Back to Rankings

Consistent Modeling of SEI Growth via Electron Diffusion Validated Across Diverse Cell Specifications and Operating Conditions in LFP/Graphite Cells

Lukas Köbbing, William Black, Claire Floras, Saad Azam, Eniko Zsoldos, Ben Tang, J. R. Dahn, Birger Horstmann

Oct 21, 2026arXiv:2610.29775v1
physics.chem-phphysics.app-ph
Share
Scorecard· 16/16
5.5/10 impact

Solid, well-supported validation of an existing electron-diffusion SEI model across a broad LFP/graphite dataset, but incremental over the authors' prior work and with unresolved high-SOC storage failures.

Abstract

Understanding and predicting degradation in lithium-ion batteries is critical for their widespread deployment. The continuous growth of the solid-electrolyte interphase (SEI) remains a dominant aging pathway, yet accurately modeling its kinetics across diverse cell specifications and operating conditions remains a significant challenge. Here, we present and validate a physically grounded SEI growth model mediated by the electron diffusion mechanism. This framework intrinsically captures the state of charge (SOC) dependence of degradation through the impact of the anode potential on the electron concentration, which governs the rate of SEI growth. The presented model explicitly accounts for variations in electrolyte salt, anode material, temperature, and cycling rate. Validation against experimental aging data for LFP/graphite cells demonstrates high predictive accuracy across a broad range of cell specifications and cycling conditions, including confined SOC windows, electrolyte salts (LiFSI, LiPF6), artificial graphites (AGC, AGD), temperatures (40-70°C), and C-rates (C/20-1C). Remarkably, a single, consistent set of parameters is applied to simulate the capacity fade for all experiments without recalibration. While quantitative overestimations occur during high-SOC storage periods, the framework consistently captures the observed degradation trends. Our findings underscore that lower SOC operation mitigates degradation, establishing a physics-based model for predicting long-term lithium-ion battery aging.

AI Impact Assessments

(1 model)

Core Contribution

The paper tests a physics-based SEI growth model, in which electrons diffuse through the SEI and the rate is set by the anode potential, against a large LFP/graphite aging dataset from Dahn's group. The model is a compact ODE: dQ_SEI/dt = ξ·exp(−FU/RT)/Q_SEI, extended with multiplicative scaling factors for salt and graphite, an Arrhenius term, and a Butler–Volmer overpotential. SOC dependence follows from the graphite OCV with no extra fitting. The new element is the breadth of the validation. It covers confined SOC windows, two salts, two artificial graphites, 40–70 °C, C/20–1C, and mixed cycle–storage and solar-duty protocols, all with one parameter set of six parameters (Table I). Most of the model's formulation comes from the authors' earlier papers. This paper is best read as an extensive validation and extension to cycling, not a new theory.

Methodological Rigor

Strengths:

  • The experimental data are high quality, made in-house on well-controlled pouch cells with check-up cycles, and the simulations account for the check-ups.
  • The parameterization is hierarchical and clearly stated. ξ_ref is fitted on one reference case, the salt and graphite factors on single conditions, E_η from half-cell data, and E_A from the temperature series.
  • The global parity plot gives an RMSD of 2.7% (1.8% excluding storage protocols).
  • Weaknesses:

  • The "no recalibration" claim is somewhat generous. Six parameters, including ξ_AG and ξ_LiPF6 and an E_A fitted to the same temperature data that are later shown, are tuned across a dataset with highly correlated trajectories. Many conditions are therefore fitted, not predicted.
  • Several features are verified only qualitatively. The model gets the sign of the C-rate and graphite effects right, but the graphite-dependent temperature sensitivity depends on competing mechanisms and a fitted ξ_AG that scales both the prefactor and j0. This lets the model absorb differences.
  • A constant overpotential of 46 mV is assumed, independent of SOC.
  • Capacity loss is attributed wholly to SEI. Lithium plating (acknowledged for AGC at 40 °C), iron dissolution (non-square-root behavior at 70 °C and 1C), and cathode effects are excluded or handled by hand-waving.
  • RMSD is computed over data that include the fitted cases. There is no holdout, cross-validation, or alternative-model comparison (for example, solvent diffusion or empirical SOC-dependent kinetics) on this dataset. The claim of superiority over alternatives rests on earlier work.
  • The model fails quantitatively for high-SOC storage, overpredicting loss, and cannot reproduce the observed sub-√t slowdown. The authors acknowledge this and offer speculation (passivation, anode voltage uncertainty) without testing it.
  • No uncertainty estimates or replicate scatter are shown.
  • Potential Impact

    The work gives practitioners a simple, physics-motivated, low-parameter model of SEI-driven capacity fade. It could feed lifetime prediction, SOC-window optimization for stationary LFP storage, and screening of electrolytes or graphites through a single ξ. The conclusion that lower SOC reduces degradation is already well known empirically (including from the source dataset in Ref. 24). The contribution is the mechanistic and quantitative explanation. The paper is also useful as a reference for people implementing SEI growth in pseudo-2D or system-level aging frameworks such as PyBaMM. Its reach is mostly within battery degradation modeling, with modest cross-field relevance.

    Timeliness

    LFP is growing rapidly in stationary storage and EVs, and LFP aging models are less mature than those for NMC. Interpretable, parameter-light aging models that generalize across conditions are a recognized need. The paper also gives timely experimental support for electron diffusion as the SEI growth mechanism, an active debate (cf. the t^0.5 revisit and the generator–collector measurements).

    Strengths

  • It combines a wide, systematic experimental dataset with a mechanistic model.
  • It is a transparent parameter table and compact equations.
  • The competing-effects explanation for graphite-specific temperature dependence is insightful.
  • The limits are honestly stated.
  • Limitations

  • It is an incremental extension of prior work from the same group.
  • It has limited true out-of-sample testing and no model comparison.
  • Fitted scaling factors hide a lack of mechanistic prediction for material effects.
  • Storage at high SOC, which is the regime where calendar-aging models matter most, is not captured quantitatively.
  • It is restricted to the LFP/graphite chemistry, with 40–70 °C data only and none at ambient or sub-ambient temperatures.
  • Code is not mentioned, and the supporting information carries important data.
  • Some claims are overstated, for example "remarkably" and "high predictive accuracy".
  • Overall

    This is a solid, competent applied modeling paper with high-quality data and a clear message. Its impact is likely to be moderate: it will be cited within the SEI and battery-aging modeling community, but it is unlikely to shift the field's practices or concepts.

    Rating:5.5/ 10
    Significance 5.5Rigor 5.5Novelty 4Clarity 7

    Generated Oct 22, 2026

    Comparison History (0)

    No comparisons yet.