Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Optimal convergence in finite element semi-discrete error analysis of the Doyle-Fuller-Newman model beyond 1D with a novel projection operator

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 Optimal finite element error rates for the Doyle-Fuller-Newman battery model are proved in two and three spatial dimensions.

desk verdict New tensor-product projection for the pseudo-(N+1)-D particle equation genuinely fixes Bermejo's defects, but the optimal h+(Δr)^2 theorem is conditional on an unproved uniform L∞ bound on the discrete solution (Assumption 3.4). read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10758 v2 pith:OOP7TE35 submitted 2024-11-16 math.NA cs.NA

Shu Xu , Liqun Cao This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65M6065M1535K5535Q80
keywords lithium-ionbatteriesDoyle-Fuller-Newmanmodelfiniteelementerroranalysissemi-discreteapproximationpseudo-(N+1)-dimensionalequationprojectionoperatoroptimalconvergencerateselliptic-parabolicsystem
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 proves that a semi-discrete finite element discretization of the Doyle-Fuller-Newman (DFN) lithium-ion battery model converges at optimal rates in spatial dimensions 2 and 3, not only in the one-dimensional setting analyzed before. The target is the full coupled elliptic-parabolic system for electrolyte potential $\varphi_1$, electrode potential $\varphi_2$, electrolyte concentration $c_1$, and particle concentration $c_2$, including the pseudo-($N+1$)-dimensional radial diffusion equation. Under the paper's regularity assumptions, the error is $O(h)+O((\Delta r)^2)$ for the potentials, electrolyte concentration, and surface concentration, while the particle concentration itself obeys $O(h+(\Delta r)^{2-q})$ in the radial $H^q_r$ norm for $q=0,1$. The proof runs through a new projection operator for the pseudo-($N+1$)-dimensional equation and deliberately avoids a change of variables, which lets the analysis extend to non-isothermal settings. Numerical experiments in 2D+1D and 3D+1D with real battery parameters report convergence rates matching the theory.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is a new projection operator $P_{h\Delta r}$ for the pseudo-($N+1$)-dimensional diffusion equation, projecting into the tensor-product space of piecewise-constant functions in $x$ and piecewise-linear functions in $r$ through the weighted inner product $\int_\Omega\int_0^R (b\,\partial_r w\,\partial_r v+\lambda wv)r^2\,dr\,dx$, with $b=k_2$ and $\lambda=1$. The operator factorizes as $P_{h\Delta r}=P_hP_{\Delta r}=P_{\Delta r}P_h$ and, through a piecewise-constant-in-$x$ averaging operator, commutes with the radial derivative $\partial_r$. That factorization yields clean approximation errors $O(h+(\Delta r)^{2-q})$ in the radial $H^q_r$ norm and, crucially, $O(h+(\Delta r)^2)$ for the radial trace at $r=R_s(x)$, which is exactly the surface concentration $\bar c_2$ entering the Butler-Volmer kinetics. All subsequent estimates for the coupled elliptic-parabolic system are organized around this decomposition.

