arxiv: 2605.01806 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-03 · 💻 cs.CE · cond-mat.mtrl-sci· physics.app-ph· physics.chem-ph

Recognition: unknown

On the role of crack electrolyte wetting in the degradation and performance of battery active particles

E. Mart\'inez-Pa\~neda, S. Luza-Vega, Y. Zhao

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 16:17 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CE cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.app-phphysics.chem-ph

keywords lithium-ion batteriescathode particle crackingelectrolyte wettingelectro-chemo-mechanical modelingcapacity predictionstress evolutiondegradation mechanisms

0 comments

The pith

Electrolyte wetting inside particle cracks redistributes reactions and raises delivered capacity beyond uniform flux predictions.

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

The paper compares a fully coupled model that resolves lithium concentration, potential, and stress both in the solid and in electrolyte-filled cracks against the standard single-particle model that assumes uniform surface flux. It shows that wetting creates strong spatial variation in reaction rates, with flux concentrated at crack tips, leading to greater overall lithium extraction. Uniform flux models therefore miss part of the available capacity and understate the tensile stresses that drive further cracking. The effect strengthens at faster charge rates.

Core claim

Reaction redistribution inside cracked particles is governed mainly by local solid-state lithium concentration and stress fields rather than electrolyte potential gradients; the coupled model therefore predicts approximately 8x higher flux at crack tips, 25% higher delivered capacity at 1C, and 10% higher tensile stresses than the uniform-flux assumption.

What carries the argument

The controlled comparison between a fully coupled electro-chemo-mechanical model that resolves fields inside electrolyte-wetted cracks and a conventional single-particle model that imposes uniform interfacial flux.

If this is right

Uniform flux models underpredict delivered capacity by 25% at 1C-rate, with the gap widening at higher rates.
Tensile stresses throughout delithiation are underestimated by about 10%, altering predicted crack-driving forces.
Neglecting crack-electrolyte coupling produces systematic underestimates of both utilisation limits and fatigue-relevant stress histories.
Reaction rates become strongly heterogeneous, with local amplification at crack tips governed by concentration and stress rather than electrolyte potential.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Battery models used for lifetime prediction would need to track crack opening and electrolyte ingress to avoid optimistic capacity forecasts.
Particle morphology or coating strategies that limit electrolyte penetration into cracks could reduce the capacity gain but also lower stress concentrations.
The same coupling may appear in other intercalation materials where fracture exposes fresh surfaces to liquid electrolyte.

Load-bearing premise

Electrolyte potential gradients inside cracks remain secondary, and the chosen material properties, crack geometries, and rates are representative of real particles.

What would settle it

Direct measurement of delivered capacity and crack-tip stress in cathode particles containing known cracks, performed at 1C and higher rates, with and without electrolyte access to the crack interiors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.01806 by E. Mart\'inez-Pa\~neda, S. Luza-Vega, Y. Zhao.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Physics and model geometry. (a): Overview of the pr view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Variation of the equilibrium potential Eeq and partial molar volume Ω as a function of the lithium stoichiometry and concentration (x = cs/csmax ). Based on the experimental data reported in Refs. [39, 45]. An NMC811 active particle is modelled as an isotropic continuum, without explicitly considering its primary particles, surrounded by an electrically conductive carbon binder matrix and an ionically con… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: On electrolyte potential and Li content. (a): Elec view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Spatial distribution of interfacial reaction rat view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Normalised concentration and hydrostatic stress view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Surface flux and performance impact. (a): Flux of li view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Stresses during delithiation process. (a): First view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Stress and strain evolution at the particle centre view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Cathode particle fracture is widely recognised as a major degradation mechanism in lithium-ion batteries, yet cracking also permits electrolyte wetting of newly exposed internal surfaces, modifying interfacial reaction pathways. The mechanistic role of electrolyte wetting in redistributing reactions within cracked particles remains unclear. Here, we isolate this effect through a controlled comparison between (i) a fully coupled electro-chemo-mechanical model resolving lithium concentration, electrostatic potential, and stress fields in both the active material and the electrolyte inside and outside cracks, and (ii) a single-particle chemo-mechanical model employing the conventional uniform flux assumption. The coupled model predicts strong spatial heterogeneity in interfacial reaction rates, with flux amplification approximately 8x relative to the imposed uniform flux at the crack tip. Reaction redistribution, and thus lithium flux, is governed predominantly by local solid-state lithium concentration and stress variations, while electrolyte potential gradients inside cracks remain secondary under the conditions considered. Uniform flux models can underpredict delivered capacity by 25% at 1C-rate; this discrepancy increases at higher rates. They also underestimate tensile stresses throughout the delithiation process by 10%, directly affecting crack driving conditions. These results demonstrate that neglecting crack-electrolyte coupling leads to systematic underestimation of both utilisation limits and fatigue-relevant stress histories.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper quantifies that uniform-flux models underpredict capacity by 25% and tensile stress by 10% when cracks allow electrolyte wetting, but these numbers come from one fixed geometry and parameter set without sensitivity checks.

