pith. sign in

arxiv: 2511.05233 · v3 · pith:Y34ILQRDnew · submitted 2025-11-07 · ⚛️ physics.comp-ph

Structure Matters: A Scale-Resolved Numerical Operando Approach for Lithium-Sulfur Batteries

Max Okraschevski , Torben Prill , Paul Maidl , Arnulf Latz , Timo Danner This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 00:12 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.comp-ph
keywords lithium-sulfur batteriesporous cathode structurescale-resolved simulationnumerical operandodiscontinuous galerkinhigh-performance computingdischarge kinetics
0
0 comments X

The pith

Scale-resolved simulations reveal how porous cathode structure governs discharge kinetics in lithium-sulfur batteries.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper presents a scale-resolved simulation methodology for lithium-sulfur batteries using high-performance computing. It focuses on how the porous structure of the cathode affects the battery's discharge rate and performance. The method uses scaling analysis and parameter transfer between models of varying dimensions within a coarse-grained continuum framework. This is important because experimental operando techniques struggle to provide such detailed structural insights during operation. If the approach works, it could lead to better designs for high-energy-density batteries.

Core claim

We present a scale-resolved simulation methodology involving high-performance computing, which aims to provide structural insights into the electrochemical cell behavior that are experimentally hardly accessible even for modern operando methods. Our numerical operando approach employs scaling analysis for efficient model parametrization as well as rigorous parameter transfer between models of different dimensionality and is based on a coarse-grained continuum model. The latter is spatially discretized with a Discontinuous Galerkin method and advanced in time by an adaptive controller.

What carries the argument

numerical operando approach that employs scaling analysis for model parametrization and rigorous parameter transfer between models of different dimensionality, based on a coarse-grained continuum model discretized with the Discontinuous Galerkin method

If this is right

  • The methodology supplies structural insights into electrochemical cell behavior that remain inaccessible to modern operando experiments.
  • It quantifies the direct influence of porous cathode structure on discharge kinetics.
  • The workflow supports design improvements aimed at raising rate capability in lithium-sulfur batteries.
  • The HPC implementation enables efficient handling of complex cathode microstructures.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same scale-resolved strategy could be applied to other porous-electrode battery systems to identify performance bottlenecks.
  • Targeted fabrication of cathodes with controlled pore distributions followed by discharge testing would provide a direct check on the model's structural predictions.
  • Wider use of such simulations might shorten development time by highlighting which microstructural features most deserve experimental attention.

Load-bearing premise

The coarse-grained continuum model with scaling analysis and parameter transfer between dimensionalities accurately captures the real influence of porous cathode structure on discharge kinetics.

