Applied Energy 173 (2016) 29–39

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Simulation and experimental study on lithium ion battery short circuit

Rui Zhao, Jie Liu ⇑, Junjie Gu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada

h i g h l i g h t s

Both external and internal short circuit tests were performed on Li-ion batteries.

An electrochemical–thermal model with an additional nail site heat source is presented.

The model can accurately simulate the temperature variations of non-venting batteries.

The model is reliable in predicting the occurrence and start time of thermal runaway.

A hydrogel cooling system proves its strength in preventing battery thermal runaway.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Safety is the first priority in lithium ion (Li-ion) battery applications. A large portion of electrical and ther-
Received 5 January 2016 mal hazards caused by Li-ion battery is associated with short circuit. In this paper, both external and
Received in revised form 24 March 2016 internal short circuit tests are conducted. Li-ion batteries and battery packs of different capacities are
Accepted 6 April 2016
used. The results indicate that external short circuit is worse for smaller size batteries due to their higher
Available online 11 April 2016
internal resistances, and this type of short can be well managed by assembling fuses. In internal short
circuit tests, higher chance of failure is found on larger capacity batteries. A modified electrochemical–
Keywords:
thermal model is proposed, which incorporates an additional heat source from nail site and proves to
Lithium ion battery
Short circuit test
be successful in depicting temperature changes in batteries. Specifically, the model is able to estimate
Nail/penetration simulation the occurrence and approximate start time of thermal runaway. Furthermore, the effectiveness of a
Thermal runaway hydrogel based thermal management system in suppressing thermal abuse and preventing thermal
Hydrogel runaway propagation is verified through the external and internal short tests on batteries and battery
packs.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Advanced lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery has become a promising
energy storage technology used in a wide range of electrical
devices, e.g. cellphone, laptop, camera, and electric vehicles.
Although offering many advantages such as high specific energy,
light weight, minimal memory effect and low self-discharge rate
[1], Li-ion batteries are still facing safety issues after several
reports of appliances catching on fire in different conditions. Over-
heating, external short circuit, and internal short circuit are the
three most common triggers of safety concerns in the operation
of Li-ion battery. Any of them can lead to failure of a battery or
even an entire battery pack.
When discharging at high rates, batteries are usually equipped
with thermal management system (TMS) to minimize temperature
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jliu@mae.carleton.ca (J. Liu).
rise and prevent overheating. Pesaran has pointed out that the
temperature of Li-ion battery should be kept in the range of
15–35 °C to maximize the battery’s performance [2]. In recent
years, many TMSs have been introduced, and the coolants used
range across air, liquid, phase change material, and hydrogel
[3–14]. The strengths, limitations and choice of different systems
are elaborated in our previous paper [3]. Generally, the overheating
problem of Li-ion battery can be effectively solved by TMS if prop-
erly implemented. However, as for short circuit, which happens
when positive and negative tabs contact due to mechanical abuse,
manufacturing defect, or other reasons, a great amount of heat will
be generated in a very short time; if the heat is not dissipated effi-
ciently, the battery temperature will exceed a critical point, above
which the electrolyte, active materials, and solid electrolyte inter-
face film will decompose, and eventually thermal runaway and
even fire will take place.
Much research has been done to better understand the short cir-
cuit behavior of Li-ion batteries [15–25]. For example, based on an

