Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 57 references

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

T0 review · 3 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 A backward Euler finite element scheme for the Doyle-Fuller-Newman lithium-ion cell model is proven to converge at optimal order in h, tau, and Delta r for spatial dimensions 1-3, and a twice-decoupled solver is shown to be the fastest…

desk verdict Solid extension of the semidiscrete DFN analysis with a fast solver; the τ² rate needs stronger time regularity or a rate downgrade. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15722 v3 pith:7C3OWH4S submitted 2024-11-24 math.NA cs.NAphysics.chem-phphysics.comp-ph

Shu Xu , Liqun Cao This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NAphysics.chem-phphysics.comp-ph MSC 65M1565M6065N1565N3078A57
keywords Doyle-Fuller-NewmanmodelbackwardEulerfiniteelementoptimal-ordererrorestimatesmultiscaleprojectionlithium-ionbatterysimulationnonlinearGauss-Seidelsolverpseudo-two-dimensionalanalysis
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 claims that a backward Euler finite element discretization of the Doyle-Fuller-Newman (DFN) lithium-ion cell model converges at optimal order simultaneously in the spatial mesh size, the time step, and the particle-radius mesh size, in spatial dimensions N = 1, 2, 3. The result matters because the DFN model is the most widely used physics-based model for lithium-ion cells, and prior convergence analyses either broke down for N = 2, 3 or produced rates that did not match numerical practice. The paper also develops a twice-decoupled nonlinear solver that removes the microscopic variable's interior unknowns and lowers the Newton Jacobian's order, and reports on large three-dimensional simulations with realistic battery parameters that the new solver is the fastest and keeps memory usage bounded relative to existing alternatives.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by two projection operators: a Ritz projection $P_h$ for the electrolyte concentration and a multiscale tensor-product projection $P_{h\Delta r}$ acting on $V_h^{(0)}(\bar\Omega_2)\otimes V_{\Delta r}^{(1)}([0,R_s])$ for the particle concentration $c_2$, whose trace estimate (Lemma 2.2) bounds the surface error of the projection by $h+(\Delta r)^2$ and is what produces the fourth-order $\Delta r$ rate for the surface concentration $\bar c_2$. Every error is split as $\rho+\theta$ (projection error plus discrete error), and the coupling through the nonlinear Butler-Volmer source $J$ is controlled under Assumption 2.3 so that a discrete Gronwall argument closes the recursion. For the solver, the first decoupling uses the tridiagonal structure of the radial stiffness-plus-mass matrix $A$ to solve a local nonlinear scalar equation for each particle's surface degree of freedom, and the second decoupling performs a Schur-complement elimination of the diagonal microscopic block $D_{\rm micro}$ whose sparsity is preserved (Proposition 3.1), followed by an optional nonlinear Gauss-Seidel outer iteration that couples $(c_1)$ to $(\phi_1,\phi_2,\bar c_2)$.

What would settle it

Run the scheme with a discharge rate high enough that the particle-surface concentration approaches its upper bound $c_{2,\max}$ somewhere; if the error in $\bar c_2$ or in $c_1$ then no longer decays like $h^2+\tau^2+(\Delta r)^4$ (or the discrete solution leaves the bounds of Assumption 2.3), the uniform convergence statement as proven would fail for that regime.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is stated as Theorem 2.1: under Hypotheses 1.2-2.3, the fully discrete backward Euler finite element solution satisfies, with a constant independent of mesh size, time step, and radial mesh size, $\sum_{k=1}^{K}\tau\big(\|\phi_1^k-\phi_{1h}^k\|_{1,\Omega}^2+\|\phi_2^k-\phi_{2h}^k\|_{1,\Omega_2}^2+\|c_1^k-c_{1h}^k\|_{1,\Omega}^2+\|\bar c_2^k-\bar c_{2h}^k\|_{0,\Omega_2}^2\big)\le C(h^2+\tau^2+(\Delta r)^4)$ plus initial discretization error, and $\sum_{k=1}^{K}\tau\|c_2^k-c_{2h\Delta r}^k\|_{0,\Omega_2;q,r}^2\le C(h^2+\tau^2+(\Delta r)^{4-2q})$ for the radial Sobolev index $q=0,1$. These are optimal-order rates for the element choices used: piecewise-linear discrete spaces for the potentials and electrolyte concentration, piecewise-constant-in-x and piecewise-linear-in-r for the particle concentration, and first-order backward Euler in time. The proof extends the semidiscrete analysis of [18] to the fully discrete setting, closing the gap that the earlier analysis of [23] left for dimensions 2 and 3 and aligning the predicted rates with observed numerical convergence.