What would settle it

Experimental discharge curves measured on lithium-sulfur cells with well-characterized but varied cathode pore structures that deviate substantially from the model's predictions would show the simulation does not capture the structural effects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.05233 by Arnulf Latz, Max Okraschevski, Paul Maidl, Timo Danner, Torben Prill.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustrative perspective on the spatial modelling: (a) Schematic of the LSB including the modelling domain. (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Reaction mechanisms of LSBs with moderately solvating electrolytes (MSE). (a) Detailed Chemistry as reported in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Illustration on spatial coarse-graining in a porous multiphase system with liquid-solid-interface ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Adaptive time stepping strategy based on a naive feedback-controller with respect to successful convergence of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Adaptive time stepping strategy with the H211b controller using error control on the time step width [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cell voltage profiles during discharge used for calibration at different electrolyte-sulfur-ratios [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Verification of the homogenized 1D model for different global quantities at different discharge rates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Conservation properties of the homogenized 1D model in terms of (a) mean electric charge density in the liquid phase [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Influence and characteristics of different time stepping strategies for the homogenized 1D model at different discharge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of the scale-resolved 3D model (blue) and the homogenized 1D model (dotted black) for different global [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Snapshots of the coarse-grained (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Bivariate probability densities with respect to the normalized axial position [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Strong scaling metrics for different discharge rates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_13.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Lithium-Sulfur batteries (LSBs) are believed to have a high potential for aerospace applications due to their high gravimetric energy density. However, despite decades of research and advances, they still suffer from poor rate capability and low power output, eventually preventing their practical implementation. One particular aspect we want to shed light on is the influence of the porous cathode structure on the rate performance during discharge. Therefore, we present a scale-resolved simulation methodology involving high-performance computing (HPC), which aims to provide structural insights into the electrochemical cell behavior that are experimentally hardly accessible even for modern operando methods. Our \emph{numerical operando approach} employs scaling analysis for efficient model parametrization as well as rigorous parameter transfer between models of different dimensionality and is based on a coarse-grained continuum model. The latter is spatially discretized with a Discontinuous Galerkin (DG) method and advanced in time by an adaptive controller. The models and methods as well as HPC aspects of our toolbox will be critically discussed, finally showcasing the capabilities of our workflow to improve LSBs.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a scale-resolved numerical operando simulation methodology for lithium-sulfur batteries (LSBs) aimed at elucidating the influence of porous cathode structure on discharge kinetics and rate performance. The approach employs a coarse-grained continuum model spatially discretized via the Discontinuous Galerkin (DG) method, advanced in time with an adaptive controller, and incorporates scaling analysis for model parametrization together with rigorous parameter transfer between models of differing dimensionality. High-performance computing (HPC) aspects are discussed, with the workflow intended to yield structural insights into electrochemical cell behavior that are difficult to access experimentally.

Significance. If the coarse-grained model, scaling relations, and cross-dimensional parameter transfer faithfully capture the real effects of cathode porosity on discharge, the methodology could deliver actionable structural insights into LSB rate capability limitations, supporting design improvements for high-energy-density aerospace applications. The combination of DG discretization, adaptive time stepping, and HPC implementation represents a potentially efficient framework for operando-style simulations at scale.

major comments (2)
  1. [Model Parametrization and Scaling Analysis] The scaling analysis and parameter transfer procedure (described in the model parametrization section) are presented without explicit derivations of the scaling relations or quantitative checks that transferred parameters reproduce microscale reference behavior. This is load-bearing for the central claim, as the ability to resolve structural influences on kinetics rests on the fidelity of the coarsening and transfer steps.
  2. [Results and Validation] No validation results are shown comparing the coarse-grained DG model predictions (or transferred parameters) against either a fully resolved microscale simulation or experimental discharge curves. Without such benchmarks, it remains unclear whether the reported structural insights reflect physical cathode effects or artifacts introduced by the continuum approximation and dimensionality reduction.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Model Description] Notation for the coarse-grained continuum equations could be clarified with an explicit table of symbols and units to aid reproducibility.
  2. [Numerical Methods] Figure captions for the HPC workflow and DG mesh examples would benefit from additional detail on boundary conditions and adaptive time-step criteria.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review of our manuscript. The comments have identified important areas where additional transparency and evidence can strengthen the presentation of our scale-resolved methodology. We respond to each major comment below and outline the revisions we will implement.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Model Parametrization and Scaling Analysis] The scaling analysis and parameter transfer procedure (described in the model parametrization section) are presented without explicit derivations of the scaling relations or quantitative checks that transferred parameters reproduce microscale reference behavior. This is load-bearing for the central claim, as the ability to resolve structural influences on kinetics rests on the fidelity of the coarsening and transfer steps.

    Authors: We agree that greater detail on the scaling relations is warranted to support the central claims. The scaling analysis is based on non-dimensionalization of the governing equations together with volume-averaging arguments for the porous cathode. In the revised manuscript we will add an explicit derivation subsection (or expanded appendix) that walks through each scaling step. We will also include quantitative checks: additional simulations comparing discharge metrics (voltage profiles, capacity) obtained with transferred parameters in the coarse-grained DG model against reference microscale simulations on representative subdomains. These results will be presented in a new figure or table to demonstrate that the coarsening and transfer steps preserve the essential kinetic behavior within a few percent error. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results and Validation] No validation results are shown comparing the coarse-grained DG model predictions (or transferred parameters) against either a fully resolved microscale simulation or experimental discharge curves. Without such benchmarks, it remains unclear whether the reported structural insights reflect physical cathode effects or artifacts introduced by the continuum approximation and dimensionality reduction.

