The Extent of Catholyte Gelation as a Critical Safety Factor in NMC‐Based Solid‐State Battery Design
Source abstract
Abstract
Solid‐state batteries (SSBs) are considered a safer alternative to conventional lithium‐ion batteries due to the replacement of flammable liquid electrolytes with solid electrolytes. However, many practical SSB designs incorporate liquid catholytes to reduce interfacial resistance at the cathode. The presence of liquid components introduces potential safety risks during failure events, yet the influence of catholyte formulation on cell safety remains poorly understood. In particular, the effect of catholyte gelation on thermal runaway behavior has not been experimentally evaluated. Here, we investigate the safety characteristics of QSSBs containing catholytes with varying degrees of gelation using nail penetration testing. Tests were performed on 2 Ah pouch cells at 100% SOC, with the surface temperature and video recorded throughout. Cells containing liquid catholytes underwent violent thermal runaway, reaching temperatures exceeding 400°C. In contrast, cells incorporating fully gelled catholytes showed no thermal runaway, with temperatures remaining below 25°C. Intermediate levels of catholyte gelation did not produce intermediate safety responses, with partial gelation failing to significantly mitigate failure severity. These results demonstrate that catholyte gelation can dramatically alter the thermal runaway behavior of QSSBs under internal short‐circuit conditions and highlight the importance of electrolyte formulation when evaluating the safety of SSB systems.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Advanced Battery Materials and Technologies · Advancements in Battery Materials · Advanced Battery Technologies Research
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Advanced Propulsion Lab University College London London UK
The Faraday Institution Didcot UK
ZERO Institute, Holywell House, Osney Mead University of Oxford Oxford UK
Ilika PLC. Hampshire UK
Funding
The Faraday Institution · Innovate UK · RAENG
References (56)
Show source-provided references
1. Fleischmann J. · 2023
2. 10.1007/s44373-025-00040-y10.1007/s44373-025-00040-y ↗
3. 10.1039/D4EB00024B10.1039/D4EB00024B ↗
4. 10.1038/ncomms792410.1038/ncomms7924 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.01.06810.1016/j.apenergy.2018.01.068 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.ensm.2017.05.01310.1016/j.ensm.2017.05.013 ↗
7. 10.1149/2.F03122if10.1149/2.F03122if ↗
8. 10.1016/j.jechem.2020.10.01710.1016/j.jechem.2020.10.017 ↗
9. 10.1166/mex.2012.107510.1166/mex.2012.1075 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2023.12101410.1016/j.applthermaleng.2023.121014 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.12069510.1016/j.apenergy.2023.120695 ↗
12. 10.1007/s42154-023-00226-310.1007/s42154-023-00226-3 ↗
13. 10.3390/batteries805004110.3390/batteries8050041 ↗
14. 10.1021/acs.chas.4c0012110.1021/acs.chas.4c00121 ↗
15. M.Brand S.Gläser J.Geder et al. In2013 World Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exhibition (EVS27) (IEEE 2013) 1–9.10.1109/EVS.2013.6914893 ↗
16. 10.3390/batteries905023710.3390/batteries9050237 ↗
17. 10.1021/acsami.5c1303010.1021/acsami.5c13030 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.joule.2022.02.00710.1016/j.joule.2022.02.007 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.eng.2022.06.02210.1016/j.eng.2022.06.022 ↗
20. 10.1016/S0378-7753(03)00147-210.1016/S0378-7753(03)00147-2 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2006.07.07410.1016/j.jpowsour.2006.07.074 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.susmat.2021.e0029710.1016/j.susmat.2021.e00297 ↗
23. 10.1002/advs.20210521310.1002/advs.202105213 ↗
24. 10.1088/2515-7655/ab95f410.1088/2515-7655/ab95f4 ↗
25. F.Salk S.Schuhmann P.Heugel F.Klein J.Tübke andI. C. T.Fraunhofer InInternational Battery Safety Workshop 2023(2023).
26. 10.1002/chem.20210140710.1002/chem.202101407 ↗
27. R. E.OwenandJ.Robinson Electrochemical Society Meeting Abstracts prime2024(The Electrochemical Society Inc 2024) 771.
28. 10.1021/acs.chemmater.5b0408210.1021/acs.chemmater.5b04082 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.cej.2024.15554410.1016/j.cej.2024.155544 ↗
30. Quasi‐Solid‐State Electrolytes ‐ Strategy Towards Stabilizing Li|Inorganic Solid Alectrolyte Interfaces in Solid‐State Li Metal Batteries
31. Safety Assessment of Large‐Format Quasi‐Solid‐State Lithium‐Ion Batteries10.1002/aenm.202504346 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.ensm.2024.10348110.1016/j.ensm.2024.103481 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.ensm.2024.10336210.1016/j.ensm.2024.103362 ↗
34. 10.1039/D3TA06092F10.1039/D3TA06092F ↗
35. 10.1016/j.cossms.2025.10124510.1016/j.cossms.2025.101245 ↗
36. Non‐Linear Damage Response to Voltage Revealed by Operando X‐ray Tomography in Polycrystalline NMC811
37. 10.1039/D3TA03057A10.1039/D3TA03057A ↗
38. 10.1126/sciadv.ady718910.1126/sciadv.ady7189 ↗
39. 10.1002/adfm.20220009610.1002/adfm.202200096 ↗
40. 10.1016/j.ensm.2025.10422310.1016/j.ensm.2025.104223 ↗
41. 10.1039/D3EE00084B10.1039/D3EE00084B ↗
42. 10.1039/D2EE01793H10.1039/D2EE01793H ↗
43. 10.1016/j.ssi.2018.05.01310.1016/j.ssi.2018.05.013 ↗
44. 10.1021/acsomega.0c0503710.1021/acsomega.0c05037 ↗
45. 10.1016/S0378-7753(00)00409-210.1016/S0378-7753(00)00409-2 ↗
46. 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2019.22692810.1016/j.jpowsour.2019.226928 ↗
47. 10.1149/1945-7111/ab78ff10.1149/1945-7111/ab78ff ↗
48. 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2018.02.03610.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2018.02.036 ↗
49. 10.3390/batteries811024810.3390/batteries8110248 ↗
50. 10.3390/batteries801000210.3390/batteries8010002 ↗
51. 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2021.11662310.1016/j.applthermaleng.2021.116623 ↗
52. 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2018.04.09210.1016/j.jpowsour.2018.04.092 ↗
53. 10.1021/acs.chemmater.7b0045410.1021/acs.chemmater.7b00454 ↗
54. UN. Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods UN · 2019
55. TUV SUD tuvsud‐lithium‐battery‐testing‐under‐UN‐DOT‐38‐3 (2019) https://www.tuvsud.com/en‐us/resource‐centre/white‐papers/lithium‐battery‐testing.
56. Analysis of Battery Safety and Hazards' Risk Mitigation