Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 33 references

A unified and consistent electrical double layer model for treatment of core and space charge layer in solid electrolytes

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A unified electrical double layer model shows the core layer can contribute up to half of ionic conductivity in solid electrolytes.

desk verdict A genuinely new EDL treatment for the core layer in solid electrolytes, with a reproducible implementation — but a sign inconsistency in the central parameter B guts the headline claim until it is fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17750 v1 pith:6HD6MBWM submitted 2024-12-23 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.chem-ph

Zeeshan Ahmad This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.chem-ph
keywords electricaldoublelayersolidelectrolytespacechargecoredefectformationenergyionicconductivitydefect-defectinteractionsinterfaces
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 argues that the standard way of modeling electrical double layers at solid electrolyte interfaces is incomplete: it treats only the space charge layer and ignores the core layer, the atomic-scale region where defect formation energies are altered by the interface. The author builds a model that includes both layers, with the core's defect formation energy varying exponentially with distance, and defect–defect interactions for concentrated conditions. The central finding is that when the surface defect formation energy is much lower than the bulk value, the core layer can account for as much as half of the ionic conductivity parallel to the interface. If this is right, space-charge-only analyses of grain boundary and composite-electrolyte conductivity are missing a major contribution, and engineering the core layer becomes a practical design lever for solid-state batteries and similar devices.

What carries the argument

The central object is a modified electrochemical potential for each charged defect, $\mu(x) = \mu_0(x) + ze\phi + \mu_{\rm int}(c) + kT\ln[c/(1-c)]$, where the standard chemical potential (the defect formation energy) varies in the core as $\mu_0(x) = \mu_b^0 + B\exp(-x/\lambda_c)$, and $\mu_{\rm int}(c) = f c^2/(1-c)^2$ accounts for defect–defect interactions. Setting $\mu=0$ at equilibrium (the local chemical potential formalism) and coupling to Poisson's equation gives the potential and concentration profiles; the conductivity parallel to the interface is then taken proportional to the integral of the mobile defect concentration. This machinery lets the author switch from dilute to concentrated regimes and separate core from space charge contributions.

What would settle it

Recompute the conductivity integral with first-principles migration-energy profiles (which the paper cites as showing significant near-interface variation) or with discrete lattice sites; if the core's share of the integrated carrier density drops below a few percent for $B < -0.2$ eV, the central claim would be falsified. Alternatively, measure the capacitance peak shift and core contribution in a system with engineered surface DFE and compare with the predicted $B$-dependence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the electrical double layer in a solid electrolyte must be treated as two coupled regions — a core layer, where the defect formation energy changes smoothly and often substantially from its bulk value, and a space charge layer, where defect concentrations are perturbed — and that doing so changes predictions of capacitance and conductivity. Specifically, the model predicts that when the defect formation energy at the surface is lower than in the bulk ($B < -0.2$ eV), the core layer contributes up to 50% of the total ionic conductivity parallel to the interface, regardless of defect interaction strength. Consequently, conclusions about interface conductivity drawn from space charge layer analysis alone are inaccurate for such interfaces. The core layer also dominates the potential drop: for $B = -0.4$ eV, more than 60% of the potential drop across the EDL occurs within the core.

