For the four microstructures used for testing, I -II -III -IV, the DL model achieves an accurate prediction for both porosity and diffusivity. Relative error between the DL prediction and DEM testing data oscillates in the order of 0.5 % -9.8 % for the four microstructures, indicating a reliable capacity of the DL model to predict unknown electrode functional properties. Thus, it can be concluded that the proposed DL model is also able to accurately predict the porosity and diffusivity of a calendered microstructure. In all four microstructures cases, porosity decreases as the CD goes up to 40 %. Beyond 40 % CD, the trend is not uniform, porosity fluctuates with an amplitude of ± 2 %. Therefore, we consider that between 40 to 50 % CD, the electrode has reached its mechanical limit to be compressed, and due to its spring-back phenomenon and initial electrode configuration, porosity does not follow a uniform trend. Regarding the diffusivity, it decreases as the CD increases on both DEM and DL models. It is observed that the major drop in diffusivity occurs between 20 to 30 % CD. Beyond 30 % CD, changes in diffusivity are not that abrupt since the electrode is reaching its mechanical limit to be compressed. Therefore, structural changes and arrangements are not as radical as during 20 to 30 % CD. Tortuosity factor values are reported in Table , together with the porosity and diffusivity values shown in for the uncalendered electrode. The observed general trend is, during calendering and as the CD increases, the porosity and tortuosity factor decrease and rise respectively. It should be noted that tortuosity factor values of comparable microstructures from experiments have been reported to be no higher than 4.0. Even considering potential underestimation due to the difficulty in determining the CBD distribution in experiments, results in