Analysis of the Effect of Thermal Runaway Initiation Conditions on the Severity of Thermal Runaway—Numerical Simulation and Machine Learning Study
Source abstract
Abstract
The main goal of this work is to understand the effect of thermal runaway initiation conditions on the severity of thermal runaway (TR) of Graphite—NMC (111) cells. A coupled electrical-thermal model is developed, which includes the initial energy input, the chemical decomposition processes of the anode, cathode and the electrical energy released by an internal short circuit. 780 different thermal runaway events are simulated and the output is analysed by machine learning techniques such as principal component analysis and clustering. It was found that TR events form 5 clusters between no thermal runaway and severe thermal runaway. Sensitivity analysis is applied on the 39 input invariants and the triggering energy input, resistance ratio, the heat convection coefficient, the ratio of activation energy of oxygen liberation and electrolyte evaporation are found to be the most important parameters. The later one determines the amount of electrolyte combustion. The probability of thermal runaway is calculated taking into account the most important parameters and their interactions. Finally, a combination of initiation parameters is suggested, which most likely results in a repeatable and reproducible outcome.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Advanced Battery Technologies Research · Advancements in Battery Materials · Reliability and Maintenance Optimization
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (51)
Show source-provided references
1. Ruiz · Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. · 2017 · 81 · 142710.1016/j.rser.2017.05.195 ↗
2. Pfrang · Safety of Rechargeable Energy Storage Systems with a focus on Li-ion Technology · 2017 · 25310.1016/B978-0-323-42977-1.00008-X ↗
3. Yoshio · 201510.1007/978-0-387-34445-4 ↗
4. Jacoby · Chem. Eng. News · 2007 · 85 · 2610.1021/cen-v085n051.p026 ↗
5. Ruiz · 201610.2790/113142 ↗
6. Diekmann · J. Electrochem. Soc. · 2020 · 16710.1149/1945-7111/ab78ff ↗
7. 2017
8. 2019
9. 2012
10. Ruiz Ruiz · 2018 · 810.2760/096975 ↗
11. Guo · RSC Adv. · 2015 · 5 · 6951410.1039/C5RA13289D ↗
12. Liu · Joule · 2018 · 2 · 204710.1016/j.joule.2018.06.015 ↗
13. Abada · J. Power Sources · 2016 · 306 · 17810.1016/j.jpowsour.2015.11.100 ↗
14. Hatchard · J. Electrochem. Soc. · 2001 · 148 · A75510.1149/1.1377592 ↗
15. Kim · J. Power Sources · 2007 · 170 · 47610.1016/j.jpowsour.2007.04.018 ↗
16. Coman · J. Electrochem. Soc. · 2017 · 164 · A58710.1149/2.0341704jes ↗
17. Feng · Energy · 2016 · 115 · 19410.1016/j.energy.2016.08.094 ↗
18. Spotnitz · J. Power Sources · 2007 · 163 · 108010.1016/j.jpowsour.2006.10.013 ↗
19. Lopez · J. Electrochem. Soc. · 2015 · 162 · A216310.1149/2.0751510jes ↗
20. Larsson · J. Electrochem. Soc. · 2016 · 163 · A285410.1149/2.0131614jes ↗
21. Golubkov · RSC Adv. · 2015 · 5 · 5717110.1039/C5RA05897J ↗
22. Kriston · J. Power Sources · 2019 · 43510.1016/j.jpowsour.2019.226774 ↗
23. Walker · J. Power Sources · 2019 · 415 · 20710.1016/j.jpowsour.2018.10.099 ↗
24. Yayathi · J. Power Sources · 2016 · 329 · 19710.1016/j.jpowsour.2016.08.078 ↗
25. Feng · J. Power Sources · 2015 · 275 · 26110.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.11.017 ↗
26. Zhang · J. Electrochem. Soc. · 2017 · 164 · A303810.1149/2.0731713jes ↗
27. Larsson · J. Electrochem. Soc. · 2014 · 161 · A161110.1149/2.0311410jes ↗
28. Finegan · Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. · 2016 · 18 · 3091210.1039/C6CP04251A ↗
29. Identifying the cause of rupture of Li-ion batteries during thermal runaway10.1002/advs.201700369 ↗
30. Rheinfeld · J. Electrochem. Soc. · 2018 · 165 · A342710.1149/2.0451814jes ↗
31. Zavalis · J. Electrochem. Soc. · 2012 · 159 · A84810.1149/2.096206jes ↗
32. Chiu · J. Power Sources · 2014 · 251 · 25410.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.11.069 ↗
33. Zhao · J. Electrochem. Soc. · 2015 · 162 · A20710.1149/2.1071501jes ↗
34. Rheinfeld · J. Electrochem. Soc. · 2019 · 166 · A15110.1149/2.0071902jes ↗
35. Hofmann · Appl. Therm. Eng. · 2017 · 124 · 53910.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.06.056 ↗
36. Feng · Front. Energy Res. · 2018 · 6 · 12610.3389/fenrg.2018.00126 ↗
37. Feng · Energy Storage Mater. · 2018 · 10 · 24610.1016/j.ensm.2017.05.013 ↗
38. Huang · J. Hazard. Mater. · 2019 · 369 · 26810.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.01.049 ↗
39. Saltelli · 200710.1002/9780470725184 ↗
40. Kamath · 200910.1002/sim.4142 ↗
41. Shao · Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. · 2017 · 318 · 47410.1016/j.cma.2017.01.033 ↗
42. Viana · Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int. · 2016 · 32 · 197510.1002/qre.1924 ↗
43. Wang · J. Power Sources · 2012 · 208 · 21010.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.02.038 ↗
44. Somasundaram · J. Power Sources · 2012 · 203 · 8410.1016/j.jpowsour.2011.11.075 ↗
45. Bergman · 2011
46. Kriston · J. Power Sources · 2017 · 361 · 17010.1016/j.jpowsour.2017.06.056 ↗
47. Biesheuvel · Electrochim. Acta · 2009 · 54 · 485710.1016/j.electacta.2009.03.073 ↗
48. Franco · RSC Adv. · 2013 · 3 · 1302710.1039/c3ra23502e ↗
49. Finegan · Energy Environ. Sci. · 2017 · 10 · 137710.1039/C7EE00385D ↗
50. Keyser · 2010
51. Kriston · J. Power Sources · 2020 · 45410.1016/j.jpowsour.2020.227914 ↗