It also does not apply to the volume averaged 1D simulations for Subvolume 3, which achieve the same capacity at all C-rates. In fact, none of the trends observed in the modelled electrochemical performance of the subvolumes can be explained by trends in the subvolumeaveraged parameters outlined in Table . This is a finding that can only be reached via using real microstructures in combination with a 3D electrochemical model and is a shortcoming of lower ordered modelling approaches, which homogenise the distribution of phases in 1D. Because the 3D model is applied to the actual microstructure, it is inherently set up to include local variations in concentration of soluble species, reaction gradients in 3D, localised current densities and overpotential variations, and reduction in active surface area caused by deposition of lower-order (low conductivity) polysulphide species. Because of this, the outputs of the model can provide insights that volume-averaged parameters simply cannot -even when the parameters are averaged over subvolume domains within the electrode. Overall, the image-based models shown here have captured the characteristic discharge behaviour at each subvolume. However, the simulated results indicate that the localised microstructure has a significant impact on the localised discharge behaviour and hence collectively on the battery performance. The effective property-based 1D model overpredicted the discharge performance, compared to the models that include realistic electrode microstructure.