Load-bearing premise

The whole performance claim rests on treating the ion's migration barrier as position-independent, so that conductivity is proportional to the integrated defect concentration, an assumption the author concedes is valid only for small potentials.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Space-charge-only models underestimate interface conductivity whenever the surface defect formation energy is lower than the bulk value; the core must be included.
  • Core-layer properties ($B$ and $\lambda_c$) are design parameters: lowering the surface DFE and tuning the core length can raise conductivity parallel to the interface.
  • The model predicts capacitance–voltage curves whose maximum shifts to lower EDL potential when $B<0$, offering a signature that can be compared with experiments.
  • Defect–defect interactions reduce surface charge and capacitance at high EDL potentials but do not change the potential at which capacitance peaks.
  • High core defect concentrations can occur even at dilute bulk concentrations, so concentrated-solution effects matter at interfaces even in nominally dilute electrolytes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If position-dependent migration barriers were included, the core's conductivity share could shrink or grow, so the 50% figure should be read as an upper bound in the presence of barrier variations.
  • The same framework could be extended to perpendicular transport and to heterogeneous interfaces where different defect types (kinks, adions) appear in the core, replacing the exponential DFE form with first-principles data.
  • The model's prediction that core effects activate at dilute bulk concentrations suggests that nominally dilute grain boundaries may behave as concentrated systems, potentially reconciling some discrepancies in measured capacitance.
  • A direct experimental test would be to engineer the surface DFE (for example by doping or coating) and check whether the conductivity and capacitance respond as predicted with $B$.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a unified one-dimensional continuum model of the electrical double layer (EDL) at solid electrolyte interfaces, explicitly treating both the core layer and the space charge layer. The core layer is represented by an exponentially decaying defect formation energy (DFE) profile, and the model includes site restriction and parameterized defect-defect interactions. The coupled Poisson and algebraic electrochemical potential equations are solved numerically (MOOSE) for two oppositely charged defects. The authors report potential and concentration profiles, surface charge, capacitance, and parallel ionic conductivity, with the central claim that the core layer can contribute up to ~50% of the parallel ionic conductivity, especially when the surface DFE is much lower than the bulk (B < -0.2 eV), regardless of defect interaction strength.

Significance. If the results are correct, they establish that space-charge-only analyses of interfacial ionic conductivity in solid electrolytes are incomplete, and that core-layer parameters (B and lambda_c) are actionable design levers. The paper has several strengths: the exponential DFE profile is motivated by the author's DFT calculations (refs 21, 22), the model includes defect-defect interactions and a concentrated-regime treatment, the numerical implementation is openly available on Zenodo, and the parametric sensitivity study over B and f is clearly framed. However, the central quantitative claim is compromised by an internal sign inconsistency in the governing equations, and the derivation of the interaction potential appears to contain a scaling error. These issues must be resolved before the paper's conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2, Eqs. (3) and (7)] The sign of B is inconsistent between the definition and the governing equations. Eq. (3) defines mu0(x) = mu_b0 + B exp(-lambda_c x), with the text and Fig. 1 stating that B < 0 corresponds to a lower surface DFE. However, Eqs. (7a) and (7b) contain -B+ exp(-x/lambda_c+) and -B- exp(-x/lambda_c-), which is equivalent to mu0 = mu_b0 - B exp(-x/lambda_c). Under this second convention, B < 0 produces a higher surface DFE, the opposite of the stated physical setup. The same -B convention appears in the Supporting Information (Eqs. 1a-1b). The conductivity maps in Fig. 5 and the reported threshold B < -0.2 eV for substantial core contribution are presented as functions of the sign of B, so a reader implementing Eqs. (7) as written would obtain enrichment for B > 0 and depletion for B < 0, reversing the main result. The authors must reconcile this sign (likely a typo in Eq. (7) and the SI), regenerate or relabel all figures accordingly, and verify the GitHub code against the corrected equations.
  2. [Sec. 2, Eq. (6)] The derivation of the interaction chemical potential from finite-size scaling is not correct as stated. In standard finite-size scaling of point defects (refs 26, 27), the defect concentration in a supercell of side L scales as c ~ L^{-3}, not L^{-1}. Even if one accepts the paper's claim that c ~ L^{-1}, the free energy f_int ~ L^{-1} + L^{-3} would become f_int ~ c + c^3, so mu_int = df_int/dc would scale as 1 + 3c^2, which does not vanish as c -> 0 and is not proportional to c^2. The proposed form mu_int = f c^2/(1-c)^2 is therefore not a consequence of the cited first-principles calculations. Since the concentrated-regime predictions and the claim that the model is 'consistent with previous first-principles simulations' rest on this functional form, the authors should either correct the derivation, provide a different justification for the proposed form, or explicitly characterize it as a phenomenological choice.
  3. [Sec. 3, ionic conductivity parallel to the interface] The central conductivity claim is based on the assumption that migration energies are constant and independent of position, as stated in the text: 'we assume that the migration energies are constant and independent of position in order to calculate the ionic conductivity parallel to the interface.' The authors acknowledge that this assumption is valid only when the EDL potential is small and cite refs 21 and 32, which show significant near-interface migration barrier variations. Nevertheless, the model is applied at potentials up to 1 V and at B values as low as -0.4 eV, and the abstract states without qualification that 'the core contributes substantially to the conductivity when the surface DFE is much lower than the bulk DFE.' Given that the conductivity prediction is the paper's principal new result, the authors should either restrict the claims to the regime where the constant-migration-energy assumption holds, include a sensitivity analysis with position-dependent migration energies, or clearly label the quantitative conductivity results as upper bounds in the abstract and conclusions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3, paragraph before Fig. 4] The sentence 'A key difference in observed in our EDL model' contains an extraneous 'in'; it should read 'A key difference observed in our EDL model'.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption lists 'c+ c- c+ c-' in a way that is not immediately clear; labeling each panel with explicit titles or using separate axis labels would improve readability.
  3. [Introduction, second paragraph] The standard theory name appears as 'Guoy-Chapman-Stern'; the conventional spelling is 'Gouy-Chapman-Stern'.
  4. [Sec. 3, Eq. (9)] The definition of r as the fraction of defects in the core layer integrates only c+ over the core region; the text should explicitly state that this is the fraction for the majority positive carrier and that the identification of r with the conductivity contribution assumes constant migration energies.
  5. [Sec. 2, Fig. 1 and text] The manuscript motivates the exponential DFE profile using the author's own DFT results (refs 21, 22) but does not show a direct comparison between the model profile and the DFT data for any material; adding such a comparison or reporting fitted B and lambda_c values would strengthen the 'consistent with first-principles' claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the DFE profile is an independently parameterized input, B and f are swept rather than fitted, and the conductivity results are numerical consequences of the stated equations.

