4.5 Article

Determining the effects of non-catastrophic nail puncture on the operational performance and service life of small soft case commercial Li-ion prismatic cells

期刊

ETRANSPORTATION
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.etran.2021.100109

关键词

Lithium ion battery; Dynamic impact; Battery aging; Destructive testing; Capacity fade

资金

  1. Office of Naval Research (ONR) [N00014-18-1-2397]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study focused on simulating the operational effects of damaged Li-ion batteries in abusive environments, finding that punctures caused temperature spikes, sharp drops in capacity, and end of life within 43 cycles after the damage.
This work focused on the operational effects of Li-ion batteries (LIBs) that had been partially damaged and were allowed to continue operating afterwards. The intent was to simulate the operation of a damaged cell in an abusive environment, such as that found in electric vehicles and hybrid-electric vehicles. A test rig implementing a drop hammer with a nail attached was used to puncture approximately halfway through cycling LIBs to determine how their operation was affected. For all LIBs tested, the puncture caused a rapid spike in temperature. The dynamic impact immediately caused an initial drop in capacity of approximately 11%, and capacity continued to decrease throughout the remainder of the cycles. The cells also reached their end of life within an average of 43 cycles after the puncture, much sooner than the rated lifetime. Postmortem analysis of the punctured LIBs presented impact induced physical damage to the electrodes, oxidation of the electrolyte, and degradation of the interior components of the cells. This caused a decrease in discharge capacity and shortened useful lifetime due to hindering the charge capability of the cells. The degradation mechanism of the cells was further determined using peak tracking of the incremental capacity curves throughout their lifetimes. (C) 2021 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

4.5
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