MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2346548233 · doi:10.1149/ma2016-03/2/247

Lithium Ion Battery Autopsies after Safety Testing Reveal Safety Benefits of Thermally Stable Separators

2016· article· en· W2346548233 on OpenAlexaff
Brian Morin, J.L. Kaschmitter, P. A. Khokhlov, Carl Hu, Sung‐Jin Cho

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Technologies Research
Canadian institutionsSpectra Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialPolyethylene terephthalatePolypropyleneOverchargeNanofiberMicrofiberCeramicAnodeElectrodeBattery (electricity)Chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pouch cells of LiFePo4 and graphite were constructed with 10 layers and a total capacity of 3 Ah, with four different separators: 25 micron polypropylene dry process, 25 micron ceramic coated polyethylene wet process, Dreamweaver (DWI) Silver 25 micron and Dreamweaver Gold 25 micron. DWI Silver is a wet laid nonwoven composed of nanofibers of cellulose and polyacrylonitrile and microfibers of polyethlyene terephthalate. DWI Gold is a wet laid nonwoven composed of nanofibers of cellulose, fibrids of para-aramid, and microfibers of polyethylene terephthalate. The cells were tested for hard short, overcharge, hot box at 170 C, and nail penetration. Hard Short: The cells were shorted with 16 gauge wire and a switch rated to 100A. The cells all performed the same, with the anode tab (4 mm tab) getting red hot, and the cells slowly heating and the electrolyte expanding until the seal broke. Overcharge: The cells were charged at 2C from 30% SOC until failure. All cells failed at 5.5 V by outgassing. There were no flames, and the temperature rise was uniform between cells made with different separators. Hot Box: Cells made with PP and PE/ceramic separators both had faster temperature rise than either the DWI Silver or Gold cells. They also both experienced a catastrophic short after around 20 minutes, compared to the DWI Silver and Gold cells, which maintained voltage for 1 hour and never experienced a short. The short for the PE/ceramic cell occurred with onset at around 140 C, and for the PP cell at around 145 C. Both of the DWI cells rose to nearly the oven temperature without experiencing a short. Nail Penetration: The nail penetration cells experienced likewise a significantly improved behavior in the Dreamweaver cells. The PP and PE/ceramic cells voltage both went immediately to zero, and the temperature rise was fast, to 90 C for PP and to 120 C for PE/ceramic. For the DWI Silver and Gold cells, the voltage dropped only by ~200 mV, and the temperature rise was slower and to a lower temperature, to 80 C for Silver and to 40 C for Gold. Autopsies of the cells performed after testing revealed even more of what went on inside. The PP cells showed a separator with splitting and shrinking around the hole made by the nail, and significant shrinkage at one end of the cell. The PE/ceramic cells showed significant splitting, cracking and shrinking around the nail hole, but no other shrinkage. The cells made with DWI Silver showed no shrinkage, cracking or splitting caused by heat, but only a little browning of the fibers and the physical damage caused by the nail. The cells made with DWI Gold showed only the physical damage of the nail, with no other effects observable. The significant difference in cell performance is exemplified in that after both the hot box and nail penetration tests, the DWI Silver and DWI Gold cells were still functioning cells, while the cells made with PP and with PE/ceramic separators all experienced internal shorts and catastrophic failures, and the cells were not functioning after the tests. Figure 1

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS Meeting AbstractsSame topicAdvanced Battery Technologies ResearchFrench-language works237,207