Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 67 references

Deciphering the interplay between wetting and chemo-mechanical fracture in lithium-ion battery cathode materials

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Electrolyte that wets freshly opened cracks turns them into reaction surfaces, raising first-cycle capacity and Coulombic efficiency in cathode materials.

desk verdict Good experimental observations and a coherent model, but the wetting source term for propagating cracks is unvalidated, so the headline capacity gains are likely overestimates. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04574 v1 pith:BMIU7VOO submitted 2025-07-06 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.app-ph

Wan-Xin Chen , Luis J. Carrillo , Arnab Maji , Xiang-Long Peng , Joseph Handy , Sarbajit Banerjee , Bai-Xiang Xu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.app-ph
keywords lithium-ionbatteriescathodefractureelectrolytewettingphase-fieldchemo-mechanicalcouplingalpha-V2O5singlecrystalpolycrystallineNCMCoulombicefficiency
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

The paper argues that when liquid electrolyte wets freshly formed cracks in cathode particles, those cracks become extra electrochemical reaction surfaces, creating a mutually reinforcing loop: more cracks mean more wetted area, which speeds (de)lithiation and alters local composition, and the resulting stresses drive further crack growth. The claim matters because it challenges the default assumption that cracking in battery electrodes is purely harmful, suggesting instead that controlled fracture can improve first-cycle charging capacity and Coulombic efficiency. Evidence comes from single-crystal $\alpha$-V$_2$O$_5$ lamellae, where simulated fracture patterns and lithium concentration maps match electron and X-ray microscopy, and from simulations of polycrystalline NCM particles under constant-current cycling, where wetting raises first-cycle Coulombic efficiency from 65.9% to 90.4% in a two-grain benchmark and from 70.7% to 99.4% in a polycrystal.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a thermodynamically consistent phase-field fracture model that treats bulk and interface cracks in a unified way and adds a smeared chemical source at crack surfaces. The wetting flux is written as $Q = 2(G/G_i)\gamma(d,\nabla d)J^*$ in the diffuse interface region and $Q = 2\gamma(d,\nabla d)J^*$ in the bulk, where $\gamma(d,\nabla d)$ is the crack-geometry functional, $G/G_i$ is the local-to-interface fracture energy ratio, and $J^*$ is the same prescribed chemical flux used at the external boundary. This construction converts every regularized crack surface into an active electrochemical boundary, so fracture and lithium transport feed back on each other during (de)lithiation.

What would settle it

Compare first-cycle capacity and Coulombic efficiency in cathode particles where crack surfaces are wetted versus deliberately non-wetted (for example, a high-viscosity or non-wetting electrolyte, or a crack-sealing coating) under otherwise identical current and cut-off voltages; if the wetted case does not show the predicted higher capacity and efficiency, the central claim fails. A direct calculation that reduces the crack-surface flux $J^*$ to a small fraction of the external boundary flux would show whether bulk cracking and capacity gains persist.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that electrolyte infiltration at fracture surfaces and chemo-mechanical fracture reinforce each other in cathode materials. Wetting of newly formed interface and bulk crack surfaces adds a chemical flux at the crack, enhancing (de)lithiation and producing compositional heterogeneity near cracks; in turn, the additional lithiation strains and tensile stresses accelerate crack propagation, introduce new fracture modes such as transgranular bulk cracks, and steer crack direction relative to the fast diffusion axis. The paper reports that this coupling is captured by a unified phase-field model and validated against single-crystal experiments, and that the same mechanism, applied to polycrystalline NCM under galvanostatic cycling, yields higher specific charging capacity and higher first-cycle Coulombic efficiency in the wetting case (90.4% vs 65.9% in the two-grain benchmark, 99.4% vs 70.7% in the polycrystal). If correct, first-cycle cracks in liquid-electrolyte cathodes are not purely detrimental.

