The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of Modeling Predictions with Experimental Data from Plastic Lithium Ion Cells
Open accessAbstract
Modeling results for a lithium‐ion battery based on the couple are presented and compared to experimental data. Good agreement between simulation and experiment exists for several different experimental cell configurations on both charge and discharge. Simulations indicate that the battery in its present design is ohmically limited. Additional internal resistance in the cells, beyond that initially predicted by the model, could be described using either a contact resistance between cell layers or a film resistance on the negative electrode particles. Modest diffusion limitations in the carbon electrode arising at moderate discharge rates are used to fit the diffusion coefficient of lithium in the carbon electrode, giving . Cells with a 1 M (mol/dm 3 ) initial salt concentration become solution‐phase diffusion limited at high rates. The low‐rate specific energy calculated for the experimental cells ranges from 70 to 90 Wh/kg, with this mass based on the composite electrodes, electrolyte, separator, and current collectors. The peak specific power for a 30 s current pulse to a 2.8 V cutoff potential is predicted to fall from about 360 W/kg at the beginning of discharge to 100 W/kg at 80% depth of discharge for one particular experimental cell. Different system designs are explored using the mathematical model with the objective of a higher specific energy. Configurations optimized for a 6 h discharge time should obtain over 100 Wh/kg.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
A critical review of thermal issues in lithium-ion batteries
Bandhauer, T. M., Garimella, S., & Fuller, T. F. (2011) · Journal of The Electrochemical Society · doi:10.1149/1.3515880 · Cited by 2,192
A review on lithium-ion battery ageing mechanisms and estimations for automotive applications
Barré, A., Deguilhem, B., Grolleau, S., Gérard, M., Suard, F., & Riu, D. (2013) · Journal of Power Sources · doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.05.040 · Cited by 1,758
Jaguemont, J., Boulon, L., & Dubé, Y. (2016) · Applied Energy · doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.11.034 · Cited by 1,188
Wang, Q., Jiang, B., Li, B., & Yan, Y. (2016) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.033 · Cited by 1,083
Quantifying tortuosity in porous Li-ion battery materials
Thorat, I. V., Stephenson, D. E., Zacharias, N. A., Zaghib, K., Harb, J. N., & Wheeler, D. R. (2009) · Journal of Power Sources · doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2008.12.032 · Cited by 571
Metadata
- Authors
- Doyle, M., Newman, J., Gozdz, A. S., Schmutz, C. N., & Tarascon, J.
- Venue
- Journal of The Electrochemical Society
- Publisher
- The Electrochemical Society
- Published
- 1996-06-01
- Volume
- 143
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1890-1903
- ISSN
- 0013-4651 (ISSN-L)
- 1945-7111
- OpenAlex
- W2051349350
- Cited by
- 1,569
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of Modeling Predictions with Experimental Data from Plastic Lithium Ion Cells. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1149/1.1836921
- The paper
- Doyle, M., Newman, J., Gozdz, A. S., Schmutz, C. N., & Tarascon, J. (1996). Comparison of Modeling Predictions with Experimental Data from Plastic Lithium Ion Cells. Journal of The Electrochemical Society. https://doi.org/10.1149/1.1836921
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.