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.04.016
0306-2619/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
30 R. Zhao et al. / Applied Energy 173 (2016) 29–39
Nomenclature
as active surface area per electrode unit volume, cm2 cm3
c volume-averaged concentration of lithium in a phase,
mol cm3
Cdl double layer capacitance, F m2
cs,max maximum concentration of lithium in solid phase,
mol cm3
cs,0 initial concentration of lithium in solid phase, mol cm3
Cp specific heat capacity of component inside cell, J kg1 -
K1
D diffusion coefficient of lithium species, cm2 s
F Faraday’s constant, 96,487 C mol1
h convective heat transfer coefficient, W m2 K1
Idis current to calculate nail site heat generation, A
jLi reaction current density, A cm3
k conductivity of different components inside cell,
W m1 K1
keff effective electrolyte conductivity, S m1
ln thickness of negative electrode, lm
ls thickness of separator, lm
lp thickness of positive electrode, lm
l thickness of an electrochemical cell, lm
qr reaction heat generation rate, W m3
qj ohmic heat generation rate, W m3
qn nail site joule heat generation rate, W m3
~
q charge density on the double layer surface, C m2
r radial coordinate along active material particle, lm
R universal gas constant, 8.3143 J mol1 K1
Rn nail site resistance, mX
Rs solid particle radius, lm
t time, s
t0 transference number
T temperature, K
algorithm integrating temperature and voltage responses, Feng
et al. developed an on-line scheme that can detect internal short
circuit in early stage [26]. Their group also studied the propagation
of thermal runaway in a module of six 25 A h batteries. The lumped
model they proposed fit well with the experimental data, and they
found that a thermal resistant layer is helpful in preventing thermal
runaway propagation [16]. Kim et al. [22] investigated a cylindrical
battery’s performance and its localized heat distribution under
oven tests. A 3D thermal abuse model was employed and its ther-
mal runaway results were compared with a lumped thermal model.
In Ref. [23], the nail penetration of a 5.25 A h Li-ion battery was
simulated through combining an electrochemical model with a
reaction model. At the nail site, the localized heat source was cre-
ated by setting a boundary condition for the positive electrode,
and the heat generated by the battery bulk was calculated with
the reaction functions based on Arrhenius-type equation sets.
Among the short circuit studies, research that combines exper-
iments and simulations and is able to accurately simulate temper-
ature changes and practically predict thermal runaway for Li-ion
batteries of various internal parameters and capacities is scarce.
In this regard, batteries of different capacities and electrode
parameters are used in this work, external and internal short cir-
cuit tests are performed on the batteries, and the behaviors of
the shorted batteries are meanwhile simulated with a modified
thermal–electrochemical coupling model. In simulating nail
penetration (internal short circuit), the emphasis is placed on the
prediction of thermal runaway, i.e., modeling the temperature vari-
ations prior to thermal runaway. Internal resistances and nail site
resistances of batteries with different capacities are manually col-
U open circuit potential, V
V nail section volume, cm3
x x coordinate
x negative electrode solid phase stoichiometry
y positive electrode solid phase stoichiometry
Greek symbols
e volume fraction or porosity of a phase
e emissivity
g surface over-potential of an electrode reaction, V
j reaction rate constant
r conductivity of solid active materials in an electrode,
S cm1
r Stefan–Boltzmann constant, 5.67  108 W m2 K4
q density of the battery, kg m3
v~ þ number of cations of anions into which a mole of elec-
trolyte dissociates
U electrical potential in a phase, V
Subscripts
amb ambient
e electrolyte phase
f conductive filler additive
p polymer phase
ref reference value
s solid phase
Superscripts
eff effective value
lected from a battery analyzer and are set as the initial conditions
in simulation.
Comparisons between simulated and experimental results
show that the modified electrochemical–thermal coupling model
can accurately simulate the temperature curve for Li-ion battery
and predict whether and when a thermal runaway will occur.
Additionally, a hydrogel based TMS is tested on batteries and bat-
tery packs undergoing external and internal short circuits. As ver-
ified, the proposed TMS can absorb excess heat with liquid–gas
phase change, which makes it effective in suppressing venting of
small size battery and hindering thermal runaway propagation in
large size battery pack.
2. Experimental setup
The LiCoO2 batteries used in experiments are listed in Table 1.
Among them, batteries No. 3 and 6 are 4S1P battery packs. Batter-
ies No. 4 and 5 are different in electrode thicknesses and maximum
discharge C-rates. All the batteries and battery packs are fresh
without additional safety designs to prevent short circuit. They
are preconditioned under constant current of 0.1 C between 3.0 V
(or 12.0 V for battery pack) and 4.2 V (16.8 V for battery pack) for
5 cycles with finishing at charged states prior to tests.
External short circuit test is performed by clamping positive
and negative tabs with 20 mX wire, while internal short circuit
test (or nail penetration test) is implemented with the use of stain-
less steel nail with a diameter of 2.5 mm. Only the top surface bat-
tery in battery pack is nailed in penetration test so as to investigate
the thermal runaway propagation phenomena.
 R. Zhao et al. / Applied Energy 173 (2016) 29–39 31

Table 1
Specifications of batteries used in short circuit tests.

Battery type no. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Thickness (mm) 3.8 4.5 20 8.2 8.5 41
Width (mm) 30 28 45 45 45 45
Length (mm) 52 82 133 133 133 175
Initial voltage (V) 4.19 16.78 4.19 4.19 4.19 16.78
Nominal capacity (mA h) 650 1200 3000 5000 5000 8000
Maximum discharge rate (C) 5 25 20 25 65 25
Test configuration (s) 1 1 4 1 1 4
External short test Yes Yes No Yes Yes No
Nail test Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
External short in hydrogel Yes Yes No Yes Yes No
Nail test in hydrogel Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Table 2
Governing equations of the coupling model.

Conservation equations


 @ 
Material ee @c@te ¼ @x@ Deff @ce ð1t þ Þ Li ~ 0
~
j  t 0þ ddqq~  t0 ddqq~þ
t 0þ as C dl
 @@te
e @x þ
s
F Ft~þ @t
balance,
electrolyte
phase
@cs
Material
@t
@
¼ Dr2s @r ðr 2 @c
@r Þ
s

balance,
solid phase



Charge  k
eff @ Ue
þ
2RTð1t 0þ Þ
k
eff @ðln ce Þ
¼ j
Li
@x F @x
balance,
electrolyte
phase
Charge reff @ Us Li
@x ¼j
balance,
solid phase

 
Specific as ¼ 3
1  ee  ep  ef
Rs
interfacial
surface area
 
RT gÞ  expð RT gÞ
Reaction 0:5
jLi ¼ as kce ðcs;max  cs Þ0:5 c0:5 expð0:5F 0:5F
s
current
density
Overpotential g ¼ Us  Ue  U Fig. 1. Comparison of experimental and simulated voltage curves of (a) 1.2 A h
Energy conservation battery and (b) 5 A h battery at 1 C discharge rate.
qC p dT
dt
¼ r  ðkrTÞ þ q

Table 3
Electrochemical and thermal parameters of batteries used in simulation.