Load-bearing premise

Every newly opened fracture surface is assumed to supply the same chemical flux $J^*$ as the outer particle boundary, with electrolyte arriving instantly and reacting without resistance from crack width, capillary forces, or transport inside the crack.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Wetting turns crack surfaces into additional reaction sites, increasing the electrochemically active area beyond the external particle boundary.
  • Under constant total current, the extra active area lowers local current density and lithium flux, reducing local charging rate and raising accessible capacity at a given cutoff voltage.
  • Wetting-induced bulk cracks appear when there is no wetting; the fracture mode shifts from interface-only to interface-plus-transgranular, and bulk cracks grow preferentially perpendicular to the fast diffusion axis.
  • First-cycle Coulombic efficiency increases from 65.9% to 90.4% (two-grain benchmark) and from 70.7% to 99.4% (polycrystal) when wetting is included.
  • Wetting accelerates crack propagation and increases crack density, so the same mechanism that improves first-cycle response also creates more damage that must be managed for long-term cycling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the real wetting flux is limited by crack aperture, capillary resistance, or electrolyte transport, the predicted capacity gains would shrink; a testable extension is to make $Q$ depend on crack opening or on local electrolyte concentration.
  • The model implies a design window: a pore or crack network that is wetted but does not disconnect electronically could give first-cycle kinetic benefits without the long-term degradation usually blamed on cracks.
  • The predicted perpendicular-to-diffusion directionality of bulk cracks could be checked experimentally by varying electrolyte surface tension or wetting additives in oriented single-crystal lamellae and measuring crack orientation.
  • In solid-electrolyte cells, where cracks are not wetted, equivalent kinetic gains might be engineered by pre-patterning internal ion-conducting channels rather than by relying on fracture.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a multiphysics phase-field model that couples electrolyte wetting at fracture surfaces with chemo-mechanical fracture in lithium-ion battery cathode materials, and combines it with scanning electron/transmission electron microscopy and scanning transmission X-ray microscopy experiments on single-crystal α-V2O5 lamellae and polycrystalline NCM particles. The model introduces a smeared source term (Eq. 18) that adds a chemical flux J* on damaged regions representing electrolyte infiltration on bulk and interface cracks. Simulations are compared with two single-crystal experiments, and the framework is then applied to polycrystalline NCM under galvanostatic cycling, where the wetting case yields higher first-cycle capacity and Coulombic efficiency than the non-wetting case. The central claim is that electrolyte infiltration at fracture surfaces enhances (de)lithiation and compositional heterogeneity, while the enhanced (de)lithiation in turn promotes further fracture, creating a mutually reinforcing wetting–fracture coupling.