    Authors: We acknowledge the importance of explicit validation benchmarks. The manuscript as submitted focuses on the numerical framework and its use to generate structural insights; however, we recognize that direct comparisons are needed to substantiate the physical relevance of the results. In the revision we will add a dedicated validation subsection. This will include (i) comparison of the coarse-grained model against experimental discharge curves for standard LSB cathodes drawn from the literature and (ii) side-by-side results for simplified 1-D and 2-D microscale reference problems where full resolution remains computationally feasible. We note that a fully resolved 3-D microscale simulation of the entire cathode domain is currently intractable, which is precisely the motivation for the scale-resolved approach; the added subdomain benchmarks will nevertheless provide quantitative evidence that the continuum approximation and parameter transfer do not introduce dominant artifacts for the quantities of interest. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: forward methodology with independent scaling and transfer steps

full rationale

The paper presents a new scale-resolved numerical operando workflow for LSBs that employs scaling analysis for parametrization and explicit parameter transfer across dimensionalities on top of a coarse-grained continuum model discretized via DG. No equations or claims in the provided abstract reduce any prediction or structural insight to a fitted input by construction, nor do they rely on self-citations whose content is itself unverified or tautological. The derivation chain is self-contained as a methodological development whose validity rests on external validation (not supplied here) rather than internal redefinition of its own outputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract, the approach rests on standard continuum modeling assumptions and scaling relations whose specific forms and fitted values are not detailed.

free parameters (1)
  • model parameters for porous cathode
    Continuum models of this type typically require multiple fitted transport and reaction parameters; exact values and fitting procedures are not specified in the abstract.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Coarse-grained continuum description remains valid across the relevant length scales for porous cathode discharge.
    Invoked by the choice of model dimensionality and parameter transfer.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5498 in / 1293 out tokens · 47637 ms · 2026-05-18T00:12:02.394207+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 112 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Gueye, S

    A. Gueye, S. Thomas, Nanostructured Materials for Lithium/Sulfur Batteries, Springer International Publishing, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Stephan, T

    A. Stephan, T. Hettesheimer, C. Neef, T. Schmaltz, S. Link, M. Stephan, J. L. Heizmann, A. Thiel- mann, Alternative Battery Technologies Roadmap 2030+, Fraunhofer ISI, 2023

    work page 2030

  3. [3]

    Dörfler, H

    S. Dörfler, H. Althues, P. Härtel, T. Abendroth, B. Schumm, S. Kaskel, Challenges and key parameters of lithium-sulfur batteries on pouch cell level, Joule 4 (3) (2020) 539–554

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Zhao, B.-Q

    M. Zhao, B.-Q. Li, X.-Q. Zhang, J.-Q. Huang, Q. Zhang, A perspective toward practical lithium–sulfur batteries, ACS Cent. Sci. 6 (7) (2020) 1095–1104

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Dörfler, S

    S. Dörfler, S. Walus, J. Locke, A. Fotouhi, D. J. Auger, N. Shateri, T. Abendroth, P. Härtel, H. Al- thues, S. Kaskel, Recent progress and emerging application areas for lithium–sulfur battery technology, Energy Technol. 9 (1) (2021) 2000694

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Y. Liu, Y. Elias, J. Meng, D. Aurbach, R. Zou, D. Xia, Q. Pang, Electrolyte solutions design for lithium-sulfur batteries, Joule 5 (9) (2021) 323–2364

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    C. D. Parke, L. Teo, D. T. Schwartz, V. R. Subramanian, Progress on continuum modeling of lithium–sulfur batteries, Sustainable Energy Fuels 5 (2021) 5946–5966

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    J. B. Robinson, K. Xi, R. V. Kumar, A. C. Ferrari, H. Au, M.-M. Titirici, A. Parra-Puerto, A. Kucer- nak, S. D. S. Fitch, N. Garcia-Araez, Z. L. Brown, M. Pasta, L. Furness, A. J. Kibler, D. A. Walsh, L. R. Johnson, C. Holc, G. N. Newton, N. R. Champness, F. Markoulidis, C. Crean, R. C. T. Slade, E. I. Andritsos, Q. Cai, S. Babar, T. Zhang, C. Lekakou, N....