Parameter Cu foil Negative electrode Separator Positive electrode Al foil

L1 (lm) 15 71 18 49 17
L2 (lm) 14 50 18 40 16
L4 (lm) 12 38 18 27 16
L5 (lm) 10 27 18 20 14
Rs (lm) – 1 – 1 –
Ds (m2 s1) – 3.9  1014 – 1  1013 –
ee – 0.332 0.5 0.3 –
es – 0.58 – 0.6 –
cs,max (mol m3) – 31,858 – 49,943 –
battery1;2
cs;0 (mol m3) – 19,115 – 15,982 –
battery4;5
cs;0 (mol m3) – 22,300 – 19,977 –
ce (mol m3) – 2000 2000 2000 –
r (S cm1) – 1 – 0.06 –
t0þ – 0.363 0.363 0.363 –
k (W m1 K1) 398 5 0.334 5 238
q (kg m3) 8930 2500 1009 1500 2702
Cp (J kg1 K1) 385 700 1978 700 903
j (S cm1) 15.8ceexp(13472c1.4
e )
Uref, (V)
8:0023 þ 5:0647x  12:578x0:5  8:6322  104 x1 þ 2:1765  105 x1:5  0:4602exp½15ð0:06  xÞ  0:5536exp½ð2:4326ðx  0:92ÞÞ
U battery12 (V) 85:681y6  357:7y5 þ 613:89y4  555:65y3 þ 281:06y2  76:648y  0:30987 expð5:657y115 Þ þ 13:1983
ref;þ

U battery45 (V) From Ref. [30]

ref;þ
32 R. Zhao et al. / Applied Energy 173 (2016) 29–39

Fig. 2. Schematic illustration of nail penetration model and heat sources.

Table 4
Battery parameters used in the nail penetration model.

Battery no. 1 2 4 5
Electrochemical cell layer number 23 40 72 102
1 C current density (A m2) 18.8 13.3 11.6 8.2
Internal resistance (mX) 102 54 10 6
Nail site resistance (mX) 100 50 10 10

Fig. 4. Temperature and voltage curves of (a) 0.65 A h and (b) 1.2 A h batteries
externally shorted in ambient condition.

Fig. 3. Photograph of nailed batteries used for determining nail site resistances.

In external short tests, two thermocouples are utilized to

measure temperature changes: one is attached at the center of bat-
tery (close to the nail site) and the other one sticks on the corner.
During nail tests, one more thermocouple is added for the nail. In
penetration of battery pack, a thermocouple is placed at the center
of each battery. Besides temperatures, the voltages of batteries and
battery packs are also recorded in all tests. Fig. 5. Simulated temperature curves of externally shorted 0.65 A h battery.
Hydrogel thermal management system used in this study is
obtained by directly injecting deionized water into containers
model, the heat generated from the electrochemical part is applied
wherein batteries are placed at the center and sodium polyacrylate
to the transient thermal part as a portion of battery heat source,
(PAAS) particles are evenly distributed. The containers have similar
while the temperature obtained by the transient thermal model
lengths and widths with batteries, but are twice thicker. The mass
is, in turn, input to the electrochemical model. Table 2 outlines
fraction of PAAS in the hydrogel is 1%.
the governing equations used in this model [27–29]. While
detailed information about the electrochemical model is provided
3. Model description in Ref. [31], an elaborate description of the modified thermal model
is given in the following text. All simulations are conducted with
An electrochemical–thermal coupling model from our previous COMSOL Multiphysics 4.4, a commercially available finite-
work is modified and employed in this study [27]. In the coupling element solver.
 R. Zhao et al. / Applied Energy 173 (2016) 29–39 33

Batteries No. 1, 2, 4, and 5 are simulated by the coupling model. liquid electrolyte. The term l in the equations indicates the overall
Their electrochemical parameters are summarized in Table 3. The thickness of a single electrochemical cell using half thickness cur-
experimental and simulated discharge curves of 1.2 A h and 5 A h rent collectors.
batteries are compared in Fig. 1 as a verification of the effective-
ness of the coupling model in simulating the discharge behaviors (2) Nail site heat source:
of Li-ion battery.
I2dis  Rn
qn ¼ ð6Þ
3.1. Transient thermal model V
In the equation, Idis is the current during nail penetration pro-
The thermal model is governed by the energy conservation cess, which is automatically updated in the coupling model when
equation given in Table 2. In the equation, the density and specific the nail site resistance, Rn , is input as the initial condition. The
heat capacity of Li-ion battery cell are calculated by averaging the
values of each component inside the cell on a volume basis, while
the thermal conductivity in series and parallel directions are calcu-
lated differently through Eqs. (1) and (2), respectively. The resulted
parameter values used in the coupling model are listed in Table 3.
P
li
ks ¼ P i l ð1Þ
i
i ki

X li
kp ¼ ki ð2Þ
i
l

The first term on the right-hand side of the energy conservation

equation describes the heat dissipation, which consists of two
main sources in this study: convective heat and radiative heat,
which can be expressed as follows in x direction:

