Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 54 references

Phase-Field Simulation of Dendrite Evolution in All-Solid-State Sodium Batteries during Cycling

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Dendrite stripping leaves isolated sodium metal at grain-boundary junctions, and that residual sodium reconnects on the next plating cycle to drive deeper dendrite penetration.

desk verdict Plausible mechanism for dendrite 'memory' in Na SSBs, but the printed voltage waveform can't produce the claimed cycling, so the central result is unverifiable as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.15387 v1 pith:67HCP6OO submitted 2026-07-16 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hall

Chengyin Wu , Wolfgang Windl , Jung-Hyun Kim , Yanzhou Ji This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.mes-hall
keywords sodiumsolid-statebatterydendritegrowthphase-fieldmodelinggrainboundaryisolateddeadNa3SbS4electrolyteDFTsurfaceelectrondensitycycling
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 tries to establish why dendrites in all-solid-state sodium batteries get worse cycle after cycle rather than reversing during stripping. Using a phase-field model fed with density-functional-theory values for excess electrons at the solid-electrolyte surface, the authors find that stripping is intrinsically asymmetric: sodium in a dendrite dissolves first at the stem, cutting off the portion of the dendrite that sits beyond a grain-boundary triple junction. That cut-off sodium is thermodynamically unstable but kinetically trapped, so it survives the stripping half-cycle. On the next plating half-cycle it acts as a preferential seed, reconnects electronically, and lets the dendrite advance deeper. The paper argues that this "dead" sodium is a structural memory that accelerates penetration, and that voltage, grain-boundary density, and anode composition can control it.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on a nonlinear phase-field electrodeposition model coupled to an electrochemical reaction-rate law (Butler-Volmer kinetics) and reaction-diffusion equations for Na+ and electric potential. Its load-bearing input is the excess electron concentration at the electrolyte, computed by DFT as surface electron densities of NAS slabs and inserted into the electron concentration field as c_e-/c0 = xi + (c_surf/c0)(1-xi)(1-phi_g), so grain boundaries are the only places with extra electrons available to seed deposition. The geometric key is the grain-boundary triple junction: the narrow dendrite stem acts as an electron bottleneck during stripping, causing premature disconnection and

What would settle it

Cycle a Na | Na3SbS4 | Na cell, strip completely, then section and inspect with cryo-FIB/SEM or EELS: if no isolated Na remains at grain-boundary triple junctions, the claimed memory mechanism is falsified. Alternatively, compute the excess electron density at an explicit grain boundary rather than a free surface and rerun the phase-field simulation; if the isolated Na disappears, the mechanism is an artifact of the surface-electron approximation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that dendrite stripping is intrinsically asymmetric with respect to plating because of grain-boundary geometry: when a dendrite occupying a grain-boundary channel is stripped, dissolution proceeds fastest along sidewalls and through the constricted stem, so the portion of metal beyond a triple junction loses electronic contact before it can dissolve. That isolated Na metal, rather than disappearing, becomes kinetically stabilized—a negative-potential basin, local Na+ shielding, and loss of electron supply all suppress further stripping. It is therefore present at the start of the next plating cycle, reconnects with the advancing dendrite, and reactivates as a site for fu