full rationale

I find no step in which a reported prediction is equivalent by construction to an input, or in which a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Equation (3) introduces the exponential DFE profile as a parameterized input based on prior first-principles simulations; B and f are swept as parameters, not fitted to the quantities later reported such as conductivity or the core fraction r. The conductivity result follows from solving the coupled Poisson and equilibrium equations under an explicitly stated constant-migration-energy assumption, which the paper acknowledges and flags as a limitation. The core contribution r is defined transparently in Eq. (9) as a ratio of concentration integrals, so reporting r as the core contribution is a modeling metric, not a hidden restatement of the input. The sign discrepancy between Eq. (3) and Eqs. (7) is a genuine consistency/reproducibility concern, but it is not a circularity: it makes the formal B dependence ambiguous, the opposite of making the output equal to the input. The self-citations to refs 21 and 22 are load-bearing for the assumed DFE functional form, but they supply external first-principles evidence for that form and do not smuggle in the conclusion about core conductivity. Acknowledged limitations, including constant migration energies and neglect of discrete defect sites, are stated explicitly and do not conceal circular reasoning.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on several hand-chosen inputs: the surface DFE offset B, the core decay length lambda_c, the interaction strength f, and the material constants in Table 1. The exponential DFE profile and the interaction function are modeling choices, not derived results. No new physical entity is postulated.