@T

k ¼ hðT  T amb Þ þ er T 4  T 4amb ð3Þ
@x
The values of convective coefficient h, surface emissivity e, and
ambient temperature T amb are set at 7.9 W m2 K1, 0.9, and
298.15 K, respectively. Similar equations can also be built for y
and z directions.
Compared to external short circuit model and conventional dis-
charge model, the nail penetration model has one more source of
heat generation contributing to the term ‘‘q”: the heat generated
from nail site due to localized resistance. Fig. 2 illustrates the nail
penetration of a 0.65 A h battery. Four probes represented as black
dots in the figure are used to record temperature variations during
simulation. Two origins of heat sources are indicated: battery heat
source (red part) due to high rate discharge and nail site heat
source (green part) due to joule heating, as detailed below:
Fig. 6. Temperature and voltage curves of nailed 0.65 A h battery obtained through
(a) experiment and (b) simulation.
(1) Battery heat source:

Z ln þls þlp
Li
qr  l ¼ j ðUs  Ue  U Þdx ð4Þ
0

Z  2 "  2
ln þls þlp
@ Us eff @ Ue
qj  l ¼ þk reff
0 @x @x
#
eff
2k RT 0 @ðln c e Þ @ Ue
þ ð1  tþ Þ dx ð5Þ
F @x @x

The above equations come from the electrochemical model.

Battery heat source is composed of two main parts: reaction
heat (qr , Eq. (4))due to reaction overpotential and ohmic heat
(qj , Eq. (5)) produced by charge transport in electrodes and elec-
trolyte. Another part, reversible heat (entropy heat), is ignored in
simulation because it was proved to be negligible at high rate dis-
charges by our previous work [31]. The first term on the right side
of Eq. (5) refers to the charge transport in solid electrode particles
and the last two terms describe the heat from charge transfer in Fig. 7. Simulated curve of electrode current density of 0.65 A h battery in nail test.
34 R. Zhao et al. / Applied Energy 173 (2016) 29–39
Fig. 8. 3D Kelvin-scale temperature diagrams of nailed 0.65 A h battery at different times after penetration.
denominator V is the volume of nail site and can be calculated with
pD2t/4, where D is the diameter of the nail, and t is the thickness of
nailed battery. To obtain the resistance at the nail site, batteries No.
1, 2, 4, and 5 need to be first discharged to ‘‘dead” using external
circuit and then penetrated. Batteries’ resistances are measured
by analyzer after penetration, which are taken as nail site resis-
tances and utilized in the model. A summary of the resistance
information of different batteries is given in Table 4, and a pho-
tograph of ‘‘dead” batteries with nails is presented in Fig. 3.
This study places a special emphasis on predicting the occur-
rence of thermal runaway through examining temperature
changes prior to it. The chemical reactions and corresponding heat
generations after thermal runaway taking place will not be studied.
As stated in Refs. [24,25], the transition temperature or onset tem-
perature for self-heating of LiCoO2 battery is about 200–210 °C. So
in this study, if the maximum temperature (Treal center in Fig. 2)
exceeds 210 °C during simulation, the battery is considered at a
great risk of thermal runaway, and special protection needs to be
implemented. The method developed in this work also applies to
other types of batteries, simply changing the transition tempera-
ture according to different battery chemistries.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Experiments vs.simulations
4.1.1. External short circuit
External short circuit tests were carried out with batteries of
types No. 1, 2, 4, and 5. The temperature and voltage curves of
batteries No. 1 and 2 are plotted in Fig. 4. As can be seen, connec-
tion of electrode tabs induces a dramatic drop of battery voltage
from fully charged states to 0 V in a very short time. Meanwhile,
the temperatures of batteries rise significantly with the maximum
values of 115 °C and 103 °C observed at about 70 s at the centers of
batteries No. 1 and 2, respectively. The zoomed figure shows that
the corner temperature (represented by red block) increases faster
than the center temperature at the beginning, owing to the earlier
acquisition of electric current on the electrode tabs. Afterwards,
because of the better heat dissipation environment at the battery
corner, Tcorner becomes relatively lower than the center tempera-
ture. But overall, the temperatures at different locations of the
externally shorted batteries increase at similar rates as a result of
the evenly distributed heat generation in the battery.
The external short circuit simulation is then conducted by set-
ting the obtained voltage data as the cathode boundary condition
in the coupling model. Only the heat generated from battery itself,
including ohmic heat and reaction heat, is considered in the ther-
mal model for external short. The simulation result of battery No.
1 is shown in Fig. 5. As can be seen, the simulated temperatures
are well consistent with the experimental results (Fig. 4a), which
demonstrates the feasibility of using the coupling model to
describe the external short circuit behaviors of Li-ion batteries.
During the external short tests, a portion of heat is generated on
the 20 mX connecting wire. As the battery capacity increases, the
internal resistances of batteries No. 4 and 5 drop to and below
10 mX, respectively, causing a more considerable heat production
on the external wire. As a consequence, during the tests, the
contact regions between clamps and positive tabs (aluminum) of
 R. Zhao et al. / Applied Energy 173 (2016) 29–39 35

