5 Must-Have Features in a battery crusher supplier
Battery Crush Test Procedures in Standards and Regulation
Based on the analysis (causes and comments) of Table 1 and by [ 27 71 ], it can be said that EV batteries are prone to failure in the case of accidents, i.e., there is a risk of the battery catching fire immediately after the accident, or it can have a delayed event. Thus, it is important to develop a safer and reliable battery, i.e., correlated risks can be managed to achieve a suitable level of safety on which the consumer can rely [ 72 75 ]. To develop such a battery, several regulatory bodies around the world have developed various battery standards and regulations (as mentioned in Section 2 ). These standards and regulations have a variety of testing procedures known as abuse tests. These abuse testing procedures have various testing conditions and parameters within them to test the batteries. One of such abuse tests is known as the crush test, which is used in this study along with its variety of conditions and parameters from the selected standards and a regulation to justify the need for augmentation and harmonisation (refer Section 3 ). Further, Section 4 discusses the findings and concludes this research. Overall, based on the authors’ knowledge this study is distinct because there is no single literature available that provides a review of numerous standards and regulations with a justification of augmenting and harmonising the standards and regulations along with suggestions and future work.
There are negligible data available in relation to the incidences of EV fires; however, according to Norwegian insurance companies, a study conducted by [ 26 ] the percentage of EV fire accidents is approximate 4.8%, out of the total number of vehicle fire accidents. Moreover, Gehandler et al. [ 37 ] found that on an average one vehicle fire that occurs every year during battery charging in multistorey car parking or big garages. Some of such catastrophic battery incidents around the world are presented in Table 1
Thermal runaway: In a battery, when exothermic chemical reactions are producing more heat than is being dissipated, it enters the thermal runaway condition. In case of severe accidents, because of thermal runaway, the battery can emit heat/fumes, catch fire, or in a worst-case scenario explode [ 6 36 ].
High-temperature exposure: In real-time applications, the battery needs to be cooled during its operation: however, if the ambient temperature is higher than the internal temperature, battery decomposition mechanisms are triggered causing the battery to produce extreme levels of heat. This high level of heat can result in an internal short circuit or thermal runaway, which consequently reduces the safety margin [ 26 ];
External short circuit: This type of the short circuit also falls under the category of an electric abuse, which can easily destabilise the battery. An external short circuit happens when the battery faces an impact and/or deformation [ 26 ];
Discharge: Over discharge occurs when the battery cells are discharged below their manufacturer recommended minimum voltage. During this process, the conductive copper particles are released in the electrolyte, which consequently leads to an internal short circuit of the battery. Usually, battery safety systems are there to stop such situations. However, if such a safety system fails or the battery is abused, there is a possibility of battery failure [ 32 ];
Charge: The purpose for which the batteries are tailored is to collect a specific amount of energy over a definite period of time. In the instances where limits are surpassed, due to rapid charging or overcharging, the battery performance can degrade, or it can even fail completely [ 26 ];
Mechanical deformation and impact: This cause can easily initiate an internal short circuit which consequently leads to a fire. Acute deformation can be due to certain types of crashes or ground surface conditions. Zhu et al. noted that battery packs are susceptible to penetration due to side collisions and road debris impacts [ 30 ]. The research conducted by Trattnig and Leitgeb [ 31 ] showed that the absolute scenario in a car crash can be the amalgamation of leaking fluid or gases near ignition sources like electrical arcs and/or hot surfaces;
Internal cell short circuit: This kind of severe event can happen abruptly and without any pre-warning. Zhao et. al. and Larsson found that this event can occur because of multiple reasons such as mechanical deformation or manufacturing faults. They also noticed that another reason for an internal short circuit can be the dendrite formation within the cells [ 27 28 ]. According to Ahlberg Tidblad [ 29 ], this is a particularly disturbing cause because this type of failure occurs in batteries that are complied with industry standards;
According to Spielbauer et. al., it is anticipated that the battery fire incidents and the severity of such incidents will increase in the future due to, (a) the rise in energy density of the new cells that are being developed, and (b) an increasing demand of EVs and the batteries that are used within EVs [ 22 ]. According to Wang et al., Kubjatko, Goodman et al. and Pan et al. EVs facing an accident can mechanically deform, malfunction, or can completely fail [ 23 25 ] the battery. Some of the primary reasons that can cause battery failure are [ 26 ]:
In recent years, globally the automotive industry has noticed a significant deployment of EVs in the market [ 3 15 ]. For example, in the year 2018, Europe (EU) attained more than one million EVs in the market [ 16 ]. Numerous researchers from a companies such as Shell Deutschland and Prognos AG including academicians such as Kugler et al. predicted the increment in the future sales of EVs [ 17 18 ]. This increment is not only due to technological advancement but is also policy-driven, as mentioned in the report of “Global EV Outlook 2020” [ 19 ]. As per the International Energy Agency (IEA), there will be 125 million EVs around the world by the year 2030 [ 20 ], and similar further information regarding the prediction and the future stock of EVs in Germany was researched by Machuca et al. and Kahn [ 14 21 ].
To realize a sustainable energy supply, researchers seek to substitute the use of traditional fossil fuels with clean and renewable energy resources. One of the potential solutions is to move from internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, i.e., gasoline vehicles, to vehicles that are powered by electricity, or alternative fuels like biofuels, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas (LNG), compressed natural gas (CNG), or hybrid vehicles (a combination of the aforementioned fuels) [ 1 3 ]. However, research has demonstrated that vehicles powered by electricity, i.e., electric vehicles (EVs) are the most effective solution [ 4 9 ]. These can reduce environmental pollution and will subsequently help to avoid global warming and climate change [ 10 13 ].
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA): It legalizes the safety of vehicles and related equipment’s, i.e., which includes EVs and their batteries in the United States (US). The agency enforces vehicle performance standards with the help of state and local governments to reduce injuries, deaths, and economic loss from vehicle crashes. It issues the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) to implement laws from the government [ 70 99 ]. One of the laws administrated by the NHTSA is the Motor Safety Vehicle, to save people from the risk of injuries or death happening due to design, construction and performance of vehicle [ 100 ].
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE): It was formed in the year 1947 by The United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). It includes fifty-six member States in Europe, North America, and Asia. The regulations developed are UNECE R100, battery electric vehicle safety [ 98 ] and encompasses the variety of safety tests such as mechanical, fire, thermal, mechanical, vibration and shock (UNECE, 2019); and GTR 20, “Global Technical Regulation on the Electric Vehicle Safety (EVS)” [ 27 ].
European Chemical Agency (ECHA): The main purpose of the ECHA is the safe use of chemicals in a variety of applications such as EV batteries, i.e., regulates the chemicals and biocides usage in the EU market. It processes chemical related files from the industry and examines them to see if they comply with legislation. Together with the European Union national governments, it focuses on the most hazardous substances and undertakes analysis on the cases where further risk management might be needed to protect people and the environment. Depending on the risk identified from chemicals, it takes its own decisions, and in some cases, it provides opinions and advice to help the European Commission make the correct decision [ 95 ]. Exemplary regulations developed by ECHA are, (a) Regulation on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) [ 96 ], and (b) the Battery Directive [ 97 ].
Regulations are the comprehensive set of instructions that helps to ensure uniform implementation of laws and hence are also regularly known as rules or administrative laws, i.e., they have the force of law which makes their implementation obligatory [ 93 ]. A detailed definition of regulation and information regarding how the regulations are made is explained by the International Light Transportation Vehicle Association (ILTVA) at [ 94 ].
The United States Department of Energy (DoE): DoE mainly deals with the development of manuals for battery durability assessment. A list of manuals and their detailed description can be found in the technical report prepared by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) [ 91 ]. For the development of such manuals, DoE deals with organisations such as the United States Advanced Battery Consortium (USABC), Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL), Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), and Sandia National Laboratory (SNL). One of the standards developed under DoE with guidance by Sandia National Laboratories for the United States Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration is FreedomCAR:2006 Electrical Energy Storage System (EESS) Abuse Test Manual for Electric and Hybrid Electric Vehicle Applications [ 92 ]. The scope of this standard is to define tests that are used for abuse testing of, EESS for EV and HEV applications. This testing determines the response of a given EESS design based on a variety of test conditions [ 92 ].
