CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 242Advanced Battery Technologies ResearchAdvancements in Battery MaterialsAdvanced Battery Materials and Technologies

A Simplified Electrochemical and Thermal Aging Model of LiFePO4-Graphite Li-ion Batteries: Power and Capacity Fade Simulations

Open access
Prada, E., Di Domenico, D., Creff, Y., Bernard, J., Sauvant-Moynot, V., Huet, F.·2013·Journal of The Electrochemical Society
DOI 10.1149/2.053304jes
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In this paper, an isothermal physics-based aging model from the literature is modified and extended to simulate both capacity and power fade of a commercial LiFePO 4 -graphite Li-ion battery. Compared to the isothermal reference, the mechanism of porosity modification due to the Solid Electrolyte Interphase (SEI) film growth at the negative electrode is integrated in the present electrochemical and thermal model to establish theoretical correlations between capacity and power fade of the system. The aging model includes different contributions of the cell impedance increase such as the SEI film resistance and the electrolyte mass transport resistance due to the mitigation of the negative electrode porosity. Experimental databases from literature and specific experiments coupling endurance tests and Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy results, are used to calibrate and validate the correlated power and capacity loss simulations for both calendar and classic galvanostatic cycling operating conditions. The analysis of the experimental data points out that an additional possible aging mechanism such as cracking and fracture of the SEI layer could play an important role for cycling operating conditions and accelerate the electrochemical mechanisms. The impact of physical and design parameters on the power and capacity theoretical correlations are discussed. The limits of applicability of the present model are also discussed in this paper.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1149/2.053304jes

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Most physics-based models focus only on the most dominant degradation mechanisms, such as SEI formation and growth or electronic contact loss through particle cracking.

    “which is why most physics-based models focus only on the most dominant mechanisms, such as the formation and growth of the solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) [11,12] or electronic contact loss through particle cracking [13,14].”

    From Degradation diagnostics for lithium ion cells (2017) · cites this paper as [12]

    The paper’s introductory discussion says many physics-based aging models focus on SEI growth, and its Model Development section makes SEI growth the sole aging mechanism in its own simplified model. The Experimental Calibration and Validation section discusses particle cracking, but as a mechanism that can expose fresh surface and damage the SEI—not as electronic contact loss. The paper also says “many authors,” rather than establishing that most physics-based models focus only on these mechanisms. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Electrochemical models utilize electrochemical properties and principles to emulate the degradation of lithium-ion batteries and estimate the SOH based on parameter optimization.

    “Electrochemical models utilize electrochemical properties and principles to emulate the degradation of lithium-ion batteries and estimate the SOH based on parameter optimization [13,51].”