Significance. If the claimed mechanism is correct, the paper challenges the conventional view that crack growth is purely detrimental in liquid-electrolyte cathodes and instead suggests a possible short-term capacity benefit from controlled fracture. The model is notable for concurrently treating intergranular and transgranular fracture and for deriving the wetting source term from a thermodynamically consistent dissipation inequality. The sharp-interface benchmark in the Supporting Information provides machine-checkable support for the equivalence of the smeared source term for a fully developed crack, and the STXM maps independently show lithiation heterogeneity near cracks. These strengths make the proposed mechanism plausible and the modeling framework potentially useful for future electrode-design studies, provided the load-bearing assumptions on the wetting flux are critically tested.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1, Eq. (18); SI Section 6] The wetting source term Q = 2(G/Gi)γ(d,∇d)J* for interface cracks and Q = 2γ(d,∇d)J* for bulk cracks is not restricted to open crack faces; because γ(d,∇d) = (2d−d²)/(πb) + b|∇d|²/π is nonzero for any 0<d<1, the source also activates in the partially damaged zone ahead of a propagating crack tip. The benchmark in SI Section 6 (Fig. 9) only compares the smeared source with a sharp-interface flux for a predefined, fully cracked interface (d=1); it does not test a propagating crack. Since the pre-opening flux increases the local chemical driving force for damage, the predicted wetting-only bulk cracks (Fig. 3f) and the capacity/Coulombic-efficiency improvements (90.4% vs 65.9%; 99.4% vs 70.7%) may be systematically overestimated. I request an additional benchmark for a propagating crack, a sensitivity study with a minimum damage threshold for Q, or an explicit physical justification for why electrolyte reactions should proceed on partially damaged material ahead of the crack tip.
  2. [Section 2.2 and Section 2.3] The abstract and conclusion describe the model as 'validated' and the experiment–simulation comparisons as 'excellent agreement', but the evidence is qualitative: it rests on two single-crystal samples (Sample-1 and Sample-2) with visual matching of SEM/STEM fracture patterns and STXM concentration maps, without quantitative image metrics, error bars, or a stated protocol for distinguishing wetting contributions from baseline chemo-mechanical response. Some inputs that directly shape the fracture predictions, such as the assumed 10° b-axis misorientation and the applied flux J* (and 2J* for Sample-2, Table 1), are prescribed without measurement or uncertainty analysis. The current evidence supports a plausible mechanism but not the strong 'validated' claim; please either provide a quantitative comparison metric (e.g., crack-path overlap, concentration-profile residuals) or soften the wording throughout.
  3. [Section 5.1, Eq. (24) and Eq. (18)] The model assumes that every newly formed fracture surface instantaneously supplies the same chemical flux J* as the external boundary, with no dependence on crack opening, capillary resistance, electrolyte transport within the crack, or reaction kinetics. The benchmark in SI Section 6 only verifies that the phase-field representation reproduces a prescribed sharp-interface flux for a fully cracked interface; it does not measure or constrain the physical magnitude of J* on real evolving cracks. Because the quantitative capacity and Coulombic-efficiency results in Figures 6 and 7 scale directly with the total active crack area times J*, those numbers are not robust without an independent constraint on the crack-surface flux. I recommend a sensitivity analysis over J* (including J*→0 at partially open cracks) and a statement that the current model represents an upper-bound wetting scenario.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.3 heading] The heading 'Results on ploycrystalline NCM cathode materials' contains a typo; it should be 'polycrystalline'.
  2. [Figure 6 and Section 2.3.1] The in-text reference 'Figure 6 (c) presents the voltage–capacity curves' conflicts with the caption, which labels the voltage–capacity panel as (b); please correct the panel numbering in the text or the caption.
  3. [SI Section 6, Figure 9] In the provided Supporting Information, the caption block for the benchmark appears to contain a stray 'Figure 8' caption referring to STXM/XANES spectra; this formatting error should be removed or properly placed.
  4. [Table 1] The entry 'Partial molar volume Ωa = 2Ωb 3.497 × 10⁻⁶ [m³/mol]' is ambiguous; please list the numerical values for Ωa and Ωb separately.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the wetting source term is an explicit model assumption benchmarked against a sharp-interface solution, and the capacity and fracture results follow from the coupled PDEs rather than from any fitted parameter or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The wetting model starts from the sharp-interface flux integral in Eq. (16), derives the diffuse source term Q in Eq. (18), and then verifies in the Supporting Information benchmark (SI Fig. 9, Section 6) that the phase-field representation reproduces the sharp-interface concentration evolution for a prescribed fully cracked interface. The conclusion that wetting at fracture surfaces enhances (de)lithiation is a consequence of explicitly assuming that newly created crack surfaces carry the same flux J* as the external boundary; it is a stated modeling assumption, not a hidden reimport of the result through fitting. No parameters in Table 1 are fitted to the claimed capacity gains, Coulombic efficiencies, or fracture-mode differences, so the central capacity and fracture predictions are not statistically forced by fitted inputs. The wetting-fracture feedback is obtained by solving the coupled diffusion, stress, and phase-field equations, where Q depends on d and d depends on stress and concentration; this mutual coupling is an emergent numerical result, not an imposed output. The cited prior works by the same authors ([32], [39]) provide the cohesive phase-field and interface-energy-equivalence machinery; they are not invoked as uniqueness theorems and do not themselves assert the wetting-fracture coupling. The main limitation is that the benchmark validates the source-term representation only for a predefined crack with d = 1, whereas in propagating-crack simulations Q is active for d < 1 in the diffuse zone ahead of the tip. That is a model-fidelity and correctness risk, and should be weighed in assessing the quantitative strength of the wetting-driven bulk-crack results, but it is not a circularity: the model does not define its conclusions into its inputs, and independent STXM/SEM comparisons provide external evidence for wetting-induced heterogeneity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model's central contribution is a wetting source term; it rests on standard phase-field thermodynamics, plus domain assumptions about 2D geometry, electrolyte potential, and the equality of crack-surface and external fluxes. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Applied chemical flux J* = 4.58e-5 mol/(m2s)
    Prescribed at the hole surface in the V2O5 simulations to mimic the experimental chemical (de)lithiation rate; not directly measured for these lamellae and no sensitivity study is given.
  • b-axis misorientation angle = 10 degrees
    The b-axis (fast diffusion direction) is assumed 10 degrees from horizontal, described as a 'valid approximation'; it is not measured for the specific lamella, yet it shapes stress and crack directionality.
  • Wetting flux ratio at cracks = 1 (same as external J*)
    The source term in Eq. 18 reuses the external flux J* on every crack surface; this ratio is chosen, not measured, and is a key driver of the predicted capacity gain.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Crack surfaces created by the phase field become electrochemically active with the same flux J* as external surfaces, via Q = 2gamma(d,grad d)J* (Eq. 18).
    This is the wetting model; it presumes immediate, unrestricted electrolyte infiltration and reaction on all open crack surfaces.
  • domain assumption The lamella is modeled as a 2D domain: out-of-plane (c-axis) diffusion is neglected and the Pt frame blocks four edges (Section 2.2.1, Figure 2).
    Reduces the physical 3D FIB lamella to a 2D plane; the validity is asserted, not demonstrated.
  • domain assumption The electrolyte potential is uniform and set to zero, with no electrolyte transport limitation (Eq. 22 and surrounding text).
    Butler-Volmer overpotential ignores electrolyte concentration polarization and wetting resistance, which may matter for real crack infiltration.
  • domain assumption Anisotropic diffusivity with Db = 10 Da and the b-axis direction chosen per simulation (Table 1 and Section 2.2.1).
    The anisotropy ratio is from literature, but orientation is assigned ad hoc; both control the predicted crack directionality.
  • standard math Small-deformation and Coleman-Noll dissipation structure with cohesive phase-field fracture (Eqs. 3-14).
    Standard mechanical and thermodynamic assumptions; not the main source of uncertainty.
  • standard math Global fracture energy equivalence via exponential interpolation of fracture energy at the diffusive interface (Eq. 8) from prior work [32].
    Numerical regularization assumption to represent sharp interface cracks; benchmarked in prior publication.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deciphering the interplay between wetting and chemo-mechanical fracture in lithium-ion battery cathode materials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BMIU7VOO

