pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.06681 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-08 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.SY

Model-Agnostic Energy Throughput Control for Range and Lifetime Extension of Electric Vehicles via Cell-Level Inverters

Shida Jiang , Shengyu Tao , Vincent Molina , Junzhe Shi , Scott Moura This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:02 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.SY
keywords electric vehiclesbattery management systemscell-level inverterslifetime extensionenergy throughput controlstate-of-charge state-of-health balancinglithium-ion degradation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Cell-level inverters let EVs route energy to healthier battery cells, extending pack lifetime by 7 to 38 percent in simulations.

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

The paper explores replacing a single large inverter with one at each battery cell so that energy flow can be managed individually rather than at the pack level. It introduces a control method that works without detailed battery models and directs more charging and discharging cycles toward cells that show less wear. During charging the method lets state-of-charge values spread out to equalize long-term health; during driving it keeps state-of-charge balanced to use the full available capacity. Simulations on two common lithium chemistries and a realistic Tesla driving profile show the approach improves lifetime over ordinary balancing methods while still delivering usable range.

Core claim

By performing power conversion at the individual cell with an H-bridge inverter topology, the authors enable independent control of each cell's energy throughput. Their model-agnostic controller then routes more energy through healthier cells: it allows state-of-charge divergence during charging to promote state-of-health equalization and rebalances state-of-charge during discharge to maximize usable pack capacity under per-cell limits. When tested on lithium-manganese-oxide and lithium-iron-phosphate aging models with a Tesla Model 3 charge-discharge profile across fourteen parameter settings, the strategy produces a 7-38 percent lifetime gain relative to a conventional state-of-charge-only

What carries the argument

The H-bridge cell-level inverter topology that supplies independent power conversion for each cell, paired with an energy-throughput controller that preferentially directs cycles to higher state-of-health cells.

If this is right

  • Battery packs can reach longer total energy throughput without requiring new cell chemistries or hardware redesign beyond the inverter topology.
  • The same control logic produces gains on both lithium-manganese-oxide and lithium-iron-phosphate cells and across varied driving profiles.
  • Usable driving range remains intact because weaker cells are protected from over-use while stronger cells carry more of the load.
  • Routine daily charging sessions become an active means of slowing pack degradation with little extra computation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Pack designers could accept greater variation among individual cells at purchase, potentially lowering manufacturing cost.
  • The approach could be deployed as a software update on vehicles already equipped with cell-level inverters rather than requiring entirely new hardware.
  • Real-time monitoring of cell health could further refine the routing decisions beyond the open-loop strategy tested here.

Load-bearing premise

Cell-level H-bridge inverters can be manufactured at scale with acceptable efficiency, cost, and heat management, and the two aging models used accurately predict real battery degradation under the tested conditions.

What would settle it

A multi-year test on physical battery packs equipped with cell-level inverters that applies the proposed controller and measures whether actual lifetime extension falls outside the simulated 7-38 percent range compared with standard balancing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.06681 by Junzhe Shi, Scott Moura, Shengyu Tao, Shida Jiang, Vincent Molina.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison between the (a) conventional inverter powertrain and (b) the H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The basic idea of level-shifted pulse width modulation control [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (a) Balanced and (b) imbalanced power distributions among the three phases of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of different control methods for the cell-level inverter with two cells [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The division of the charging stages. In the example shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The flow chart of the optimization algorithm. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Long-term aging simulation setups. modeled as a function of SOC. By fitting the charging data of a Tesla Model 3 available on EVKX.net, we obtain the following empirical function: I no max = 2.6963 − 2.5795 · SOC (25) Two lithium-ion chemistries are considered: lithium iron phosphate (LFP) and lithium manganese oxide (LMO). The OCV–SOC relationships for LFP [40] and LMO [41] are given in (26) and (27), res… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Examples of the proposed charging & discharging strategy. Cells with higher [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of different strategies in the long-term aging simulation for (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