    From State‐of‐health estimation of lithium‐ion batteries: A comprehensive literature review from cell to pack levels (2024) · cites this paper as [13]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. [1]1. R. Spotnitz, J. Power Sources, 113, 72 (2003).
  2. [2]2. M. Safari, M. Morcrette, A. Teyssot, and C. Delacourt, J. Electrochem. Soc., 156, A145 (2009).
  3. [3]3. A. N. Jansen, D. W. Dees, D. P. Abraham, K. Amine, and G. L. Henriksen, J. Power Sources, 174, 373 (2007).
  4. [4]4. L. Gireaud, S. Grugeon, S. Laruelle, B. Yrieix, and J. M. Tarascon, Electrochem. Commun., 8, 1639 (2006).
  5. [5]5. Q. Zhang and R. E. White, J. Power Sources, 173, 990 (2007).
  6. [7]7. J. Wang, P. Liu, J. Hicks-Garner, E. Sherman, S. Soukiazian, M. Verbrugge, H. Tataria, J. Musser, and P. Finamore, J. Power Sources, 196, 3942 (2011).
  7. [8]8. J. B. Gerschler, H. Witzenhausen, F. Hust, and D. U. Sauer, Three-Dimensional Performance and Lifetime Model for Lithium-Ion Batteries, 25th Electric Vehicle Symposium, Shenzhen, China (2010).
  8. [9]9. J. Newman and K. E. Thomas-Alyea, Electrochemical Systems, third edition, John Wiley & Sons Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey (2004).
  9. [10]10. S. Santhanagopalan, Q. Guo, P. Ramadass, and R. E. White, J. Power Sources, 156, 620 (2006).
  10. [11]11. J. Christensen and J. Newman, J. Electrochem. Soc., 151, A1977 (2004).
  11. [12]12. A. M. Colclasure, K. A. Smith, and R. J. Kee, Electrochim. Acta, 58, 33 (2011).
  12. [14]14. H. J. Ploehn, P. Ramadass, and R. E. White, J. Electrochem. Soc., 151, A456 (2004).
  13. [15]15. G. Sikha, B. N. Popov, and R. E. White, J. Electrochem. Soc., 151, A1104 (2004).
  14. [16]16. H. Jannesari, M. D. Emami, and C. Ziegler, J. Power Sources, 196, 9654 (2011).
  15. [17]17. E. Prada, D. Di Domenico, Y. Creff, J. Bernard, V. Sauvant-Moynot, and F. Huet, J. Electrochem. Soc., 159, A1508 (2012).
  16. [18]18. J. Wang, S. Soukiazian, M. Verbrugge, H. Tataria, D. Coates, D. Hall, and P. Liu, J. Power Sources, 196, 5966 (2011).
  17. [19]19. M. Dubarry, V. Svoboda, R. Hwu, and B. Y. Liaw, J. Power Sources, 165, 566 (2007).
  18. [20]20. G. Ning, R. E. White, and B. N. Popov, Electrochim. Acta, 51, 2012 (2006).
  19. [21]21. G. Ning and B. N. Popov, J. Electrochem. Soc., 151, A1584 (2004).
  20. [22]22. B. Kenney, K. Darcovich, D. D. MacNeil, and I. J. Davidson, J. Power Sources, 213, 391 (2012).
  21. [23]23. S. K. Rahimian, S. Rayman, and R. E. White, J. Power Sources, 196, 10297 (2011).
  22. [24]24. R. P. Ramasamy, J.-W. Lee, and B. N. Popov, J. Power Sources, 166, 266 (2007).
  23. [25]25. P. Ramadass, B. Haran, P. M. Gomadam, R. White, and B. N. Popov, J. Electrochem. Soc., 151, A196 (2004).
  24. [26]26. P. Albertus and J. Newman, J. Power Sources, 183, 376 (2008).
  25. [27]27. P. Albertus, J. Couts, V. Srinivasan, and J. Newman, J. Power Sources, 183, 771 (2008).
  26. [29]29. M. Kassem, J. Bernard, R. Revel, S. Pélissier, F. Duclaud, and C. Delacourt, J. Power Sources, 208, 296 (2012).
  27. [30]30. C. Delacourt and M. Safari, J. Electrochem. Soc., 159, A1283 (2012).
  28. [31]31. M. Safari and C. Delacourt, J. Electrochem. Soc., 158, A1436 (2011).
  29. [32]32. K. Xu and A. von Cresce, J. Mater. Chem., 21, 9849 (2011).
  30. [33]33. K. Xu, A. von Cresce, and U. Lee, Langmuir, 26, 11538 (2010).
  31. [34]34. M. Wachtler, J. O. Besenhard, and M. Winter, J. Power Sources, 94, 189 (2001). A628 Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 160 (4) A616-A628 (2013)
  32. [35]35. R. Deshpande, M. Verbrugge, Y.-T. Cheng, J. Wang, and P. Liu, J. Electrochem. Soc., 159, A1730 (2012).
  33. [36]36. R. E. García, Y.-M. Chiang, W. C. Carter, P. Limthongkul, and C. M. Bishop, J. Electrochem. Soc., 152, A255 (2005).
  34. [37]37. K. Zhao, M. Pharr, J. J. Vlassak, and Z. Suo, J. Appl. Phys., 108, 073517 (2010).
  35. [38]38. S. Renganathan, G. Sikha, S. Santhanagopalan, and R. E. White, J. Electrochem. Soc., 157, A155 (2010).
  36. [39]39. G. Ning, B. Haran, and B. N. Popov, J. Power Sources, 117, 160 (2003).
  37. [40]40. M. D. Levi and D. Aurbach, J. Power Sources, 146, 727 (2005).
  38. [41]41. H. Nakahara, S.-Y. Yoon, T. Piao, F. Mansfeld, and S. Nutt, J. Power Sources, 158, 591 (2006).
  39. [42]42. S. Yang, J. Huo, H. Song, and X. Chen, Electrochim. Acta, 53, 2238 (2008).
  40. [43]43. I. V. Thorat, D. E. Stephenson, N. A. Zacharias, K. Zaghib, J. N. Harb, and D. R. Wheeler, J. Power Sources, 188, 592 (2009).
  41. [44]44. B. Vijayaraghavan, D. R. Ely, Y.-M. Chiang, R. García-García, and R. E. García, J. Electrochem. Soc., 159, A548 (2012).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Prada, E., Di Domenico, D., Creff, Y., Bernard, J., Sauvant-Moynot, V., & Huet, F.
Affiliations
  • IFP Énergies nouvelles (FR)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
ORCID
Huet, F.
Venue
Journal of The Electrochemical Society
Publisher
The Electrochemical Society
Published
2013
Volume
160
Issue
4
Pages
A616-A628
ISSN
  • 0013-4651 (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-7111
DOI
10.1149/2.053304jes
OpenAlex
W1984714399
Cited by
242
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 1
FWCI
23.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of The Electrochemical Society (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Advanced Battery Technologies Research
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Advancements in Battery Materials
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Advanced Battery Materials and Technologies
Keywords
LiFePO4/graphite batteries, lithium-ion battery aging, capacity fade, power fade, solid electrolyte interphase, cell impedance, calendar aging, galvanostatic cycling

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