4.8 Article

Compressible battery foams to prevent cascading thermal runaway in Li-ion pouch batteries

期刊

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
卷 541, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2022.231666

关键词

Battery safety; Flame-retardant foams; Li-ion pouch cells; Thermal runaway propagation; Thermal management

资金

  1. National Renewable Energy Laboratory [DE-AC36-08GO28308]
  2. Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) [DE-AC36-08GO28308]
  3. Rogers Corporation [DE-AC36-08GO28308]
  4. [TSA-19-01235]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Novel foam battery pads are reengineered to mitigate cell-to-cell thermal runaway propagation. Experimental results show that polyurethane foams incorporating flame-retardant additives or coatings significantly delay cascading thermal runaway.
Lithium-ion battery packs require thermal management to achieve optimum life and safety. This is becoming crucial for battery packs composed of high-energy-density cells. Pouch cells themselves achieve highest packaging efficiency but require additional structural support and thermal management when grouped into modules, especially under abusive conditions such as thermal runaway. Novel foam battery pads have demonstrated to cushion volume changes of pouch cells and are reengineered in this study to mitigate cell-to-cell thermal runaway propagation. The compressible pads are made of polyurethane foams incorporating flame-retardant additives or coatings, including intumescent and fire wall materials. Their performances were evaluated by conducting nail penetration tests on modules composed of pouch cells at 100% state of charge (SOC), with the foams placed in between the cells. Experimental results show cascading thermal runaway was considerably delayed by polyurethane foams incorporating flame-retardant additives or coatings. Complete prevention of cascading failure was achieved with dense polyurethane foams with multilayered coatings of both fire wall and intumescent materials.

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