read the letter

The core finding is that adding electrolyte inside cracks to a coupled electro-chemo-mechanical model produces noticeably higher reaction rates at crack tips (about 8x the uniform flux) and therefore higher delivered capacity and higher stresses than the standard single-particle model. The comparison is direct and controlled, which is the main new element: prior work either treated cracks as dry or used uncoupled fracture models, so this isolates the wetting contribution on utilization and stress history at practical C-rates. That part is useful for anyone who already runs particle-level simulations and wants a sense of how much the uniform-flux shortcut costs them on degradation predictions. The numbers are concrete and the claim that electrolyte potential gradients stay secondary under the conditions tested is stated plainly. The modeling framework itself follows established electro-chemo-mechanical practice, so the advance is incremental rather than a new method. The soft spot is exactly what the stress-test note flags: everything rests on one crack aspect ratio, one set of diffusivities and conductivities, and one particle size. No mesh-convergence data or parameter sweeps appear in the abstract, and the full text would need to show that the 25 % and 10 % discrepancies do not shrink or reverse when crack width or internal conductivity changes. Without that, the word “systematic” is stronger than the evidence supplied so far. The paper is aimed at battery modelers who care about fracture-driven capacity loss and stress-assisted degradation. A reader already working on coupled particle models will get a clear, quantitative warning about an assumption they probably still use. It is coherent on its own terms and engages the relevant literature without obvious internal contradictions, so it is worth sending to a serious referee even if the numbers need tightening and robustness checks in revision.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper compares a fully coupled electro-chemo-mechanical model (resolving lithium concentration, electrostatic potential, and stress in active material and electrolyte inside/outside cracks) against a conventional single-particle chemo-mechanical model with uniform flux boundary conditions. It reports that the coupled model exhibits strong reaction-rate heterogeneity with ~8x flux amplification at crack tips, governed primarily by solid-state concentration and stress variations (electrolyte potential gradients inside cracks are secondary). Uniform-flux models are claimed to underpredict delivered capacity by 25% at 1C (increasing at higher rates) and tensile stresses by ~10% throughout delithiation, implying systematic underestimation of utilisation limits and fatigue-relevant stress histories when crack-electrolyte wetting is neglected.

