4.7 Article

Experimental study on fire hazard of LiCoO2-based lithium-ion batteries with gel electrolyte using a cone calorimeter

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENERGY STORAGE
Volume 32, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.est.2020.101884

Keywords

Gel polymer electrolyte battery; Lithium-ion batteries; Cone calorimeter; Fire hazard; Hazard evaluation

Categories

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation of China [51636008]
  2. Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences, CAS [QYZDB-SSW-JSC029]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [WK2320000040]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Compared with traditional liquid electrolyte batteries, lithium-ion batteries with gel polymer electrolytes are preferable due to their lower risk of electrolyte leakage or mechanical abuse. However, the safety qualities of gel polymer electrolyte batteries appear to be overestimated, as a catastrophic fire risk is ignored. In the present study, cone calorimeter tests were conducted to comprehensively evaluate the fire hazards of gel batteries. The effects of the states of charge and incident heat flux were studied, enabling the derivation of a critical state of charge and critical heat flux, especially in regard to the time to ignition, mass loss rate, and heat release rate. Several fire hazard evaluation systems were also introduced and the potential burning risk of the gel battery was discussed. The total heat release, fire growth index, and effective heat of combustion were calculated to evaluate the risks of batteries with various states of charge and various incident heat fluxes. The results showed that gel batteries have a higher risk of heat contribution when possessing states of charge higher than 25% and heat flux values above 15 kW/m(2). By providing these necessary data, this work helps better understand the fire hazards of gel polymer electrolyte batteries and also provides a method for engineers or manufacturers to assess the corresponding fire risks.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available