batteries No. 4 and 5 were broken by the concentrated heat. It is As stated earlier, the chemical reactions and corresponding heat
therefore concluded that external short circuit has greater impact generations during thermal runaway are not discussed in this
on low capacity batteries due to their high internal resistance, study. Since thermal runaway completely changes the origin of
and in real life applications, external short circuit can be hindered main heat source from joule heating to chemical reaction heating
with the use of fuse, which can automatically cut off the discharge and from nail site to the whole battery, there exist apparent differ-
process when current exceeds a preset limit. ences between simulated and experimental outcomes.
Nevertheless, the model accurately predicts the occurrences of
4.1.2. Nail penetration thermal runaway and their approximate start times. In experiments,
Nail test and simulation were first conducted on 0.65 A h bat- batteries No. 4 and 5 went into thermal runaway at 3 s and 2 s,
teries. The experimentally obtained temperature and voltage respectively. To clearly compare the data from simulation and exper-
curves are compared with simulation results in Fig. 6, and the elec- iment, horizontal lines of T = 215 °C are plotted on the simulation
trode current density during simulation is plotted in Fig. 7. It is graphs to indicate the transition temperature modified on the basis
seen that the simulation results agree well with the experimental
data and the maximum temperature of both is of 118 °C. The peak
temperature of nail is higher than that of any location on the bat-
tery because the high thermal conductivity of nail makes it faster
in reflecting the heat inside the nail site. In comparison, the tem-
perature at corner has the lowest value, and this is attributed to
its preferable heat dissipation environment.
Fig. 8 gives the simulated 3D temperature diagrams at different
times after a 0.65 A h battery being nailed. Kelvin temperature
scale is applied here. The graphs suggest that more heat is gener-
ated at the nail zone and the heat produced at the nail center dis-
tributes quickly to the whole cell. The maximum temperature,
405.23 K (132.08 °C), is reached at 50 s at the center of the nail site.
Then, three 1.2 A h batteries were penetrated and one of them
experienced thermal runaway. Fig. 9a and b shows the tempera-
ture and voltage curves of non-thermal runaway and thermal run-
away batteries, respectively.
Similar to the case of 0.65 A h battery, the highest temperature
of non-thermal runaway battery was detected at the nail, as shown
in Fig. 9a, with a value of 183 °C, and the lowest temperature was
observed at the corner. Compared to 0.65 A h battery, bigger tem-
perature difference between center and corner was found on
1.2 A h battery. This is ascribed to the fact that with the increase
of battery capacity, the internal resistance of battery becomes
smaller and the battery size becomes larger, resulting in greater
heat generation at the nail site and more heat loss during transfer.
The 1.2 A h battery depicted by Fig. 9b went into thermal run-
away at 100 s. The heat accumulated at the nail site increased
the internal temperature and triggered chemical reactions in the
LiCoO2 battery. To explain why the batteries with same capacity
had different fates after being penetrated, simulation of the nail
test was performed and the results are displayed in Fig. 10. In addi-
tion to the temperatures at the three sampling points in experi-
ments, temperature at the real center of the nail site is also
presented, which has the highest value in nail test but is unable Fig. 9. Experimentally recorded temperature and voltage curves of 1.2 A h batteries
that (a) did not experience and (b) experienced thermal runaway during nail tests.
to record during experiments. As can be seen, the temperature
curves of corner, center, and nail match well with those acquired
from experiment shown in Fig. 9a. The highest temperature, how-
ever, appears on the TReal center curve indicated in green, which
reaches 215 °C and is right above the transition temperature,
210 °C. The distinct destinies of these 1.2 A h batteries can thus
be explained: once penetrated, the temperatures of these batteries
can reach over the transition point, if the localized chemical reac-
tions in a battery can be terminated, the battery will avoid venting;
if the reactions are persistent, thermal runaway will be initiated.
Variations between individual batteries largely determine the
outcome.
Finally, 5 A h batteries No. 4 and 5 underwent the nail tests. The
two types of batteries have different electrode thicknesses and for
each type of them two batteries were nailed. All the 5 A h batteries
suffered from thermal runaway in tests, and one of batteries No. 5
even caught fire. The temperature and voltage curves of experi-
mentally tested batteries No. 4 and 5 are plotted in Fig. 11a and