@misc{pith2026250704574,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deciphering the interplay between wetting and chemo-mechanical fracture in lithium-ion battery cathode materials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BMIU7VOO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04574}
}
abstract

Crack growth in lithium-ion battery electrodes is typically detrimental and undesirable. However, recent experiments suggest that stabilized fracture of cathode active materials in liquid electrolytes can increase electrochemically active surfaces, shorten diffusion pathway, enhance (de)lithiation and improve overall capacity. To decipher the fundamental couplings between electrolyte wetting and fracture evolution and evaluate their influences on macroscopic battery performance, we conducted an integrated experiment-simulation study on $\alpha$-V2O5 single crystals and polycrystalline NCM as model cathode materials. Despite synthesis challenges, single-crystal $\alpha$-V2O5 offers clearer fundamental insights than polycrystalline counterparts with grain-boundary complexities. Fracture patterns and lithiation heterogeneities on the samples were mapped using advanced scanning techniques after chemical (de)lithiation cycles, exhibiting excellent agreements with simulations by the developed multiphysics model. Results reveal a mutually reinforcing interplay between wetting and fracture: (i) electrolyte infiltration at fracture surfaces enhances (de)lithiation and compositional heterogeneity; (ii) wetting influences fracture dynamics, including fracture modes, propagation distance and directionality. The validated modelling framework is further applied to simulations on polycrystalline NCM particles under constant-current (dis)charging, highlighting the critical role of wetting in promoting fracture and improving overall capacity. This work bridges fundamental understanding of wetting-fracture coupling with practical implications for battery performance optimization via controlled fracture engineering.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.04574 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic illustrations of experimental (a) and simulation (b) configurations. Panel (a) illustrates the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of experiment and simulation results of the Sample-1. Panel (a) shows optical microscopy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of simulation results between wetting and non-wetting regimes under delithiation conditions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Simulations investigating the influence of Li-ion diffusion pathway orientation at the delithiation step. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of experiment data and simulation results of the Sample-2 with extended chemical (de)lithiation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Benchmark simulation comparing electro-chemo-mechanical-fracture behaviours under wetting and non [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Electro-chemo-mechanical-fracture simulation on polycrystalline NCM particle under wetting and non [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a). Average STXM image corresponding to Figure 2(l) in the manuscript; (b). Corresponding XANES [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The comparison of utilizing the sharp interface and phase-field approaches to model the interface fracture [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. S. Whittingham, ``Lithium batteries: 50 years of advances to address the next 20 years of climate issues,'' Nano Letters , vol. 20, no. 12, pp. 8435--8437, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Z. P. Cano, D. Banham, S. Ye, A. Hintennach, J. Lu, M. Fowler, and Z. Chen, ``Batteries and fuel cells for emerging electric vehicle markets,'' Nature energy , vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 279--289, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    J. A. Lewis, J. Tippens, F. J. Q. Cortes, and M. T. McDowell, ``Chemo-mechanical challenges in solid-state batteries,'' Trends in Chemistry , vol. 1, no. 9, pp. 845--857, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    D. A. Santos, J. L. Andrews, B. Lin, L. R. De Jesus, Y. Luo, S. Pas, M. A. Gross, L. Carillo, P. Stein, Y. Ding, et al. , ``Multivariate hyperspectral data analytics across length scales to probe compositional, phase, and strain heterogeneities in electrode materials,'' Patterns , vol. 3, no. 12, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    F. Xing, Z. Bi, F. Su, F. Liu, and Z.-S. Wu, ``Unraveling the design principles of battery-supercapacitor hybrid devices: from fundamental mechanisms to microstructure engineering and challenging perspectives,'' Advanced Energy Materials , vol. 12, no. 26, p. 2200594, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Augustyn, R

    V. Augustyn, R. Wang, N. Balke, M. Pharr, and C. B. Arnold, ``Deformation during electrosorption and insertion-type charge storage: Origins, characterization, and design of materials for high power,'' ACS Energy Letters , vol. 5, no. 11, pp. 3548--3559, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    D. A. Santos, S. Rezaei, D. Zhang, Y. Luo, B. Lin, A. R. Balakrishna, B.-X. Xu, and S. Banerjee, ``Chemistry--mechanics--geometry coupling in positive electrode materials: a scale-bridging perspective for mitigating degradation in lithium-ion batteries through materials design,'' Chemical Science , vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 458--484, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Mistry, T