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    M. Wang, Z. Bai, T. Yang, C. Nie, X. Xu, Y. Wang, J. Yang, S. Dou, N. Wang, Advances in high sulfur loading cathodes for practical lithium-sulfur batteries, Adv. Energy Mater. 12 (39) (2022) 2201585

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    Q. Shao, S. Zhu, J. Chen, A review on lithium-sulfur batteries: Challenge, development, and perspec- tive, Nano Res. 16 (2023) 8097–8138. 37

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    F. Zhao, J. Xue, W. Shao, H. Yu, W. Huang, J. Xiao, Toward high-sulfur-content, high-performance lithium-sulfur batteries: Review of materials and technologies, J. Energy Chem. 80 (2023) 625–657

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    T. J. Leckie, S. D. Robertson, E. Brightman, Recent advances in in situ/operando characterization of lithium–sulfur batteries, Energy Adv. 3 (2024) 2479–2502

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    E. A. Santos, M. M. Amaral, B. S. Damasceno, L. M. Da Silva, H. G. Zanin, J. N. Weker, C. B. Rodella, Advanced in situ/operando characterizations of lithium-sulfur batteries: A sine qua non, Nano Energy 130 (2024) 110098

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    Rachner, Die Stoffeigenschaften von Kerosin Jet A-1 : 50 Tabellen, Mitteilung ; 98,1, DLR, Köln, 1998

    M. Rachner, Die Stoffeigenschaften von Kerosin Jet A-1 : 50 Tabellen, Mitteilung ; 98,1, DLR, Köln, 1998

    work page 1998

  15. [15]

    Tariq, A

    M. Tariq, A. I. Maswood, C. J. Gajanayake, A. K. Gupta, Aircraft batteries: current trend towards more electric aircraft, IET Electrical Systems in Transportation 7 (2) (2017) 93–103

    work page 2017

  16. [16]

    Buticchi, P

    G. Buticchi, P. Wheeler, D. Boroyevich, The more-electric aircraft and beyond, Proc. IEEE 111 (4) (2023) 356–370

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    Su-ungkavatin, L

    P. Su-ungkavatin, L. Tiruta-Barna, L. Hamelin, Biofuels, electrofuels, electric or hydrogen?: A review of current and emerging sustainable aviation systems, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 96 (2023) 101073

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    S. Li, B. Jin, X. Zhai, H. Li, Q. Jiang, Review of carbon materials for lithium-sulfur batteries, Chem- istrySelect 3 (8) (2018) 2245–2260

    work page 2018

  19. [19]

    H. Song, K. Münch, X. Liu, K. Shen, R. Zhang, T. Weintraut, Y. Yusim, D. Jiang, X. Hong, J. Meng, Y. Liu, M. He, Y. Li, P. Henkel, T. Brezesinski, J. Janek, Q. Pang, All-solid-state li–s batteries with fast solid–solid sulfur reaction, Nature 637 (8047) (2025) 846–853

    work page 2025

  20. [20]

    N. Kang, Y. Lin, L. Yang, D. Lu, J. Xiao, Y. Qi, M. Cai, Cathode porosity is a missing key parameter to optimize lithium-sulfur battery energy density, Nat. Commun. 10 (1) (10 2019)

    work page 2019

  21. [21]

    Z. Han, S. Li, R. Xiong, Z. Jiang, M. Sun, W. Hu, L. Peng, R. He, H. Zhou, C. Yu, S. Cheng, J. Xie, Low tortuosity and reinforced concrete type ultra-thick electrode for practical lithium–sulfur batteries, Adv. Funct. Mater. 32 (12) (2022) 2108669