c, and the results from simulation are shown in Fig. 11b and d. Fig. 10. Simulated temperature and voltage curves of nailed 1.2 A h battery.
36 R. Zhao et al. / Applied Energy 173 (2016) 29–39
Fig. 11. Temperature and voltage curves of 5 A h batteries during nail penetration tests: thick electrode battery (battery No. 4) in (a) experiment and (b) simulation, and thin
electrode battery (battery No. 5) in (c) experiment and (d) simulation.
of earlier nail tests with 1.2 A h batteries. In Fig. 11b and d, batteries
No. 4 and 5 reach the transition temperature at 2.5 s and 0.6 s,
respectively, which are very close to the experimental times.
The impact of electrode thickness on the performance of nailed
battery can be determined via comparing Fig. 11b and d. With a
certain capacity, battery using thinner electrodes comprises more
electrochemical cells, which reduce internal resistance and
facilitate discharge reactions. Therefore, during the nail test, thin
electrode battery releases all the energy quickly and reaches rela-
tively higher temperature in a shorter time: battery No. 5 achieved
the maximum temperature of 328.2 °C in only 18 s, while it took
27 s for battery No. 4 to reach 277.6 °C. Efficient discharge reaction
is an advantage of thin electrode battery in use, but special atten-
tion should thus be paid to the safety issues of them.
In designing different types of Li-ion batteries, technicians and
engineers can use the coupling model provided in this work to
evaluate the safety performance of batteries. Through understand-
ing the electrode material chemistry of battery, measuring the
internal parameters, and testing the resistance at the nail site with
different nail materials and sizes, the safety properties of a battery
can largely be identified with the model. One should also consider
different states of charge and temperature environments while
evaluation.
4.2. Verification of hydrogel thermal management system
From the above experiments and simulations, it can be noticed
that the battery’s temperature can exceed 100 °C if externally
shorted and 500 °C if penetrated. In order to guarantee the safety
and reliability of Li-ion batteries and battery packs, an effective
cooling system able to rapidly absorb heat is essential. In previous
works, our group has validated the excellence of hydrogel in sup-
pressing the temperature rise in Li-ion batteries during high rate
discharges and nail-retraction (simulated bullet penetration) tests
[8,9]. In this study, hydrogel cooling system is further assessed
through external short tests as well as nail tests on both single bat-
teries and battery packs.
Fig. 12a and b depicts the temperatures and voltages of 0.65 A h
and 1.2 A h batteries externally shorted in hydrogel cooling sys-
tem. Compared with Fig. 4a and b (batteries tested in ambient
air), the maximum temperatures of 0.65 A h and 1.2 A h batteries
drop significantly from 116 °C and 104 °C to 76.5 °C and 61.4 °C,
respectively. Big difference is also reflected in their appearances
after short test, as shown in Fig. 13. Having experienced higher
temperature, the battery shorted in ambient environment (the
right one) bulged after the test, which is probably due to the
decomposition of materials inside the battery. In comparison, with
the implementation of hydrogel TMS, the appearance of the battery
on the left remains the same as the original one. For batteries No. 4
and 5, the external short circuit test in hydrogel was terminated in
the same way as the ones tested in ambient air, which was because
the high current density burned out the contact region between
clamps and aluminum tabs.
Next, nail tests were conducted on batteries surrounded with
hydrogel. The temperature and voltage data of batteries No. 1, 2,
and 5 during tests are displayed in Fig. 14a, b and c, respectively.
The figure of battery No. 4 has the similar pattern as that of battery
No. 5 and is not provided here. During the tests, thermal runaway did
not occur on 0.65 A h and 1.2 A h batteries, whereas both batteries
No. 4 and 5 vented after penetration. Owing to the excellent ability
of hydrogel to absorb heat during liquid–gas phase change, the max-
imum temperatures of batteries were maintained below 100 °C.
 R. Zhao et al. / Applied Energy 173 (2016) 29–39
Fig. 12. Temperature and voltage curves of (a) 0.65 A h and (b) 1.2 A h batteries
externally shorted in hydrogel thermal management system.
Fig. 13. Photograph of 0.65 A h batteries externally shorted in hydrogel (left) and in
ambient air (right).
Finally, the performance of hydrogel cooling system in prevent-
ing the propagation of thermal runaway is investigated through
battery pack nail test. As described previously, in this test only
the top surface battery is penetrated. Two battery packs, 4S1P
3 A h pack and 4S1P 8 A h pack, were used for tests in ambient con-
dition and in hydrogel system, respectively. To record temperature
changes, thermocouples were attached at the center of each bat-
tery in the pack, as shown in Fig. 15a.
Fig. 16a and b exhibits the temperature and voltage curves of