Load-bearing premise

The proof assumes without proof that both the exact and the discrete solutions stay in a fixed bounded region (uniform $L^\infty$ bounds on potentials, gradients, and concentrations, with concentrations bounded away from $0$ and $c_{2,\max}$), and that a solution with the required regularity exists in dimensions 2 and 3, where existence is currently open.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The fully discrete DFN scheme is justified as a reliable simulation tool at optimal order for problems in one, two, and three spatial dimensions with realistic battery parameters.
  • The surface concentration $\bar c_2$, which enters the Butler-Volmer reaction rate, gains fourth-order accuracy in the radial mesh size, so moderate radial refinements reach high accuracy.
  • Memory use is kept under control because the interior radial unknowns are recovered by backward substitution and never enter the global Jacobian.
  • The solver's two decoupling levels are compatible with Newton's method with line search and with an optional nonlinear Gauss-Seidel outer loop, giving a speed-memory trade-off adjustable to available hardware.
  • Large 3D simulations with real parameters show the new solver is the fastest among the compared solvers and largely insensitive to finer microscopic discretization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same projection-plus-trace-error technique should transfer to other micro-macro parabolic systems with an embedded radial coordinate, such as thermal or stress evolution inside electrode particles; the paper does not draw that conclusion.
  • Assumption 2.3 is typically verified a posteriori in practice; a natural extension would be to prove invariant-region preservation or to add a limiter that keeps discrete concentrations inside the bounds, then test whether the proven rates persist.
  • The sparsity-preserving Schur complement elimination of the diagonal microscopic block suggests the second decoupling generalizes to any locally-supported block-diagonal microscopic coupling, not only tridiagonal radial matrices.
  • Runtimes in Table 3 indicate the fully coupled solver is fast but memory-hungry; for embedded or real-time battery estimation, the 2DS-Eta variant may offer a more practical speed-memory balance, a use the paper leaves implicit.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes a backward Euler finite element discretization of the Doyle-Fuller-Newman (DFN) model of lithium-ion cells in the form of a coupled elliptic-parabolic system over the domains Ω1, Ω2, and the pseudo-(N+1)-dimensional domain Ω2r, for N=1,2,3. The main theoretical result, Theorem 2.1, claims l2(H1) and l2(L2(H^q_r)) error bounds of order O(h^2 + τ^2 + (Δr)^(4-2q)) for the potentials, electrolyte concentration, particle concentration, and surface concentration, under Assumptions 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3. The proof follows the projection-based framework of the authors' prior work [18], adding fully discrete temporal error estimates via Lemmas 2.3 and 2.4. The paper also proposes a 'twice decoupled' solver that first eliminates the interior particle degrees of freedom by local inversion and then eliminates the microscopic surface block in the Newton Jacobian via a Schur complement, and it reports 2D and 3D numerical convergence tests plus a large-scale solver comparison with realistic battery parameters.