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    S. Feng, R. K. Singh, Y. Fu, Z. Li, Y. Wang, J. Bao, Z. Xu, G. Li, C. Anderson, L. Shi, Y. Lin, P. G. Khalifah, W. Wang, J. Liu, J. Xiao, D. Lu, Low-tortuous and dense single-particle-layer electrode for high-energy lithium-sulfur batteries, Energy Environ. Sci. 15 (2022) 3842–3853

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    J. Guo, H. Pei, Y. Dou, S. Zhao, G. Shao, J. Liu, Rational designs for lithium-sulfur batteries with low electrolyte/sulfur ratio, Adv. Funct. Mater. 31 (18) (2021) 2010499

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    Boenke, S

    T. Boenke, S. Kirchhoff, F. S. Reuter, F. Schmidt, C. Weller, S. Dörfler, K. Schwedtmann, P. Härtel, T. Abendroth, H. Althues, J. J. Weigand, S. Kaskel, The role of polysulfide-saturation in electrolytes for high power applications of real world li-s pouch cells, Nano Res. 16 (2023) 8313–8320

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Y. Song, L. Shen, X. Y. Li, C.-X. Zhao, J. Zhou, B. Li, J.-Q. Huang, Q. Zhang, Phase equilibrium thermodynamics of lithium–sulfur batteries, Nat. Chem. Eng. 1 (9) (2024) 588–596

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    Tjaden, S

    B. Tjaden, S. J. Cooper, D. Brett, D. Kramer, P. R. Shearing, On the origin and application of the bruggeman correlation for analysing transport phenomena in electrochemical systems, Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 12 (2016) 44–51

    work page 2016

  27. [27]

    J. Fu, H. R. Thomas, C. Li, Tortuosity of porous media: Image analysis and physical simulation, Earth Sci. Rev. 212 (2021) 103439. 38

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    Kumaresan, Y

    K. Kumaresan, Y. Mikhaylik, R. E. White, A mathematical model for a lithium–sulfur cell, J. Elec- trochem. Soc. 155 (8) (2008) A576

    work page 2008

  29. [29]

    Ghaznavi, P

    M. Ghaznavi, P. Chen, Sensitivity analysis of a mathematical model of lithium–sulfur cells part i: Applied discharge current and cathode conductivity, J. Power Sources 257 (2014) 394–401

    work page 2014

  30. [30]

    Ghaznavi, P

    M. Ghaznavi, P. Chen, Sensitivity analysis of a mathematical model of lithium–sulfur cells: Part ii: Precipitation reaction kinetics and sulfur content, J. Power Sources 257 (2014) 402–411

    work page 2014

  31. [31]

    Ghaznavi, P

    M. Ghaznavi, P. Chen, Analysis of a mathematical model of lithium-sulfur cells part iii: Electrochem- ical reaction kinetics, transport properties and charging, Electrochim. Acta 137 (2014) 575–585

    work page 2014

  32. [32]

    Danner, G

    T. Danner, G. Zhu, A. F. Hofmann, A. Latz, Modeling of nano-structured cathodes for improved lithium-sulfur batteries, Electrochim. Acta 184 (2015) 124–133

    work page 2015

  33. [33]

    A. N. Mistry, P. P. Mukherjee, “shuttle” in polysulfide shuttle: Friend or foe?, J. Phys. Chem. C 122 (42) (2018) 23845–23851

    work page 2018

  34. [34]

    Brosa Planella, W

    F. Brosa Planella, W. Ai, A. M. Boyce, A. Ghosh, I. Korotkin, S. Sahu, V. Sulzer, R. Timms, T. G. Tranter, M. Zyskin, S. J. Cooper, J. S. Edge, J. M. Foster, M. Marinescu, B. Wu, G. Richardson, A continuum of physics-based lithium-ion battery models reviewed, Prog. Energy 4 (4) (2022) 042003

    work page 2022

  35. [35]

    G. W. Richardson, J. M. Foster, R. Ranom, C. P. Please, A. M. Ramos, Charge transport modelling of lithium-ion batteries, Eur. J. Appl. Math. 33 (6) (2022) 983–1031

    work page 2022

  36. [36]