3 A h battery pack nailed in ambient environment and 8 A h
37
Fig. 14. Temperature and voltage curves of (a) 0.65 A h, (b) 1.2 A h, and (c) thin
electrode 5 A h batteries during nail penetration tests in hydrogel thermal
management system.
battery pack nailed in hydrogel cooling system, respectively. After
penetration, the thermal runaway of the surface battery, as
indicated by the blue1 line in Fig. 16a, dramatically raised the tem-
perature between the top two batteries to as high as 344 °C, which
gave rise to further thermal runaway of the second battery, whose
temperature soared to 627 °C. One after another, all the batteries
in the 3 A h pack went into thermal runaway. From the zoomed plot,
it can be seen that the temperatures of the first and third batteries,
as shown by the blue and red lines, decrease slightly at 120 s and
150 s, respectively, due to the Joule–Thomson effect. A photograph
of the 3 A h battery pack after thermal runaway propagation is pre-
sented in Fig. 15b.
1
For interpretation of color in Fig. 16, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.
38 R. Zhao et al. / Applied Energy 173 (2016) 29–39
Fig. 15. Photographs of 3 A h battery pack (a) before and (b) after thermal runaway
propagation.
Application of hydrogel thermal management system effec-
tively prevented the nailed 8 A h battery pack from thermal run-
away propagation. As shown in Fig. 16b, only the surface battery
undergoes thermal runaway, and the maximum temperature does
not exceed 100 °C. Not only are the safety concerns addressed by
the proposed TMS, the reliability of the entire battery system is
improved: the battery pack nailed in hydrogel retained a high volt-
age of 12.58 V after penetration, compared to 0 V of the previous
3 A h battery pack.
In real life applications, retaining moisture in hydrogel is proba-
bly the most critical prerequisite for the TMS to function properly.
To address the evaporation problem, an open structure or a closed
structure can be employed. The open structure is designed with a
refilling inlet and a venting outlet on the hydrogel system wrapped
around battery pack. The inlet enables the hydrogel system to be
periodically refilled with water while the outlet allows vapor to
vent directly outside, thereby reducing humidity around battery
tabs and alleviating relevant safety concerns. In practice, the use
of the open structure calls for several important considerations
such as hydrogel amount monitoring, determination of refilling fre-
quency, and optimization of size, shape, and appearance of inlet and
outlet. The complexity involved in implementing such a structure
makes it more suitable for large and stationary battery systems,
wherein fully automated online supervision systems can be built.
As for small-scale and/or mobile applications, a closed structure
rather than an open one is more preferred. As the name implies,
in a closed structure, the batteries packed with hydrogel cooling
system is completely sealed, excluding the battery tabs left outside.
A summary of the simulation and experimental results for all
the tests is provided in Table 5. The data of batteries No. 1 and 2
Fig. 16. Temperature and voltage curves of (a) 3 A h battery pack nailed in ambient
air and (b) 8 A h battery pack nailed in hydrogel.
demonstrate that the modified coupling model can accurately sim-
ulate the temperature changes of small size batteries in short cir-
cuit tests, and the hydrogel cooling system is effective at keeping
the battery surface temperature at a low level and thus guarantee-
ing the safety of battery. The results of batteries No. 4 and 5 verify
that the model is able to predict whether and when a thermal run-
away will take place. Experimental tests on batteries (4) and (5)
and battery packs (3 and 6) further validate the hydrogel TMS’s
capabilities to control battery temperature and suppress thermal
runaway propagation.
5. Conclusions
In this study, external short circuit tests and nail penetration
tests are performed on batteries and battery packs of different
capacities. In external short tests, 0.65 A h and 1.2 A h batteries
experienced dramatic temperature rise and voltage drop, which
is attributed to their high internal resistance. As for higher capacity
batteries who have lower internal resistance, more heat was con-
centrated at the contact region between clamp and battery tabs,
resulting in automatic shutdown of external short processes. In
contrast, during the nail penetration tests, as battery capacity
grew, the increased current flow at the nail site caused more exten-
sive heat generation, leading to the occurrence of thermal runaway
and even fire. Besides, the penetration into surface battery of a
4S1P 3 A h pack in ambient triggered venting of the entire battery
pack.
Simulation based on a modified electrochemical–thermal cou-
pling model is also performed. Simulated temperatures of exter-
nally shorted battery are well consistent with experiment when
 R. Zhao et al. / Applied Energy 173 (2016) 29–39 39