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that excess electrons at grain boundaries and internal interfaces inside the polycrystalline electrolyte can be represented by the DFT-calculated surface electron densities of free NAS slabs; the authors themselves state that this mapping is an approximation. If real grain boundaries do not carry comparable electron densities, the grain-boundary plating and the whole isolated-Na memory mechanism may not occur.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If isolated Na is a memory for dendrite penetration, then suppressing its formation should slow cycle-over-cycle degradation, not just the initial plating depth.
  • Dense microstructures with many fine grain boundaries dissolve Na more completely, so fine-grained electrolytes should outperform coarse-grained or void-containing ones.
  • Low-diffusivity Na3Sb alloy anodes reduce penetration (about 8% in the simulations) by slowing deposition and improving dissolution, pointing to anode alloying as a mitigation lever.
  • Applied voltage sets a threshold: in the model, penetration stays shallow with little isolated Na near 0.15 V, while 0.18 V and 0.20 V produce deep penetration and trapped Na.
  • Intergranular voids are worse than grain boundaries because they allow fast propagation and early disconnection, making void-free processing a concrete design target.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's own claims: if the same geometric asymmetry applies to other polycrystalline sulfide electrolytes, cycling protocols that interrupt the electron path at the dendrite stem—short pulses or intermittent rest—could be tested for their ability to dissolve isolated metal before it reconnects.
  • The DFT slab approximation could be checked directly: calculating excess electron density at an explicit Na3SbS4 grain boundary and rerunning the phase-field simulation would show whether the trapping effect survives a more physical interfacial electron distribution.
  • A quantitative experimental signature follows from the model: after stripping, residual sodium imaged at grain-boundary triple junctions should correlate with the penetration depth observed in the next cycle; this could be tested with cross-sectional microscopy on cycled cells.
  • Because the model treats the conductivity mismatch as essential, a materials-level prediction is that electrolytes with electronic conductivity closer to ionic conductivity should show little or no isolated Na, since the authors note a uniform-conductivity control dissolves fully.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a two-dimensional phase-field model, parameterized by DFT-computed surface electron densities, to simulate Na dendrite plating and stripping in a polycrystalline Na3SbS4 solid electrolyte over five consecutive cycles. The central claim is that dendrite stripping is intrinsically asymmetric with respect to plating because grain-boundary triple junctions cause premature electronic disconnection, leaving isolated metallic Na that is kinetically trapped, persists between cycles, and serves as a reactivation seed for deeper dendrite penetration in subsequent plating steps. The authors support this with simulations under different voltages, microstructures, and a Na-Na3Sb composite anode, and propose design principles for suppressing the 'dendrite memory' effect.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper identifies a concrete, microstructurally rooted mechanism for cycle-by-cycle dendrite penetration in Na solid-state batteries, which is important for battery safety and lifetime. The strengths of the paper are its explicit DFT-to-phase-field parameter derivation (c_surf is computed, not fitted), the careful documentation of parameters in Table 1, and the sensitivity analyses for surface electron density and its anisotropy. These features make the model internally transparent and partially falsifiable. However, the paper's main predictive claim depends on the simulation actually switching between plating and stripping, and the published voltage waveform appears unable to do so; this is a load-bearing issue that must be resolved. The acknowledged DFT slab-to-GB electron-density mapping is another major source of uncertainty, as is the lack of any direct experimental benchmark. The paper is likely of interest to the solid-state-battery modeling community, but the core evidence as printed does not yet support the 'isolated Na memory' conclusion.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.2, Eq. (10)] The voltage boundary condition as printed cannot produce the claimed five plating-stripping cycles. With t_total=0.01 s and t_cycle=0.002 s, the sine argument is 2π(t_total/t_cycle)t = 10πt. Over the simulated interval t∈[0,0.01] s, this argument spans [0, 0.1π], so sin(10πt) is nonnegative and φ(t) = −0.2 V·tanh(10 sin(...)) never changes sign. The cell is only polarized negatively; no stripping occurs. The formula is also dimensionally inconsistent unless t is implicitly normalized, which is not stated. Since the formation of isolated Na requires stripping, the central claim of the paper is not supported by the simulation as described. The authors must either supply the correct waveform and show that it indeed alternates, or deposit the code/data from the actual COMSOL implementation.
  2. [Table 1 vs. Eq. (10)] There is a direct inconsistency in the quoted time scales. Table 1 gives a physical time step Δt = 0.2 s (from Δt0 = 4×10^3 s and reduced Δt/Δt0 = 5×10^-5), while t_total = 0.01 s and t_cycle = 0.002 s in Eq. (10). A 0.01 s total simulation with a 0.2 s time step would contain less than one time step, making the reported 'five consecutive cycles' impossible. This suggests that either the normalization of Eq. (10) is different from what is printed, or Table 1 is in error. Because reproducibility and internal consistency of the cycling protocol are prerequisites for the paper's core claim, this needs to be corrected and clarified before the results can be evaluated.