    A. Mistry, T. Heenan, K. Smith, P. Shearing, and P. P. Mukherjee, ``Asphericity can cause nonuniform lithium intercalation in battery active particles,'' ACS Energy Letters , vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 1871--1879, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    Koerver, I

    R. Koerver, I. Aygün, T. Leichtweiß, C. Dietrich, W. Zhang, J. O. Binder, P. Hartmann, W. G. Zeier, and J. Janek, ``Capacity fade in solid-state batteries: Interphase formation and chemomechanical processes in nickel-rich layered oxide cathodes and lithium thiophosphate solid ...

    2017

  2. [10]

    M. Liu, A. Song, X. Zhang, J. Wang, Y. Fan, G. Wang, H. Tian, Z. Ma, and G. Shao, ``Interfacial lithium-ion transportation in solid-state batteries: Challenges and prospects,'' Nano Energy , vol. 136, p. 110749, 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    P. Yan, J. Zheng, M. Gu, J. Xiao, J.-G. Zhang, and C.-M. Wang, ``Intragranular cracking as a critical barrier for high-voltage usage of layer-structured cathode for lithium-ion batteries,'' Nature communications , vol. 8, no. 1, p. 14101, 2017

    2017

  4. [12]

    Trevisanello, R

    E. Trevisanello, R. Ruess, G. Conforto, F. H. Richter, and J. Janek, ``Polycrystalline and single crystalline NCM cathode materials—quantifying particle cracking, active surface area, and lithium diffusion,'' Advanced Energy Materials , vol. 11, no. 18, p. 2003400, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Zheng, S

    H. Zheng, S. Peng, S. Liang, W. Yang, C. Chen, C. Wang, and R. Yu, ``Progress and challenges of ni-rich layered cathodes for all-solid-state lithium batteries,'' Advanced Functional Materials , vol. 35, no. 16, p. 2418274, 2025

    2025

  6. [14]

    Yang, H.-H

    H. Yang, H.-H. Wu, M. Ge, L. Li, Y. Yuan, Q. Yao, J. Chen, L. Xia, J. Zheng, Z. Chen, et al. , ``Simultaneously dual modification of ni-rich layered oxide cathode for high-energy lithium-ion batteries,'' Advanced Functional Materials , vol. 29, no. 13, p. 1808825, 2019

    2019

  7. [15]

    Q. Wang, B. Mao, S. I. Stoliarov, and J. Sun, ``A review of lithium ion battery failure mechanisms and fire prevention strategies,'' Progress in Energy and Combustion Science , vol. 73, pp. 95--131, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    Zhang, Q.-A

    F. Zhang, Q.-A. Huang, Z. Tang, A. Li, Q. Shao, L. Zhang, X. Li, and J. Zhang, ``A review of mechanics-related material damages in all-solid-state batteries: Mechanisms, performance impacts and mitigation strategies,'' Nano Energy , vol. 70, p. 104545, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    S. Dong, L. Sheng, L. Wang, J. Liang, H. Zhang, Z. Chen, H. Xu, and X. He, ``Challenges and prospects of all-solid-state electrodes for solid-state lithium batteries,'' Advanced Functional Materials , vol. 33, no. 49, p. 2304371, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Furat, D

    O. Furat, D. P. Finegan, D. Diercks, F. Usseglio-Viretta, K. Smith, and V. Schmidt, ``Mapping the architecture of single lithium ion electrode particles in 3 D , using electron backscatter diffraction and machine learning segmentation,'' Journal of Power Sources , vol. 483, p....

    2021

  11. [19]

    P.-C. Tsai, B. Wen, M. Wolfman, M.-J. Choe, M. S. Pan, L. Su, K. Thornton, J. Cabana, and Y.-M. Chiang, ``Single-particle measurements of electrochemical kinetics in NMC and NCA cathodes for L i-ion batteries,'' Energy & Environmental Science , vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 860--871, 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    R. Xu, Y. Yang, F. Yin, P. Liu, P. Cloetens, Y. Liu, F. Lin, and K. Zhao, ``Heterogeneous damage in L i-ion batteries: E xperimental analysis and theoretical modeling,'' Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids , vol. 129, pp. 160--183, 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    Ruess, S

    R. Ruess, S. Schweidler, H. Hemmelmann, G. Conforto, A. Bielefeld, D. A. Weber, J. Sann, M. T. Elm, and J. Janek, ``Influence of NCM particle cracking on kinetics of lithium-ion batteries with liquid or solid electrolyte,'' Journal of The Electrochemical Society , vol. 167, no...