What would settle it

Run the 2D or 3D discretization under an aggressive discharge that drives the discrete electrolyte concentration toward zero or the particle concentration toward its upper limit as $h$ and $\Delta r$ shrink; if the observed convergence order drops below the predicted $O(h)+O((\Delta r)^2)$, the unproved uniform-bound assumption is doing load-bearing work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 3.9: under Assumptions 2.1-2.2 and 3.1-3.4, the semi-discrete finite element solution converges at optimal order in every unknown. For almost every $t\in[0,T]$, $\|\varphi_1-\varphi_{1h}\|_{L^2(0,t;H^1(\Omega))}+\|\varphi_2-\varphi_{2h}\|_{L^2(0,t;H^1(\Omega_2))}+\|c_1-c_{1h}\|_{L^2(0,t;H^1(\Omega))}+\|\bar c_2-\bar c_{2h}\|_{L^2(0,t;L^2(\Omega_2))}$ is bounded by $C(h+(\Delta r)^2)$ plus initial-data projection errors, and $\|c_2-c_{2h\Delta r}\|_{L^2(0,t;L^2(\Omega_2;H^q_r))}$ is bounded by $C(h+(\Delta r)^{2-q})$ for $q=0,1$. In words, refining the spatial mesh and the radial particle mesh both deliver their full expected accuracy simultaneously, with the surface concentration losing nothing and the interior particle concentration losing exactly one radial power in the radial $H^1$ norm. This is the first convergence analysis of this kind for the genuine 2D+1D and 3D+1D cases, and the paper backs it with convergence tables computed from real battery parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The proof assumes the computed discrete solution stays bounded and away from the physical limits (zero concentration, full particle concentration, unbounded potentials) uniformly as the mesh is refined; this regularity is assumed, not proved, and the error bound collapses without it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the theorem is correct, uniform refinement of the spatial mesh and the radial mesh in a DFN battery simulation yields the full expected first-order and second-order accuracy in 2D and 3D without special radial meshing.
  • The simultaneous error control means coupled quantities such as electrode reaction current and surface concentration inherit the same $O(h+(\Delta r)^2)$ accuracy in the norms stated.
  • Because the analysis avoids the change of variables used in earlier work, the same error estimates carry over to thermally coupled DFN models with non-uniform temperature.
  • The numerical verification using real battery parameters shows the predicted rates are observable in practice, supporting the use of piecewise-linear-in-$r$, piecewise-constant-in-$x$ discretizations in production codes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves Assumption 3.4 as a hypothesis rather than deriving it, and it cites P2D analyses for the existence of regular weak solutions while noting the P4D case remains a gap; supplying either ingredient would make the theorem unconditional.
  • The projection operator construction is likely transferable to other multiscale equations coupling a macroscale coordinate with a radial microscale coordinate, such as thermal-electrochemical models, with the weight and shift chosen for the relevant operator.
  • A practical corollary not tested here is mesh balancing: choosing $\Delta r\approx\sqrt{h}$ would equilibrate the spatial and radial error contributions, though the optimal constant would need numerical tuning.
  • A natural stress test is to push the model outside the stated assumptions, for example very high discharge, near-zero electrolyte concentration, or strong thermal gradients, and check whether the convergence rates degrade exactly where Assumption 3.4 fails.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a finite element semi-discrete error analysis for the Doyle-Fuller-Newman (DFN) lithium-ion battery model in spatial dimensions N=1,2,3. Its main technical contribution is a tensor-product projection operator P_hΔr on the pseudo-(N+1)-dimensional particle domain, for which the authors prove approximation estimates in L2(Ω;H^q_r), q=0,1, and a trace estimate at r=R_s. These projection estimates are combined with elliptic error estimates for the two potentials and parabolic estimates for the electrolyte and particle concentrations. Theorem 3.9 asserts that, under Assumptions 2.1-2.2 and 3.1-3.4, the semi-discrete errors satisfy the bound ||φ1-φ1h||_{L2(0,t;H1(Ω))} + ||φ2-φ2h||_{L2(0,t;H1(Ω2))} + ||c1-c1h||_{L2(0,t;H1(Ω))} + ||c̄2-c̄2h||_{L2(0,t;L2(Ω2))} ≤ C(h+(Δr)^2) plus initial-data errors, and ||c2-c2hΔr||_{L2(0,t;L2(Ω2;H^q_r))} ≤ C(h+(Δr)^{2-q}) for q=0,1. Numerical experiments in 2D+1D and 3D+1D settings with real battery parameters report observed rates consistent with O(h) and O((Δr)^2).