A conventional electric vehicle (EV) powertrain relies on a centralized high-voltage DC-AC inverter, thereby limiting cell-level control and potentially reducing overall driving range and battery lifetime. This paper studies an H-bridge-based cell-level inverter topology that performs power conversion at the cell level, enabling independent control of individual cells and expanding the design space for battery management. Leveraging these additional degrees of freedom, we propose a model-agnostic energy-throughput control strategy that extends EV range while improving battery-pack lifetime. Because usable energy (and thus driving range) and lifetime are governed by the cells with the lowest state-of-charge (SOC) and state-of-health (SOH), respectively, the proposed controller preferentially routes energy throughput to healthier cells. Specifically, during charging, it permits cell SOCs to diverge to promote SOH equalization; during discharging, it rebalances SOC to maximize usable capacity under per-cell constraints. The proposed SOC-SOH-aware control strategy is evaluated on two aging models representing lithium manganese oxide and lithium iron phosphate chemistries, using a Tesla Model 3 charge-discharge profile across 14 different parameter settings. Simulations show a 7-38% improvement in lifetime relative to a conventional SOC-only balancing baseline. More broadly, the results suggest a software-defined pathway to extend EV pack life through routine charging, with minimal reliance on specific degradation models or discharge profiles.

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.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an H-bridge-based cell-level inverter topology for EVs enabling independent per-cell power conversion and control. It introduces a model-agnostic SOC-SOH energy-throughput strategy that permits SOC divergence during charging to equalize SOH across cells and rebalances SOC during discharge to maximize usable capacity under per-cell limits. Simulations on empirical LMO and LFP aging models driven by a Tesla Model 3 charge-discharge profile across 14 parameter settings report 7-38% lifetime gains relative to a conventional SOC-only balancing baseline.

Significance. If the reported lifetime gains prove robust, the work demonstrates a software-defined control pathway to improve pack utilization and longevity with limited dependence on specific degradation models, which could inform distributed-inverter BMS architectures for EVs.

major comments (3)
  1. [Evaluation section] Evaluation section: the central 7-38% lifetime improvement is obtained from simulations, yet no error bars, variance across the 14 parameter settings, or sensitivity analysis is reported; this weakens confidence in the quantitative claim and its dependence on the chosen aging models and baseline.
  2. [Aging models and simulation setup] Aging models and simulation setup: the strategy's benefit relies on the aging models correctly capturing reduced degradation when SOC trajectories are deliberately diverged during charging; the manuscript does not provide evidence that the LMO and LFP models were validated or identified under such SOC-divergent, per-cell current conditions rather than balanced-SOC or constant-current data.
  3. [Baseline comparison] Baseline comparison: the SOC-only balancing baseline is not described in sufficient detail for the cell-level H-bridge topology (e.g., how per-cell voltage or current limits are enforced in the baseline versus the proposed controller), making it unclear whether the reported gains arise from the SOC-SOH logic or from differences in how the topology is utilized.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states results across '14 different parameter settings' without enumerating the parameters or their ranges, which would clarify the breadth of the evaluation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed review of our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each major comment below and revised the paper where appropriate to improve clarity and robustness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Evaluation section] Evaluation section: the central 7-38% lifetime improvement is obtained from simulations, yet no error bars, variance across the 14 parameter settings, or sensitivity analysis is reported; this weakens confidence in the quantitative claim and its dependence on the chosen aging models and baseline.

    Authors: We agree that reporting variance and sensitivity would strengthen the quantitative claims. Although the 14 parameter settings were selected to span relevant operating conditions, explicit error bars and sensitivity results were not included in the original submission. In the revised manuscript we have added error bars (mean and standard deviation of lifetime improvement across the 14 settings) and a new sensitivity analysis subsection examining the effects of the SOH-equalization threshold and rebalancing rate on the reported gains. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Aging models and simulation setup] Aging models and simulation setup: the strategy's benefit relies on the aging models correctly capturing reduced degradation when SOC trajectories are deliberately diverged during charging; the manuscript does not provide evidence that the LMO and LFP models were validated or identified under such SOC-divergent, per-cell current conditions rather than balanced-SOC or constant-current data.