Standardization Administration of China (SAC): SAC makes standards for EV manufacturers, traction battery companies, electric machine companies, electric motorcycle companies, and areas such as passive safety of EVs in the countries such as Canada, Japan, Korea, and Germany. An exemplary TC is SAC/TC114/SC27 National Technical Committee of Auto Standardization Subcommittee Electric Vehicle and one of the standards developed is GB/T 31485-2015:2015, “safety requirements and test methods for traction battery of electric vehicle” [ 40 ]. This Standard specifies the safety requirements, testing methods, and inspection rules of traction batteries intended for EVs [ 90 ].
Society of Automotive Engineers International (SAE): SAE is a USA based association and is a global association. SAE has more than 128,000 engineers and technical experts in the fields of automotive, commercial-vehicle and aerospace. Some of the TCs are, (a) Vehicle Battery Standards Steering, (b) Hybrid-EV Steering, (c) Battery Safety Standards, (d) Battery Standards Testing, (e) Battery Standards Recycling (f) Secondary Battery Use. One of the standards developed by such TCs is SAE J2464:2009 electric and hybrid electric vehicle rechargeable energy storage system (RESS) Safety and Abuse Testing [ 89 ]. It defines numerous tests, that are used to carry out the abuse testing of EVs, HEVs, and RESS, to identify the response of electrical energy storage and control systems to the incidents and situations that are outside their normal operating range [ 89 ]. Abuse test procedures detailed in this report comprise of a wide range of vehicle applications, including information related to electrical energy storage devices, RESS cells (batteries or capacitors), modules, and packs.
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC): IEC was founded in the year 1906 for the development and publication of international standards for electrotechnology (combination of all electrical, electronic, and related technologies). It brings together more than 170 countries and provides a global, neutral, and independent standardization platform. IEC and CENLEC work together towards European and international standards building activities in the electrical division. Both organizations agreed to the framework in the year 1996, known as the Dresden Agreement. After 20 years of a fruitful partnership both organizations signed another agreement, known as the Frankfurt Agreement in the year 2016. Some of the exemplary TCs are, (a) IEC TC 21, “secondary cells and batteries”; (b) IEC TC 21/SC 21A, “secondary cells and batteries containing alkaline or other non-acid electrolytes”; (c) IEC TC 69, “electric road vehicles and electric industrial trucks”; (d) IEC TC 21/PT 62984, “secondary high-temperature cells and batteries”; and (e) IEC JWG 69 Li TC21/SC 21A/TC69, “lithium for automobile/automotive applications”. A standard developed by them is IEC 62660-2:2010, “secondary lithium-ion cells for the propulsion of electric road vehicles” [ 87 ], which describes the testing procedure to identify the reliability and abuse behaviour of the secondary lithium-ion cells that are used in EVs as well as in hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) and battery electric vehicles (BEVs) [ 85 88 ].
International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO): It is an autonomous, non-governmental international organization consisting of 165 national standards bodies including Europe. CEN made an agreement in the year 1991 for technical co-operation with the ISO, which is known as the Vienna Agreement. This was framed to prevent duplication of efforts and decrease time for developing standards. Exemplary TCs are, (a) ISO/TC 22, “road vehicles”; (b) ISO/TC 22/SC 37, “electrically propelled vehicles”; and (c) ISO/TC 22/SC 38, “motorcycles and mopeds”. With the help of experts in TCs of European and international organisations, standards such as ISO 12405-3:2014 “electrically propelled road vehicles—test specification for lithium-ion traction battery packs and system” [ 84 ] are developed for vehicles (including EVs). This standard is helpful to vehicle manufacturers as it specifies the test procedure and the related safety requirements for the traction battery developed especially for the propulsion of road vehicles [ 85 86 ].
It is worthwhile to note here that CENLEC is also referred to as CLC in some documents and the designed standards. The TCs from CEN and CENLEC that are involved in the developments of EV standards are, (a) CEN/TC 301, “road vehicles”; (b) CLC/TC 69X, “Electric systems for electric road vehicles”; (c) CLC/TC 23BX, “switches, boxes and enclosures for household and similar purposes, plugs and socket-outlets for direct-current (DC) and for the charging of EVs including their connectors”; and (d) CLC/TC 64, “electrical installations and protection against electric shock” [ 83 ].
European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC): It is one of the technical organizations responsible for standardization in the electrotechnical engineering field that works on a non-profit basis. It supports the development of the Single European Market by facilitating trade between countries and cutting the compliance costs [ 81 82 ].
European Committee for Standardisation (CEN): CEN brings together the National Standardization Bodies of thirty-four European countries and is responsible for defining and building standards, and other technical documents concerning various kinds of materials, processes, products and services at the European level. In addition, CEN also produces other documents, such as technical specifications, reports, and workshop agreements [ 80 ].
According to the European regulation 1025/2012, European standards are developed by European standards organizations (ESOs) such as the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) and the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC). The standards by CEN and CENLEC are developed by the Technical Committee (TC), the team of experts accountable for building the standards in a specific sector. Each TC has a defined scope, within which the identified standards are developed. For large programs of work, a subcommittee is usually established within a TC [ 78 79 ].
A standard is a guiding document that covers the technical aspects of the product and presents a way of repeating something. These are framed with the help of product relevant parties such as manufacturers, products, processes, services, and consumers [ 77 ].
Standards and regulations can be considered as the foundation for the advancement and progress of products such as EV batteries. There are numerous standards and regulations developed at European, international, and national levels. For example, at the National level, there are many countries such as the United States of America (USA), Korea and India that have their own standards such as FreedomCAR:2006, KMVSS18-3 and AIS-048 respectively. Similarly, The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) developed regulations such as GTR No. 20 and UNECE R100. However, some of the exemplary EV battery standards and regulations are only explained in this section [ 76 ].
Battery testing is an expensive process because once a crush test is performed on a TD, they are not allowed to be used for another testing [ 115 ]. In the case of SAE J2464:2009 [ 89 ], it is mentioned that the TD should be tested for at least two different axes (out of three axes, X, Y and Z) using a different TD for each test. While, FreedomCAR:2006 [ 92 ] states that at least one TD needs to be tested and if more TDs are available, then the testing should be performed at multiple axes, and crushing without containment boxes is recommended. GB/T 31485-2015:2015 [ 90 ] states that two samples must be tested for cells and one sample in case of module and pack. However, SAND2017-6925:2017 [ 107 ] states that four cells and two modules or packs should all be tested. According to ISO 12405-3:2014 [ 84 ], the crush axes should be based on a vehicle’s crash test mentioned in the regional and national regulations and as specified by the manufacturers. However, if the regulations are missing, then the axes need to be defined by the manufacturers. However, UN/ECE-R100.02:2013 [ 98 ], IEC 62660-2:2010 [ 87 ] and GTR 20:2018 [ 108 ] do not specify the number of samples to be tested (refer Table 8 ).
For cell testing, GB/T 31485-2015:2015 [ 90 ] specifies that the semi-cylindrical impactor should have a radius of 75 mm and the length should be more than the dimension of the cell (see Figure 2 ), while FreedomCAR:2006 [ 92 ] and SAE J2464:2009 [ 89 ], state that the dimension of the cylindrical impactor should be equivalent to half of the TD average diameter or the diameter of the cells respectively (refer Figure 8 ). IEC 62660-2:2010 [ 87 ] recommends crushing the prismatic cell and cylindrical cell with a spherical or hemispherical impactor (refer Figure 9 ) and a round impactor (refer Figure 8 ) of 75 mm radius. As per SAND 2017-6925:2017 [ 107 ], cylindrical cells shall be crushed using the impactor (refer Figure 8 ) of diameter as stated in Table 6 . The prismatic and pouch cells are crushed using the impactor having a semi-circular shape with a rectangular base (refer Figure 10 ). The diameter of the semi-circle must be decided based on the cell width as mentioned in Table 7 . The length and width of the impactor used for crush is equal to the length and width of TD respectively and height shall be adequate to achieve 100% intrusion within TD. However, UN/ECE-R100.02:2013 [ 98 ] and ISO 12405-3:2014 [ 84 ] do not specify anything regarding the shape and size of the impactor used for the cell crush test.