Significance. If the central theorem is valid, this would be the first fully discrete optimal-order error analysis for the DFN model in two and three spatial dimensions, extending the semidiscrete analysis of [18] and improving on the limitations of [23]. The numerical experiments with realistic parameters and the systematic comparison of seven solvers are valuable, and the proposed two-step decoupling strategy appears genuinely useful for large 3D simulations. The paper is transparent about several limitations, including the open existence/uniqueness question for N=2,3 and the need for a discrete compatibility condition. However, the main convergence claim is conditional on unproved discrete a priori bounds and on temporal regularity that is stronger than what Assumption 2.2 states; these gaps affect the core theorem and require attention before the result can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2–2.3, Lemmas 2.3–2.4, Eqs. (23) and (29)] The claimed O(τ^2) temporal rate is not justified by the stated hypotheses. Assumption 2.2 only postulates c1 ∈ H1(0,T;H2_pw(Ω1)) and c2 ∈ H1(0,T;H1(Ω2;H1_r)∩L2(Ω2;H2_r)), with no second-order time differentiability. The proofs of Lemmas 2.3 and 2.4 use Taylor expansions whose remainder terms contain ∥∂2c1/∂t2∥_{0,k;0,Ω} and ∥∂2c2/∂t2∥_{0,k;0,Ω2;0,r}, and these norms are then carried into (37)–(38) and summed to give the τ^2 terms in Theorem 2.1. Under Assumption 2.2 these norms may be infinite, so the estimates are not legitimate. The authors should either strengthen Assumption 2.2 to include ∂2c1/∂t2 ∈ L2(0,T;L2(Ω1)) and ∂2c2/∂t2 ∈ L2(0,T;L2(Ω2;L2_r)), or relax the temporal rate to O(τ) throughout the theorem.
  2. [Assumption 2.3, used in Eqs. (26) and (31)] Assumption 2.3 postulates uniform L∞ bounds on the exact and discrete solutions and strict interior concentration bounds for both c1 and c̄2, but no proof is given that the discrete solutions satisfy these bounds or even exist. These bounds are load-bearing: they are used in the Lipschitz estimates (26) and (31) for the nonlinear term J, and without them the error recursion in Theorem 2.1 breaks. Moreover, the paper itself notes that existence and uniqueness of the exact solution for N=2,3 is open. Theorem 2.1 is therefore conditional on unverified smoothness and boundedness assumptions. The authors should either prove the discrete a priori bounds (for example by an induction argument with a smallness condition), or state the theorem explicitly as conditional and explain how Assumption 2.3 can be verified in applications.
  3. [Remark 2.1 and Proposition 2.1 in Theorem 2.1] The proof of Theorem 2.1 invokes Proposition 2.1, which gives error estimates for ϕ1 and ϕ2 in the full test space V_h(Ω). However, the discrete scheme (13) is posed in the subspace W_h(Ω), and the equivalence with the full test space is only stated in Remark 2.1 under the discrete compatibility condition (17). Condition (17) is not included among the hypotheses of Theorem 2.1, and Remark 4.1 only says it is enforced 'indirectly via tight residual control.' The authors should add (17) as an explicit hypothesis of the theorem, or show that it holds for their discretization and quadrature, otherwise the use of Proposition 2.1 in the coupled error argument is not justified.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Tables 1(f) and 2(f)] The reported errors for c2 in L2(Ω2;L2_r) are on the order of 10^{-12} for both h- and Δr-refinement, which is at machine precision; no meaningful convergence order can be inferred from these values. This part of the numerical validation does not support the theoretical q=0 estimate, and the authors should replace it with a manufactured-solution test or a reference solution that differs in the radial discretization.
  2. [Proof of Theorem 2.1, Gronwall step] After adding (37) and (38), the discrete Gronwall inequality is applied without stating the required smallness of τ; the theorem should include the standard condition that Cτ is bounded by a constant less than 1, or the constants should be tracked explicitly.
  3. [Eq. (30)] The volume integral in (30) contains a spurious 'dt' in the spatial integral over Ω2×(0,Rs(x)); this is a typographical error that should be corrected.
  4. [Throughout] The notation τ is used for the time step but the text sometimes writes Δt; the authors should use a single symbol and define it once in Section 2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 2.1 is a genuinely derived error estimate; reliance on the authors' companion projection estimates is independent published support.

full rationale

The paper's central claim (Theorem 2.1) is a fully discrete a priori error estimate obtained by decomposing errors into projection parts (rho_1, rho_2) and discrete parts (theta_1, theta_2), then combining the energy estimates of Lemmas 2.3-2.4 with a discrete Gronwall argument. The h^2, (Delta r)^4 and tau^2 terms arise from Taylor expansions and projection error estimates; the result is derived rather than fitted, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The main inherited ingredients are the projection error estimates (Lemmas 2.1-2.2) and the potential error bound (Proposition 2.1) from the companion paper [18] by the same authors. Those results are stated with their own proofs in a separate published semidiscrete analysis and are not identical to Theorem 2.1, so citing them is independent support rather than a self-citation chain that assumes the present conclusion. Assumption 2.3 postulates uniform L-infinity and concentration bounds on the exact and discrete solutions, and the paper itself notes that existence and uniqueness for dim Omega = 2, 3 remain open; these are conditional hypotheses and stated limitations, not conclusions derived from themselves. The tau^2 terms in (23) and (29) formally require second-order time derivatives that are not included in Assumption 2.2; that is a regularity gap in the stated hypotheses, but it is not a circular dependence of the theorem on its own target. No circular step meets the standard of exhibiting a specific reduction of the claimed result to its own inputs.

