Applied Energy 351 (2023) 121826

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

The electro-thermal equalization behaviors of battery modules with

immersion cooling
Qian Liu , Chen Sun , Jingshu Zhang , Qianlei Shi , Kaixuan Li , Boxu Yu , Chao Xu , Xing Ju *
Key Laboratory of Power Station Energy Transfer Conversion and System of MOE, North China Electric Power University, Beijing 102206, PR China

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Battery immersion cooling test was

developed for electro-thermal
performance.
• Immersion cooling mitigates the aggra­
vation of voltage deviation of batteries.
• Effect of immersion heights on electro-
thermal equalization behavior was
discussed.
• The equalization rates are proposed to
assess equilibrium ability.
• The equalization behavior of module
shows static flow > forced flow > air
cooling.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The electrical and thermal characteristics of Li-ion batteries (LIBs) are closely related and need to be further
Immersion cooling investigated. Especially for the promising immersion cooling LIBs, the interaction between battery performance and
Battery thermal management immersion thermal management system still needs to be clearly illustrated. This research aims to reveal the electro-
Equalization
thermal equalization behaviors of LIB modules with immersion cooling. An electro-thermal test platform was
Electro-thermal performance
Dynamic test
established for a series-connected LIB module. Besides the experimental research on the thermal control capability,
the electro-thermal equalization behaviors of the LIB module with different cooling methods are also investigated at
steady and dynamic operations. Results show that the electrical inconsistency between the LIBs with different
cooling schemes intensifies at the end of discharge, and the voltage deviation (δU,t) increases quickly at high rates.
However, immersion cooling can mitigate this behavior effectively. As the immersion height ratio varies from 0 to 1,
the δU,t at the end of the 2C discharge declines from 17.1% to 4.3%, then rises to 7.9%. From a general viewpoint, the
indicators, including the equalization rates of the voltage, average temperature, and temperature difference, are
defined further to assess the electro-thermal equalization behaviors of the module. According to the estimation, the
equalization capacities are static flow > forced flow > air cooling for all indicators. Static flow immersion cooling
demonstrates superiority in thermal and electrical equalization, while forced flow immersion cooling is still
necessary at high discharge rates for reducing thermal recovery time and temperature rise.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: scottju@ncepu.edu.cn (X. Ju).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.121826
Received 8 June 2023; Received in revised form 10 August 2023; Accepted 21 August 2023
Available online 30 August 2023
0306-2619/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Q. Liu et al.
1. Introduction
Nomenclature
Greek
Δ Amount of variation
δ Deviation
Subscripts
immersion Immersed coolant
full-scale The full-scale battery
U Voltage
t Time
max Maximum
min Minimum
ave Average
i Battery number
n Total number of batteries in the module
Acronyms
ESS Energy storage system
Energy storage systems (ESSs) and electric vehicles (EVs) have been
widely implemented to address current energy shortages and green­
house gas emissions [1]. Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) have become the
predominant ESS technology and the preferred choice for EVs [2]. The
electrochemical reaction rate, the growth of the solid electrolyte inter­
phase (SEI) layer [3], and the conductivity of lithium ions in the elec­
trolyte in LIBs are highly temperature dependent [4–6]. Some studies
have shown that battery capacity decreases by 1.5% ~ 2% for a 5 ◦ C
increase in the temperature difference [7]. Therefore, the electrical
properties of LIBs are sensitive to temperature [8]. And the heat gen­
eration of LIB also depends on its electrical performance. Therefore,
there is a coupling effect between the electrical and thermal perfor­
mance of the batteries.
Inconsistent temperatures at the cell level [9] can lead to non-
uniform distribution of local electrochemical reaction rates, which
accelerate battery aging. Inevitable inconsistencies such as internal re­