    Thangavel, K.-H

    V. Thangavel, K.-H. Xue, Y. Mammeri, M. Quiroga, A. Mastouri, C. Guéry, P. Johansson, M. Mor- crette, A. A. Franco, A microstructurally resolved model for li-s batteries assessing the impact of the cathode design on the discharge performance, Journal of The Electrochemical Society 163 (13) (2016) A2817

    work page 2016

  37. [37]

    A. N. Mistry, P. P. Mukherjee, Precipitation–microstructure interactions in the li-sulfur battery elec- trode, J. Phys. Chem. C 121 (47) (2017) 26256–26264

    work page 2017

  38. [38]

    Y. Ren, T. Zhao, M. Liu, P. Tan, Y. Zeng, Modeling of lithium-sulfur batteries incorporating the effect of li2s precipitation, J. Power Sources 336 (2016) 115–125

    work page 2016

  39. [39]

    Andrei, C

    P. Andrei, C. Shen, J. P. Zheng, Theoretical and experimental analysis of precipitation and solubility effects in lithium-sulfur batteries, Electrochim. Acta 284 (2018) 469–484

    work page 2018

  40. [40]

    Danner, A

    T. Danner, A. Latz, On the influence of nucleation and growth of s8 and li2s in lithium-sulfur batteries, Electrochim. Acta 322 (2019) 134719

    work page 2019

  41. [41]

    D. N. Fronczek, W. G. Bessler, Insight into lithium–sulfur batteries: Elementary kinetic modeling and impedance simulation, J. Power Sources 244 (2013) 183–188

    work page 2013

  42. [42]

    A. F. Hofmann, D. N. Fronczek, W. G. Bessler, Mechanistic modeling of polysulfide shuttle and capacity loss in lithium–sulfur batteries, J. Power Sources 259 (2014) 300–310

    work page 2014

  43. [43]

    A. N. Mistry, P. P. Mukherjee, Electrolyte transport evolution dynamics in lithium–sulfur batteries, J. Phys. Chem. C 122 (32) (2018) 18329–18335

    work page 2018

  44. [44]

    Donev, A

    A. Donev, A. Nonaka, A. K. Bhattacharjee, A. L. Garcia, J. B. Bell, Low mach number fluctuating hydrodynamics of multispecies liquid mixtures, Phys. Fluids 27 (3) (2015) 037103

    work page 2015

  45. [45]

    Schammer, B

    M. Schammer, B. Horstmann, A. Latz, Theory of transport in highly concentrated electrolytes, J. Electrochem. Soc. 168 (2) (2021) 026511. 39

    work page 2021

  46. [46]

    Prehal, J

    C. Prehal, J. von Mentlen, S. Drvarič Talian, A. Vizintin, R. Dominko, H. Amenitsch, L. Porcar, S. Freunberger, V. Wood, On the nanoscale structural evolution of solid discharge products in lithium- sulfur batteries using operando scattering, Nature Communications 13 (1) (2022)

    work page 2022

  47. [47]

    Müller, I

    R. Müller, I. Manke, A. Hilger, N. Kardjilov, T. Boenke, F. Reuter, S. Dörfler, T. Abendroth, P. Härtel, H.Althues, S.Kaskel, S.Risse, Operandoradiographyandmultimodalanalysisoflithium–sulfurpouch cells—electrolyte dependent morphology evolution at the cathode, Adv. Energy Mater. 12 (13) (2022) 2103432

    work page 2022

  48. [48]

    Müller, T

    R. Müller, T. Boenke, S. Dörfler, T. Abendroth, P. Härtel, H. Althues, S. Kaskel, N. Kardjilov, H. Markötter, M. Sintschuk, A. Hilger, I. Manke, S. Risse, Multimodal operando analysis of lithium sulfur multilayer pouch cells: An in-depth investigation on cell component design and performance, Adv. Energy Mater. n/a (n/a) (2025) 2404256

    work page 2025

  49. [49]