For example, UN/ECE-R100.02:2013 [ 98 ] and GTR 20:2018 [ 108 ] specifies that the radius of the semi-cylinder should be 75 mm with a spacing of 30 mm between each semi-cylinder and the overall plate size should not exceed 600 × 600 mm. While, FreedomCAR:2006 [ 92 ] states the same for the semi-cylinders’ dimensions, but does not mention anything about the size of the plate. For ISO 12405-3:2014 [ 84 ], the semi-cylinder length should be more than the edge of TD by a minimum of 50 mm on each side. SAE J2464:2009 [ 89 ] requires the diameter of the semi-cylinder to be equivalent to the smallest dimension of the TD and the number of semi-cylinders including the spacing between them must be enough to cover the whole span of the area of TD where the short circuit can occur. GB/T 31485-2015:2015 [ 90 ] specifies that the semi-cylinder must have a 75 mm radius (R) and the length of the impactor must be greater than the size of the TD (refer Figure 3 ) but not more than 1 m. On the other hand, IEC 62660-2:2010 [ 87 ] does not specify any information about the battery module or pack testing, i.e., it only provides information about cell testing. SAND 2017-6925:2017 [ 107 ] specifies that the crusher plate should have only a single semi-cylindrical impactor of 75 mm radius and must be located at the centre of the plate as represented in Figure 7
As per the selected standards and regulations, to crush the battery module and pack, the shape/design of the impactor (also known as crush plate or textured plate) remains constant for UN/ECE-R100.02:2013 [ 98 ], SAE J2464:2009 [ 89 ], ISO 12405-3:2014 [ 84 ], GTR 20:2018 [ 108 ] and FreedomCAR:2006 [ 92 ] (refer Figure 6 ). However, the dimension of the plate, i.e., diameter of the semi-cylinder and the length (L), width (W), and height (H) of the plate vary as per each standard and the regulation.
As per the experimental research conducted by Li et al. on the cells, the outcome found was that the smaller the diameter of the hemispherical impactor/punch, the earlier is the start of the internal short circuit [ 33 ]. It was also recorded that the relative intrusion at the beginning of the internal short circuit was highest for a 24 mm diameter hemisphere followed by 12 mm and 6 mm for pouch cells (20 Ah commercial lithium iron phosphate (LFP) pouch cell, i.e., L = 8.27 in, W = 4.33 in, T = 0.45 in). Likewise, Sahraei et al. observed a similar trend during the experiments with hemispherical punches of the diameters of 44.45 mm, 28.575 mm, and 12.7 mm. They also concluded that, as the size of the crusher increases, the force value increases for the same amount of intrusion [ 114 ]. The cells used were small (740 mAh of L = 2.34 in, W = 1.34 in, T = 0.21 in), medium (3.2 Ah of L = 5.10 in, W = 1.71 in, T = 0.32 in) and large (19.5 Ah of L = 8.94 in, W = 6.30 in, T = 0.29 in) pouch cells [ 114 ].
As per SAND2017-6925:2017 [ 107 ], the module and pack are crushed between the impactor and the flat plate at the most vulnerable location. The cylindrical cells are crushed along the transverse axis. The prismatic and pouch cells are crushed in Y- and Z-orientation (refer Figure 4 ). The Y-orientation depicts the crush direction into the positive and negative terminal and the Z-orientation depicts crushing perpendicular to the terminals. The cell is crushed in a fixture that mechanically supports the cell and replicates the constrained cell within the module (refer Figure 5 ). The crush in X-orientation should be performed like the module and pack testing.
According to IEC 62660-2:2010 [ 87 ], the cell’s positive and negative electrodes are faced perpendicularly to the crushing force. As per ISO 12405-3:2014 [ 84 ], the battery is oriented similarly as it is positioned in the vehicle and the impactors’ cylinder axis is arranged vertically to the battery. The centre of the impactor must be aligned with the centre of the TDs projected plane, that is, perpendicular to the direction of the crush.
GB/T 31485-2015:2015 [ 90 ] for cell crush testing requires to “apply load in the direction perpendicular to the polar plate of battery”; however, the polar plates are not clearly identified or explained in the standard and a figure for the guidance is available such as Figure 2 . For module crush testing, the direction of crush should be the “same as the direction where the battery module is most highly susceptible to crushing on the layout of the whole vehicle. If the direction where the battery module is most highly susceptible to crushing is not available, then pressure shall be exerted vertically to the arrangement direction of secondary cells” (refer Figure 3 ).
UN/ECE-R100.02:2013 [ 98 ] and GTR 20:2018 [ 108 ] allows the manufacturers and technical services to agree upon the plate position by taking into account the TDs travel direction relative to its installation in the vehicle. The force needs to be applied perpendicular and horizontally to the direction of travel of the rechargeable energy storage system (REESS) [ 113 ].
Based on the analysis of the selected standards and regulations, it is found that SAE J2464:2009 [ 89 ] and FreedomCAR:2006 [ 92 ] only state that the test should be performed at a vulnerable location.
Press position is significantly one of the important parameters that need to be considered while testing the cells, module, or pack. The exponent conducted the crush test at different orientations (perpendicular to electrode surfaces, electrode edges, etc.) and exhibited diversity in the results for the distinctive orientation [ 112 ]. Hence, it can be said that examining the multiple press position is important during battery testing.
According to Wang et al. the SoC has a significant effect on the volume of the cell-active particle and mechanical properties and their value changes depending on SoC; thus, understanding SoC-based mechanical behaviour of LIB cells becomes crucial [ 23 ]. From Table 5 it can be seen that the SoC level (100% of TD) is the same for SAE J2464:2009 [ 89 ], FreedomCAR:2006 [ 92 ], SAND2017-6925:2017 [ 107 ], and GB/T 31485-2015:2015 [ 90 ], but UN/ECE-R100.02:2013 [ 98 ], ISO 12405-3:2014 [ 84 ] and IEC 62660-2:2010 [ 87 ] have their own specific criteria. For example, as per UN/ECE-R100.02:2013 [ 98 ], the SoC should not be in the lower 50% of the normal operating range of the TD, which is also recommended by ISO 12405-3:2014 [ 84 ] for high power (HP) application. However, for high energy (HE) application, ISO 12405-3:2014 [ 84 ] suggests that the SoC should be taken as the maximum SoC of the normal operation. In IEC 62660-2:2010 [ 87 ] the SoC requirement is categorized based on vehicle type, i.e., for BEVs SoC should be 100%, while for HEVs it should be 80%. GTR 20:2018 [ 108 ] states that the TD shall be charged to 100% SoC.
The crushing speed is one of the important factors that is historically used to investigate the mechanical deformation of the battery, which consequently determines the short circuit range. Joshua Lamb et al. showed that as the crushing speed changes the value of force required for cell failure and the intrusion within the cell for failure changes as well [ 110 ]. They demonstrated that for the speed of 0.1 mm/s the force and intrusion required for failure were around 45 kN and 4.5 mm, while for 10 mm/s it was 50 kN and more than 5.5 mm [ 110 ]. Hu et al. also concluded that the crushing speed has a significant influence on the failure behaviour of the batteries [ 111 ]. The difference in the crushing speed that can be seen in the standards and regulations is thus of great importance. For cell level testing, SAE J2464:2009 [ 89 ] recommends the speed from 0.5 mm/min to 1 mm/min, while SAND2017-6925:2017 [ 107 ] and GB/T 31485-2015:2015 [ 90 ] recommends at 1 mm/min and 300 ± 60 mm/min, respectively. This recommendation by SAND2017-6925:2017 [ 107 ] and GB/T 31485-2015:2015 [ 90 ] stays the same for module and pack level testing as well. However, SAEJ2464:2009 [ 89 ] suggests that for the module and pack level, the impactor speed should be 5 mm/min to 10 mm/min. Henceforth, it can be noticed that there is a drastic speed difference at module and pack level for all three standards. It is also worth noticing here that ISO 12405-3:2014 [ 84 ], IEC 62660-2:2010 [ 87 ], FreedomCAR:2006 [ 92 ], UN/ECE-R100.02:2013 [ 98 ] and, GTR 20:2018 [ 108 ] do not mention anything about the impactor speed (refer Table 4 ).
In terms of IEC 62660-2:2010 [ 87 ], the test is continued until the voltage drop of one-third of the initial cell voltage or the crushing force is 1000 × weight of TD. If the TD is deformed 15% or more of its initial dimension, before the above condition occurs, then the force should be released.
