MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386071061 · doi:10.11159/icmie23.130

Numerical Analysis of Gas Diffusion Characteristics During Thermal runaway in Lithium-ion battery module

2023· article· en· W4386071061 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dong Woo Kim, Seong Hyuk Lee, Young Man Lee, Hong Sun Ryou

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on Mechanical, Chemical, and Material Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Applied Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThermal runawayNuclear engineeringDiffusionMaterials scienceIonLithium (medication)Battery (electricity)ThermalLithium-ion batteryThermodynamicsChemistryPhysicsPower (physics)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lithium-ion batteries are widely used as secondary batteries due to their high energy density and low self-discharge.However, the lithium-ion batteries have the risk factor, such as explosions and toxic gas emissions caused by thermal runaway.Thermal runaway is a phenomenon where the temperature of the battery rapidly increases due to external factors, which leads to chemical reactions inside the battery, and the generation and ejection of various gases such as H2, CO, CO2, and VOCs to the outside.[1,2] Analyzing the vented gas flow from the battery is essential for designing fire safety devices, such as early detection systems for battery fires.The CO2 gas is known most advantageous for early detection of thermal runaway [3].However, most previous studies on gas flow analysis have been performed in single cells, while lithium-ion batteries are typically used as battery modules.[4,5] Therefore, this study was used to analyse the gas diffusion inside the module where thermal runaway of the battery occurred.This study performed numerical analysis using the commercial program Ansys fluent 19.1.The standard k-ε model is used for gas diffusion in the battery module and the species transport model to simulate the gas generated from the battery.The analysis was unsteady, with a time step of 0.01 s, and set for an analysis time of 100 s.The results show that at the beginning of gas ejection, the gas diffuses rapidly to adjacent cells where thermal runaway occurs.The gas velocity distribution before 7 seconds after thermal runaway describes the gradual diffusion of the gas into the module.However, the amount of gas initially ejected is small, and the CO2 mass fraction distribution before 10 seconds is low.After 8 seconds, there is a region where the gas diffusion rate suddenly increases.This is because of the flow that hits the module wall due to the vortex, and the flow moves into the center of the module due to the vortex.After 10 seconds, the released CO2 gas gradually accumulates at the end of the module and diffuses throughout the interior.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the World Congress on Mechanical, Chemical, and Material EngineeringSame topicEngineering Applied ResearchFrench-language works237,207