  3. [§2.1, §3.2.1] The mapping of DFT-derived surface electron densities of free (100), (110), and (111) slabs to grain-boundary and internal-interface electron densities is acknowledged to be an approximation, but it is load-bearing: the phase-field model localizes excess electrons at GBs through c_surf, and the parametric study in §3.2.2 shows c_surf is a critical parameter controlling penetration depth and isolated Na size. If the DFT slab charges are not representative of GB excess electrons, the entire GB-facilitated dendrite-penetration and isolated-Na-memory mechanism could be an artifact. The authors should test this mapping, for example by computing excess charges at representative GB structures via DFT or by comparing the predicted penetration depths with available experimental dead-Na observations. This is a scientific concern, not a formatting issue.
  4. [§3.2, Figure 3] The central mechanistic claim—that GB triple-junction geometry induces asymmetric stripping—is demonstrated only in a two-dimensional simulation. In 2D, a triple junction is a point, whereas in 3D it is a line; the necking and disconnection dynamics are qualitatively different. The paper also draws strong conclusions about 'intrinsically asymmetric' stripping and design principles without any experimental validation. The authors should at least discuss whether the 2D point-junction mechanism survives in 3D, and ideally perform a 3D simulation on a small domain to confirm the isolated-Na formation. Without this, the generality of the central claim remains speculative.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (10)] State the units of t and t_total/t_cycle explicitly. The sine argument should be dimensionless; as written it has units of time. A corrected form such as sin(2πt/t_cycle) would make the intended five cycles visible.
  2. [§3.2.1] Typo: 'where also examined' should be 'were also examined'.
  3. [§3.1] The sentence 'the calculated anisotropy has a negligible impact on the overall results' is supported by the sensitivity study, but the criterion for 'negligible' (penetration depth agreement? morphology?) is not quantified. Please provide a quantitative threshold or comparison.
  4. [§3.2] The phrase 'As a result, dead Na already forms at the grain triple junction' uses 'dead Na' interchangeably with 'isolated Na.' Define the term once and use it consistently, especially because 'dead' can imply electrochemical inactivity whereas the paper argues the isolated Na is reactivatable.
  5. [References] Reference [45] (Windl, diffusion in silicon) is cited for the statement that dangling bonds lead to deep gap states. This is a nonstandard citation; a textbook or a reference on surface states in chalcogenides would be more appropriate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the load-bearing input c_surf is DFT-derived rather than fitted to the dendrite/isolated-Na outputs, and the central GB-necking/reactivation mechanism emerges from the phase-field dynamics. Eq. (10) and the surface-to-GB electron-density proxy are correctness/validity caveats, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The derivation chain does not reduce to its inputs in a circular way. The quantitative input that controls dendrite penetration and isolated-Na size, c_surf, is obtained from independent DFT slab calculations (Bader charge analysis, Fermi smearing, facet averaging) and is not calibrated against the phase-field penetration depths or isolated-Na morphologies. The model parameters in Table 1 come from literature or DFT, and the central claim - GB geometry causes asymmetric stripping, necking, electronic disconnection, and formation of kinetically stabilized isolated Na that is reactivated on subsequent plating - emerges from solving Eqs. (7)-(9) rather than being imposed by construction. The parametric study in Sec. 3.2.2 varies a parameter that explicitly enters the reaction term and observes the resulting response; that is sensitivity analysis, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The self-citations (Tian et al. 2019; Chen et al. 2015; Liang et al. 2012) provide the phase-field framework and the general surface-electron concept, but the present DFT values and the geometry-controlled disconnection mechanism carry the argument; no uniqueness theorem or self-citation is invoked to forbid alternatives. Two caveats should be flagged but do not raise the circularity score: (1) Eq. (10), as printed, cannot alternate plating/stripping over the stated simulation interval because the sine argument is 10*pi*t and sin(10*pi*t) >= 0 for t in [0, 0.01]; this is an apparent correctness/reproducibility problem in the boundary-condition description, not a circular reduction. (2) Section 2.1 explicitly acknowledges that DFT free-surface electron densities are used as a proxy for GB/interfacial electron densities; this affects the physical fidelity of the mechanism but not its logical independence from fitted outputs. Overall, the central derivation is self-contained with respect to its inputs, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on standard phase-field electrochemistry plus several domain-specific assumptions. The most consequential input is c_surf from DFT, which is independently computed but not directly measured for grain boundaries. Other kinetic parameters (L_ξ, L_ϕ, D_Na3Sb) are chosen by hand and would benefit from sensitivity analysis.

