Fig. 4: Comparison of two approaches with 2D microstructures. | npj Computational Materials

Fig. 4: Comparison of two approaches with 2D microstructures.

From: The electrode tortuosity factor: why the conventional tortuosity factor is not well suited for quantifying transport in porous Li-ion battery electrodes and what to use instead

Fig. 4

a The four 2D microstructures are presented along with \(\uptau\), \(N_{\mathrm{M}}\) given by eRDM and \(\uptau _{\mathrm{e}}\), \(N_{{\mathrm{M}},{\mathrm{e}}}\) given by eSCM in each case; the current collector “CC side” and the separator “Sep side” are labeled; b simulated EIS of eSCM of the four microstructures along with the fit using Eq. 4, the inset graph shows a zoom on the mid-frequency region to highlight the deviation of the simulated EIS shape from the conventional TLM response. The 45° slope in dashed line is used to guide the eyes. The numerically-generated microstructure size is 300 × 300 pixels, the pixel size equals 1 µm.

Back to article page