Significance. If the main theorem is accepted, this would be the first finite element convergence analysis for the DFN model beyond one spatial dimension, achieving rates that are optimal with respect to both the macroscopic mesh size h and the particle-radius mesh Δr. The projection operator construction is a genuine contribution: it is natural for the pseudo-(N+1)-dimensional structure, avoids the change of variables used in earlier works, and the approximation arguments in Section 3.1 are clean and internally coherent. The conditional error estimates are also presented carefully, with explicit tracking of where each assumption enters. The numerical experiments with realistic battery parameters are a useful step, and the paper explicitly identifies the added difficulty caused by avoiding the change of variables. However, the advertised optimal-convergence statement is conditional on Assumption 3.4, a uniform L∞ and positivity bound on the discrete solution that is neither proved nor derived from the other assumptions. This currently prevents the paper from fully delivering the claimed bridging of the gap for N=2,3.

major comments (4)
  1. [Assumption 3.4 and Theorem 3.9] Assumption 3.4 is a load-bearing hypothesis that is asserted without proof, and it is used essentially in the proof of the main theorem. In Lemma 3.7 it provides the coercivity κ1(c1h) ≥ C > 0 and the Lipschitz continuity of Jm, Um, κi, and f′; in Lemma 3.6 it provides the Lipschitz estimate (3.26); and Lemma 3.8 uses the same estimate. The manuscript gives no discrete maximum principle, no invariant-region argument, and no smallness/bootstrap argument showing that the semi-discrete solution of (3.2)-(3.5) satisfies these bounds independently of h and Δr. The exact-solution bounds in Assumption 3.3 do not imply them, since the c1 equation has a non-monotone source coupled to the potentials. Consequently Theorem 3.9 is an a priori error estimate conditional on discrete regularity, rather than an unconditional optimal-convergence theorem. The authors should either prove such a bound (for example, using the monotonicity of ∂Jm/∂η to control the coupling) or explicitly restate the theorem and the abstract as conditional.
  2. [Appendix A, proof of Lemma 3.7] The coercivity step contains the sentence 'Selecting ε < 1/2 sufficiently large, we then have...', which is internally contradictory: for ε < 1/2 the coefficient (1 - 1/(2ε)) is negative, and its magnitude becomes small only as ε approaches 1/2 from below, not as ε becomes large. As written, the proof of coercivity is therefore not justified, although the intended argument (choose ε close to 1/2 so that the negative L2 coefficient can be absorbed by the Poincaré inequality) appears repairable. This must be corrected.
  3. [Section 4, Tables 1-4] The reported L2(Ω2;L2_r) errors for c2 are on the order of 10^{-12} to 10^{-13} while the concentrations are O(1), so the observed rates around 2.04 are at the level of round-off and do not provide meaningful confirmation of the (Δr)^2 rate for that quantity. The H1_r errors and the errors for the other variables do show clean rates, but the claim of being the first detailed numerical validation should be limited to those more robust quantities, or the experiments should be redesigned so that the c2 L2 error is well above machine precision (for example, by using coarser radial meshes and a reference solution that is not excessively fine).
  4. [Assumption 3.2 and the claimed gap for N=2,3] Theorem 3.9 also assumes H2-regularity of the exact solution (Assumption 3.2) for N=2,3. As the introduction itself notes, well-posedness of the full P4D model in these dimensions is open. The theorem therefore does not unconditionally bridge the gap for N=2,3; it establishes the error estimate conditional on a regularity hypothesis that is currently unproved for the P4D case. This limitation should be stated explicitly when the contribution is summarized in the abstract and introduction, rather than only appearing as a technical assumption in Section 3.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1] The word 'convenent' should be 'convenient'.
  2. [Appendix B, proof of Lemma 3.8] The text 'by Assumption 3.33' should read 'by Assumption 3.3'; the proof of Lemma 3.8 also relies on the Lipschitz estimate (3.26), which is derived only in Lemma 3.6, so the dependence should be stated explicitly.
  3. [Abstract and Theorem 3.9] The abstract states optimal convergence rates of h+(Δr)^2, but for c2 in the H1_r norm the theorem gives the rate h+Δr (i.e., (Δr)^{2-q} with q=1); the statement 'h+(Δr)^2' should be qualified as holding for the L2 norms of c2 and for the quantities in the first display of Theorem 3.9.
  4. [Section 3, definition of VhΔr] The space VhΔr is defined in (3.1) as an intersection of tensor-product spaces over Ωn and Ωp; since the two tensor-product spaces act on disjoint subdomains, the intended object is a piecewise-defined space rather than an intersection, and the notation should be clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the convergence theorem is a conditional a priori estimate, and Assumption 3.4 is an unproved regularity hypothesis rather than a fitted or self-referential input.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an a priori finite-element error estimate whose rate h+(Δr)^2 is obtained from approximation properties of the newly introduced projection operator PhΔr (Lemmas 3.1-3.5 and Theorems 3.4-3.5) together with standard elliptic and parabolic estimates for the coupled system. No parameter is fitted to data, and h and Δr are mesh sizes, so the rates are not produced by calibration. Assumption 3.4, which requires uniform L∞ bounds and positivity of the discrete solution, is explicitly an assumption and is not derived from the target error estimate; it is a genuine but unproved regularity hypothesis that makes the nonlinear coefficients Lipschitz and the elliptic operator coercive in Lemmas 3.6-3.8 and Theorem 3.9. That is a completeness or correctness gap, not a circular reduction, because the assumption does not define any quantity in terms of the conclusion. The citations to Bermejo (2021) and Kroener (2016) are external results for trace inequalities and Lipschitz continuity, and the authors are not citing their own prior work as the load-bearing justification. The numerical verification compares solutions on successively refined meshes to a reference solution on a very fine mesh, which is a standard convergence test and does not fit parameters to the quantities being predicted. The paper itself notes that global well-posedness for the P4D case remains open and that Assumption 3.4 is not proved, but these limitations reduce the strength of the theorem without making its derivation circular. Therefore no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central estimate carries a heavy ledger of regularity and boundedness assumptions. No physical constants are fitted, but the paper assumes (i) a sufficiently regular weak solution of the N-dimensional model whose existence is only cited from P2D works, (ii) uniform L∞ control of gradients and concentrations of the exact solution, and (iii) uniform L∞/positivity bounds on the discrete solution that are not proved. Assumption 3.4 is the most ad hoc entry: the proof needs the discrete solution to stay bounded and away from zero independently of h and Δr, which is essentially a discrete maximum principle or an a priori bound that the paper does not establish.