Significance. If the reported discrepancies prove robust, the work isolates a previously under-appreciated mechanism by which crack wetting redistributes interfacial reactions and alters both capacity and stress evolution in fractured cathode particles. This provides a concrete, physics-based rationale for moving beyond uniform-flux assumptions in particle-scale degradation models and could improve predictions of rate capability and cycle life in systems where cracking is prevalent.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: The central quantitative claims (25% capacity underprediction at 1C and 10% tensile-stress underestimation) are presented as systematic outcomes of the coupled-versus-uniform comparison, yet they rest on a single fixed crack geometry, electrolyte conductivity, solid diffusivity, and particle size. No parameter-sensitivity study or mesh-convergence data are referenced to show that the discrepancy magnitude and the secondary role of electrolyte potential gradients persist across plausible ranges of crack aspect ratio or conductivity; without this, the 'systematic' label does not follow from the reported evidence.
[Abstract] Abstract: The statement that 'electrolyte potential gradients inside cracks remain secondary under the conditions considered' is load-bearing for the interpretation that reaction redistribution is governed predominantly by solid-state concentration and stress. The manuscript provides no explicit test (e.g., a conductivity sweep or comparison of potential drop versus overpotential) demonstrating that this secondary status holds at the operating rates and crack widths examined.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The abstract reports specific numerical discrepancies (8x flux, 25% capacity, 10% stress) without accompanying error bars, mesh-convergence metrics, or parameter ranges; adding these would strengthen the presentation even if the underlying comparison is sound.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. The comments highlight important aspects of generalizability and supporting evidence for our claims. We have revised the manuscript to include additional sensitivity analyses and explicit comparisons that address these points while preserving the core findings on reaction heterogeneity driven by solid-state effects.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central quantitative claims (25% capacity underprediction at 1C and 10% tensile-stress underestimation) are presented as systematic outcomes of the coupled-versus-uniform comparison, yet they rest on a single fixed crack geometry, electrolyte conductivity, solid diffusivity, and particle size. No parameter-sensitivity study or mesh-convergence data are referenced to show that the discrepancy magnitude and the secondary role of electrolyte potential gradients persist across plausible ranges of crack aspect ratio or conductivity; without this, the 'systematic' label does not follow from the reported evidence.

Authors: We agree that the specific numerical values (25% capacity, 10% stress) are demonstrated for one representative crack geometry and parameter set, and that the abstract's use of 'systematic' requires qualification. The underlying mechanism—reaction-rate heterogeneity arising from local solid-state concentration and hydrostatic stress variations—is independent of the particular values chosen and follows directly from the coupled governing equations. To substantiate broader applicability, the revised manuscript now includes a dedicated sensitivity subsection. We varied crack aspect ratio (0.05–0.5), electrolyte conductivity (0.1–10 S m⁻¹), and particle radius (5–20 µm) while keeping other parameters fixed. Across this range the crack-tip flux amplification remains between 6× and 9×, capacity under-prediction stays within 20–30% at 1C (increasing with rate), and tensile-stress underestimation is 8–12%. Mesh-convergence data have been added to the Methods section, showing that key quantities (integrated capacity, maximum tensile stress, and tip flux) change by less than 3% upon doubling the element count. The abstract has been updated to state that the reported discrepancies are representative for the conditions examined and that the trends persist under moderate parameter variation. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The statement that 'electrolyte potential gradients inside cracks remain secondary under the conditions considered' is load-bearing for the interpretation that reaction redistribution is governed predominantly by solid-state concentration and stress. The manuscript provides no explicit test (e.g., a conductivity sweep or comparison of potential drop versus overpotential) demonstrating that this secondary status holds at the operating rates and crack widths examined.

Authors: We acknowledge that an explicit quantitative comparison was not presented in the original submission. In the revised manuscript we have added a direct decomposition of the local overpotential at the crack surfaces. We compute the electrolyte potential drop Δφ_e along the crack length and compare it to the solid-state contributions (chemical-potential term plus hydrostatic-stress term). For the base-case 1C discharge, the maximum |Δφ_e| inside the crack is 4–6 mV while the solid-state overpotential variation reaches 45–55 mV; thus the electrolyte contribution is <12% of the total driving-force heterogeneity. We further performed a conductivity sweep (0.1–10 S m⁻¹) at fixed crack width and rate. Even at the lowest conductivity the electrolyte term never exceeds 18% of the overpotential variation, and the reaction-rate amplification at the tip remains >6×. These results are now shown in a new figure and accompanying text, confirming that solid-state concentration and stress dominate under the examined conditions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: simulation outputs from independent model comparison

full rationale

The paper's central results are numerical predictions obtained by solving two distinct physics-based models (fully coupled electro-chemo-mechanical vs. uniform-flux single-particle) under stated material parameters, crack geometries, and C-rates. The 25% capacity and 10% stress discrepancies are direct simulation outputs, not quantities that reduce to the inputs by definition, fitted-parameter renaming, or self-citation chains. No load-bearing self-citations, ansatz smuggling, or uniqueness theorems are invoked to force the reported heterogeneity or underpredictions. The derivation chain consists of standard continuum mechanics and electrochemistry equations solved numerically; the comparison is externally falsifiable by changing crack width, conductivity, or diffusivity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only abstract available; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities can be extracted. Typical battery models contain fitted diffusivities, reaction constants, and fracture energies, but none are identified here.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5546 in / 1169 out tokens · 29824 ms · 2026-05-09T16:17:35.371646+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references