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

The theorem rests on regularity assumptions for the exact solution, unproved discrete bounds, and a discrete compatibility condition. The numerical claims additionally depend on using a fine-mesh reference solution and battery parameters from the literature; no parameters are fitted in the error analysis.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Smoothness and monotonicity of nonlinear source terms: f in C^1, kappa_im and U_m in C^2, J_m in C^1 with dJ_m/deta >= alpha > 0 (Assumption 1.2).
    Needed for Lipschitz estimates of the reaction term in Lemmas 2.3-2.4; standard but not guaranteed by the physical DFN model for all parameter regimes.
  • domain assumption Regularity of initial data and exact solution: c10 in H^2_pw, c20 in H^1(H^1_r) intersect L^2(H^2_r); phi1 and phi2 in C([0,T]; H^2_pw); c1 in H^1(0,T; H^2_pw); c2 in H^1(0,T; H^1(H^1_r) intersect L^2(H^2_r)).
    Required for projection error estimates and for consistency terms. The O(tau^2) terms additionally require H^2 regularity in time, which is not stated.
  • ad hoc to paper Uniform L-infinity bounds and interior concentration bounds for both exact and discrete solutions (Assumption 2.3).
    Assumed without proof; controls the nonlinearity and prevents degeneracy. The discrete bounds in particular are not derived and are the most fragile premise.
  • ad hoc to paper Discrete compatibility condition integral over Omega2 of a2 J^k_h dx equals integral over Gamma of I^k ds (Remark 2.1, equation (17)).
    Required for the equivalence of the phi1 variational form; enforced only approximately via residual control in the numerical implementation (Remark 4.1), creating a gap between theory and computation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 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." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7C3OWH4S

@misc{pith2026241115722,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 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},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7C3OWH4S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15722}
}
abstract

We investigate the convergence of a backward Euler finite element discretization applied to a multi-domain and multi-scale elliptic-parabolic system, derived from the Doyle-Fuller-Newman model for lithium-ion cells. We establish optimal-order error estimates for the solution in the norms $l^2(H^1)$ and $l^2(L^2(H^q_r))$, $q=0,1$. To improve computational efficiency, we propose a novel solver that accelerates the solution process and controls memory usage. Numerical experiments with realistic battery parameters validate the theoretical error rates and demonstrate the significantly superior performance of the proposed solver over existing solvers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15722 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A 3D schematic representation of a Li-ion cell. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spatial meshes for convergence verification. (a) Initial coarse mesh ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Time convergence obtained at t = 1.25 s. (a) Error for ϕ1 in the H1 -norm. (b) Error for ϕ2 in the H1 -norm. (c) Error for c1 in the H1 -norm. (d) Error for ¯c2 in the L 2 -norm. (e) Error for c2 in the L 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [18]

    S. Xu, L. Cao, Optimal convergence in finite element semi-discrete er- ror analysis of the Doyle-Fuller-Newman model beyond 1D with a novel projection operator, IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis (2025). URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.10758. doi: 10.1093/imanum/draf065, to appear

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [23]

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

    R. Bermejo, Numerical analysis of a finite element formulation of the P2D model for Lithium-ion cells, Numerische Mathematik 149 (2021) 463–505. doi:10.1007/s00211-021-01235-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s00211-021-01235-2 2021

  3. [1]

    Doyle, T

    M. Doyle, T. F. Fuller, J. Newman, Modeling of galvanostatic charge and discharge of the lithium/polymer/insertion cell, Journal of The Electrochemical Society 140 (1993) 1526–1533. doi:10.1149/1.2221597

    doi:10.1149/1.2221597 1993

  4. [2]

    T. F. Fuller, M. Doyle, J. Newman, Simulation and optimization of the dual lithium ion insertion cell, Journal of The Electrochemical So- ciety 141 (1994) 1–10. URL: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/ 10.1149/1.2054684. doi:10.1149/1.2054684

    doi:10.1149/1.2054684 1994

  5. [3]

    Smith, C.-Y

    K. Smith, C.-Y. Wang, Solid-state diffusion limitations on pulse opera- tion of a lithium ion cell for hybrid electric vehicles, Journal of Power Sources 161 (2006) 628–639. doi: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2006.03.050

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2006.03.050 2006

  6. [4]

