On the Efficacy of Repeat Voltage Holds for Conditioning and Calendar Life Testing of Graphite and Silicon Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Voltage-hold (V-hold) protocols have shown promise toward calendar lifetime analysis of cells with graphite (Gr) and silicon (Si) anodes. In this work, repeat V-holds are performed on Gr and Si cells paired with lithium iron phosphate cathodes to delineate their beneficial role in formation and conditioning. We find that V-hold at the top of charge supplements constant current cycling in conditioning the cell to higher capacities for both Gr and Si cells after the first V-hold. A reduced order model provides the irreversible capacity proportions of each V-hold. With each repeat V-hold, parasitic loss of lithium to the solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) decreases on both Gr and Si cells. Gr cells show the square-root-of-time capacity loss behavior within 200 h of V-hold, indicative of its fast relaxation and low impact of reference performance test cycles on the SEI growth. Lifetime estimates from repeat V-holds on Gr can reach years. Si exhibits longer transition times from kinetic to diffusion-limited SEI growth, evidenced by the 400 h and 200 h holds showing square-root-of-time and linear behavior, respectively. Lifetime predictions from repeat V-holds on Si only reach 1–2 months, highlighting its limitations. Recommended duration of V-holds for Si cells should be ≥400 h.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".