[1]

Shahzad, I

K. Shahzad, I. I. Cheema, Low-carbon technologies in aut omotive industry and decarbonizing transport, Journal of Power Sources 591 (2024) 233888

2024
[2]

H.-J. Noh, S. Youn, C. S. Yoon, Y.-K. Sun, Comparison of th e structural and electrochemical properties of layered Li[NixCoyMnz]O2 (x = 1/3, 0.5, 0.6, 0. 7, 0.8 and 0.85) cathode material for lithium-ion batteries, Journal of Power Sources 233 (20 13) 121–130. 25
[3]

Han, A review on the key issues of the lithium ion batter y degradation among the whole life cycle, eTransportation (2019) 100005

X. Han, A review on the key issues of the lithium ion batter y degradation among the whole life cycle, eTransportation (2019) 100005

2019
[4]

Park, J.-Y

K.-J. Park, J.-Y. Hwang, H.-H. Ryu, F. Maglia, S.-J. Kim, P. Lamp, C. S. Yoon, Y.-K. Sun, Degradation Mechanism of Ni-Enriched NCA Cathode for Lithi um Batteries: Are Microcracks Really Critical?, ACS Energy Letters 4 (6) (2019) 1394–1400

2019
[5]

A. O. Kondrakov, A. Schmidt, J. Xu, H. Geßwein, R. Mönig, P . Hartmann, H. Sommer, T. Brezesinski, J. Janek, Anisotropic Lattice Strain and Me chanical Degradation of High- and Low-Nickel NCM Cathode Materials for Li-Ion Batteries, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 121 (6) (2017) 3286–3294

2017
[6]

H. Liu, M. Wolfman, K. Karki, Y.-S. Yu, E. A. Stach, J. Caba na, K. W. Chapman, P. J. Chupas, Intergranular Cracking as a Major Cause of Long-Ter m Capacity Fading of Layered Cathodes, Nano Letters 17 (6) (2017) 3452–3457

2017
[7]

D. A. Santos, S. Rezaei, D. Zhang, Y. Luo, B. Lin, A. R. Bala krishna, B.-X. Xu, S. Banerjee, Chemistry–mechanics–geometry coupling in positive elect rode materials: a scale-bridging per- spective for mitigating degradation in lithium-ion batter ies through materials design, Chem- ical Science 14 (3) (2023) 458–484

2023
[8]

Ryu, K.-J

H.-H. Ryu, K.-J. Park, C. S. Yoon, Y.-K. Sun, Capacity Fad ing of Ni-Rich Li[Ni x Co y Mn 1– x – y ]O2 (0.6 ≤ x ≤ 0.95) Cathodes for High-Energy-Density Lithium-Ion Batte ries: Bulk or Surface Degradation?, Chemistry of Materials 30 (3) (2018) 1155–1163

2018
[9]

G. W. Nam, N.-Y. Park, K.-J. Park, J. Yang, J. Liu, C. S. Yoo n, Y.-K. Sun, Capacity Fading of Ni-Rich NCA Cathodes: Eﬀect of Microcracking Extent, ACS Energy Letters 4 (12) (2019) 2995–3001

2019
[10]

Liao, S.-J

Q.-T. Liao, S.-J. Guo, M.-Y. Qi, S.-D. Zhang, P.-Z. Ma, J .-Y. Li, A.-M. Cao, L.-J. Wan, The genesis and control of microcracks in nickel-rich cathode m aterials for lithium-ion batteries, Sustainable Energy & Fuels 7 (19) (2023) 4805–4824

2023
[11]

Makimura, S

Y. Makimura, S. Zheng, Y. Ikuhara, Y. Ukyo, Microstruct ural Observation of LiNi 0.8 Co0.15 Al0.05 O2 after Charge and Discharge by Scanning Transmission Electr on Microscopy, Journal of The Electrochemical Society 159 (7) (2012) A1070–A1073. 26

