4.6 Article

Tracking Internal Temperature and Structural Dynamics during Nail Penetration of Lithium-Ion Cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE ELECTROCHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 164, 期 13, 页码 A3285-A3291

出版社

ELECTROCHEMICAL SOC INC
DOI: 10.1149/2.1501713jes

关键词

-

资金

  1. EPSRC [EP/N032888/1, EP/M009394/1]
  2. Royal Academy of Engineering
  3. STFC [ST/N002385/1]
  4. National Measurement System
  5. ESRF (Grenoble, France) [19]
  6. EPSRC [EP/J021199/1, EP/M009394/1, EP/N032888/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. STFC [ST/K00171X/1, ST/N002385/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  8. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/N032888/1, EP/J021199/1, EP/M009394/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/K00171X/1, ST/N002385/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mechanical abuse of lithium-ion batteries is widely used during testing to induce thermal runaway, characterize associated risks, and expose cell and module vulnerabilities. However, the repeatability of puncture or 'nail penetration' tests is a key issue as there is often a high degree of variability in the resulting thermal runaway process. In this work, the failure mechanisms of 18650 cells punctured at different locations and orientations are characterized with respect to their internal structural degradation, and both their internal and surface temperature, all of which are monitored in real time. The initiation and propagation of thermal runaway is visualized via high-speed synchrotron X-ray radiography at 2000 frames per second, and the surface and internal temperatures are recorded via infrared imaging and a thermocouple embedded in the tip of the penetrating nail, respectively. The influence of the nail, as well as how and where it penetrates the cell, on the initiation and propagation of thermal runaway is described and the suitability of this test method for representing in-field failures is discussed. (c) The Author(s) 2017. Published by ECS. 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

4.6
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