4.5 Article

Numerical study of premixed gas explosion in a 1-m channel partly filled with 18650 cell-like cylinders with experiments

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2022.104761

关键词

Li-ion battery safety; Open-source software; OpenFOAM; Explosion simulation; Premixed combustion

资金

  1. Research Council of Norway [257653]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several studies have been conducted on the explosion hazard related to failed Li-ion cells. In this study, the prediction accuracy of the open-source CFD combustion model/solver XiFoam was evaluated by comparing numerical simulations and experiments. The results showed that XiFoam had an overall acceptable model performance.
Abused and defective Li-ion cells can cause a catastrophic failure of a Li-ion battery (LIB), leading to severe fires and explosions. In recent years, several numerical and experimental studies have been conducted on the explosion hazard related to the vented combustible gases from failed Li-ion cells. Experimentally quantifying fundamental properties for failing LIBs is essential for understanding safety issues; however, it can be costly, time-consuming, and can be partly incomplete. Computational fluid dynamic (CFD) simulations have been an essential tool for studying the risk and consequences in the process industry. In this study, the prediction accuracy of the open-source CFD combustion model/solver XiFoam was evaluated by comparing numerical simulations and experiments of premixed gas explosions in a 1-m explosion channel partly filled with 18650 cell-like cylinders. The prediction accuracy was determined by calculating the mean geometric bias and variance for the temporal pressure evolution, maximum pressure peak, positive impulse, spatial flame front velocity for two different channel geometries, in addition to two gas compositions at several fuel-air equivalence ratios. From this method, the XiFoam model/solver gave an overall acceptable model performance for both geometries and gas composition.

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

4.5
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