sistances and capacities [10] and differences in external heat dissipation
cause inconsistent temperature at the module level, accelerating overall
performance degradation [9]. Battery thermal management systems
(BTMSs) aim to reduce peak temperatures and temperature differences
to improve the electrical performance of battery modules through
thermal adjustment.
The optimal operating temperature range for LIBs should be
25–40 ◦ C, and the temperature difference between them should be kept
within a range of 5 ◦ C [11]. The current researches on BTMS mainly
focus on thermal performance, but attention is rarely paid to the elec­
trical performance of batteries within BTMS. The widespread use of LIBs
in large-scale packs or clusters inevitably leads to inconsistent electrical
performance among batteries [12], such as voltage imbalance in series-
connected battery packs [13,14]. In addition to the thermal perfor­
mance, the impact of BTMS on the electrical performance consistency of
the battery pack is also critical.
There are several methods for BTMS, including air cooling [15],
liquid cooling, phase change material (PCM) cooling [16,17], and heat
pipe cooling [18]. Liquid cooling is an attractive option with its high
heat transfer efficiency and low cost [19]. Indirect liquid cooling using
various types of cold plates [20–22] has been extensively studied.
However, this approach is constrained by the considerable thermal
resistance between the LIBs and the coolant. In contrast, immersion
cooling, currently applied in data centers [23] and power electronics
2
Applied Energy 351 (2023) 121826
[24], has no thermal contact issues and requires a more compact
structural design. Immersion cooling is also considered as a promising
EV Electric vehicle
BTMS Battery thermal management system
PCM Phase change materials
LIB Lithium-ion batteries
SPIC Single-phase immersion cooling
TPIC Two-phase immersion cooling
CC Constant current
CV Constant voltage
HPPC Hybrid pulse power charge
SOC State of charge
SOH State of healthy
OCV Open-circuit voltage
HR Immersion height ratio
ER Equalization rate
DST Dynamic stress test
SEI Solid Electrolyte Interphase
method for BTMS [25,26].
Immersion cooling can be categorized as single-phase immersion
cooling (SPIC) and two-phase immersion cooling (TPIC). Fluorinated
fluids and refrigerants are the primary coolants used in TPIC [25]. Hydro
fluorochemicals and perfluorochemicals are the common fluorinated
fluids for BTMS, with lower boiling points of around 40–70 ◦ C [27,28].
The phase change of the coolant occurs during heat dissipation, and
although the heat transfer capability is excellent during vaporization-
boiling [29], the control system of TPIC is relatively complex [30]. In
addition, the material and design requirements of the battery pack are
more stringent due to the pressure change during heat transfer. There­
fore, TPIC is still in the preliminary stage of research.
In SPIC, the volatile coolant is relatively easy to control, and the
system design is simplified and more efficient. Alcohols, hydrocarbons,
and esters are the three main types of coolants commonly used in SPIC.
In the study of SPIC battery thermal management systems, these cool­
ants have been widely used. According to the flow state of the coolant,
SPIC can be divided into static flow and forced flow. Liu et al. [31] used
No. 10 transformer oil to immerse the 18,650 single cells and found that
the maximum temperature and temperature difference of the cell at 2C
were only 37.35 ◦ C and 2.64 ◦ C, and theoretically analyzed the effect of
the flow rate on the thermal performance. In addition, they [32] studied
the thermal behavior of the battery in transformer oil under dynamic
operating conditions, finding that increasing discharge rates may extend
the dominant range of natural convective heat transfer. Sundin et al.
[33] conducted static-flow experiments on a 68 Ah prismatic battery
using Amp AC-100 and observed that the average temperature was
22.5 ◦ C, much lower than the 28.7 ◦ C under forced air cooling. Satya­
narayana et al. [34] found a 49.17% and 51.45% reduction in battery
module temperature with thermal oil and mineral oil immersion cool­
ing, respectively, compared to natural air cooling. Mineral oil was the
most effective due to its low viscosity. Wang et al. [35] cooled pouch
batteries using transformer oil at a flow rate of 0.8 L/min and found that
