4.7 Article

Mechanism of failure behaviour and analysis of 18650 lithium-ion battery under dynamic loadings

期刊

ENGINEERING FAILURE ANALYSIS
卷 153, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2023.107588

关键词

Battery safety; Cylindrical lithium-ion battery; Dynamic loading; Finite element modelling; Short circuit; Mechanical integrity; Failure mechanism

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the failure mechanism of an 18650 cylindrical battery under different loading rates, revealing different failure forms and voltage drops under static and dynamic loading conditions. A finite element model is established to optimize the design of battery components and enhance their crashworthiness.
Lithium-ion battery failures, particularly in the case of high-speed collisions in electric vehicles, have become a growing concern. This study investigates the failure mechanism of an 18650 cylindrical battery which is indicated by the occurrence of an inner short circuit at various loading rate. The voltage drop due to an internal short circuit typically occurs shortly before the maximum force is reached in quasi-static loading cases. Whereas, under dynamic loading conditions, the battery exhibits a loading-rate effect, which causes a voltage drop due to short circuits occurring at an earlier displacement. The loading-rate hardening mechanism is primarily attributed to electrolyte flux. A finite element model of an 18650 cylindrical battery is established and calibrated with the in-situ tests results. The failure location inside the jellyroll cross-section is identified with the maximum equivalent plastic strain. Under the dynamic loading, the maximum stress corresponding to the short circuiting is higher than the quasi-static counterpart. The finite element model is used to illustrate the inner short-circuit mechanisms of the batteries under different loading rates, providing a design guide for enhancing the crashworthiness of the battery components.

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