Multiscale Modelling Methodologies of Lithium-Ion Battery Aging: A Review of Most Recent Developments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) are leading the energy storage market. Significant efforts are being made to widely adopt LIBs due to their inherent performance benefits and reduced environmental impact for transportation electrification. However, achieving this widespread adoption still requires overcoming critical technological constraints impacting battery aging and safety. Battery aging, an inevitable consequence of battery function, might lead to premature performance losses and exacerbated safety concerns if effective thermo-electrical battery management strategies are not implemented. Battery aging effects must be better understood and mitigated, leveraging the predictive power of aging modelling methods. This review paper presents a comprehensive overview of the most recent aging modelling methods. Furthermore, a multiscale approach is adopted, reviewing these methods at the particle, cell, and battery pack scales, along with corresponding opportunities for future research in LIB aging modelling across these scales. Battery testing strategies are also reviewed to illustrate how current numerical aging models are validated, thereby providing a holistic aging modelling strategy. Finally, this paper proposes a combined multiphysics- and data-based modelling framework to achieve accurate and computationally efficient LIB aging simulations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".