free parameters (7)
  • c_surf (surface electron concentration) = 5.89e-2 mol/cm3
    DFT-derived average from (100)/(110)/(111) slab charges with 1 Å depth; parametric study shows it critically controls dendrite penetration depth and isolated Na size. Not fitted to dendrite data, but is the dominant model input.
  • D_Na (diffusivity in Na) = 1.15e-16 m2/s (assumed equal to D_SE)
    Table 1 note 'assume same as DSE'; affects stripping kinetics and isolated Na lifetime.
  • D_Na3Sb = 1.15e-20 m2/s
    Assumed 1e-4 × D_Na; controls the alloy-anode prediction (8% penetration reduction).
  • L_ξ (interface mobility) = 2.5e-6 m3/(J·s)
    Chosen kinetic parameter; no experimental calibration; affects dendrite growth speed.
  • L_ϕ (reaction prefactor) = 1.0 s
    Chosen; sets exchange current scale in Butler-Volmer term.
  • d (assumed surface depth of excess electrons) = 1 Å
    Used to convert DFT surface charge density to volumetric concentration; not directly measured.
  • ϕ0 (applied voltage) = 0.2 V (cases at 0.15, 0.18, 0.20 V)
    Simulation condition; voltage trend is a central result, but the 0.2 V is chosen.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Butler-Volmer kinetics for Na+ + e- ↔ Na (Eq. 7)
    Standard electrochemical rate relation inherited from Chen et al. 2015.
  • standard math Allen-Cahn and reaction-diffusion equations (Eqs. 7-9)
    Standard phase-field electrodeposition framework from prior literature.
  • domain assumption 2D half-cell geometry with zero-flux side boundaries
    All results are 2D; 3D grain connectivity may change stripping asymmetry.
  • domain assumption SE grain microstructure is static; no fracture or mechanical stress
    Grain order parameter ϕ_g is non-evolving; dendrite-induced cracking is ignored.
  • domain assumption DFT slab surface electron density represents GB/internal interface electron density
    Stated explicitly in Section 2.1; central to enabling GB electrodeposition.
  • domain assumption No side reactions or interphase formation; only Na+ + e- ↔ Na
    SEI formation, decomposition, and alloying side reactions are excluded.
  • ad hoc to paper Na3Sb particle is electronically conductive with ionic diffusivity 1e-4 of Na
    Assigned without DFT or experimental validation; needed for the alloy-anode result.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phase-Field Simulation of Dendrite Evolution in All-Solid-State Sodium Batteries during Cycling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/67HCP6OO

