Reliability studies of vanadium redox flow batteries: upper limit voltage effect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
cycles). The findings indicate that higher upper voltages significantly decrease capacity and voltage efficiencies. Although electrolyte remixing can restore the majority of the capacity, it only partially recovers voltage efficiency at 1.7 V and 1.8 V, suggesting substantial cell degradation. Analysis reveals that the overpotential increase induced degradation is mainly contributed by the anode during charging and the cathode during discharging. Increased upper voltage amplifies degradation, with the anode being more affected. As confirmed by electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) and polarization curves, elevated voltages lead to significant resistance increases, driven by charge transfer resistance (mostly from the anode). Moreover, the morphological, surficial, and electrochemical characterization results of cycled electrodes suggest that the degree and mode of degradation were contingent upon the cutoff voltage. For instance, the cathode experienced severe surface degradation at the maximal upper voltage of 1.8 V. This work highlights the importance of optimizing voltage limits to improve the lifetime of VRFBs and offers valuable insights into the development of predictive models through using accelerated stressor lifetime testing (ASLT) protocols for VRFBs.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".