free parameters (1)
  • λ = 1
    Weight in the projection operator (3.6)-(3.8). Chosen by hand as 1 for convenience; the rates are independent of λ (any positive λ works), so it is not a calibrated parameter.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Assumptions 3.1-3.3: exact solution has H^2_pw spatial regularity and L∞ bounds on ∇φ, ∇c1, plus bounds away from 0.
    Invoked in Lemmas 3.6-3.8 and Appendix A to make nonlinear coefficients Lipschitz and to obtain H^1 interpolation estimates. They are stated, not derived.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 3.4: the discrete solution (φ1h, φ2h, c1h, c̄2h) satisfies uniform L∞ bounds and positivity bounds independent of h and Δr.
    Imposed in Section 3 to make the discrete nonlinear terms coercive and Lipschitz; no proof is given, and it is not a standard consequence of the regularity assumptions.
  • domain assumption There exists a unique weak solution to (1.1)-(1.9) with regularity Assumption 3.2; cited to Kroener (2016) and Díaz et al. (2019).
    Section 2.3 states this under more stringent assumptions, but the cited references are P2D (1D) analyses; the introduction acknowledges the P4D case is open. The central theorem inherits this assumption.
  • standard math Weighted trace inequality Proposition 2.1 and H^2_r evaluation functional bounds from Bermejo (2021) and Schreiber-Eisenstat (1981).
    Used in Lemma 3.3 to commute the projection with ∂/∂r and in Lemma 3.6 to bound the trace of θc2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimal convergence in finite element semi-discrete error analysis of the Doyle-Fuller-Newman model beyond 1D with a novel projection operator." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OOP7TE35

@misc{pith2026241110758,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimal convergence in finite element semi-discrete error analysis of the Doyle-Fuller-Newman model beyond 1D with a novel projection operator},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OOP7TE35}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10758}
}
abstract