The amount of force required, as per ISO 12405-3:2014 [ 84 ] is similar to UN/ECE-R100.02:2013 [ 98 ] and is within the range of 100 kN to 105 kN. However, in ISO 12405-3:2014 [ 84 ], the manufacturers can test as per the force expected during a vehicle crash, while UN/ECE-R100.02:2013 [ 98 ] approves testing only at a higher crush force, at the request of the manufacturers. SAND2017-6925:2017 [ 107 ] specifies that the cells should be crushed until the specified conditions are met, (a) the force reaches the limit of 25 kN, (b) the impactor reaches 100% deformation and the hazard safety level (HSL) is greater than or equal to 5. For module and pack testing, the criteria are the same except that nothing is specified in regards to force.
According to FreedomCAR:2006 [ 92 ], the TD must be crushed to 85% of its initial height and then be on hold for 5 min, followed by further crushing of the TD until 50% of its initial height or until the force becomes 1000 times the TDs mass [ 109 ]. While as per UN/ECE-R100.02:2013 [ 98 ], the TD is crushed until the minimum force of 100 kN, but not more than 105 kN, and the acceptance criteria are that the TD should not catch fire, explode or show signs of electrolyte leakage. Similarly, GTR 20:2018 also states that the crushing force shall be between 100 kN to 105 kN [ 108 ].
The general procedure to carry out a crush test on a test device (TD), i.e., cell, module, or pack is to place it on an electrically isolated plate/support and then apply a specific crushing force by using a textured movable plate known as a crusher. However, it is worthwhile to note that the testing conditions differ in each standard and regulation. For example, SAE J2464:2009 [ 89 ] set the condition that the TD should be crushed until the initial dimension of TD reduces to 85%, then hold it there for 5 min, followed by a crush until its initial dimension reduces to 50%, or until the force reaches 1000 × weight of TD, while GB/T 31485-2015:2015 [ 90 ] states that the TD, i.e., cell voltage falls to 0 V or the deformation and force reaches 30% and 200 kN (refer Table 2 ). Similarly, the TD (module and pack) should be crushed until one of the following conditions occur, (a) the TD reaches 70% of the initial dimension, or (b) the crushing force reaches 1000 × weight of TD, or a specific unit as per Table 3 , whichever is higher.
There are numerous battery testing standards and regulations in the market that helps the manufacturer to design the battery system and introduce them in the market. The testing methods described in these standards and regulations help in accessing the performance and safety of the battery system but are not always pertinent.
Despite having such a wide variety of abuse tests, EV batteries might catch fire after an accident, i.e., either immediately or erstwhile [ 22 105 ]. It was forecasted by Machuca et al. that such incidents can go up to 135,000 vehicles/year by the year 2030 [ 14 ]. The detailed information on battery incidents and handling such incidents are elaborated by [ 106 ]. Considering this forecast and the number/examples of accidents that have happened so far, it can be said that the crush test should be paid more attention and should be investigated in depth [ 22 ]. Therefore, from here onwards, this research investigates the crush test and its relevant parameters. The standards and the regulations selected are, SAE J2464:2009 [ 89 ], GB/T 31485-2015:2015 [ 90 ], FreedomCAR:2006 [ 92 ], ISO 12405-3:2014 [ 84 ], IEC 62662-2:2010 [ 87 ], SAND2017-6925:2017 [ 107 ], UN/ECE-R100.02:2013 [ 98 ] and, GTR 20:2018 [ 108 ] as these are followed by more than fifty countries.
It is important to note that standards encompass a variety of aims and objectives. A specific standard can have the combination of many objectives such as design, performance test, safety design, safety test, environmental protection, classification, and recommendation [ 103 ]. For example, FreedomCAR:2006 [ 92 ] and SAE J2464:2009 [ 89 ] help to investigate and gather the battery response under severe conditions, i.e., outside the normal operating range, for manufacturers to examine the battery system design failure. On the other hand, standards such as ISO 12405-3:2014 [ 84 ] and IEC 62660-2:2010 [ 87 ] provide the detailed test procedure to observe the reliability of the battery and also specifies the acceptable safety requirements.
While introducing EVs in the market, the manufacturers must show that the vehicle and its components match the safety limits assigned by the regulatory bodies. The battery is one of such components that is considered as a primary source of hazard for EV consumers [ 101 ] and hence, it needs to undergo rigorous safety tests before introducing EVs into the market [ 102 ]. Standards are usually considered as good practice documents. If the standard is not followed then the product manufacturer should justify the different route chosen [ 103 ].
4. Results and Discussion
To ensure the safety of EVs and their batteries, various standards and regulations have been developed by regulatory bodies around the world. Manufacturers must follow the regulations before introducing the vehicles to the market. To attain the conditions mentioned in the regulations, manufacturers are recommended to follow the regional accepted standards. These standards can be such as FreedomCAR:2006 [ 92 ] and SAE J2464:2009 [ 89 ] which help them to investigate the battery system design and others such as ISO 12405-3:2014 [ 84 ] and IEC 62660-2:2010 [ 87 ] which provide the acceptable safety requirements. Both types of standards are very useful and can help to achieve a good level of safety.
Despite such supportive standards and rigorous regulations developed by the regulatory bodies, there were several incidents noticed in which EVs caught fire after accidents and possessed a high risk for consumers. Companies such as General Motors, BMW, and Audi had to recall their EVs from the market as there was a risk from the batteries installed in their respective car models. Therefore, the question to ponder is, whether the tests conducted are right and enough for EV batteries.
Similarly, another question to think about is the number of test samples during the approval of the battery, because the TD used once in testing cannot be reused for another test, which makes testing an expensive endeavour. For example, FreedomCAR:2006 [ 92 ] recommends having at least one sample, SAE J2464:2009 [ 89 ] recommends testing two samples, GB/T 31485-2015:2015 [ 40 ] states that there should be two samples for cell and one sample for a module and pack, while ISO 12405-3:2014 [ 84 ] states that the number of samples should be decided based on vehicle crash tests. Such ambiguity is challenging for manufacturers because this increases the cost of tests, subsequently increasing the cost of EVs and it does not reflect the certainty in terms of safety of the EV consumer. A similar situation of imprecise information is in the below-mentioned areas as well:
- 1.
Procedure: The primary aspect of all the abuse tests is to define the stop criteria where the test limits are reached, and the testing can be stopped. After analysing the selected standards and regulations, it is found that there is a significant difference in the overall procedure as well as the criteria such as force, voltage, deformation, and HSL. For example, SAE J2464:2009 [ 89 ] has a simple procedure in which the formula is to multiply the weight of TD with the constant value of 1000. The same formula is also adopted by FreedomCAR:2006 [ 92 ], but with an additional deformation parameter which is equal to 50%. Comparing these with ISO 12405-3:2014 [ 84 ], UN/ECE-R100.02:2013 [ 98 ], and GTR 20:2018 [ 108 ], it is found that the force should be between 100 kN and 105 kN and does not consider the deformation. While on the other hand, IEC 62660-2:2010 [ 87 ] and GB/T 31485-2015:2015 [ 90 ] consider the voltage as an additional parameter to force and deformation. SAND 2017-6925:2017 [ 107 ] takes this one step further by providing HSL limits as well to stop the tests.
Therefore, it can be said that there is some degree of commonality between standards such as SAE andFreedomCAR:2006, but when all the selected standards and regulations are compared with each other, it is fair to say that the manufacturers face challenges to decide which standard or regulation needs to be followed as they all have a variety of procedures and stop criteria parameters;
- 2.
Crushing Speed: It is a well-known fact that the deformation of the cell differs from the battery module or pack. The failure of the battery module or pack is induced by the non-uniform deformation inside each cell that generates a vulnerable zone near the gap among cells. From Section 3.2 it can be seen that the standards and regulations differ significantly, as the impactor speed for cells ranges from 0.5 mm/min as stated in the SAE J2464:2009 [ 89 ] to 360 mm/min as per GB/T 31485-2015:2015 [ 90 ]. In terms of module and pack level testing, the impactor speed ranges from 1 mm/min to 360 mm/min. On the other hand, some of the standards such as ISO 12405-3:2014 [ 84 ], IEC 62660-2:2010 [ 87 ] FreedomCAR:2006 [ 92 ], GTR 20:2018 [ 108 ] and, UN/ECE-R100.02:2013 [ 98 ] have not provided any information regarding the impactor speed.