    Authors: The LMO and LFP models are empirical models taken from the literature and incorporate SOC-dependent degradation terms. Direct validation data under per-cell SOC-divergent charging conditions are not available in the source studies. We have revised the manuscript to state the model origins explicitly, to discuss the extrapolation assumptions, and to note the associated uncertainty as a limitation of the present evaluation. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Baseline comparison] Baseline comparison: the SOC-only balancing baseline is not described in sufficient detail for the cell-level H-bridge topology (e.g., how per-cell voltage or current limits are enforced in the baseline versus the proposed controller), making it unclear whether the reported gains arise from the SOC-SOH logic or from differences in how the topology is utilized.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the baseline description lacked sufficient implementation detail. The SOC-only baseline applies conventional balancing at every time step using the same H-bridge topology and identical per-cell voltage/current limits as the proposed controller. In the revised manuscript we have expanded the baseline description, added a comparison table of control actions, and clarified that the performance difference is attributable to the SOC-SOH logic rather than topology utilization. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: model-agnostic controller evaluated on independent aging models

full rationale

The paper derives a SOC-SOH control policy that permits SOC divergence during charge and rebalancing during discharge, then evaluates it via forward simulation on two separate empirical aging models (LMO and LFP) under a fixed Tesla Model 3 drive cycle. The 7-38 % lifetime delta is obtained by direct comparison against an SOC-only baseline; no equation, fitted parameter, or self-citation reduces this delta to the controller inputs by construction. The aging models are treated as external oracles, and the control law itself is stated without reference to the specific degradation equations. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The evaluation depends on two standard battery aging models whose parameters are not derived in the paper; the cell-level inverter is treated as a feasible topology without new derivation of its efficiency or cost.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard LMO and LFP aging models accurately represent cell degradation under the Tesla Model 3 charge-discharge profile
    Invoked for the 14-parameter simulation evaluation

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5559 in / 1351 out tokens · 70312 ms · 2026-05-10T18:02:04.884805+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Climate TRACE, Climate TRACE explore: United states (usa) emissions by sector (co2e, 100-year gwp), year 2025,https: //climatetrace.org/explore#admin=United%20States%20(USA): 255:USA:country&gas=co2e&year=2025&timeframe=100&sector= &asset=, accessed 2026-02-25 (2026)

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    K. Wagh, P. Dhatrak, A review on powertrain subsystems and charging technology in battery electric vehicles: Current and future trends, Pro- ceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering 236 (4) (2022) 479–496

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    D.-D. Tran, M. Vafaeipour, M. El Baghdadi, R. Barrero, J. Van Mierlo, O. Hegazy, Thorough state-of-the-art analysis of electric and hybrid ve- hicle powertrains: Topologies and integrated energy management strate- gies, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109596. 32

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Vishnuram, S

    P. Vishnuram, S. P, V. K, M. Bajaj, T. Khurshaid, A. Nauman, S. Kamel, A comprehensive review on ev power converter topologies charger types infrastructure and communication techniques, Frontiers in Energy Research 11 (2023) 1103093

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Z. Du, B. Ozpineci, L. M. Tolbert, J. N. Chiasson, Dc–ac cascaded h- bridge multilevel boost inverter with no inductors for electric/hybrid electric vehicle applications, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applica- tions 45 (3) (2009) 963–970

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    Chowdhury, E

    S. Chowdhury, E. Gurpinar, B. Ozpineci, High-energy density capaci- tors for electric vehicle traction inverters, in: 2020 IEEE Transportation Electrification Conference & Expo (ITEC), IEEE, 2020, pp. 644–650

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Zhong, C

    L. Zhong, C. Zhang, Y. He, Z. Chen, A method for the estimation of the battery pack state of charge based on in-pack cells uniformity analysis, Applied energy 113 (2014) 558–564

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Kandasamy, M

    K. Kandasamy, M. Vilathgamuwa, K. J. Tseng, Inter-module state-of- charge balancing and fault-tolerant operation of cascaded h-bridge con- verter using multi-dimensional modulation for electric vehicle applica- tion, IET Power Electronics 8 (10) (2015) 1912–1919

    work page 2015

  9. [9]

    T. Wu, F. Ji, L. Liao, C. Chang, Voltage-soc balancing control scheme for series-connected lithium-ion battery packs, Journal of Energy Stor- age 25 (2019) 100895

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    Quraan, T

    M. Quraan, T. Yeo, P. Tricoli, Design and control of modular multilevel converters for battery electric vehicles, IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics 31 (1) (2015) 507–517

    work page 2015

  11. [11]

    Sastry, P

    J. Sastry, P. Bakas, H. Kim, L. Wang, A. Marinopoulos, Evaluation of cascaded h-bridge inverter for utility-scale photovoltaic systems, Renew- able Energy 69 (2014) 208–218

    work page 2014

  12. [12]