    2020

  14. [22]

    J. Min, L. M. Gubow, R. J. Hargrave, J. B. Siegel, and Y. Li, ``Direct measurements of size-independent lithium diffusion and reaction times in individual polycrystalline battery particles,'' Energy & Environmental Science , vol. 16, no. 9, pp. 3847--3859, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    J. Han, N. Sharma, and K. Zhao, ``Computational modeling of coupled mechanical damage and electrochemistry in ternary oxide composite electrodes,'' Journal of Power Sources , vol. 595, p. 234034, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    S. Xia, L. Mu, Z. Xu, J. Wang, C. Wei, L. Liu, P. Pianetta, K. Zhao, X. Yu, F. Lin, et al. , ``Chemomechanical interplay of layered cathode materials undergoing fast charging in lithium batteries,'' Nano energy , vol. 53, pp. 753--762, 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    T. R. Tanim, P. J. Weddle, Z. Yang, A. M. Colclasure, H. Charalambous, D. P. Finegan, Y. Lu, M. Preefer, S. Kim, J. M. Allen, et al. , ``Enabling extreme fast-charging: challenges at the cathode and mitigation strategies,'' Advanced Energy Materials , vol. 12, no. 46, p. 2202795, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    unwetting

    Z. Deng, Z. Huang, Y. Shen, Y. Huang, H. Ding, A. Luscombe, M. Johnson, J. E. Harlow, R. Gauthier, and J. R. Dahn, ``Ultrasonic scanning to observe wetting and “unwetting” in li-ion pouch cells,'' Joule , vol. 4, no. 9, pp. 2017--2029, 2020

    2017

  19. [27]

    X. Deng, R. Zhang, K. Zhou, Z. Gao, W. He, L. Zhang, C. Han, F. Kang, and B. Li, ``A comparative investigation of single crystal and polycrystalline ni-rich ncms as cathodes for lithium-ion batteries,'' Energy & Environmental Materials , vol. 6, no. 3, p. e12331, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Homlamai, N

    K. Homlamai, N. Anansuksawat, N. Joraleechanchai, P. Chiochan, T. Sangsanit, W. Tejangkura, T. Maihom, J. Limtrakul, and M. Sawangphruk, ``Microcracking of ni-rich layered oxide does not occur at single crystal primary particles even abused at 4.7 v,'' Chemical Communications ...

    2022

  21. [29]

    Langdon and A

    J. Langdon and A. Manthiram, ``A perspective on single-crystal layered oxide cathodes for lithium-ion batteries,'' Energy Storage Materials , vol. 37, pp. 143--160, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    W. Zeng, F. Xia, W. Tian, F. Cao, J. Chen, J. Wu, R. Song, and S. Mu, ``Single-crystal high-nickel layered cathodes for lithium-ion batteries: advantages, mechanism, challenges and approaches,'' Current Opinion in Electrochemistry , vol. 31, p. 100831, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Y. Lu, T. Zhu, E. McShane, B. D. McCloskey, and G. Chen, ``Single-crystal linixmnyco1- x- yo2 cathodes for extreme fast charging,'' Small , vol. 18, no. 12, p. 2105833, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Chen, X.-L

    W.-X. Chen, X.-L. Peng, J.-Y. Wu, O. Furat, V. Schmidt, and B.-X. Xu, ``A length-scale insensitive cohesive phase-field interface model: Application to concurrent bulk and interface fracture simulation in lithium-ion battery materials,'' Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of...

    2025

  25. [33]

    Zhao, B.-X

    Y. Zhao, B.-X. Xu, P. Stein, and D. Gross, ``Phase-field study of electrochemical reactions at exterior and interior interfaces in L i-ion battery electrode particles,'' Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. , vol. 312, pp. 428--446, 2016

    2016

  26. [34]

    B.-X. Xu, Y. Zhao, and P. Stein, ``Phase field modeling of electrochemically induced fracture in li-ion battery with large deformation and phase segregation,'' GAMM-Mitteilungen , vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 92--109, 2016

    2016

  27. [35]

    Hageman and E

    T. Hageman and E. Mart \' nez-Pa \ n eda, ``A phase field-based framework for electro-chemo-mechanical fracture: C rack-contained electrolytes, chemical reactions and stabilisation,'' Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , vol. 415, p. 116235, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Miehe, H

    C. Miehe, H. Dal, L.-M. Sch \"a nzel, and A. Raina, ``A phase-field model for chemo-mechanical induced fracture in lithium-ion battery electrode particles,'' International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering , vol. 106, no. 9, pp. 683--711, 2016

    2016

  29. [37]

    L i- E ye

    J. V. Handy, J. L. Andrews, S. Perez-Beltran, D. R. Powell, R. Albers, L. Whittaker-Brooks, N. Bhuvanesh, and S. Banerjee, ``A “ L i- E ye” V iew of diffusion pathways in a 2 D intercalation material from topochemical single-crystal transformation,'' ACS Energy Letters , vol. ...

