4.7 Article

Experimental study on the runaway behaviors of Panasonic 21,700 LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 battery used in electric vehicle under thermal failure

期刊

JOURNAL OF THERMAL ANALYSIS AND CALORIMETRY
卷 147, 期 21, 页码 12005-12018

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10973-022-11394-5

关键词

Lithium-ion battery; Thermal runaway; Electric vehicle; Energy storage

资金

  1. National Science Council, R.O.C.
  2. NSC [101-2221-E-239-017-MY3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the thermal runaway phenomena of Panasonic 21,700 LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 lithium-ion batteries with different capacities. The results provide important characteristic data for hazard analysis and compare the runaway behaviors between different battery capacities. The study suggests that low-capacity batteries have a higher risk of thermal runaway, but the consequences are relatively minor.
Thermal runaway phenomena of the Panasonic 21,700 LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 lithium-ion batteries with 100, 50 and 25% capacity were studied under thermal abuses. Characteristic data of onset temperature, crucial temperature, maximum self-heat rate, maximum temperature and maximum pressure are determined and affirmed for hazard analysis. The maximum temperature could be as high as 1200 degrees C exceeding the auto-ignition temperature of electrolyte to ignite the flammable vapors exposed to the air. Maximum self-heat rates are determined to be as high as 64,536 degrees C min(-1). Runaway behaviors with respect to the capacities of 50% and 25% are performed in comparison with those of 100%. Thermal runaway consequences possessed by the Panasonic 21,700 LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 with the capacity of 25% cannot be indiscreet because its maximum temperature is approximately 600 degrees C with a maximum self-heat value of 10,000 degrees C min(-1) and an 110 mmol non-condensable gases generated. Differences in runaway behaviors are compared between the 21,700 and 18,650 LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 batteries with the same capacity of 100%.

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

4.7
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