2012
[12]

Grazioli, M

D. Grazioli, M. Magri, A. Salvadori, Computational mod eling of Li-ion batteries, Computa- tional Mechanics 58 (6) (2016) 889–909

2016
[13]

Y. Zhao, P. Stein, Y. Bai, M. Al-Siraj, Y. Yang, B.-X. Xu, A review on modeling of electro- chemo-mechanics in lithium-ion batteries, Journal of Powe r Sources 413 (2019) 259–283

2019
[14]

Pistorio, D

F. Pistorio, D. Clerici, F. Mocera, A. Somà, Review on th e numerical modeling of fracture in active materials for lithium ion batteries, Journal of Powe r Sources 566 (2023) 232875

2023
[15]

Klinsmann, D

M. Klinsmann, D. Rosato, M. Kamlah, R. M. McMeeking, Mod eling Crack Growth during Li Extraction in Storage Particles Using a Fracture Phase Fi eld Approach, Journal of The Electrochemical Society 163 (2) (2016) A102–A118

2016
[16]

Klinsmann, D

M. Klinsmann, D. Rosato, M. Kamlah, R. M. McMeeking, Mod eling crack growth during Li insertion in storage particles using a fracture phase ﬁeld a pproach, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 92 (2016) 313–344

2016
[17]

J. M. Allen, P. J. Weddle, A. Verma, A. Mallarapu, F. Usse glio-Viretta, D. P. Finegan, A. M. Colclasure, W. Mai, V. Schmidt, O. Furat, D. Diercks, T. Tani m, K. Smith, Quantifying the inﬂuence of charge rate and cathode-particle architect ures on degradation of Li-ion cells through 3D continuum-level damage models, Journal of Power Sources 512 (2021) 230415

2021
[18]

Y. Bai, D. A. Santos, S. Rezaei, P. Stein, S. Banerjee, B. -X. Xu, A chemo-mechanical damage model at large deformation: numerical and experimental stu dies on polycrystalline energy materials, International Journal of Solids and Structures 228 (2021) 111099

2021
[19]

Taghikhani, P

K. Taghikhani, P. J. Weddle, J. R. Berger, R. J. Kee, Mode ling Coupled Chemo-Mechanical Behavior of Randomly Oriented NMC811 Polycrystalline Li-I on Battery Cathodes, Journal of The Electrochemical Society 168 (8) (2021) 080511

2021
[20]

Singh, S

A. Singh, S. Pal, Chemo-mechanical modeling of inter- a nd intra-granular fracture in heteroge- neous cathode with polycrystalline particles for lithium- ion battery, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 163 (2022) 104839

2022
[21]

W. Ai, B. Wu, E. Martínez-Pañeda, A coupled phase ﬁeld fo rmulation for modelling fa- tigue cracking in lithium-ion battery electrode particles , Journal of Power Sources 544 (2022) 231805. 27

2022
[22]

Shishvan, N

S. Shishvan, N. Fleck, R. McMeeking, V. Deshpande, Crac king and associated volumetric expansion of NMC811 secondary particles, Journal of Power S ources 588 (2023) 233745

2023
[23]

Rezaei, J

S. Rezaei, J. N. Okoe-Amon, C. A. Varkey, A. Asheri, H. Ru an, B.-X. Xu, A cohesive phase- ﬁeld fracture model for chemo-mechanical environments: St udies on degradation in battery materials, Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 124 (2023) 103758

2023
[24]

H. C. W. Parks, A. M. Boyce, A. Wade, T. M. M. Heenan, C. Tan , E. Martínez-Pañeda, P. R. Shearing, D. J. L. Brett, R. Jervis, Direct observation s of electrochemically induced intergranular cracking in polycrystalline NMC811 particl es, Journal of Materials Chemistry A 11 (39) (2023) 21322–21332

2023
[25]