    Ramadesigan, P

    V. Ramadesigan, P. W. C. Northrop, S. De, S. Santhanagopalan, R. D. Braatz, V. R. Subramanian, Modeling and simulation of lithium-ion bat- teries from a systems engineering perspective, Journal of The Electro- chemical Society 159 (2012) R31. URL:https://iopscience.iop.org/ article/10.1149/2.018203jes/meta. doi:10.1149/2.018203jes. 42

    work page doi:10.1149/2.018203jes/meta 2012

  7. [5]

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

    work page 2015

  8. [6]

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

    work page 2015

Show all 57 references
  1. [7]

    Telmasre, N

    T. Telmasre, N. Goswami, A. Concepci´ on, S. Kolluri, M. Pathak, G. Morrison, V. R. Subramanian, Impedance response sim- ulation strategies for lithium-ion battery models, Current Opinion in Electrochemistry 36 (2022) 101140. URL: https: //linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/...

    2022

  2. [8]

    L. Wu, Z. Lyu, Z. Huang, C. Zhang, C. Wei, Physics-based battery SOC estimation methods: Recent advances and future perspec- tives, Journal of Energy Chemistry 89 (2024) 27–40. URL: https: //linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S209549562300565X. doi:10.1016/j.jechem.2023.09.045

    2024 doi

  3. [9]

    Golmon, K

    S. Golmon, K. Maute, M. L. Dunn, Multiscale design opti- mization of lithium ion batteries using adjoint sensitivity analy- sis, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 92 (2012) 475–494. URL: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/ 10.1002/nme.4347. doi:ht...

    2012 doi

  4. [10]

    K. S. Hariharan, P. Tagade, S. Ramachandran, Mathemati- cal Modeling of Lithium Batteries, Springer International Pub- lishing, Cham, 2018. URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/ 978-3-319-03527-7 . doi:10.1007/978-3-319-03527-7

    2018 doi

  5. [11]

    Z. Chen, D. L. Danilov, R.-A. Eichel, P. H. L. Notten, Porous Electrode Modeling and its Applications to Li-Ion Batteries, Advanced Energy Materials 12 (2022) 2201506. URL: https: //onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/aenm.202201506. doi:10.1002/aenm.202201506

    2022 doi

  6. [12]

    F. B. Planella, W. Ai, A. M. Boyce, A. Ghosh, I. Korotkin, S. Sahu, V. Sulzer, R. Timms, T. G. Tranter, M. Zyskin, S. J. Cooper, J. S. Edge, J. M. Foster, M. Marinescu, B. Wu, G. Richardson, A continuum of 43 physics-based lithium-ion battery models reviewed, Progress in Energ...

    2022 doi

  7. [13]

    Bermejo, P

    R. Bermejo, P. G. d. Sastre, An implicit-explicit Runge-Kutta- Chebyshev finite element method for the nonlinear Lithium-ion battery equations, Applied Mathematics and Computation 361 (2019) 398–420. doi:10.1016/j.amc.2019.05.011

    2019 doi

  8. [14]

    Ciucci, W

    F. Ciucci, W. Lai, Derivation of micro/macro lithium battery models from homogenization, Transport in Porous Media 88 (2011) 249–270. doi:10.1007/s11242-011-9738-5

    2011 doi

  9. [15]

    Arunachalam, S

    H. Arunachalam, S. Onori, I. Battiato, On veracity of macroscopic Lithium-ion battery models, Journal of The Electrochemical Society 162 (2015) A1940. URL: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10. 1149/2.0771509jes/meta. doi:10.1149/2.0771509jes

    2015 doi

  10. [16]

    Timms, S

    R. Timms, S. G. Marquis, V. Sulzer, C. P. Please, S. J. Chapman, Asymptotic reduction of a Lithium-ion pouch cell model, SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics 81 (2021) 765–788. doi: 10.1137/20M1336898

    2021 doi

  11. [17]

    G. W. Richardson, J. M. Foster, R. Ranom, C. P. Please, A. M. Ramos, Charge transport modelling of Lithium-ion batteries, Euro- pean Journal of Applied Mathematics 33 (2022) 983–1031. doi:10.1017/ S0956792521000292

    2022

  12. [19]

    A. M. Ramos, On the well-posedness of a mathematical model for lithium-ion batteries, Applied Mathematical Modelling 40 (2016) 115–125. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S0307904X15003546. doi:10.1016/j.apm.2015.05.006

    2016 doi

  13. [20]

    Kroener, A mathematical exploration of a PDE system for lithium- ion batteries, Ph.D