We present a finite element semi-discrete error analysis for the Doyle-Fuller-Newman model, which is the most popular model for lithium-ion batteries. Central to our approach is a novel projection operator designed for the pseudo-($N$+1)-dimensional equation, offering a powerful tool for multiscale equation analysis. Our results bridge a gap in the analysis for dimensions $2 \le N \le 3$ and achieve optimal convergence rates of $h+(\Delta r)^2$. Additionally, we perform a detailed numerical verification, marking the first such validation in this context. By avoiding the change of variables, our error analysis can also be extended beyond isothermal conditions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Optimal-rate error estimates and a twice decoupled solver for a backward Euler finite element scheme of the Doyle-Fuller-Newman model of lithium-ion cells

    math.NA 2024-11 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    For the Doyle-Fuller-Newman battery model, the paper derives optimal-order error bounds for a backward Euler finite element scheme and demonstrates a twice-decoupled solver that is about twice as fast as existing solv...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Arunachalam, H., Onori, S., and Battiato, I. (2015). On veracity of macroscopic Lithium -ion battery models. Journal of The Electrochemical Society , 162(10):A1940

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Bermejo, R. (2021). Numerical analysis of a finite element formulation of the P2D model for Lithium -ion cells. Numerische Mathematik , 149(3):463--505

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    and Sastre, P

    Bermejo, R. and Sastre, P. G. d. (2019). An implicit-explicit Runge - Kutta - Chebyshev finite element method for the nonlinear Lithium -ion battery equations. Applied Mathematics and Computation , 361:398--420

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Bloom, I., Cole, B., Sohn, J., Jones, S., Polzin, E., Battaglia, V., Henriksen, G., Motloch, C., Richardson, R., Unkelhaeuser, T., Ingersoll, D., and Case, H. (2001). An accelerated calendar and cycle life study of Li -ion cells. Journal of Power Sources , 101(2):238--247

    work page 2001

  5. [5]

    E., Campbell, S

    Brenan, K. E., Campbell, S. L., and Petzold, L. R. (1995). Numerical Solution of Initial - Value Problems in Differential - Algebraic Equations . Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia

    work page 1995

  6. [6]

    and White, R

    Cai, L. and White, R. E. (2008). Reduction of Model Order Based on Proper Orthogonal Decomposition for Lithium - Ion Battery Simulations . Journal of The Electrochemical Society , 156(3):A154

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    L., Eichel, R.-A., and Notten, P

    Chen, Z., Danilov, D. L., Eichel, R.-A., and Notten, P. H. L. (2022). Porous Electrode Modeling and its Applications to Li - Ion Batteries . Advanced Energy Materials , 12(32):2201506

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Ciarlet, P. G. (2002). The Finite Element Method for Elliptic Problems . Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia

    work page 2002

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    and Lai, W

    Ciucci, F. and Lai, W. (2011). Derivation of micro/macro lithium battery models from homogenization. Transport in Porous Media , 88(2):249--270

    2011

  2. [10]

    F., and Newman, J

    Doyle, M., Fuller, T. F., and Newman, J. (1993). Modeling of galvanostatic charge and discharge of the lithium/polymer/insertion cell. Journal of The Electrochemical Society , 140(6):1526--1533

    1993

  3. [11]

    I., Gómez-Castro, D., and Ramos, A

    Díaz, J. I., Gómez-Castro, D., and Ramos, A. M. (2019). On the well-posedness of a multiscale mathematical model for Lithium -ion batteries. Advances in Nonlinear Analysis , 8(1):1132--1157

    2019

  4. [12]

    Farkas, Z., Faragó, I., Kriston, A., and Pfrang, A. (2017). Improvement of accuracy of multi-scale models of Li -ion batteries by applying operator splitting techniques. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics , 310:59--79

    2017

  5. [13]

    C., Bashash, S., Stein, J

    Forman, J. C., Bashash, S., Stein, J. L., and Fathy, H. K. (2010). Reduction of an electrochemistry-based Li -ion battery model via quasi-linearization and Padé approximation. Journal of The Electrochemical Society , 158(2):A93