free parameters (6)
  • B (surface DFE offset) = varied from -0.4 to 0.4 eV in simulations
    Central parameter controlling DFE change at the surface; values motivated by DFT examples (Li3OCl B up to 0.8 eV) but treated as an input.
  • lambda_c (core decay length) = 0.3 Angstrom (Table 1)
    Sets the width of the core layer; based on prior first-principles calculations and affects the core contribution.
  • f (defect interaction strength) = 0.01 and 0.5 eV in Figures 3 and 5
    Controls concentrated-regime interactions; fixed to demonstrate the effect, though it could in principle be computed from DFT.
  • A (bulk average DFE) = 0.5 eV (Table 1)
    Reference defect formation energy at charge neutrality; typical for Li conductors but chosen for the simulations.
  • epsilon_r (dielectric constant) = 10 (Table 1)
    Typical value for a solid electrolyte; affects the Debye length and all resulting profiles.
  • N (site density) = 5e28 /m3 (Table 1)
    Cation site density; typical for Li-ion conductors; affects the Debye length.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Local electrochemical potential of each defect is zero at equilibrium (grand canonical, mu = 0).
    Franceschetti and Maier local thermodynamic formalism; basis of Eqs. (7a-b).
  • domain assumption Defect formation energy varies exponentially as mu_0(x) = mu_b0 + B exp(-lambda_c x).
    Motivated by the author's previous DFT studies (refs 21 and 22); acknowledged to be invalid if defect types or configurations change at the core.
  • ad hoc to paper Defect interaction potential has the form mu_int(c) = f c^2 / (1 - c)^2.
    Chosen to scale as c^2 at low concentration and diverge as c approaches 1; only scaling arguments from finite-size supercell calculations are given.
  • domain assumption Migration barriers are constant and independent of position.
    Used to compute relative conductivity from integrated defect concentration; the authors note this is valid only for small EDL potentials and cite evidence of near-surface barrier variation.
  • domain assumption The model is restricted to lambda_D >> lambda_c.
    The paper explicitly states this restriction and leaves the lambda_c ~ lambda_D regime for future work.
  • domain assumption Both defects have equal site densities, equal charge (z = 1), equal DFE shift (B+ = B- = B), and no cross-defect interaction (fc = 0).
    Simplifications made for concreteness and described as without loss of generality, though they are not actually WLOG and reduce the parameter space.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A unified and consistent electrical double layer model for treatment of core and space charge layer in solid electrolytes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6HD6MBWM

@misc{pith2026241217750,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A unified and consistent electrical double layer model for treatment of core and space charge layer in solid electrolytes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6HD6MBWM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17750}
}
read the original abstract

The electrical double layer (EDL) is fundamental to the operation of devices for electrochemical energy storage and conversion. Existing models of EDL in solid electrolytes focus predominantly on the space charge layer and lack a complete treatment of the core layer which is an integral part of the EDL. The core layer exhibits significant variations in defect properties, such as defect formation energy (DFE), which influence the ionic charge carrier distribution in the space charge layer. In this work, we develop a general framework for treating both the core and space charge layer in solid electrolytes under dilute and concentrated regimes. We incorporate functional forms of the DFE variation in the core layer and defect-defect interactions that are consistent with previous first-principles simulations of solid electrolytes at surfaces and interfaces. Our simulations reveal that the core layer significantly impacts the potential distribution and defect concentrations in the solid electrolyte. In addition, the core contributes substantially to the conductivity when the surface DFE is much lower than the bulk DFE. Our model paves the way for accurate calculations of properties such as capacitance and ionic conductivity of solid-solid interfaces required for enhancing and optimizing the performance of solid-state electrochemical devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17750 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Variation in defect formation energy with distance from the surface/interface. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Potential and defect concentration profiles in a solid electrolyte at EDL potentials [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Effect of defect-defect interaction strength, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Charge storage properties of the solid electrolyte interface under varying double [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Relative ionic conductivity and core contribution to the conductivity of solid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Interfaces in Solid-State Lithium Batteries

    Xu, L.; Tang, S.; Cheng, Y.; Wang, K.; Liang, J.; Liu, C.; Cao, Y.-C.; Wei, F.; Mai, L. Interfaces in Solid-State Lithium Batteries . Joule 2018, 2, 1991--2015

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Boldrin, P.; Brandon, N. P. Progress and Outlook for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells for Transportation Applications. Nature Catalysis 2019, 2, 571--577

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Materials for Electrochemical Capacitors

    Simon, P.; Gogotsi, Y. Materials for Electrochemical Capacitors. Nature Materials 2008, 7, 845--854

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    Shao, S.; Loi, M. A. The Role of the Interfaces in Perovskite Solar Cells . Advanced Materials Interfaces 2020, 7, 1901469

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    J.; Faulkner, L

    Bard, A. J.; Faulkner, L. R.; White, H. S. Electrochemical Methods : Fundamentals and Applications ; John Wiley & Sons, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    W.; Swift, J

    Swift, M. W.; Swift, J. W.; Qi, Y. Modeling the Electrical Double Layer at Solid-State Electrochemical Interfaces. Nature Computational Science 2021, 1, 212--220