    C. Kroener, A mathematical exploration of a PDE system for lithium- ion batteries, Ph.D. thesis, UC Berkeley, 2016. 44

    2016

  14. [21]

    J. I. D ´ ıaz, D. G´ omez-Castro, A. M. Ramos, On the well-posedness of a multiscale mathematical model for Lithium-ion batteries, Ad- vances in Nonlinear Analysis 8 (2019) 1132–1157. doi: 10.1515/ anona-2018-0041

    2019

  15. [22]

    L. Cai, R. E. White, Lithium ion cell modeling using orthogonal collocation on finite elements, Journal of Power Sources 217 (2012) 248–255. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S0378775312010439. doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.06.043

    2012 doi

  16. [24]

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

    2019

  17. [25]

    Z. Mao, R. E. White, A finite-difference method for pseudo-two- dimensional boundary value problems, Journal of The Electrochemical Society 141 (1994) 151. URL:https://iopscience.iop.org/article/ 10.1149/1.2054675/meta. doi:10.1149/1.2054675

    1994 doi

  18. [26]

    G. S. Nagarajan, J. W. V. Zee, R. M. Spotnitz, A mathematical model for intercalation electrode behavior: I. Effect of particle-size distribu- tion on discharge capacity, Journal of The Electrochemical Society 145 (1998) 771. URL: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1149/ 1....

    1998 doi

  19. [27]

    Y. Zeng, P. Albertus, R. Klein, N. Chaturvedi, A. Kojic, M. Z. Bazant, J. Christensen, Efficient conservative numerical schemes for 1D nonlinear spherical diffusion equations with applications in battery modeling, Journal of The Electrochemical Society 160 (2013) A1565–A1571. ...

    2013 doi

  20. [28]

    Mazumder, J

    S. Mazumder, J. Lu, Faster-than-real-time simulation of lithium ion batteries with full spatial and temporal resolution, International Journal of Electrochemistry 2013 (2013) 1–10. doi: 10.1155/2013/268747. 45

    2013 doi

  21. [29]

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

    2011 doi

  22. [30]

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

    2015 doi

  23. [31]

    Kosch, Y

    S. Kosch, Y. Zhao, J. Sturm, J. Schuster, G. Mulder, E. Ayerbe, A. Jossen, A computationally efficient multi-scale model for lithium-ion cells, Journal of The Electrochemical Society 165 (2018) A2374–A2388. URL: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/ 10.1149/2.1241810jes. doi:10....

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    K. E. Brenan, S. L. Campbell, L. R. Petzold, Numerical Solution of Initial-Value Problems in Differential-Algebraic Equations, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, 1995. URL: http:// epubs.siam.org/doi/book/10.1137/1.9781611971224. doi:10.1137/ 1.9781611971224

    1995 doi

  25. [33]

    Korotkin, S

    I. Korotkin, S. Sahu, S. O’Kane, G. Richardson, J. M. Foster, Dan- deLiion v1: An extremely fast solver for the Newman model of lithium-ion battery (dis)charge, Journal of The Electrochemical So- ciety 168 (2021) 060544. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2102.06534. doi:10.1149/1945-7...

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Wickramanayake, M

    T. Wickramanayake, M. Javadipour, K. Mehran, A Novel Solver for an Electrochemical–Thermal Ageing Model of a Lithium-Ion Battery, Bat- teries 10 (2024) 126. URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2313-0105/10/4/

    2024

  27. [35]

    R. C. Aylagas, C. Ganuza, R. Parra, M. Ya˜ nez, E. Ayerbe, cide- MOD: An Open Source Tool for Battery Cell Inhomogeneous Per- 46 formance Understanding, Journal of The Electrochemical Society 169 (2022) 090528. URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.1149/1945-7111/ ac91fb. doi:10.1149/194...

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    W. Ai, Y. Liu, JuBat: A Julia-based framework for bat- tery modelling using finite element method, SoftwareX 27 (2024) 101760. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S2352711024001316. doi:10.1016/j.softx.2024.101760

    2024

  29. [37]

    6.3, Battery Design Module User’s Guide, COMSOL AB, Stockholm, Sweden, 2024

    COMSOL Multiphysics ® v. 6.3, Battery Design Module User’s Guide, COMSOL AB, Stockholm, Sweden, 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Golmon, K

    S. Golmon, K. Maute, M. L. Dunn, A design optimization method- ology for Li+ batteries, Journal of Power Sources 253 (2014) 239–250. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S0378775313019939. doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.12.025

