Show simple item record

contributor authorPreger, Yuliya
contributor authorWittman, Reed
contributor authorHarris, Stephen J.
contributor authorDubarry, Matthieu
date accessioned2026-08-23T07:51:41Z
date available2026-08-23T07:51:41Z
date copyright2026/05/01
date issued2026
identifier issn2381-6872
identifier otherjeecs-25-1220.pdf
identifier urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4315718
description abstractAbstract. Battery aging in research publications and manufacturer specification sheets for individual cells is commonly reported as capacity (Ah) versus cycle number. However, the key measured quantity in battery-powered devices is energy (Wh), which is derived from integrating capacity with voltage. In this work, we compare the rate of capacity and energy loss across a wide range of Li-ion single-cell cycling studies with different positive electrode chemistries, charge–discharge rates, and temperatures. We find that the relative rate of discharge energy loss varies with cycling conditions. For many cells cycled under moderate conditions, the rate of discharge energy fade is only slightly faster than the rate of discharge capacity fade. However, some cells demonstrated up to a 15% decline in cycle count when 80% energy retention rather than 80% capacity retention was used as the end-of-life metric. These results highlight the importance of reporting cell aging based on energy fade to avoid overestimating battery lifetime in full systems.
publisherThe American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
titleAre Capacity and Energy Loss Equivalent Metrics for Battery Aging Reporting?
typeJournal Paper
journal volume23
journal issue2
journal titleJournal of Electrochemical Energy Conversion and Storage
identifier doi10.1115/1.4071224
journal fristpage373
journal lastpage386
page14
treeJournal of Electrochemical Energy Conversion and Storage:;2026:;volume( 023 ):;issue:002
contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record