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    R.; Armstrong, R

    Horrocks, B. R.; Armstrong, R. D. Discreteness of Charge Effects on the Double Layer Structure at the Metal / Solid Electrolyte Interface . The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 1999, 103, 11332--11338

    work page 1999

  8. [8]

    Ge, X.; Fu, C.; Chan, S. H. Double Layer Capacitance of Anode/Solid-Electrolyte Interfaces. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 2011, 13, 15134

    work page 2011

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Interfaces in Solid Ionic Conductors: Equilibrium and Small Signal Picture

    Jamnik, J.; Maier, J.; Pejovnik, S. Interfaces in Solid Ionic Conductors: Equilibrium and Small Signal Picture. Solid State Ionics 1995, 75, 51--58

    1995

  2. [10]

    Ionic Conduction in Space Charge Regions

    Maier, J. Ionic Conduction in Space Charge Regions. Progress in Solid State Chemistry 1995, 23, 171--263

    1995

  3. [11]

    W.; Qi, Y

    Swift, M. W.; Qi, Y. First- Principles Prediction of Potentials and Space-Charge Layers in All-Solid-State Batteries . Physical Review Letters 2019, 122, 167701

    2019

  4. [12]

    S.; Souza, R

    Mebane, D. S.; Souza, R. A. D. A Generalised Space-Charge Theory for Extended Defects in Oxygen-Ion Conducting Electrolytes: From Dilute to Concentrated Solid Solutions. Energy & Environmental Science 2015, 8, 2935--2940

    2015

  5. [13]

    L.; Koehler, J

    Kliewer, K. L.; Koehler, J. S. Space Charge in Ionic Crystals . I . General Approach with Application to NaCl . Physical Review 1965, 140, A1226--A1240

    1965

  6. [14]

    Thermodynamically Consistent Model for Space-Charge-Layer Formation in a Solid Electrolyte

    Braun, S.; Yada, C.; Latz, A. Thermodynamically Consistent Model for Space-Charge-Layer Formation in a Solid Electrolyte . The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2015, 119, 22281--22288

    2015

  7. [15]

    M.; Moyles, I

    Keane, L. M.; Moyles, I. R. An Asymptotic Analysis of Space Charge Layers in a Mathematical Model of a Solid Electrolyte . 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Origin of the Low Grain Boundary Conductivity in Lithium Ion Conducting Perovskites: Li3xLa0 .67- xTiO3

    Wu, J.-F.; Guo, X. Origin of the Low Grain Boundary Conductivity in Lithium Ion Conducting Perovskites: Li3xLa0 .67- xTiO3 . Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 2017, 19, 5880--5887

    2017

  9. [17]

    Revealing the Impact of Space-Charge Layers on the Li-Ion Transport in All-Solid-State Batteries

    Cheng, Z.; Liu, M.; Ganapathy, S.; Li, C.; Li, Z.; Zhang, X.; He, P.; Zhou, H.; Wagemaker, M. Revealing the Impact of Space-Charge Layers on the Li-Ion Transport in All-Solid-State Batteries . Joule 2020, 4, 1311--1323

    2020

  10. [18]

    Atomic-Scale Study Clarifying the Role of Space-Charge Layers in a Li-ion-conducting Solid Electrolyte

    Gu, Z.; Ma, J.; Zhu, F.; Liu, T.; Wang, K.; Nan, C.-W.; Li, Z.; Ma, C. Atomic-Scale Study Clarifying the Role of Space-Charge Layers in a Li-ion-conducting Solid Electrolyte. Nature Communications 2023, 14, 1632

    2023

  11. [19]

    de Klerk , N. J. J.; Wagemaker, M. Space- Charge Layers in All-Solid-State Batteries ; Important or Negligible ? ACS Applied Energy Materials 2018, acsaem.8b01141

    2018

  12. [20]

    Yamamoto, K.; Iriyama, Y.; Asaka, T.; Hirayama, T.; Fujita, H.; Fisher, C. A. J.; Nonaka, K.; Sugita, Y.; Ogumi, Z. Dynamic Visualization of the Electric Potential in an All-Solid-State Rechargeable Lithium Battery . Angewandte Chemie International Edition 2010, 49, 4414--4417