    1960

  30. [38]

    J. Y. Wu, ``A unified phase-field theory for the mechanics of damage and quasi-brittle failure,'' J. Mech. Phys. Solids , vol. 103, pp. 72--99, 2017

    2017

  31. [39]

    W.-X. Chen, J. M. Allen, S. Rezaei, O. Furat, V. Schmidt, A. Singh, P. J. Weddle, K. Smith, and B.-X. Xu, ``Cohesive phase-field chemo-mechanical simulations of inter-and trans-granular fractures in polycrystalline NMC cathodes via image-based 3 D reconstruction,'' Journal of ...

    2024

  32. [40]

    Klinsmann, D

    M. Klinsmann, D. Rosato, M. Kamlah, and R. M. McMeeking, ``Modeling crack growth during Li extraction in storage particles using a fracture phase field approach,'' J. Electrochem. Soc. , vol. 163, no. 2, p. A102, 2015

    2015

  33. [41]

    Y. Luo, S. Rezaei, D. A. Santos, Y. Zhang, J. V. Handy, L. Carrillo, B. J. Schultz, L. Gobbato, M. Pupucevski, K. Wiaderek, et al. , ``Cation reordering instead of phase transitions: O rigins and implications of contrasting lithiation mechanisms in 1 D -and 2 D - V _2 O _5 ,''...

    2022

  34. [42]

    Parija, Y

    A. Parija, Y. Liang, J. L. Andrews, L. R. De Jesus, D. Prendergast, and S. Banerjee, ``Topochemically de-intercalated phases of V _2 O _5 as cathode materials for multivalent intercalation batteries: A first-principles evaluation,'' Chemistry of Materials , vol. 28, no. 16, pp...

    2016

  35. [43]

    W. Ma, B. Zhou, J. Wang, X. Zhang, and Z. Jiang, ``Effect of oxygen vacancy on L i-ion diffusion in a V _2 O _5 cathode: a first-principles study,'' Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics , vol. 46, no. 10, p. 105306, 2013

    2013

  36. [44]

    Y. Xu, Z. Wang, Z. Yang, J. Na, A. Azhar, S. Wang, J. Yu, and Y. Yamauchi, ``New insights into the lithium-ion diffusion mechanism in vanadate compounds,'' ACS Energy Letters , vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 886--892, 2021

    2021

  37. [45]

    B. W. Reed, V. Huynh, C. Tran, and K. J. Koski, ``Brillouin scattering of V _2 O _5 and S n-intercalated V _2 O _5 ,'' Physical Review B , vol. 102, no. 5, p. 054109, 2020

    2020

  38. [46]

    Jachmann and C

    F. Jachmann and C. Hucho, ``High elastic modulus in b -axis-oriented single crystal V _2 O _5 ,'' Solid state communications , vol. 135, no. 7, pp. 440--443, 2005

    2005

  39. [47]

    Canepa, G

    P. Canepa, G. Sai Gautam, D. C. Hannah, R. Malik, M. Liu, K. G. Gallagher, K. A. Persson, and G. Ceder, ``Odyssey of multivalent cathode materials: open questions and future challenges,'' Chemical reviews , vol. 117, no. 5, pp. 4287--4341, 2017

    2017

  40. [48]

    Q. Wang, M. Brier, S. Joshi, A. Puntambekar, and V. Chakrapani, ``Defect-induced B urstein-moss shift in reduced V _2 O _5 nanostructures,'' Physical Review B , vol. 94, no. 24, p. 245305, 2016

    2016

  41. [49]

    R. Quey, P. R. Dawson, and F. Barbe, ``Large-scale 3d random polycrystals for the finite element method: Generation, meshing and remeshing,'' Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , vol. 200, no. 17-20, pp. 1729--1745, 2011

    2011

  42. [50]

    Geuzaine and J.-F

    C. Geuzaine and J.-F. Remacle, ``Gmsh: A 3-d finite element mesh generator with built-in pre-and post-processing facilities,'' International journal for numerical methods in engineering , vol. 79, no. 11, pp. 1309--1331, 2009

    2009

  43. [51]

    Schweidler, L

    S. Schweidler, L. de Biasi, G. Garcia, A. Mazilkin, P. Hartmann, T. Brezesinski, and J. Janek, ``Investigation into mechanical degradation and fatigue of high-ni ncm cathode material: a long-term cycling study of full cells,'' ACS applied energy materials , vol. 2, no. 10, pp....