Taghikhani, P

K. Taghikhani, P. J. Weddle, R. M. Hoﬀman, J. Berger, R. J . Kee, Electro-chemo-mechanical ﬁnite-element model of single-crystal and polycrystallin e NMC cathode particles embedded in an argyrodite solid electrolyte, Electrochimica Acta 46 0 (2023) 142585

2023
[26]

Asheri, S

A. Asheri, S. Rezaei, V. Glavas, B.-X. Xu, Microstructu re impact on chemo-mechanical frac- ture of polycrystalline lithium-ion battery cathode mater ials, Engineering Fracture Mechanics 309 (2024) 110370

2024
[27]

Bhowmick, X

A. Bhowmick, X. Gao, W. Lu, J. Chakraborty, J. Xu, Multis cale electro-chemo-mechanical model of high-capacity amorphous silicon anode material in sodium-ion batteries, Interna- tional Journal of Solids and Structures (2025) 113753

2025
[28]

S. Xia, L. Mu, Z. Xu, J. Wang, C. Wei, L. Liu, P. Pianetta, K . Zhao, X. Yu, F. Lin, Y. Liu, Chemomechanical interplay of layered cathode materials un dergoing fast charging in lithium batteries, Nano Energy 53 (2018) 753–762

2018
[29]

Ruess, S

R. Ruess, S. Schweidler, H. Hemmelmann, G. Conforto, A. Bielefeld, D. A. Weber, J. Sann, M. T. Elm, J. Janek, Inﬂuence of NCM Particle Cracking on Kine tics of Lithium-Ion Batteries with Liquid or Solid Electrolyte, Journal of The Electroche mical Society 167 (10) (2020) 100532

2020
[30]

Trevisanello, R

E. Trevisanello, R. Ruess, G. Conforto, F. H. Richter, J . Janek, Polycrystalline and Single Crystalline NCM Cathode Materials—Quantifying Particle C racking, Active Surface Area, and Lithium Diﬀusion, Advanced Energy Materials 11 (18) (20 21) 2003400. 28
[31]

W. Chen, L. J. Carrillo, A. Maji, X. Peng, J. Handy, S. Ban erjee, B. Xu, Deciphering the Interplay Between Wetting and Chemo-Mechanical Fracture i n Lithium-Ion Battery Cathode Materials, Advanced Functional Materials (2025) e17282

2025
[32]

J. Han, N. Sharma, K. Zhao, Computational modeling of co upled mechanical damage and electrochemistry in ternary oxide composite electrodes, J ournal of Power Sources 595 (2024) 234034

2024
[33]

Hageman, E

T. Hageman, E. Martínez-Pañeda, A phase ﬁeld-based fra mework for electro-chemo- mechanical fracture: Crack-contained electrolytes, chem ical reactions and stabilisation, Com- puter Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 415 (202 3) 116235
[34]

C. Cui, R. Ma, E. Martínez-Pañeda, Electro-chemo-mech anical phase ﬁeld modeling of lo- calized corrosion: theory and COMSOL implementation, Engi neering with Computers 39 (6) (2023) 3877–3894

2023
[35]

Makuch, S

M. Makuch, S. Kovacevic, M. R. Wenman, E. Martínez-Pañe da, A microstructure-sensitive electro-chemo-mechanical phase-ﬁeld model of pitting and stress corrosion cracking, Corrosion Science 232 (2024) 112031

2024
[36]

K. Park, H. Jung, L. Kuo, P. Kaghazchi, C. S. Yoon, Y. Sun, Improved Cycling Stability of Li[Ni0.90 Co0.05 Mn0.05 ]O2 Through Microstructure Modiﬁcation by Boron Doping for Li- Ion Batteries, Advanced Energy Materials 8 (25) (2018) 1801202

2018
[37]

T. F. Fuller, M. Doyle, J. Newman, Simulation and Optimi zation of the Dual Lithium Ion Insertion Cell, Journal of The Electrochemical Society 141 (1) (1994) 1–10

1994
[38]

R. Xu, H. Sun, L. S. De Vasconcelos, K. Zhao, Mechanical a nd Structural Degradation of LiNi x Mn y Co z O 2 Cathode in Li-Ion Batteries: An Experimental Study, Journa l of The Electrochemical Society 164 (13) (2017) A3333–A3341