    2014 doi

  31. [39]

    R. Han, C. Macdonald, B. Wetton, A fast solver for the pseudo-two- dimensional model of lithium-ion batteries, 2021. URL: http://arxiv. org/abs/2111.09251, arXiv:2111.09251 [physics]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    X. Yin, D. Zhang, batP2dFoam: An Efficient Segregated Solver for the Pseudo-2-Dimensional (P2D) Model of Li-Ion Batteries, Jour- nal of The Electrochemical Society 170 (2023) 030521. URL: https: //dx.doi.org/10.1149/1945-7111/acbfe4. doi:10.1149/1945-7111/ acbfe4, publisher: I...

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    W. Ai, Y. Liu, Improving the convergence rate of New- man’s battery model using 2nd order finite element method, Journal of Energy Storage 67 (2023) 107512. URL: https: //linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2352152X2300909X. doi:10.1016/j.est.2023.107512

    2023

  34. [42]

    J. Kim, A. Mallarapu, S. Santhanagopalan, J. Newman, A ro- bust numerical treatment of solid-phase diffusion in pseudo two- dimensional lithium-ion battery models, Journal of Power Sources 556 (2023) 232413. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/ pii/S0378775322013908....

    2023

  35. [43]

    Thom´ ee, Galerkin Finite Element Methods for Parabolic Problems, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2007

    V. Thom´ ee, Galerkin Finite Element Methods for Parabolic Problems, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2007. 47

    2007

  36. [44]

    J. M. O. a. W. C. Rheinboldt, Iterative Solution of Nonlinear Equations in Several Variables (Classics in Applied Mathematics), SIAM, 1987. URL: http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5= cf8fe5541f9d65562f5b058898c63ce5

    1987

  37. [45]

    P. R. Brune, M. G. Knepley, B. F. Smith, X. Tu, Composing Scalable Nonlinear Algebraic Solvers, SIAM Review 57 (2015) 535–

    2015

  38. [46]

    A. Latz, J. Zausch, Multiscale modeling of lithium ion batteries: Ther- mal aspects, Beilstein Journal of Nanotechnology 6 (2015) 987–1007. URL: https://www.beilstein-journals.org/bjnano/articles/6/

    2015

  39. [47]

    J. Wu, V. Srinivasan, J. Xu, C. Y. Wang, Newton-Krylov-Multigrid al- gorithms for battery simulation, Journal of The Electrochemical Society 149 (2002) A1342. URL: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10. 1149/1.1505635. doi:10.1149/1.1505635

    2002 doi

  40. [48]

    A. Latz, J. Zausch, Thermodynamic derivation of a Butler–Volmer model for intercalation in Li-ion batteries, Electrochimica Acta 110 (2013) 358–362. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0013468613011493. doi: 10.1016/j.electacta.2013. 06.043

    2013 doi

  41. [49]

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

    2002

  42. [50]

    J. Xu, 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 (1982) 84–88

    1982

  43. [51]

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

    2006

  44. [52]

    Bochev, R

    P. Bochev, R. B. Lehoucq, On the Finite Element Solution of the Pure Neumann Problem, SIAM Review 47 (2005) 50–66. URL: http: //epubs.siam.org/doi/10.1137/S0036144503426074. doi: 10.1137/ S0036144503426074. 48

    2005 doi

  45. [53]

    Balay, S

    S. Balay, S. Abhyankar, M. F. Adams, J. Brown, P. Brune, K. Buschel- man, L. Dalcin, A. Dener, V. Eijkhout, W. D. Gropp, D. Karpeyev, D. Kaushik, M. G. Knepley, D. A. May, L. C. McInnes, R. T. Mills, T. Munson, K. Rupp, P. Sanan, B. F. Smith, S. Zampini, H. Zhang, H. Zhang, PE...

    2021

  46. [54]

    X. S. Li, J. W. Demmel, SuperLU DIST: A scalable distributed-memory sparse direct solver for unsymmetric linear systems, ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 29 (2003) 110–140. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/779359. 779361. doi:10.1145/779359.779361. 49

    2003

  47. [102]

    doi:10.3762/bjnano.6.102

    doi

  48. [126]

    doi:10.3390/batteries10040126, number: 4 Publisher: Multidis- ciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

    doi

  49. [565]

    URL: http://epubs.siam.org/doi/10.1137/130936725. doi:10. 1137/130936725

    doi

Pith tools

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