the battery’s temperature was significantly lower than natural air
cooling. Besides the apparent advantages of SPIC over air cooling, the
advantages over indirect liquid cooling are also outstanding. Patil et al.
[36] suggested that the maximum cell temperature could be 9.3% lower
than indirect cooling using the combination of dielectric fluid immer­
sion and tab cooling. Using an experimentally validated numerical
method, Dubey et al. [37] found that SPIC’s heat transfer efficiency is
Q. Liu et al.
2.5 to 3 times that of cold plate cooling at the flow rates studied, while
pressure drop is 15 to 25 times lower, demonstrating that SPIC is a
promising approach to battery thermal management. Wu et al. [38] used
dimethyl silicone oil to cool an 840-cell pack at a flow rate of 8 L/min
and found that the maximum temperature and temperature difference of
the battery was only 20%–30% of those under indirect liquid cooling.
These studies clearly illustrate the outstanding advantages of immersion
cooling in battery temperature control.
Immersion cooling has been proven beneficial for thermal perfor­
mance. Considering the close relationship between BTMS and battery
performance, advanced thermal management techniques can improve
thermal performance while maintaining suitable electrical performance.
However, most research on battery equalization issues ignored the in­
fluence of BTMS and focused on balance strategies such as equalization
algorithms [39,40] at given temperatures. And some other research
investigated the electrochemical process of batteries under fixed tem­
perature distributions [41,42]. More research needs to be done to
investigate the electrical and thermal performance and evaluate the
equalization behavior of battery packs with thermal management sys­
tems. Poor equalization behavior between cells in a battery pack leads to
deteriorated consistency. And the battery pack inconsistency relates to
three significant issues: capacity degradation, aggravated aging, and
hazardous operating conditions [12,43,44].
The inconsistencies are generated and accumulated throughout the
lifespan of batteries from production, sorting into packs, utilization to
final retirement. The arrangement of cells in a battery pack causes the
variable heat dissipation conditions of cells at different locations, which
Fig. 1. The experimental system for the immersion cooling battery thermal management: (a) the schematic diagram and experimental setup, (b) the layout photo of
the test section, and (c) the location of thermocouples.
3
Applied Energy 351 (2023) 121826
leads to inevitable temperature inconsistency of cells [45]. During bat­
tery pack operation, temperature inconsistency can significantly affect
the battery characteristic parameters (such as internal resistance, ca­
pacity, etc.) and then lead to inconsistency of operation parameters
(such as voltage, current, SOC, etc.) [46]. In turn, these inconsistencies
in electrical performance can exacerbate temperature inconsistency.
Thus, a vicious circle is established for the battery pack. For practical
applications, the complexity of the battery inconsistency evolution
makes the evaluation of battery status deviate from reality. It is vital to
bridge the direct relationship between BTMS and battery equalization
behavior.
This paper aims a thorough research on BTMS and battery equal­
ization behavior. To evaluate the effect of BTMS on the electro-thermal
performance and equalization of batteries, an experimental platform of
single-phase immersion cooling BTMS was developed. Three BTMS
modes, including air cooling, forced flow immersion, and static flow at
different immersion heights, were tested for a series-connected module.
The study comparatively discussed the temperature, temperature dif­
ference, and voltage balance. By analyzing the temporal voltage devia­
tion and the module temperature, the superiority of immersion cooling
compared to natural air cooling is clarified. The research defines
equalization rates of the voltage, average temperature, and temperature
difference as indicators of electro-thermal equalization behaviors. After
that, the dynamic tests were conducted to further evaluate the equal­
ization under more realistic scenarios. This study originally profiles the
electrical performance and electro-thermal equalization behavior of an
immersion cooling BTMS, and it may provide beneficial references for
Q. Liu et al. Applied Energy 351 (2023) 121826