    2010

  6. [14]

    F., Doyle, M., and Newman, J

    Fuller, T. F., Doyle, M., and Newman, J. (1994). Simulation and optimization of the dual lithium ion insertion cell. Journal of The Electrochemical Society , 141(1):1--10

    1994

  7. [15]

    Han, R., Macdonald, C., and Wetton, B. (2021). A fast solver for the pseudo-two-dimensional model of lithium-ion batteries. arXiv:2111.09251 [physics]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    S., Tagade, P., and Ramachandran, S

    Hariharan, K. S., Tagade, P., and Ramachandran, S. (2018). Mathematical Modeling of Lithium Batteries . Springer International Publishing, Cham

    2018

  9. [17]

    J., Brosa Planella, F., Theil, F., and Widanage, W

    Hunt, M. J., Brosa Planella, F., Theil, F., and Widanage, W. D. (2020). Derivation of an effective thermal electrochemical model for porous electrode batteries using asymptotic homogenisation. Journal of Engineering Mathematics , 122(1):31--57

    2020

  10. [18]

    S., Peterson, J

    Kirk, B. S., Peterson, J. W., Stogner, R. H., and Carey, G. F. (2006). libMesh : A C++ Library for Parallel Adaptive Mesh Refinement/Coarsening Simulations . Engineering with Computers , 22(3--4):237--254

    2006

  11. [19]

    Korotkin, I., Sahu, S., O'Kane, S., Richardson, G., and Foster, J. M. (2021). DandeLiion v1: An extremely fast solver for the Newman model of lithium-ion battery (dis)charge. Journal of The Electrochemical Society , 168(6):060544

    2021

  12. [20]

    Kosch, S., Zhao, Y., Sturm, J., Schuster, J., Mulder, G., Ayerbe, E., and Jossen, A. (2018). A computationally efficient multi-scale model for lithium-ion cells. Journal of The Electrochemical Society , 165(10):A2374--A2388

    2018

  13. [21]

    Kroener, C. (2016). A mathematical exploration of a PDE system for lithium-ion batteries . PhD thesis, UC Berkeley

    2016

  14. [22]

    Landstorfer, M., Ohlberger, M., Rave, S., and Tacke, M. (2023). A modelling framework for efficient reduced order simulations of parametrised lithium-ion battery cells. European Journal of Applied Mathematics , 34(3):554–591

    2023

  15. [23]

    and Volkwein, S

    Lass, O. and Volkwein, S. (2013). POD Galerkin schemes for nonlinear elliptic-parabolic systems. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing , 35(3):A1271--A1298

    2013

  16. [24]

    and White, R

    Mao, Z. and White, R. E. (1994). A finite‐difference method for pseudo‐two‐dimensional boundary value problems. Journal of The Electrochemical Society , 141(1):151

    1994

  17. [25]

    and Lu, J

    Mazumder, S. and Lu, J. (2013). Faster-than-real-time simulation of lithium ion batteries with full spatial and temporal resolution. International Journal of Electrochemistry , 2013:1--10

    2013

  18. [26]

    S., Zee, J

    Nagarajan, G. S., Zee, J. W. V., and Spotnitz, R. M. (1998). A mathematical model for intercalation electrode behavior: I . Effect of particle‐size distribution on discharge capacity. Journal of The Electrochemical Society , 145(3):771

    1998

  19. [27]

    Newman, J. S. and Balsara, N. P. (2019). Electrochemical systems . Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, fourth edition edition

    2019

  20. [28]

    Northrop, P. W. C., Pathak, M., Rife, D., De, S., Santhanagopalan, S., and Subramanian, V. R. (2015). Efficient simulation and model reformulation of two-dimensional electrochemical thermal behavior of lithium-ion batteries. Journal of The Electrochemical Society , 162(6):A940--A951

    2015

  21. [29]

    Northrop, P. W. C., Ramadesigan, V., De, S., and Subramanian, V. R. (2011). Coordinate transformation, orthogonal collocation, model reformulation and simulation of electrochemical-thermal behavior of lithium-ion battery stacks. Journal of The Electrochemical Society , 158(12):A1461