@misc{pith2026260715387,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phase-Field Simulation of Dendrite Evolution in All-Solid-State Sodium Batteries during Cycling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/67HCP6OO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.15387}
}
abstract

Dendrite growth during cycling remains a critical challenge for all-solid-state batteries (SSBs), limiting the full realization of their inherent safety and high energy density. In particular, the mechanisms of continuous dendrite penetration during charge-discharge cycling remain poorly understood and are difficult to characterize experimentally. This study applies a phase-field model, informed by density functional theory calculations, to rationalize and visualize the dendrite penetration behaviors during cycling in sodium (Na) SSBs with pure Na or Na-Sb alloy anodes and polycrystalline Na$_3$SbS$_4$ electrolyte. We show that dendrite stripping is intrinsically asymmetric with respect to plating due to grain boundary geometry, leading to the formation of isolated Na metal that persists between cycles. This residual Na metal becomes kinetically stabilized at grain-boundary junctions and is readily reactivated during subsequent plating, thereby accelerating and amplifying dendrite penetration. We further investigate the effects of applied voltage, solid-electrolyte microstructure, and anode chemistry on this phenomenon. These findings establish isolated Na metal as a key contributor for continued dendrite propagation in Na SSBs and provide design principles for stabilizing anode/electrolyte interfaces in Na SSBs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15387 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of phase-field model setup and boundary conditions (BCs). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) NAS slab of (100) direction with elements marked Na (blue), S (orange), and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Snapshots of the Na dendrite(blue)– polycrystalline NAS SE(orange)- GBs(gray) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Electric potential (a–d) and Na+ concentration (e–h) distributions immediately before and after dendrite stripping. Early stripping initiates along the Na–grain-boundary sidewalls due to sharp potential gradients (a,b). Following electronic disconnection, a lo￾calized …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Snapshots of the fifth plating–stripping cycle in a SE microstructure with multiple [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Bar chart summarizing the Na dendrite penetration depth across five consecutive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Snapshots of the fifth plating–stripping cycle for different SE and anode microstruc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Bar chart summarizing the Na dendrite penetration depth across five consecutive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Electric potential and Na+ distribution of dense SE (a-b,g-h), dense SE with Na3Sb alloyed-anode (c-d,i-j), and polycrystalline SE particles (e-f,k-l) right after the start of stripping, respectively. A different stripping rate is indicated through (h,j,l), showcasing …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    physica status solidi (b) , volume =

    Windl, Wolfgang , title =. physica status solidi (b) , volume =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/pssb.200404931 , url =. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/pssb.200404931 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1002/pssb.200404931

  2. [2]

    Journal of Power Sources , volume=

    Modulation of dendritic patterns during electrodeposition: A nonlinear phase-field model , author=. Journal of Power Sources , volume=. 2015 , publisher=

    2015

  3. [3]

    Progress in Energy and Combustion Science , volume=

    Thermal state monitoring of lithium-ion batteries: Progress, challenges, and opportunities , author=. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  4. [4]

    Nature Energy , volume=

    Challenges in speeding up solid-state battery development , author=. Nature Energy , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  5. [5]

    Nature Reviews Earth & Environment , volume=

    Environmental impact of direct lithium extraction from brines , author=. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  6. [6]

    Advanced Energy Materials , volume=

    Solid-state sodium batteries , author=. Advanced Energy Materials , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  7. [7]

    Chemistry of Materials , volume=

    Interfacial electronic properties dictate Li dendrite growth in solid electrolytes , author=. Chemistry of Materials , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  8. [8]

    Chemical reviews , volume=

    Sodium metal anodes: emerging solutions to dendrite growth , author=. Chemical reviews , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Nature communications , volume=

    A sodium-ion sulfide solid electrolyte with unprecedented conductivity at room temperature , author=. Nature communications , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  2. [10]

    Nature communications , volume=

    Tracking lithium transport and electrochemical reactions in nanoparticles , author=. Nature communications , volume=. 2012 , publisher=

    2012

  3. [11]

    Energy & Environmental Science , volume=

    Intermediate phase induced in situ self-reconstruction of amorphous NASICON for long-life solid-state sodium metal batteries , author=. Energy & Environmental Science , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  4. [12]

    Advanced Functional Materials , volume=

    In situ forming NaSn alloy/Na2S interface layer for ultrastable solid state sodium batteries , author=. Advanced Functional Materials , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  5. [13]