Moreover, all the standards and regulations are based on quasi-static testing (impactor is forced on the battery) and do not undertake the realistic dynamic situation where the EV carrying battery can crush with other vehicles, i.e., other vehicles can be compared with an impactor in such a situation. Under a quasi-static situation, homogeneous deformation can be noticed within the packed batteries and battery failure distribution is in a random pattern. Conversely, in the case of dynamic impact, row by row crushing of packed batteries can be observed with force concentrating at some certain rows that result in severe deterioration of the batteries under the equal crushing displacement, implicating higher failure risk. Based on the dynamic battery test, it was found that the crushing speed dominates the failure behaviour rather than crushing energy [ 111 ]. The failure displacement declines as the crushing speed exceed 1,200,000 mm/min. Kisters et al. also found that the crushing speed has a significant influence on the failure behaviour of the TD [ 116 ]. They experimentally evaluated that a high-speed crush test (300,000 mm/min) has a double-stage failure process with an insignificant voltage drop before the load reaches its maximum and a radical voltage drop to almost 0 V at the maximum load, while a low-speed crush test (6 mm/min) has a single-stage failure process with one sharp voltage drop to zero before reaching the maximum load.
Moreover, it is crucial to note that the absence of impactor crush speed value in some standards and regulations can yield inconclusive or discrepant results for quasi-static tests.
Henceforth, it can be said that the current standards and regulations need to be harmonised because (a) the currently available impactor crush speed values vary drastically from each other, as well as (b) the unavailability of these values in some standards and regulations can be inconclusive and cause discrepancy in the results. In addition, it is important to note that there is a need for a dynamic testing approach that resembles the real-time situation of the EV crash;
- 3.
SoC: SoC performs a significant role in battery failure, hence, it becomes crucial to understand SoC-based mechanical behaviour while studying the crashworthiness of EV batteries, especially in the operation situation when the electrochemical cycle occurs and the SoC value is above zero [ 23 ]. Such differences in SoC values during the tests are of high relevance because Wang et al. found that the mechanical properties of a TD vary with its SoC [ 23 ]. Moreover, according to Wang et al. a TD faces mechanical hardening with an increase in SoC [ 10 23 ], thus increasing the amount of force required to achieve the same intrusion. Sheikh and Wang et al. observed that at a higher SoC, the voltage drop occurs at lower levels of intrusion [ 23 117 ].
Despite the SoC value having such importance, it can be seen from Section 3.3 . that the value is mostly recommended to be 100% during the tests. One of the standards and regulations such as ISO 12405-3:2014 [ 84 ] and UN/ECE-R100.02:2013 [ 98 ] have their conditions, though, it does not provide a variety of SoC values under which the battery should be tested. IEC 62660-2:2010 [ 87 ] categorizes SoC for testing based on the vehicle type (BEV and HEV) and does not consider the range of SoCs over which the batteries shall be tested.
Henceforth, evaluating the standards and regulations against the literature, it can be said that there is a need for tests that undertake a variety of SoC values while approving the EV battery, i.e., rather than just doing the test as per one value (100% SoC);
- 4.
Press position: Considering the press position while carrying out the crush test is of high importance. Maleki and Haward had carried out the research on various crush positions and demonstrated that the slight damage at the edge of the prismatic cell has a higher probability to lead to thermal runaway than crushing the cell at flat face [ 118 ]. The exponent observed similar behaviour during the testing. They represented that the mechanical deformation/damage at the edge of the cell has higher chances of thermal runaway compare with damage perpendicular to the electrode surface [ 112 ]. Thus, considering various press positions for testing becomes crucial.
The studies of the standards and regulations show that there is no clear information provided in terms of the exact location of the impactor that presses the cell, module, or pack, i.e., it can be anywhere, top, bottom, or centre (refer Figure 11 ). Moreover, some of the current standards such as SAE J2464:2009 [ 89 ], FreedomCAR:2006 [ 92 ], SAND2017-6925:2017 [ 107 ], and GB/T 31485-2015:2015 [ 90 ] are quite ambiguous as they only mention the “vulnerable” and “susceptible” position of the battery but do not define the position clearly. Similar ambiguity is noticed further in GB/T 31485-2015:2015 [ 90 ] in terms of polar plates which need to be considered while testing the cells, i.e., no description is provided about the polar plate.
Henceforth, it can be said that the information provided on the press position needs to be improved [ 113 ] and certainly the decision should not be left to the manufacturers and technical services as mentioned by UN/ECE-R100.02:2013 [ 98 ] and GTR 20:2018 [ 108 ]. Moreover, there should be some in-depth information considering cell, module, and pack level testing;
- 5.
Crusher shape and dimensions: In terms of impactor shape/design, it was noticed that to test the battery module and pack, the shape of the impactor remains the same for GTR 20:2018 [ 108 ], FreedomCAR:2006 [ 92 ], SAE J2464:2009 [ 89 ], UN/ECE-R100.02:2013 [ 98 ] and ISO 12405-3:2014 [ 84 ], while SAND2017-6925:2017 [ 107 ] differs in terms of the number of semi-cylinders on the plate and IEC 62660-2:2010 [ 87 ] does not provide any such information. Though, it is worthwhile to note that IEC 62660-2:2010 [ 87 ] defines the shape/design of the impactor for a cylindrical cell which is similar to SAE J2464:2009 [ 89 ], SAND2017-6925:2017 [ 107 ], and FreedomCAR:2006 [ 92 ]. IEC 62660-2:2010 [ 87 ] and SAND2017-6925:2017 [ 107 ] also provide specific shape/design of the impactor for prismatic cells, whilst in GB/T 31485-2015:2015 [ 90 ] the impactor shape is completely different from all the standards and regulations. In regards to the dimensions of the impactor, it is different in all the selected standards and regulations.
Henceforth, the standards and regulations must have a clearly defined shape/design and the dimension of the impactor for testing cell, module, and pack for different types of batteries such as cylindrical and prismatic;
- 6.
Number of testing samples: Multiple samples are needed for each test during the testing and in the majority of cases, the testing degrades the TD and therefore reusing the samples is not acceptable [ 115 ]. However, after considering the selected standards and regulation, it can be identified that standards such as SAE J2464:2009 [ 89 ] and FreedomCAR:2006 [ 92 ] overlap each other up to a certain extent but vary significantly in terms of the TD axes during the test. Comparing these two standards with GB/T 31485-2015:2015 [ 40 ] and SAND2017-6925:2017 [ 107 ], it is found that there is no clarity in terms of cell, module, or pack level testing samples. Considering the ISO 12405-3:2014 [ 84 ] standard there is a freedom to opt for the regional regulation but the axes should be defined by manufacturers which is certainly bewilderment for the manufacturers. In addition, UN/ECE-R100.02:2013 [ 98 ], IEC 62660-2:2010 [ 87 ] and, GTR 20:2018 [ 108 ] lack such information of sampling.
Henceforth, it can be said that despite the government and associated standards and regulations developing bodies being aware of the situation of confusion among the battery manufacturers along with the concept of increment in the cost linked with the number of test samples, there is no clear guidance for the manufacturers available.
Figure 11. Point of contacts between impactor and TD from 3D view and front view, (a) top view; (b) bottom view; (c) centre view.
119,From the above points, it can be noticed that there is a need for the harmonisation of standards and regulations. Similar thoughts are also shared by Ruiz et al., Wech et al. and Justen and Schöneburg that a standard framework for battery testing can be used globally [ 113 120 ]. However, it is good that such a proposal was considered by the Global Technical Regulation on Electric Vehicle Safety [ 108 ] in the year 2018. Though, there is no significant development and impact that has been noticed since then at the market level. Therefore, it is important to take some further actions and implement them.
Moreover, along with the need for harmonising the current standards and regulations, there is also the need to augment them by considering real-life accident and crash scenarios. It was identified that in all these standards and the regulations, the battery is static and the crusher moves towards the TD, however, in real-life, the battery has a dynamic nature (as it is installed in the vehicle), which means that the battery is moving towards the impact zone. In real accidents, the loading of batteries occurs in two different ways:
Impact forces from the contact of the vehicle with the collision partner:
2 in an impact with a rigid concrete barrier at a speed of 54 km/h (referHere it is difficult to analyse the kind of collision and the impact severity. During the crash acceleration and specifically deceleration, values can be significantly high. For example, in a crash test carried out by the University of Zilinia, the deceleration of an accumulator mounted at the rear of the vehicle was approximately 500 m/sin an impact with a rigid concrete barrier at a speed of 54 km/h (refer Figure 12 ) [ 121 ]. In such a scenario, the batteries are dynamically loaded, and even if no mechanical damage is displayed on the surface of the battery, there is often internal damage that takes a relatively long time to show its effect;
The intrusion of the other parts or deformation of the battery:
In this case, the static test provides a good approximation of reality. The battery and vehicle construction play an vital role along with the placement of battery and fastening system [ 121 ].