    Gemma, G

    F. Gemma, G. Tresca, A. Formentini, P. Zanchetta, Balanced charging algorithm for chb in an ev powertrain, Energies 16 (14) (2023) 5565

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    Tresca, A

    G. Tresca, A. Formentini, F. Gemma, F. Lusardi, R. Leuzzi, P. Zanchetta, Soc governed algorithm for an ev cascaded h-bridge con- nected to a dc charger, in: 2022 24th European Conference on Power 33 Electronics and Applications (EPE’22 ECCE Europe), IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–9

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    Baumhöfer, M

    T. Baumhöfer, M. Brühl, S. Rothgang, D. U. Sauer, Production caused variation in capacity aging trend and correlation to initial cell perfor- mance, Journal of Power Sources 247 (2014) 332–338

    work page 2014

  15. [15]

    S. J. Harris, D. J. Harris, C. Li, Failure statistics for commercial lithium ion batteries: A study of 24 pouch cells, Journal of Power Sources 342 (2017) 589–597

    work page 2017

  16. [16]

    J. Lin, X. Liu, S. Li, C. Zhang, S. Yang, A review on recent progress, challenges and perspective of battery thermal management system, In- ternational Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 167 (2021) 120834

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    L. He, Z. Yang, Y. Gu, C. Liu, T. He, K. G. Shin, Soh-aware reconfigu- ration in battery packs, IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid 9 (4) (2016) 3727–3735

    work page 2016

  18. [18]

    M. M. U. Rehman, F. Zhang, M. Evzelman, R. Zane, K. Smith, D. Mak- simovic, Advanced cell-level control for extending electric vehicle battery pack lifetime, in: 2016 IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and Exposi- tion (ECCE), IEEE, 2016, pp. 1–8

    work page 2016

  19. [19]

    Jiang, Z

    S. Jiang, Z. Song, A review on the state of health estimation methods of lead-acid batteries, Journal of Power Sources 517 (2022) 230710

    work page 2022

  20. [21]

    Martinez-Laserna, I

    E. Martinez-Laserna, I. Gandiaga, E. Sarasketa-Zabala, J. Badeda, D.- I. Stroe, M. Swierczynski, A. Goikoetxea, Battery second life: Hype, hope or reality? a critical review of the state of the art, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 93 (2018) 701–718

    work page 2018

  21. [22]

    Saxena, C

    S. Saxena, C. Le Floch, J. MacDonald, S. Moura, Quantifying ev bat- tery end-of-life through analysis of travel needs with vehicle powertrain models, Journal of Power Sources 282 (2015) 265–276. 34

    work page 2015

  22. [23]

    Canals Casals, M

    L. Canals Casals, M. Rodríguez, C. Corchero, R. E. Carrillo, Evaluation of the end-of-life of electric vehicle batteries according to the state-of- health, World Electric Vehicle Journal 10 (4) (2019) 63

    work page 2019

  23. [24]

    M.Etxandi-Santolaya, L.C.Casals, T.Montes, C.Corchero, Areelectric vehicle batteries being underused? a review of current practices and sources of circularity, Journal of environmental management 338 (2023) 117814

    work page 2023

  24. [25]

    Revision 2 (1 1996).doi:10.2172/214312

    USABC electric vehicle Battery Test Procedures Manual. Revision 2 (1 1996).doi:10.2172/214312. URLhttps://www.osti.gov/biblio/214312

    work page doi:10.2172/214312 1996

  25. [26]

    J. P. Christophersen, Battery Test Manual For Electric Vehicles, Revi- sion 3 (6 2015).doi:10.2172/1186745. URLhttps://www.osti.gov/biblio/1186745

    work page doi:10.2172/1186745 2015

  26. [27]

    CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard, Section1962.8-WarrantyRequirements for Zero-Emission and Batteries in Plug-in Hybrid Electric 2026 and Subsequent Model Year Passenger Cars and Light-Duty Trucks (3 2024)

    work page 2026

  27. [28]

    (3 2024)

    California Air Resources Board, Section 1962.4 - Zero-Emission Vehicle Requirements for 2026 and Subsequent Model Year Passenger Cars and Light-Duty Trucks. (3 2024)

    work page 1962

  28. [29]

    Makan, M

    O. Makan, M. Gossen, K.-P. Birke, Variation in capacity aging trend of lithium-ion cells regarding sudden death spread, Energy Reports 11 (2024) 2003–2010

    work page 2024

  29. [30]