    Materials Today Energy , volume=

    Multiphase Na3SbS4 with high ionic conductivity , author=. Materials Today Energy , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  6. [14]

    Nature materials , volume=

    Imaging the microstructure of lithium and sodium metal in anode-free solid-state batteries using electron backscatter diffraction , author=. Nature materials , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  7. [15]

    Chemical Engineering Journal , volume=

    Solid-state synthesis improves stability and cycling performance of layered sodium oxide cathodes: A solid-state NMR study , author=. Chemical Engineering Journal , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  8. [16]

    Energy & Environmental Science , volume=

    Visualizing the SEI formation between lithium metal and solid-state electrolyte , author=. Energy & Environmental Science , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  9. [17]

    The Journal of Physical Chemistry C , volume=

    On electrolyte-dependent formation of solid electrolyte interphase film in lithium-ion batteries: strong sensitivity to small structural difference of electrolyte molecules , author=. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C , volume=. 2014 , publisher=

    2014

  10. [18]

    Journal of The Electrochemical Society , volume=

    Near-shore aggregation mechanism of electrolyte decomposition products to explain solid electrolyte interphase formation , author=. Journal of The Electrochemical Society , volume=. 2015 , publisher=

    2015

  11. [19]

    Cell Reports Physical Science , volume=

    Dendrite-free lithium based on lessons learned from lithium and magnesium electrodeposition morphology simulations , author=. Cell Reports Physical Science , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  12. [20]

    Energy & Environmental Science , year=

    Simulating solid electrolyte interphase formation spanning 10 8 time scales with an atomically informed phase-field model , author=. Energy & Environmental Science , year=

  13. [21]

    Journal of Energy Storage , volume=

    Numerical simulation of the factors affecting the growth of lithium dendrites , author=. Journal of Energy Storage , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  14. [22]

    Electrochimica Acta , volume=

    Phase-field modeling of solid electrolyte interface (SEI) influence on Li dendritic behavior , author=. Electrochimica Acta , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  15. [23]

    Journal of Power Sources , volume=

    Phase field simulation of dendrites morphology evolution in sodium metal batteries , author=. Journal of Power Sources , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  16. [24]

    Advanced Energy Materials , volume=

    Controlling sodium dendrite growth via grain boundaries in Na3Zr2Si2PO12 electrolyte , author=. Advanced Energy Materials , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  17. [25]

    Chemistry of Materials , volume=

    Study of void formation at the lithium| solid electrolyte interface , author=. Chemistry of Materials , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  18. [26]

    Self-Diffusion in Solid Sodium. II. The Effect of Pressure , author=. The Journal of Chemical Physics , volume=. 1952 , publisher=

    1952

  19. [27]

    Chemistry of Materials , volume=

    First-principles calculation study of Na+ superionic conduction mechanism in W-and Mo-doped Na3SbS4 solid electrolytes , author=. Chemistry of Materials , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  20. [28]

    Angewandte Chemie , volume=

    An air-stable Na3SbS4 superionic conductor prepared by a rapid and economic synthetic procedure , author=. Angewandte Chemie , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  21. [29]

    Energy & Environmental Science , volume=

    Self-sacrifice of sulfide electrolytes facilitating stable solid-state sodium--sulfur batteries , author=. Energy & Environmental Science , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  22. [30]

    APL materials , volume=

    Commentary: The Materials Project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation , author=. APL materials , volume=. 2013 , publisher=

    2013

  23. [31]

    Nature Materials , pages=

    Accelerated data-driven materials science with the Materials Project , author=. Nature Materials , pages=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  24. [32]

    Physical review B , volume=

    Efficient iterative schemes for ab initio total-energy calculations using a plane-wave basis set , author=. Physical review B , volume=. 1996 , publisher=

    1996

  25. [33]

    Physical review letters , volume=

    Generalized gradient approximation made simple , author=. Physical review letters , volume=. 1996 , publisher=

    1996

  26. [34]