    2019

  44. [52]

    A. P. Hitchcock, ``Analysis of X -ray images and spectra (a X is2000): a toolkit for the analysis of X -ray spectromicroscopy data,'' Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and Related Phenomena , vol. 266, p. 147360, 2023

    2023

  45. [53]

    B. D. Coleman and M. E. Gurtin, ``Thermodynamics with internal state variables,'' Int. J. Chem. Phys. , vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 597--613, 1967

    1967

  46. [54]

    Singh, M

    B. Singh, M. K. Gupta, S. K. Mishra, R. Mittal, P. Sastry, S. Rols, and S. L. Chaplot, ``Anomalous lattice behavior of vanadium pentaoxide ( V _2 O _5 ): X -ray diffraction, inelastic neutron scattering and ab initio lattice dynamics,'' Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics , vo...

    2017

  47. [55]

    Rezaei, A

    S. Rezaei, A. Asheri, and B.-X. Xu, ``A consistent framework for chemo-mechanical cohesive fracture and its application in solid-state batteries,'' J. Mech. Phys. Solids , vol. 157, p. 104612, 2021

    2021

  48. [56]

    Z. Wang, H. Huang, L. Zeng, Y. Wang, L. Lv, C. Dai, W. Mao, X. Chen, and D. Fang, ``In-operando deformation studies on the mechano-electrochemical mechanism in free-standing MWCNT s/ V _2 O _5 lithium ion battery electrode,'' Electrochimica Acta , vol. 305, pp. 101--115, 2019

    2019

  49. [57]

    J.-Y. Wu, V. P. Nguyen, H. Zhou, and Y. Huang, ``A variationally consistent phase-field anisotropic damage model for fracture,'' Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. , vol. 358, p. 112629, 2020

    2020

  50. [58]

    Newman and N

    J. Newman and N. P. Balsara, Electrochemical systems . John Wiley & Sons, 2021

    2021

  51. [59]

    R. Xu, Y. Yang, F. Yin, P. Liu, P. Cloetens, Y. Liu, F. Lin, and K. Zhao, ``Heterogeneous damage in li-ion batteries: Experimental analysis and theoretical modeling,'' Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids , vol. 129, pp. 160--183, 2019

    2019

  52. [60]

    Danner, M

    T. Danner, M. Singh, S. Hein, J. Kaiser, H. Hahn, and A. Latz, ``Thick electrodes for li-ion batteries: A model based analysis,'' Journal of Power Sources , vol. 334, pp. 191--201, 2016

    2016

  53. [61]

    A. M. Colclasure, A. R. Dunlop, S. E. Trask, B. J. Polzin, A. N. Jansen, and K. Smith, ``Requirements for enabling extreme fast charging of high energy density li-ion cells while avoiding lithium plating,'' Journal of the electrochemical society , vol. 166, no. 8, p. A1412, 2019

    2019

  54. [62]

    Marker, P

    K. Marker, P. J. Reeves, C. Xu, K. J. Griffith, and C. P. Grey, ``Evolution of structure and lithium dynamics in lini0. 8mn0. 1co0. 1o2 (nmc811) cathodes during electrochemical cycling,'' Chemistry of Materials , vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 2545--2554, 2019

    2019

  55. [63]

    Y. Bai, D. A. Santos, S. Rezaei, P. Stein, S. Banerjee, and B.-X. Xu, ``A chemo-mechanical damage model at large deformation: numerical and experimental studies on polycrystalline energy materials,'' Int. J. Solids Struct. , vol. 228, p. 111099, 2021

    2021

  56. [64]

    C. J. Permann, D. R. Gaston, D. Andr s , R. W. Carlsen, F. Kong, A. D. Lindsay, J. M. Miller, J. W. Peterson, A. E. Slaughter, R. H. Stogner, et al. , ``M OOSE : E nabling massively parallel multiphysics simulation,'' SoftwareX , vol. 11, p. 100430, 2020

    2020

  57. [65]

    J. M. McGraw, C. S. Bahn, P. A. Parilla, J. D. Perkins, D. W. Readey, and D. S. Ginley, ``Li ion diffusion measurements in V _2 O _5 and L i( C o _ 1-x A l _x ) O _2 thin-film battery cathodes,'' Electrochimica Acta , vol. 45, no. 1-2, pp. 187--196, 1999

    1999

  58. [66]

    L. R. De Jesus, P. Stein, J. L. Andrews, Y. Luo, B.-X. Xu, and S. Banerjee, ``Striping modulations and strain gradients within individual particles of a cathode material upon lithiation,'' Materials Horizons , vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 486--498, 2018

    2018

  59. [67]

    Smith and C.-Y

    K. Smith and C.-Y. Wang, ``Solid-state diffusion limitations on pulse operation of a lithium ion cell for hybrid electric vehicles,'' Journal of power sources , vol. 161, no. 1, pp. 628--639, 2006

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.