    Kupper, B

    C. Kupper, B. Weißhar, S. Rißmann, W. G. Bessler, End-of-life predic- tion of a lithium-ion battery cell based on mechanistic aging models of the graphite electrode, Journal of The Electrochemical Society 165 (14) (2018) A3468–A3480

    work page 2018

  30. [31]

    California Air Resources Board, Section 1962.5 - Data Standardization Requirements for 2026 and Subsequent Model Year Light-Duty Zero Emission Vehicles and Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (3 2024)

    work page 1962

  31. [32]

    M. B. Latran, A. Teke, Investigation of multilevel multifunctional grid connected inverter topologies and control strategies used in photovoltaic systems, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 42 (2015) 361–376. 35

    work page 2015

  32. [33]

    S. Ray, N. Gupta, R. A. Gupta, A comprehensive review on cascaded h-bridge inverter-based large-scale grid-connected photovoltaic, IETE Technical review 34 (5) (2017) 463–477

    work page 2017

  33. [34]

    K. Zhou, D. Wang, Relationship between space-vector modulation and three-phase carrier-based pwm: a comprehensive analysis [three-phase inverters], IEEE transactions on industrial electronics 49 (1) (2002) 186– 196

    work page 2002

  34. [35]

    Sochor, H

    P. Sochor, H. Akagi, Theoretical and experimental comparison between phase-shifted pwm and level-shifted pwm in a modular multilevel sdbc inverter for utility-scale photovoltaic applications, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications 53 (5) (2017) 4695–4707

    work page 2017

  35. [36]

    Sochor, H

    P. Sochor, H. Akagi, Which is more suitable to a modular multilevel sdbc inverter for utility-scale pv applications, phase-shifted pwm or level-shifted pwm?, in: 2016 IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition (ECCE), IEEE, 2016, pp. 1–7

    work page 2016

  36. [37]

    P. K. Roy, M. Shahjalal, T. Shams, A. Fly, S. Stoyanov, M. Ahsan, J. Haider, A critical review on battery aging and state estimation technologies of lithium-ion batteries: prospects and issues, Electronics 12 (19) (2023) 4105

    work page 2023

  37. [38]

    Vasylyev, A

    A. Vasylyev, A. Vannoni, A. Sorce, Optimal dispatch of li-ion battery energy storage, reviewing and considering cycling and calendar ageing models, Applied Thermal Engineering (2025) 125597

    work page 2025

  38. [39]

    K. K. Duru, C. Karra, P. Venkatachalam, S. A. Betha, A. A. Madhavan, S. Kalluri, Critical insights into fast charging techniques for lithium-ion batteries in electric vehicles, IEEE Transactions on Device and Materials Reliability 21 (1) (2021) 137–152

    work page 2021

  39. [40]

    L. Lam, P. Bauer, E. Kelder, A practical circuit-based model for li-ion battery cells in electric vehicle applications, in: 2011 IEEE 33rd Interna- tionalTelecommunicationsEnergyConference(INTELEC),IEEE,2011, pp. 1–9

    work page 2011

  40. [41]

    Zhang, J

    C. Zhang, J. Jiang, L. Zhang, S. Liu, L. Wang, P. C. Loh, A generalized soc-ocv model for lithium-ion batteries and the soc estimation for lnmco battery, Energies 9 (11) (2016) 900. 36

    work page 2016

  41. [42]

    Nájera, J

    J. Nájera, J. Arribas, R. de Castro, C. Núñez, Semi-empirical ageing model for lfp and nmc li-ion battery chemistries, Journal of Energy Storage 72 (2023) 108016

    work page 2023

  42. [43]

    B. Xu, A. Oudalov, A. Ulbig, G. Andersson, D. S. Kirschen, Modeling of lithium-ion battery degradation for cell life assessment, IEEE Trans- actions on Smart Grid 9 (2) (2016) 1131–1140

    work page 2016

  43. [44]

    P. M. Attia, A. Bills, F. B. Planella, P. Dechent, G. Dos Reis, M. Dubarry, P. Gasper, R. Gilchrist, S. Greenbank, D. Howey, et al., “knees” in lithium-ion battery aging trajectories, Journal of The Elec- trochemical Society 169 (6) (2022) 060517. 37

    work page 2022