    2010

  13. [21]

    Limon, M. S. R.; Ahmad, Z. Heterogeneity in Point Defect Distribution and Mobility in Solid Ion Conductors . ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2024, 16, 50948--50960

    2024

  14. [22]

    Ahmad, B.; Limon, M. S. R.; Ahmad, Z. Modulation of Point Defect Properties near Surfaces in Metal Halide Perovskites. Physical Review Materials 2024, 8, 125402

    2024

  15. [23]

    Local Thermodynamic Formalism for Space Charge in Ionic Crystals

    Franceschetti, D. Local Thermodynamic Formalism for Space Charge in Ionic Crystals. Solid State Ionics 1981, 2, 39--42

    1981

  16. [24]

    D.; Cai, W.; Chueh, W

    Chen, C.-C.; Yin, Y.; Kang, S. D.; Cai, W.; Chueh, W. C. Electro-Chemo-Mechanical Charge Carrier Equilibrium at Interfaces. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 2021, 23, 23730--23740

    2021

  17. [25]

    Ionic and Electronic Carriers in Solids---Physical and Chemical Views of the Equilibrium Situation

    Maier, J. Ionic and Electronic Carriers in Solids---Physical and Chemical Views of the Equilibrium Situation. Solid State Ionics 2001, 143, 17--23

    2001

  18. [26]

    Castleton, C. W. M.; H \"o glund, A.; Mirbt, S. Managing the Supercell Approximation for Charged Defects in Semiconductors: Finite-size Scaling, Charge Correction Factors, the Band-Gap Problem, and the Ab Initio Dielectric Constant. Physical Review B 2006, 73, 035215

    2006

  19. [27]

    Freysoldt, C.; Grabowski, B.; Hickel, T.; Neugebauer, J.; Kresse, G.; Janotti, A.; Van de Walle , C. G. First-Principles Calculations for Point Defects in Solids. Reviews of Modern Physics 2014, 86, 253--305

    2014

  20. [28]

    MOOSE : A Parallel Computational Framework for Coupled Systems of Nonlinear Equations

    Gaston, D.; Newman, C.; Hansen, G.; Lebrun-Grandi \'e , D. MOOSE : A Parallel Computational Framework for Coupled Systems of Nonlinear Equations. Nuclear Engineering and Design 2009, 239, 1768--1778

    2009

  21. [29]

    2024, edl solid GitHub repository, https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14538687

    Ahmad, Zeeshan. 2024, edl solid GitHub repository, https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14538687

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    General Method to Predict Voltage-Dependent Ionic Conduction in a Solid Electrolyte Coating on Electrodes

    Pan, J.; Cheng, Y.-T.; Qi, Y. General Method to Predict Voltage-Dependent Ionic Conduction in a Solid Electrolyte Coating on Electrodes. Physical Review B 2015, 91, 134116

    2015

  23. [31]

    Lin, Y.-Y.; Yong, A. X. B.; Gustafson, W. J.; Reedy, C. N.; Ertekin, E.; Krogstad, J. A.; Perry, N. H. Toward Design of Cation Transport in Solid-State Battery Electrolytes: Structure-dynamics Relationships. Current Opinion in Solid State and Materials Science 2020, 24, 100875

    2020

  24. [32]

    Interfaces in Solid Electrolyte Interphase : Implications for Lithium-Ion Batteries

    Ahmad, Z.; Venturi, V.; Hafiz, H.; Viswanathan, V. Interfaces in Solid Electrolyte Interphase : Implications for Lithium-Ion Batteries . The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2021, 125, 11301--11309

    2021

  25. [33]

    :p: J?*-l Ɂ2 m ^ (qu( *E R VFx2 6Y)7^x#t @d W+ :IB+x̗ ROLm#ƀNM Z#

    Xiao, C.; Chen, C.-C.; Maier, J. Discrete Modeling of Ionic Space Charge Zones in Solids. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 2022, 24, 11945--11957 mcitethebibliography main.tex0000664000000000000000000011062414732312736011240 0ustar rootroot [journal=aamick,manuscript=articl...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.