In the case of severe crashes or impacts, it is a combination of both. Usually, accidents often have complicated sequences. In such events, the crash data recorder (CDR) storage systems can serve as a good indicator. It would be useful to develop a methodology for battery diagnostics associated with the CDR system and constantly improve it with the help of testing. Researchers such as Wech et al., Justen and Schöneburg also agree with this and have also demonstrated some discrepancies between the results obtained through dynamic against static tests [ 119 120 ].
Another concerning aspect is the comparability of results between the tests performed at the component level (on the cell, module, or pack) against the actual vehicles [ 58 ]. For example, in the latter case, the battery is protected by the battery enclosure and the chassis of the vehicle. Hence, the authenticity and reliability of the results obtained from a test conducted on a TD as per specific standards are in question.
Battery Safety
(Courtesy of Polestar)
Cut-off points
The EV battery industry offers a variety of ways to minimise the hazards they can pose, as Peter Donaldson explains.
Proximity to large amounts of energy has always presented hazards, but people have mostly learned to live with them and enjoy its benefits. However, being close to a high-energy electrochemical system such as a 100 kWh battery is still relatively novel. What’s more, a series of high-profile EV battery fires, vehicle recalls prompted by fire risks and the new Chinese government rule mandating 5 minutes’ warning between detecting an incipient thermal runaway and penetration of the passenger compartment by fire to give passengers time to escape have sharpened the focus on battery safety, even though such events are rare.
For obvious reasons, batteries are made from non-flammable materials as far as possible, and their electronic control and thermal management systems provide increasingly tight regulation of operating conditions. Generally conservative design and over-engineering, stringent cell material purity standards, venting and redundant heat transfer pathways all help with reliability and safety.
However, high-energy lithium-ion batteries present electrical, chemical and thermal hazards. Electrical potentials in the 400-800 V range are typical for modern EVs, and with the associated large currents they can induce fatal shocks and arc-flash events if mishandled.
Related links:Extended Home | Paragon Industries Shop
If you want to learn more, please visit our website RE TECH.
Any breach in the isolation that separates high-voltage circuits from their low-voltage counterparts or other parts of the vehicle is also dangerous. Furthermore, cells contain flammable electrolytes and must be protected against thermal runaway, which is a self-propagating reaction.
Causes of cell failures include overcharging, external heating and external short-circuits, while internal causes include contamination of cell materials, separator failure and dendrite formation. These latter two can cause internal short-circuits by directly connecting the anode to the cathode, for example.
Thermal runaway is the most hazardous consequence of a cell failure, because temperature increases to a level at which it promotes reactions that generate even more heat – more than can be safely dissipated. This can propagate to adjacent cells, starting a cascade effect that can result in fire and explosion.
Industry is working on the assumption that the new Chinese rule is likely to trigger similar approaches from authorities in the EU, the US and other major EV markets. Several cell OEMs and integrators have already made changes to meet such regulations, incorporating directed vents and high-impedance cathodes, for example, along with pack designs that allow for quick disconnection or de-energising individual cells using thermal shunts or voltage-based isolation.
The self-generating nature of a thermal runaway results from the chemical compositions of the cathode and the electrolyte. Most lithium-ion batteries liberate oxygen when they go into a failure mode, a battery testing expert points out. The cathode is made from a lithium metal oxide that decomposes when it gets too hot, releasing gaseous oxygen as the oxide compound breaks up, and even though the electrolyte itself is fairly benign, the solvent is a volatile hydrocarbon.
Generating its own oxygen and fuel, therefore, a burning lithium-ion battery is difficult to extinguish, so much design effort goes into everything from cell construction to electrical control, thermal management and emergency cut-out systems. Safety mechanisms are integrated at cell, module and pack levels, and apply to everything from the design and construction of individual cells to battery cases. They include features such as single-cell fuse systems, integral firefighting systems and sensor/software approaches such as continuous temperature tracking.
One approach is to limit the capacity of individual cells so that there is less energy to release, and vents can be included to relieve pressure within the cell casing.
Other automatic safety precautions typically integrated into cells include a means of temporarily or permanently cutting off the flow of electricity. Non reversible current interrupt devices are often pressure-activated, while reversible types include positive temperature coefficient thermistors, whose resistance increases with temperature. There are also shutdown separators, which melt at specific temperatures to stop the flow of ions through the electrolyte, and ceramic separators between the anode and cathode to improve thermal stability.
At the module level, the temperatures and voltages of all the cells are monitored, with fuses incorporated for non-reversible current interruption. Between the cells, typically, spacers minimise heat transfer from one to the next, along with thermal barriers around modules to protect their neighbours.
At the pack level, the battery management system (BMS) monitors the electrical properties and temperatures of all the cells, controls the thermal management system to keep the battery in its ideal temperature range and can shut down cells and modules if limits are exceeded and then warn the driver.
There are also more fuses, including impact-sensor-activated pyrofuses, which are circuit breakers that can be activated by the same kinds of inertial sensors that trigger airbags for example, and which cut off the current permanently. There are also pack level vents to prevent the build-up of hot, high-pressure gases inside, and thermal protection mats for insulation between the modules and the outer casing.
The INT-39 Energy HV high-energy battery for hybrid and fully electric trucks and buses is certified to ECE R100.02, and features liquid cooling and thermal hazard protection(Courtesy of Leclanche)
Cell form factor effects
The form factor of cells has an important effect on the rate at which they can be cooled or heated, much of which is down to the ratio of surface area to volume. Of the three main form factors used in EV batteries – cylindrical, prismatic and pouch – the first has the smallest ratio and is consequently the slowest to release or absorb a given amount of heat energy.
Both prismatic and pouch cells tend to be thin, flat and rectangular, giving them much higher ratios. Pouch cells also have thin Mylar walls that present less thermal resistance than the aluminium cases of prismatic cells.
Pack design reflects the philosophies of battery suppliers and EV manufacturers, with some preferring cylindrical cells with active cooling while others choose not to provide it, so there is no single way to adapt battery packs to meet the 5-minute escape requirement, says one battery developer, which tackles the problem using a combination of advanced software and sensing.
One approach to managing unwanted thermal propagation in cylindrical cells is to form a cell support structure from a phase-change composite material made of graphite and a substance that melts to absorb excess heat, and then solidifies as it cools, in a repeatable cycle.
Mitigating propagation
Over the past 10 years, a heat-spreading material specialist notes, the battery industry has come to use four main methods of stopping or mitigating runaway thermal propagation. These are encapsulation in a fireproof box, adding insulation material between cells, immersion in a dielectric cooling fluid, and putting heat-spreading materials in close contact with individual cells.
Encapsulation is the quickest and cheapest way to meet the 5-minute occupant escape window requirement, but is the least satisfactory for thermal management. Similarly, insulation can prevent a failed cell’s neighbours from reaching a critical temperature, but it adds bulk and can limit fast charging and/or life. Some batteries also incorporate internal cross-members to isolate individual modules, at the cost of packaging volume and energy density. However, careful cell/pack design and selection of thermal barrier materials mitigate this.
For example, flexible aerogels originally developed for use in the petrochemical refining and thermal power industries are successfully applied as thin-layer cell-to-cell and module-to-pack thermal barriers.
Aerogels are solids derived from gels in which the liquid component of the gel has been replaced by air, an efficient insulator.
As well as providing sufficient thermal resistance throughout the cell’s normal life cycle, aerogels also resist degradation during thermal runaways, and can be flexible enough to accommodate changes in cell dimensions as they charge and discharge, as well as enlarge with ageing.
One aerogel provider notes that cell-face pressures caused by their expansion can reach 400 kPa in pouch types at the end of their service lives, and up to 2 MPa for prismatic cells, and that aerogels must compress but still retain their thermal resistance. They also stand up to mechanical shock in normal driving and are light and thin enough not to reduce energy density significantly.
