4.8 Article

Coupled thermal-electrochemical modelling of uneven heat generation in lithium-ion battery packs

期刊

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
卷 243, 期 -, 页码 544-554

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.05.164

关键词

Lithium-ion battery; Electrochemical modelling; Thermal modelling; Electric vehicle; Battery pack

资金

  1. Gregory Offer [EP/I00422X/1]
  2. FUTURE vehicle [EP/I038586/1]
  3. EPSRC [EP/K002252/1, EP/I038586/1, EP/I00422X/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/I038586/1, EP/K002252/1, EP/I00422X/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In battery packs with cells in parallel, the inter-cell connection resistances can cause unequal loads due to non-uniform interconnect overpotentials and consequentially lead to non-uniform heating. This article explores how load imbalances are generated in automotive applications, by describing a battery pack with finite interconnect resistances. Each cell inside the pack is represented by a pseudo 2D electrochemical model coupled with a lumped thermal model. Increasing the number of cells in parallel results in a linear increase in load non-uniformity, whilst increasing the ratio of interconnect to battery impedance results in a logarithmic increase in load non-uniformity, with cells closest to the load points experiencing the largest currents. Therefore, interconnect resistances of the order of mn can have a significant detrimental impact. Under steady state discharge the cell impedance changes until the loads balance. This process, however, can take hundreds of seconds and therefore may never happen under dynamic load cycles. Cycling within a narrow state-of-charge range and pulse loading are shown to be the most detrimental situations. Upon load removal, re-balancing can occur causing further heating. Simulation of a 12P7S pack under a real world load cycle shows that these effects could cause localised thermal runaway. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据