# Does this BYD Blade Battery PyBaMM parameter set look physically reasonable?

**URL:** <https://pybamm.discourse.group/t/does-this-byd-blade-battery-pybamm-parameter-set-look-physically-reasonable/474>\
**Category:** Parameters\
**Created:** [10 July 2026 12:44 UTC](https://pybamm.discourse.group/t/does-this-byd-blade-battery-pybamm-parameter-set-look-physically-reasonable/474 "2026-07-10T12:44:22Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Pengie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/49beb7/32.png) [@Pengie](https://pybamm.discourse.group/u/Pengie)\
**Post date:** [10 July 2026 12:44 UTC](https://pybamm.discourse.group/t/does-this-byd-blade-battery-pybamm-parameter-set-look-physically-reasonable/474/1 "2026-07-10T12:44:22Z")

</div>

I’m creating a custom PyBaMM parameter set for a **BYD Blade LFP cell** by combining Chen2020, O’Kane lithium plating, Prada2013 LFP chemistry, and published Blade teardown geometry. Does this approach and parameter set look physically reasonable, or are there any obvious issues?

The parameter set is attached as a **CSV** :

> **[GitHub - Pengiealpha/Blade\_LFP-CSV](https://github.com/Pengiealpha/Blade_LFP-CSV)**
>
> Contribute to Pengiealpha/Blade\_LFP-CSV development by creating an account on GitHub.

I’m mainly looking for feedback on whether any parameter substitutions or geometry assumptions are obviously inconsistent before I begin validation. **Thanks!**