The third method for mitigating unwanted heat propagation, immersion cooling in a dielectric liquid, is seen as the ultimate in all-round thermal management. However, it comes at the cost of complexity in the cooling system along with the cost and environmental issues associated with some of the liquids.
The final method, thermal spreading, can be used in combination with other methods and with thermal interface materials (TIMs). While a TIM would typically be a 2 or 3 mm layer connecting a cell or module base to a cold plate, a thermal-spreading material such as aluminium or graphite is placed between the cells in close contact with their walls, from where it conducts heat down to the TIM layer and to the cold plate.
Graphite is electrically conductive, as is aluminium, so there is a thin dielectric layer preventing direct contact with the cell wall. Aluminium has some benefits in that it provides structural support, but at 200 W/mK its thermal conductivity is fairly low.
When a cell catches fire, the temperature inside it rises to 600- 700 C for about a minute, so the heat spreader, the cold plate and the intercell insulation together have to channel enough of the heat away to prevent runaway propagation to the next cell.
By happy coincidence, our heat spreading specialist says, once the thermal management solution is robust enough to take care of such a thermal event, it is more than adequate in normal use for fast charging and discharging, and for creating an even thermal gradient across the cells to improve life.
Battery modules can be built with cylindrical, prismatic and, as here, pouch cells. Pouch cells combine a high ratio of surface area to volume with thin Mylar walls, and so gain and lose heat the quickest(Courtesy of Audi)
Electrical safety
Electrical safety depends to a large degree on the ability to isolate the battery and the entire high-voltage circuit, with different solutions for different situations, one battery developer says.
In normal operation the main contactor relays are used, and there are additional plugs known as service disconnect devices that are used in maintenance and disposal. The main fuse breaks the circuit in the event of an over-current or short-circuit, while pyrofuses are triggered in more severe cases such as crashes, fires or abuse.
Equally important is the high-voltage interlock loop (HVIL), which uses low-voltage signals to monitor the integrity of high-voltage circuits and their isolation from the low-voltage ones, the battery housing and the vehicle chassis. It runs alongside the high-voltage circuit through every component and connector, and any break in it results in the high-voltage battery opening the main contactors.
In communication with the BMS, components including the traction inverter, DC-DC converter and onboard charger also monitor the HVIL current, and if any error is detected they start a failsafe turn-off sequence.
An isolation monitoring device measures the resistance between the high-voltage bus and the parts from which it must be isolated, particularly the low-voltage bus and the vehicle chassis, against a required minimum value, typically 500 Ω/V. If the resistance falls below that threshold, the battery is prevented from connecting to the drive system or, if the vehicle is moving, power is reduced to a minimum.
EVs also feed a crash signal into the system to shut down all the high voltage circuits in the event of an accident, and a disconnect switch must always be accessible to first responders. It is, however, hard to guarantee that such disconnects can always be reached regardless of the position of and damage to a crashed vehicle, which makes automatic operation essential.
Pyrofuses are relatively new devices, and there is no mandatory requirement to fit them, as the regulations simply require the vehicle to be made electrically safe and leave it up to the manufacturer how to achieve that. The technology is still under development, with manufacturers working on their ability to handle higher voltages and currents.
One battery developer tells us it is working on 800 V devices, and is cooperating with academia to develop a reliable means of disconnection between battery packs. The company says most regulations require these fuses to be fitted in a unit outside the battery to ease access for replacement.
However, confidence in HVIL and emergency disconnect systems s high, one of our testing experts reports, emphasising that the approach to isolating high voltage is well understood in engineering terms and that the technology is reliable.
This specialist’s organisation develops battery packs for customers and also tests third-party packs, and therefore has a good view of any issues. He says the company has had no incidents of high voltage not being properly isolated but has had thermal events, which are much harder to prevent.
Post-crash safety
Crash safety is considered in almost all the standards that relate to battery testing, such as ECE R100, GB38031, SAE J2464/J2929 and ISO 12405.
R100 testing for EVs, for example, stipulates that the system must come to a safe voltage within 60 seconds after a crash, although one testing expert points out that it is a self-certifying standard on the part of the vehicle OEM and could be more robust if compliance had to be independently verified. R100 also takes battery housing deformation into consideration.
EVs designers face the challenge of ensuring that the dense mass of the battery pack does not cause any crashworthiness issues, the expert says, adding that more EV-specific crash test requirements are probably needed to take this into account.
Graphite thermal spreading materials can be combined with thermal interface materials and dielectric/fire retardant layers to help prevent thermal runaway(Courtesy of NeoGraf Solutions)
While EV manufacturers avoid placing any part of the battery system in a vehicle’s crumple zone, the increasingly common ‘skateboard’ EV platform architecture brings the long sides of the battery pack close to the outer edges of the vehicle, an arrangement that might seem to make the pack vulnerable to side impacts. China’s particularly severe GB/T crush requirement subjects battery packs to a 100 kN side pole test, a materials specialist points out, influencing EV designs to have the vehicle structure attenuate crash loads early before transmitting them to the battery enclosure.
However, that is the kind of issue that tends to be caught early in the vehicle design process and corrected in simulations before real hardware is built and tested, a testing expert points out.
Crash-related safety problems that slip through to production vehicles tend to be more subtle than that. For example, General Motors’ early Chevrolet Volts sometimes burst into flames about a fortnight after a crash test because coolant ingress had compromised battery isolation.
Because the aftermath of a collision with an IC-engined vehicle could expose an EV’s battery to burning fuel, most EV safety standards such as UL 2580 and ISO 6469-1, and the United Nations’ GTR and ECE regulations, have an external fire exposure requirement, with a test to prove that it presents no explosion hazard.
External and internal fire protection
The battery pack’s ability to withstand external fires depends on the combination of enclosure materials, coatings, insulation and heat spreading. Most enclosures are steel or aluminium (although polymer composite cases are under development) and, along with interfaces such as sockets, they are typically protected by flame retardants. Also, thermal insulation is enhanced by incorporating air gaps or insulation mats between the cells/modules and the housing.
A materials specialist we consulted says material selection will be impacted by new tests for thermal runaway and external fires which mandate that they withstand 900 C for 5 minutes, potentially ruling out traditional materials such as sheet moulding compound and aluminium.
Designs are evaluated using fire resistance tests in standards such as ECE R100 Annex 8E.
The chemicals industry is working on advanced materials that can form ‘intumescent’ coatings, which are thin under normal conditions but expand to increase their protective properties in a fire. Applied as layers typically between 0.3 and 1.2 mm deep, they first soften when exposed to extreme heat and then expand due to the release of gas from their component pigments.
An outer expansion layer then solidifies due to the carbonisation of the pigments’ organic components, while the remaining inorganic components preserve the expanded coating’s mechanical strength. The coating expands to between five and 50 times its original thickness, and contains insulating air cavities, a coatings expert explains.
For example, with lower energy density chemistries, such as lithium iron phosphate, one intumescent coating protects from external fires as hot as 1000 C. A low-viscosity material, it is applied to the outside of the case, particularly the top cover as most of a battery fire goes upwards in the thermal runaway, and preventing lids from softening or melting is a primary goal.
In tests, an aluminium panel with a 150-micron layer withstood a 1000 C fire for more than 5 minutes while keeping the temperature on the reverse side below 350 C, the expert reports.
The same company also makes coatings that can be applied inside battery packs, sprayed on the underside of pack lids for example, and which can adapt to complex shapes within the pack, making them suitable for volume production. These coatings can withstand temperatures of up to 1500 C and can, for example, prevent the explosion of NCM 811 cells in a thermal runway.
Materials such as graphite can be used to mitigate the effects of internal as well as external fires, our heat-spreading expert says. A burning cell can be considered a point heat source, and if the energy released can be spread though the pack by the graphite while the cell’s immediate neighbours are protected from the concentrated temperature by insulation, then the progress of the fire is slowed and the escape time is extended.
He notes that all his customers so far have wanted to mitigate heat moving from the inside out, but the material would work the same way to protect battery internals from heat moving in the opposite direction.
The application of such materials provides time for firefighters to extinguish the external fire and prevent a battery fire, or at least slow its progress sufficiently for people to get out of the vehicle.
Automated assembly of battery modules and packs reduces the risk to people in the manufacturing process(Courtesy of Webasto)
First-responder safety
The safety of first responders is as important as that of the vehicle’s occupants. While EVs and their battery casings are designed to prevent any penetration of the pack that disrupts the cells in a crash, that is not always possible and the HVIL cannot eliminate the resulting hazards.