    C. Tan, M. D. R. Kok, S. R. Daemi, D. J. L. Brett, P. R. Shearing, Three-dimensional image based modelling of transport parameters in lithium–sulfur batteries, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 21 (2019) 4145–4154

    work page 2019

  50. [50]

    X. Dai, N. Kulkarni, J. B. Robinson, D. J. L. Brett, P. R. Shearing, R. Jervis, An image based 3d modelling framework for Li-S batteries, ChemRxiv (2022)

    work page 2022

  51. [51]

    R. Gao, M. Zhang, Z. Han, X. Xiao, X. Wu, Z. Piao, Z. Lao, L. Nie, S. Wang, G. Zhou, Unraveling the coupling effect between cathode and anode toward practical lithium–sulfur batteries, Adv. Mater. 36 (1) (2024) 2303610

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    BlenderFoundation, Blender4.3ReferenceManual, https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/latest/render/shader_nodes/ textures/voronoi.html (2025)

    work page 2025

  53. [53]

    Richter, J

    R. Richter, J. Häcker, Z. Zhao-Karger, T. Danner, N. Wagner, M. Fichtner, K. A. Friedrich, A. Latz, Insights into self-discharge of lithium– and magnesium–sulfur batteries, ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 3 (9) (2020) 8457–8474

    work page 2020

  54. [54]

    J. H. Irving, J. G. Kirkwood, The statistical mechanical theory of transport processes. iv. the equations of hydrodynamics, J. Chem. Phys. 18 (6) (1950) 817–829

    work page 1950

  55. [55]

    R. J. Hardy, Formulas for determining local properties in molecular-dynamics simulations: Shock waves, J. Chem. Phys. 76 (1982) 622–628

    work page 1982

  56. [56]

    Regev, O

    O. Regev, O. M. Umurhan, P. A. Yecko, Modern Fluid Dynamics for Physics and Astrophysics, Springer, New York, 2016

    work page 2016

  57. [57]

    Durst, Fluid mechanics, Springer, Berlin, 2022

    F. Durst, Fluid mechanics, Springer, Berlin, 2022

    work page 2022

  58. [58]

    Richardson, G

    G. Richardson, G. Denuault, C. P. Please, Multiscale modelling and analysis of lithium-ion battery charge and discharge, J. Eng. Math. 72 (1) (2012) 41–72

    work page 2012

  59. [59]

    Arunachalam, S

    H. Arunachalam, S. Onori, I. Battiato, On veracity of macroscopic lithium-ion battery models, J. Electrochem. Soc. 162 (10) (2015) A1940

    work page 2015

  60. [60]

    584 (2024) 114126

    P.L.Fosbøl, E.H.Stenby, K.Thomsen, Diffusioninmulticomponentmixedsolventelectrolytesystems, Fluid Phase Equilib. 584 (2024) 114126

    work page 2024

  61. [61]

    B. Naud, M. Arias-Zugasti, Accurate multicomponent fick diffusion at a lower cost than mixture- averaged approximation: Validation in steady and unsteady counterflow flamelets, Combust. Flame 219 (2020) 120–128. 40

    work page 2020

  62. [62]

    A. J. Fillo, J. Schlup, G. Blanquart, K. E. Niemeyer, Assessing the impact of multicomponent diffusion in direct numerical simulations of premixed, high-karlovitz, turbulent flames, Combust. Flame 223 (2021) 216–229

    work page 2021

  63. [63]

    C. F. Curtiss, J. O. Hirschfelder, Transport properties of multicomponent gas mixtures, J. Chem. Phys. 17 (6) (1949) 550–555

    work page 1949

  64. [64]

    D. F. Fairbanks, C. R. Wilke, Diffusion coefficients in multicomponent gas mixtures, Ind. Eng. Chem. 42 (3) (1950) 471–475

    work page 1950

  65. [65]

    Arunachalam, S

    H. Arunachalam, S. Onori, Full homogenized macroscale model and pseudo-2-dimensional model for lithium-ion batterydynamics: Comparative analysis, experimentalverification and sensitivity analysis, J. Electrochem. Soc. 166 (8) (2019) A1380

    work page 2019

  66. [66]