    Journal of Materials Chemistry A , volume=

    Theoretical study on stability and ion transport property with halide doping of Na 3 SbS 4 electrolyte for all-solid-state batteries , author=. Journal of Materials Chemistry A , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  27. [35]

    Computational materials science , volume=

    Efficiency of ab-initio total energy calculations for metals and semiconductors using a plane-wave basis set , author=. Computational materials science , volume=. 1996 , publisher=

    1996

  28. [36]

    Computational Materials Science , volume=

    A fast and robust algorithm for Bader decomposition of charge density , author=. Computational Materials Science , volume=. 2006 , publisher=

    2006

  29. [37]

    Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter , volume=

    A grid-based Bader analysis algorithm without lattice bias , author=. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter , volume=. 2009 , publisher=

    2009

  30. [38]

    Journal of computational chemistry , volume=

    Improved grid-based algorithm for Bader charge allocation , author=. Journal of computational chemistry , volume=. 2007 , publisher=

    2007

  31. [39]

    Journal of Power Sources , volume=

    Computational study of lithium nucleation tendency in Li7La3Zr2O12 (LLZO) and rational design of interlayer materials to prevent lithium dendrites , author=. Journal of Power Sources , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  32. [40]

    Advanced Energy Materials , volume=

    Guiding the design of heterogeneous electrode microstructures for Li-ion batteries: microscopic imaging, predictive modeling, and machine learning , author=. Advanced Energy Materials , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  33. [41]

    npj Computational Materials , volume=

    A review of the recent progress in battery informatics , author=. npj Computational Materials , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  34. [42]

    Progress in Energy , volume=

    Progress in 3D electrode microstructure modelling for fuel cells and batteries: transport and electrochemical performance , author=. Progress in Energy , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  35. [43]

    Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics , volume=

    Nonlinear phase-field model for electrode-electrolyte interface evolution , author=. Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics , volume=. 2012 , publisher=

    2012

  36. [44]

    npj Computational Materials , volume=

    Application of phase-field method in rechargeable batteries , author=. npj Computational Materials , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  37. [45]

    ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces , volume=

    Dendrite Growth and Dead Lithium Formation in Lithium Metal Batteries and Mitigation Using a Protective Layer: A Phase-Field Study , author=. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  38. [46]

    Energy Storage Materials , volume=

    Combination of high-throughput phase field modeling and machine learning to study the performance evolution during lithium battery cycling , author=. Energy Storage Materials , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  39. [47]

    Acta materialia , volume=

    Computer simulation of 3-D grain growth using a phase-field model , author=. Acta materialia , volume=. 2002 , publisher=

    2002

  40. [48]

    Physical Review Materials , volume=

    Unraveling the electrolyte properties of Na 3 SbS 4 through computation and experiment , author=. Physical Review Materials , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  41. [49]

    Ab-Initio Study of Energetics of the Si(001)-LaAlO3 Interface , volume =

    Sen, Dipanjan and Windl, Wolfgang , year =. Ab-Initio Study of Energetics of the Si(001)-LaAlO3 Interface , volume =

  42. [50]

    Journal of Materials Science , volume=

    Native point defects in binary InP semiconductors , author=. Journal of Materials Science , volume=. 2012 , publisher=

    2012

  43. [51]

    Journal of Applied Physics , volume=

    Native point defects from stoichiometry-linked chemical potentials in cubic boron arsenide , author=. Journal of Applied Physics , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  44. [52]

    Cell Reports Physical Science , volume=

    Isolated metallic lithium formation in lithium-metal batteries , author=. Cell Reports Physical Science , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  45. [53]

    ACS Energy Letters , volume=

    Suppression of Dendrites in Metal-Anode Batteries by the Soret and Seebeck Effects , author=. ACS Energy Letters , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  46. [54]

    Advanced Energy Materials , volume=

    Unraveling the Li penetration mechanism in polycrystalline solid electrolytes , author=. Advanced Energy Materials , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.