What’s more, it remains difficult for first responders and recovery personnel to be certain of the battery’s status if the vehicle is not functional, a testing expert points out. Naturally, they need to know whether it is about to catch fire or is leaking hazardous chemicals, and that has not yet been addressed by legislation or industry, he says.
A possible solution, he suggests, is some kind of common BMS output that would provide battery status information, ideally via wireless comms or some quick and easy way to plug in to the vehicle. He reports that there has been discussion of an open CAN standard that would allow anyone in that position to check battery status quickly.
In motorsport, vehicles are fitted with prominent battery status indicator lights, and there are other possible solutions, but there is no legislation yet for road vehicles that calls for such systems. Also, there is a hesitancy in industry to commit to any particular solution that would require significant investment if there is a risk that subsequent legislation would mandate a different one, he cautions.
Stranded energy, where electrical energy remains in a battery without a means of removing it, presents a potential danger to first responders. According to one expert, the industry, research institutes and others continue to look for practical solutions that can be built into battery systems. Meanwhile, the primary approach to the problem has been through training first responders by using mechanisms developed by the US National Fire Protection Association, for example.
Current practice includes dousing a crashed vehicle with water to keep the battery below its critical temperature, trying to concentrate the hoses on the battery case if it is accessible and even lifting entire vehicles into vats of saltwater carried to the scene by trucks. Making it easier to get water into the pack might help, a testing expert suggests, by means of a port into which a firefighter could plug a hose for example.
Others argue that lithium-ion fires should be put out with foam, CO2 , dry chemical dust, powdered graphite, copper powder or sodium carbonate, water being used only to prevent the fire from spreading. If the fire proves impossible to extinguish, the pack should be allowed to burn out in a controlled and safe manner.
Cell design is improving to make re-ignition less likely in future battery systems. For example, the impact of stranded energy can be further mitigated by better cell- and battery level venting systems that allow hot gases to escape in a controlled manner, as heat extraction is important to prevent re-ignition.
Inside the cell itself, better separator technology and the eventual transition to solid-state cells without liquid electrolyte are promising directions of development. Meanwhile, one focus of improvement in liquid electrolytes is the use of additives to reduce or contain the risk of thermal propagation and fire.
The primary focus of EV battery technology development has been on energy density and cost, with safety an obviously important but secondary consideration, argues one of our testing experts. To support this contention, he points to the use of lithium titanate cell chemistry in military applications because it does not go into thermal runaway, even when damaged by gunfire. It is, however, heavier and more expensive than other lithium-ion chemistries such as NMC and lithium iron phosphate.
Horiba Mira’s laboratory includes a three-axis shaker that can vibrate up to a tonne of mass for testing the biggest EV batteries(Courtesy of Horiba Mira)
Predictive battery management
Almost regardless of battery configuration, cell type and the combination of thermal management, runaway mitigation techniques and electrical safety features, the BMS plays a critical role in battery safety, with one testing expert calling it the first line of defence.
A BMS monitors multiple parameters, and should also be able to provide a history of the battery’s operating life and adjust parameters to maintain safety. Most EV manufacturers use over-the-air (OTA) monitoring via comms systems that can also support remote updates.
The expert’s testing organisation has been examining the effects of ageing on the battery and the prediction of unwanted lithium plating and the dendrites that grow from it, for example, because that can increase the chances of a thermal propagation event. It is therefore advocating the use of crowdsourced BMS information and more realistic models of battery cells to improve understanding of what is happening inside batteries. However, much of the process is not measurable directly, and measurements such as increases in temperature or changes in resistance may come too late.
The company’s alternative approach is detailed modelling of batteries combined with monitoring of data, with the goal of making accurate predictions. Updates could then enable the BMS to change the way it manages the battery to slow or stop a trend towards failure. While different battery configurations and cell chemistries complicate the picture, the combination of OTA monitoring and predictive algorithms is promising.
Millbrook’s ServoSled can test battery packs, generating impact shocks of precisely calibrated time versus acceleration profiles to ensure that tests are repeatable(Courtesy of Millbrook)
Safety and ‘abuse’ testing
A deep understanding of battery designs through rigorous testing, adherence to automotive standards and constant analysis in the context of specific vehicle applications is key to improving safety, one developer says. They are often split into ‘safety’ and ‘abuse’ tests, the latter being associated with tests that go beyond normal operating conditions or deliberately causing damage, although one of our experts considers them all to be safety tests because of the need to understand what can happen in extreme but plausible circumstances.
Testing is carried out at cell, module, pack and ultimately vehicle levels, with the cost and stakes involved being higher at each stage. The main groups of tests relate to safety in transit by air, sea, rail and road, as lithiumion batteries are designated Class 9 hazardous materials, and those that relate to use in vehicles.
Vehicle applications are governed by UNECE R100, for example, which covers road-going vehicles with four or more wheels and requires a thermal test that cycles through low and high temperatures including a significant over-temperature plus tests for vibration, shock, short-circuit, overcharge, over-discharge, crushing and fire resistance.
Meanwhile the UN 38.3 regime, which covers the safety of batteries when transported by air, sea, rail and road, mandates many of the same kinds of tests but with different parameters, and adds others such as an altitude test for carriage by aircraft.
Conducting such testing, particularly on high-capacity battery packs, demands a wide variety of facilities and equipment, preferably spread over a sizeable area to provide large safety zones and reliable containment of potential fires and explosions, the expert points out. While some are general facilities in which many different kinds of tests can be carried out, others are more specialised.
For example, one testing organisation has a facility designed to emulate a situation that might follow a crash between an EV and a IC-engined vehicle, in which spilled fuel flows under the EV and ignites. The rig used for this test includes a shallow pan similar in size to the battery pack that is filled with petrol, ignited remotely and moved underneath the pack by a winch system, left in place for a set time and then pulled out.
Other, more general facilities provide safe areas in which different types of test equipment can be connected. To induce an external short-circuit, for example, a high current-capacity, low resistance switch is connected between the battery’s main positive and negative terminals and activated electronically.
Our expert notes that this kind of test tends to by quite boring, as the pack’s internal fuse blows as designed and the only evidence that anything has happened is a short spike in current and a sudden fall in voltage to zero. He adds that things can get more interesting in cell-level tests because typical automotive cells don’t have individual fuses, although that is changing.
Some tests address thermal runaway directly. Under the UL 2850 standard, another expert explains, the battery system must be fully charged for the test and a centrally mounted cell heated until runaway or it is forced into runaway within 10 minutes by any means necessary. Once the runaway is initiated, the mechanism used to create it must be withdrawn. For the battery to pass the test, there must be no explosion that results in ‘projectiles’ falling outside a circular inner perimeter.
The UNECE R100 rules also include a standard load profile for the shock a battery pack would see in a typical car crash, and manufacturers can also request test pulses specific to their vehicles obtained from their own vehicle-level crash tests or through simulation. Depending on the size of the pack, either a sled or a full vehicle crash facility can be used for the test, either of which can generate a shock with a precisely calibrated time versus acceleration profile. In the latter case, the pack is typically mounted on a wheeled trolley and pulled into the obstacle by a winch.
Other safety-related tests include electromagnetic compatibility to make sure that driving past a powerful radio transmitter for example would not induce dangerous currents in any part of the system.
While the EV industry is still fairly young, the effort going into understanding the behaviour of batteries in extreme situations bodes well for the safety of existing and future EVs, despite the amounts of energy modern systems store and the complexity of the chemistry involved.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Ken Boyce at UL Energy & Industrial Automation, Isidor Buchmann at Cadex Electronics, Greg Harris at Horiba Mira, Peter Miller and Alexandra Mulot at Millbrook, Ramesh Natarajan at Webasto, Shriram Santhanagopalan at the NREL Center for Integrated Mobility Sciences, Christian Theeck at TUV SUD Battery Testing, Brett Trimmer at NeoGraf, Tunji Adebusuyi, Pierre Blanc and Sylvain Chonavel at Leclanche, John Williams at Aspen Aerogels, Pascal Soergel at Voltlabor and Mark Wright at Solvay Specialty Polymers & Thermoplastic Composites for their help with researching this article.
For more battery crusher supplierinformation, please contact us. We will provide professional answers.