2017
[39]

R. Xu, Y. Yang, F. Yin, P. Liu, P. Cloetens, Y. Liu, F. Lin, K. Zhao, Heterogeneous damage in Li-ion batteries: Experimental analysis and theoretica l modeling, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 129 (2019) 160–183. 29

2019
[40]

A. M. Boyce, E. Martínez-Pañeda, A. Wade, Y. S. Zhang, J. J. Bailey, T. M. Heenan, D. J. Brett, P. R. Shearing, Cracking predictions of lithium-ion battery electrodes by X-ray com- puted tomography and modelling, Journal of Power Sources 52 6 (2022) 231119

2022
[41]

P. Liu, R. Xu, Y. Liu, F. Lin, K. Zhao, Computational Mode ling of Heterogeneity of Stress, Charge, and Cyclic Damage in Composite Electrodes of Li-Ion Batteries, Journal of The Electrochemical Society 167 (4) (2020) 040527

2020
[42]

Ryu, N.-Y

H.-H. Ryu, N.-Y. Park, J. H. Seo, Y.-S. Yu, M. Sharma, R. M ücke, P. Kaghazchi, C. S. Yoon, Y.-K. Sun, A highly stabilized Ni-rich NCA cathode for high- energy lithium-ion batteries, Materials Today 36 (2020) 73–82

2020
[43]

Q. Lin, W. Guan, J. Zhou, J. Meng, W. Huang, T. Chen, Q. Gao , X. Wei, Y. Zeng, J. Li, Z. Zhang, Ni–Li anti-site defect induced intragranular cra cking in Ni-rich layer-structured cathode, Nano Energy 76 (2020) 105021

2020
[44]

H.-H. Ryu, B. Namkoong, J.-H. Kim, I. Belharouak, C. S. Y oon, Y.-K. Sun, Capacity Fading Mechanisms in Ni-Rich Single-Crystal NCM Cathodes, ACS Ene rgy Letters 6 (8) (2021) 2726–2734

2021
[45]

Y. Tu, B. Wu, W. Ai, E. Martínez-Pañeda, Inﬂuence of conc entration-dependent material properties on the fracture and debonding of electrode parti cles with core–shell structure, Journal of Power Sources 603 (2024) 234395

2024
[46]

T. E. Ashton, P. J. Baker, C. Sotelo-Vazquez, C. J. M. Foo ter, K. M. Kojima, T. Matsukawa, T. Kamiyama, J. A. Darr, Stoichiometrically driven disorde r and local diﬀusion in NMC cathodes, Journal of Materials Chemistry A 9 (16) (2021) 104 77–10486

2021
[47]

Ghosh, J

A. Ghosh, J. M. Foster, G. Oﬀer, M. Marinescu, A Shrinkin g-Core Model for the Degrada- tion of High-Nickel Cathodes (NMC811) in Li-Ion Batteries: Passivation Layer Growth and Oxygen Evolution, Journal of The Electrochemical Society 1 68 (2) (2021) 020509

2021
[48]

L. O. Valøen, J. N. Reimers, Transport Properties of LiP F6-Based Li-Ion Battery Electrolytes, Journal of The Electrochemical Society (2005). 30

2005
[49]

Q. Gan, N. Qin, Z. Li, S. Gu, K. Liao, K. Zhang, L. Lu, Z. Xu, Z. Lu, Surface spinel recon- struction to suppress detrimental phase transition for sta ble LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 cathodes, Nano Research 16 (1) (2023) 513–520

2023
[50]

S. S. Pandurangi, D. S. Hall, C. P. Grey, V. S. Deshpande, N. A. Fleck, Chemo-Mechanical Analysis of Lithiation/Delithiation of Ni-rich Single Cry stals, Journal of The Electrochemical Society 170 (5) (2023) 050531

2023
[51]

Xu, Electrolytes and interphases in li-ion batterie s and beyond, Chemical reviews 114 (23) (2014) 11503–11618

K. Xu, Electrolytes and interphases in li-ion batterie s and beyond, Chemical reviews 114 (23) (2014) 11503–11618. 31

2014