modeling the electro -chemo- mechanical failure at the lithium -solid electrolyte interface: Void evolution and lithium penetration. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 192, 105799

    2024

  29. [37]

    Sedlatschek, T., Lian, J., Li, W., Jiang, M., Wierzbicki, T., Bazant, M.Z., and Zhu, J. (2021). Large-deformation plasticity and fracture behavior of pure lithium under various stress states. Acta Mater. 208, 116730

    2021

  30. [38]

    Siniscalchi, M., Liu, J., Gibson, J.S., Turrell, S.J., Aspinall, J., Weatherup, R.S., Pasta, M., Speller, S.C., and Grovenor, C.R.M. (2022). On the Relative Importance of Li Bulk Diffusivity and Interface Morphology in Determining the Stripped Capacity of Metallic Anodes in So...

    2022

  31. [39]

    Chen, L.Q. (1995). A novel computer simulation technique for modeling grain growth. Scr. Metall. Mater. 32, 115–120

    1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.