    2011

  22. [30]

    Plett, G. L. (2015). Battery Management Systems , volume 1. Artech House, Boston

    2015

  23. [31]

    Price, B. C. and Xu, X. (2024). An existence theorem for a model of temperature within a lithium-ion battery. arXiv:2406.02786 [math]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Ramadesigan, V., Northrop, P. W. C., De, S., Santhanagopalan, S., Braatz, R. D., and Subramanian, V. R. (2012). Modeling and simulation of lithium-ion batteries from a systems engineering perspective. Journal of The Electrochemical Society , 159(3):R31

    2012

  25. [33]

    Ramos, A. M. (2016). On the well-posedness of a mathematical model for lithium-ion batteries. Applied Mathematical Modelling , 40(1):115--125

    2016

  26. [34]

    W., Foster, J

    Richardson, G. W., Foster, J. M., Ranom, R., Please, C. P., and Ramos, A. M. (2022). Charge transport modelling of Lithium -ion batteries. European Journal of Applied Mathematics , 33(6):983--1031

    2022

  27. [35]

    and Eisenstat, S

    Schreiber, R. and Eisenstat, S. C. (1981). Finite element methods for spherically symmetric elliptic equations. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis , 18(3):546--558

    1981

  28. [36]

    Seger, T. (2013). Elliptic-parabolic systems with applications to lithium-ion battery models . PhD thesis, University of Konstanz

    2013

  29. [37]

    Shi, S., Gao, J., Liu, Y., Zhao, Y., Wu, Q., Ju, W., Ouyang, C., and Xiao, R. (2015). Multi-scale computation methods: Their applications in lithium-ion battery research and development. Chinese Physics B , 25(1):018212

    2015

  30. [38]

    and Wang, C.-Y

    Smith, K. and Wang, C.-Y. (2006). Solid-state diffusion limitations on pulse operation of a lithium ion cell for hybrid electric vehicles. Journal of Power Sources , 161(1):628--639

    2006

  31. [39]

    A., Rahn, C

    Smith, K. A., Rahn, C. D., and Wang, C.-Y. (2007). Control oriented 1D electrochemical model of lithium ion battery. Energy Conversion and Management , 48(9):2565--2578

    2007

  32. [40]

    Thom \'e e, V. (2007). Galerkin Finite Element Methods for Parabolic Problems . Springer, Berlin Heidelberg

    2007

  33. [41]

    G., Sulzer, V., Please, C

    Timms, R., Marquis, S. G., Sulzer, V., Please, C. P., and Chapman, S. J. (2021). Asymptotic reduction of a lithium-ion pouch cell model. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics , 81(3):765--788

    2021

  34. [42]

    Wu, J., Srinivasan, V., Xu, J., and Wang, C. Y. (2002). Newton- Krylov - Multigrid algorithms for battery simulation. Journal of The Electrochemical Society , 149(10):A1342

    2002

  35. [43]

    Wu, J., Xu, J., and Zou, H. (2006). On the well-posedness of a mathematical model for Lithium -ion battery systems. Methods and Applications of Analysis , 13(3):275--298

    2006

  36. [44]

    Xu, J. (1982). Estimate of the convergence rate of finite element solutions to elliptic equations of second order with discontinuous coefficients. Natural Science Journal of Xiangtan University , 1(1):84--88

    1982

  37. [45]

    Xu, X. (2023). Life span of solutions to a PDE model for lithium-ion batteries in high space dimensions. Methods and Applications of Analysis , 30(1):27--52

    2023

  38. [46]

    Z., and Christensen, J

    Zeng, Y., Albertus, P., Klein, R., Chaturvedi, N., Kojic, A., Bazant, M. Z., and Christensen, J. (2013). Efficient conservative numerical schemes for 1D nonlinear spherical diffusion equations with applications in battery modeling. Journal of The Electrochemical Society , 160(...

    2013

Pith tools

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