Table 5
Summarization of simulation and experimental results.

Battery no. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Max. TCenter in external short (Exp) 115.6 °C 104.3 °C – – – –
Max. TCenter in external short (Sim) 113.7 °C – – – – –
Thermal runaway in external short No No – No No –
Max. T in external short test with hydrogel 76.5 °C 61.4 °C – – – –
Max. T in nail test (Exp) 115.2 °C 385.7 °Ca 627.2 °C 332.4 °C 560.8 °C 100.1 °C
188 °C a
Max. TNail in nail test (Sim) 117.8 °C 190.8 °C – – – –
Max. TReal center in nail test (Sim) 130.7 °C 215.1 – – –
Thermal runaway (TR) in nail test No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Time to TR after penetration (Exp) – 100 s 4 s 3 s 2 s 2 s
Time to transition T (Sim) – 42 s – 2.5 s 0.6 s –
Max. T in nail test with hydrogel 98.5 °C 100.2 °C – 100.1 °C 100.2 °C 100.1 °C
Thermal runaway propagation – – Yes – – No
a
Maximum temperatures of 1.2 A h batteries that experienced (upper) and did not experience (below) thermal runaway.

voltage curve is set as the cathode boundary condition. In simulat-
ing the nail penetration, a joule heat source from nail site is added
to the model. The model proves to be reliable in predicting the
temperature changes of battery and estimating the occurrence
and approximate start time of thermal runaway.
Finally, a hydrogel based thermal management system is veri-
fied effective in preventing thermal runaway of small size batteries
and in lowing surface temperatures of externally shorted and
penetrated batteries. Moreover, the TMS successfully inhibited
thermal runaway propagation in large size battery pack, which
validated its ability to ensure the safety and reliability of Li-ion
battery in real life applications.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank the funding support from
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
References
[1] Etcheri V, Marom R, Elazari R, Salitra G, Aurbach D. Challenges in the
development of advanced Li-ion batteries: a review. Energy Environ Sci
2011;4:3243–62.
[2] Pesaran A, Keyser M, Kim GH, Santhanagopalan S, Smith K. Tools for designing
thermal management of batteries in electric drive vehicles. In: Proceedings of
advanced automotive battery conference, Pasadena (CA); 2103.
[3] Zhao R, Zhang S, Liu J, Gu J. A review of thermal performance improving
methods of lithium ion battery: electrode modification and thermal
management system. J Power Sources 2015;299:557–77.
[4] Ling Z, Wang F, Fang X, Gao X, Zhang Z. A hybrid thermal management system
for lithium ion batteries combining phase change materials with forced air
cooling. Appl Energy 2015;148:403–9.
[5] Chen K, Li X. Accurate determination of battery discharge characteristics – a
comparison between two battery temperature control methods. J Power
Sources 2014;247:961–6.
[6] Al-Hallaj S, Selman JR. A novel thermal management system for electric vehicle
batteries using phase-change material. J Electrochem Soc 2000;147:3231–6.
[7] Wang Y, Yang Y. Three-dimensional transient cooling simulations of a portable
electronic device using PCM (phase change materials) in multi-fin heat sink.
Energy 2011;36:5214–24.
[8] Zhao R, Zhang S, Gu J, Liu J, Carkner S, Lanoue E. An experimental study of
lithium ion battery thermal management using flexible hydrogel films. J Power
Sources 2014;255:29–36.
[9] Zhang S, Zhao R, Liu J, Gu J. Investigation on a hydrogel based passive thermal
management system for lithium ion batteries. Energy 2014;68:854–61.
[10] Rao Z, Wang Q, Huang C. Investigation of the thermal performance of phase
change material/mini-channel coupled battery thermal management system.
Appl Energy 2016;164:659–69.
[11] Javani N, Dincer I, Naterer GF. Thermodynamic analysis of waste heat recovery
for cooling systems in hybrid and electric vehicles. Energy 2012;46:109–16.
[12] Wang T, Tseng KJ, Zhao J, Wei Z. Thermal investigation of lithium-ion battery
module with different cell arrangement structures and forced air-cooling
strategies. Appl Energy 2014;134:229–38.
[13] Zhao R, Gu J, Liu J. An experimental study of heat pipe thermal management
system with wet cooling method for lithium ion batteries. J Power Sources
2015;273:1089–97.
[14] Ling Z, Wang F, Fang X, Gao X, Zhang Z. A hybrid thermal management system
for lithium ion batteries combining phase change materials with forced-air
cooling. Appl Energy 2015;148:403–9.
[15] Jhu CY, Wang YW, Wen CY, Shu CM. Thermal runaway potential of LiCoO2 and
Li(Ni1/3Co1/3Mn1/3)O2 batteries determined with adiabatic calorimetry
methodology. Appl Energy 2012;100:127–31.
[16] Feng X, He X, Ouyang M, Lu L, Wu P, Kulp C, et al. Thermal runaway
propagation model for designing a safer battery pack with 25 A h
LiNixCoyMnzO2 large format lithium ion battery. Appl Energy 2015;154:74–91.
[17] Gnanaraj JS, Zinigrad E, Asraf L, Gottlieb HE, Sprecher M, Schmidt M, et al. A
detailed investigation of the thermal reactions of LiPF6 solution in organic
carbonates using ARC and DSC. J Electrochem Soc 2003;150:A1533–7.
[18] Roth EP, Doughty DH. Thermal abuse performance of high-power 18,650 Li-ion
cells. J Power Sources 2004;128:308–18.
[19] Roth EP. Abuse response of 18,650 Li-ion cells with different cathodes using
EC:EMC/LiPF6 and EC:PC:DMC/LiPF6 electrolytes. ECS Trans 2008;11:19–41.
[20] Hatchard TD, MacNeil DD, Basu A, Dahn JR. Thermal model of cylindrical and
prismatic lithium-ion cells. J Electrochem Soc 2001;148:A755–61.
[21] Maleki H, Howard JN. Internal short circuit in Li-ion cells. J Power Sources
2009;191:568–74.
[22] Kim GH, Pesaran A, Spotnitz R. A three-dimensional thermal abuse model for
lithium-ion cells. J Power Sources 2007;170:476–89.
[23] Chiu KC, Lin CH, Yeh SF, Lin YH, Chen KC. An electrochemical modeling of
lithium-ion battery nail penetration. J Power Sources 2014;251:254–63.
[24] Golubkov AW, Fuchs D, Wagner J, Wiltsche H, Stangl C, Fauler G, et al.
Thermal-runaway experiments on consumer Li-ion batteries with metal-oxide
and olivine-type. RSC Adv 2014;4:3633–42.
[25] Doughty D, Roth EP. A general discussion of Li ion battery safety. Electrochem
Soc Interface 2012(Summer):37–44.
[26] Feng X, Weng C, Ouyang M, Sun J. Online internal short circuit detection for a
large format lithium ion battery. Appl Energy 2016;161:168–80.
[27] Zhao R, Liu J, Gu J. The effect of electrode thickness on the electrochemical and
thermal characteristics of lithium ion battery. Appl Energy 2015;139:220–9.
[28] Smith K, Wang CY. Power and thermal characterization of a lithium-ion
battery pack for hybrid-electric vehicles. J Power Sources 2006;160:662–73.
[29] Sikha G, White RE, Popov BN. A mathematical model for a lithium-ion
battery/electrochemical capacitor hybrid system. J Electrochem Soc 2005;152:
A1682–93.
[30] Kumaresan K, Sikha G, White RE. Thermal model for a Li-ion cell. J Electrochem
Soc 2008;155:A164–71.
[31] Zhao R, Gu J, Liu J. An investigation on the significance of reversible heat to the
thermal behavior of lithium ion battery through simulations. J Power Sources
2014;266:422–32.