    C. Y. Wang, W. B. Gu, B. Y. Liaw, Micro-macroscopic coupled modeling of batteries and fuel cells: I. model development, J. Electrochem. Soc. 145 (10) (1998) 3407

    work page 1998

  67. [67]

    H. A. Jakobsen, Chemical Reactor Modeling : Multiphase Reactive Flows, Springer Cham, 2014

    work page 2014

  68. [68]

    S. S. Tobias, A. Latz, B. Horstmann, Derivation of a local volume-averaged model and a stable numerical algorithm for multi-dimensional simulations of conversion batteries, Electrochim. Acta 333 (2020) 135491

    work page 2020

  69. [69]

    Davit, C

    Y. Davit, C. G. Bell, H. M. Byrne, L. A. C. Chapman, L. S. Kimpton, G. E. Lang, K. H. L. Leonard, J. M. Oliver, N. C. Pearson, R. J. Shipley, S. L. Waters, J. P. Whiteley, B. D. Wood, M. Quintard, Homogenization via formal multiscale asymptotics and volume averaging: How do the two techniques compare?, Adv. Water Resour. 62 (2013) 178–206

    work page 2013

  70. [70]

    Sagaut, Large Eddy Simulation for Incompressible Flows, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2006

    P. Sagaut, Large Eddy Simulation for Incompressible Flows, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2006

    work page 2006

  71. [71]

    Okraschevski, S

    M. Okraschevski, S. Hoffmann, K. Stichling, R. Koch, H.-J. Bauer, Fluid dynamics beyond the con- tinuum: A physical perspective on large-eddy simulation, Phys. Rev. Fluids 6 (2021) L102601

    work page 2021

  72. [72]

    Weinmiller, M

    J. Weinmiller, M. P. Lautenschlaeger, B. Kellers, T. Danner, A. Latz, General local reactive boundary condition for dissolution and precipitation using the lattice boltzmann method, Water Resour. Res. 60 (2) (2024) e2023WR034770

    work page 2024

  73. [73]

    M. Z. Bazant, Theory of chemical kinetics and charge transfer based on nonequilibrium thermody- namics, Acc. Chem. Res. 46 (5) (2013) 1144–1160

    work page 2013

  74. [74]

    A. Latz, J. Zausch, Thermodynamic derivation of a Butler–Volmer model for intercalation in Li-ion batteries, Electrochim. Acta 110 (2013) 358–362

    work page 2013

  75. [75]

    Dreyer, C

    W. Dreyer, C. Guhlke, R. Müller, A new perspective on the electron transfer: recovering the but- ler–volmer equation in non-equilibrium thermodynamics, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 18 (2016) 24966– 24983

    work page 2016

  76. [76]

    T. Roy, J. Andrej, V. A. Beck, A scalable dg solver for the electroneutral nernst-planck equations, J. Comput. Phys. 475 (2023) 111859

    work page 2023

  77. [77]

    Cockburn, Discontinuous galerkin methods, ZAMM 83 (11) (2003) 731–754

    B. Cockburn, Discontinuous galerkin methods, ZAMM 83 (11) (2003) 731–754

    work page 2003

  78. [78]

    van Leer, S

    B. van Leer, S. Nomura, Discontinuous Galerkin for Diffusion, AIAA, 2005

    work page 2005

  79. [79]

    Uzunca, Adaptive Discontinuous Galerkin Methods for Non-linear Reactive Flows, Birkhäuser, Cham, 2016

    M. Uzunca, Adaptive Discontinuous Galerkin Methods for Non-linear Reactive Flows, Birkhäuser, Cham, 2016. 41

    work page 2016

  80. [80]

    T. Roy, T. B. Jönsthövel, C. Lemon, A. J. Wathen, A block preconditioner for non-isothermal flow in porous media, J. Comput. Phys. 395 (2019) 636–652

    work page 2019

Showing first 80 references.