practical applications. Table 2

Basic physical parameters of No.10 transformer oil.
2. Experimental Parameter Unit value
o
Flash point C ≤160
In this section, the description of the experimental system, which Density kg/m3 843
includes the test battery module, coolant, instruments, and the cooling Thermal conductivity W/(m*K) 0.125
cycle, is shown in Fig. 1. The operation procedure and uncertainty Specific heat J/(kg*K) 2530
Kinematic viscosity mm2/s 7.6
analysis of experiments are provided in detail.
Breakdown voltage KV 49

2.1. Battery and coolant

Table 3
Commercial pouch LIBs with a capacity of 10 Ah were used in this Experimental uncertainties of parameters.
experiment. Detailed parameters are listed in Table 1. The LIBs were all Name Measuring Type Uncertainty
pretreated with five cycles of constant current and constant voltage (CC- instruments
CV) charging and constant current (CC) discharging at 0.5C to eliminate Thermocouple installation
Vernier scale A ±0.1 mm
the effect of SEI layer formation on the battery performance of subse­ position
quent experiments. The LIBs were chosen by capacity and internal Immersion height Vernier scale A ±0.1 mm
Thermometric
resistance to ensure consistency, and the seven that met the re­ Ambient temperature A ±0.5 ◦ C
indicator
quirements were connected in series to form the module. Temperatures of battery and
No. 10 transformer oil is feasible as the coolant for battery immersion K-type thermocouples B ±0.2 ◦ C
coolant
cooling due to its ability to improve insulation strength and protect Total voltage of battery module Battery testing system B ±0.012 V
against moisture while dissipating heat. It also exhibits good flame Voltage of battery cell Agilent 34970A B ±197 μV
Current Battery testing system B ±0.1 A
retardancy and has a high flash point, which can help to mitigate the risk
±0.006 L/
of thermal runaway in the batteries. The physical properties of this Volumetric flow rate Peristaltic pump B
min
transformer oil are presented in Table 2.

2.3. Operation procedure

2.2. Experimental setup
The experimental setup of the immersion cooling BTMS is illustrated
in Fig. 1a. The detailed information on instruments is described in
Table 3. The battery module was housed within an acrylic frame and
placed in a constant temperature cabinet (Keming, KSH-1000B). The
acrylic frame was equipped with positioning slots on the bottom and
sides to secure the batteries in place with a spacing of 5 mm. As shown in
Fig. 1b, the inlet and outlet for the coolant were located on the lower and
upper parts of the side walls, respectively. A peristaltic pump (Longer,
BT600-2 J) was connected by flexible tubing to the immersion coolant
tank for circulating the coolant through the battery module. The coolant
absorbed heat from the battery and returned to the tank, forming a
cooling circuit.
Temperatures were monitored using two K-type thermocouples
placed on the surface of each battery near the tabs and the middle of the
battery (point 1 and point 2 in Fig. 1c). An additional two thermocouples
were attached to the inlet and outlet of the coolant. A total of 16 ther­
mocouples were used in this platform. Voltage was measured using
voltage lines connected to each cell, which monitored the voltage de­
viation of the series-connected module during charging and discharging.
Temperature and voltage data were collected by a data acquisition
system (Agilent, 34970A) at a sampling rate of 2 s and transmitted to a
computer. The NEWARE software in the computer was used to control
the module process through the battery testing system (NEWARE, CE-
6002n-60V200A-H).
Table 1
Parameters of the used pouch Li-ion battery.
Parameter Properties
During the preparation of the experiment, the transformer oil was
pumped into the well-connected battery module, and the peristaltic
pump was switched off when there was a steady flow from the outlet
tube. The battery module was immersed in the transformer oil. The
constant temperature cabinet was set to 25 ◦ C at least two hours before
the beginning of the test to ensure a uniform and constant temperature
inside the chamber. Before the series-connected battery module was
discharged, it was charged at CC of 10 A (1C) to a cut-off voltage of 29.4
V, then charged at CV to a cut-off current of 500 mA, and then held for
two hours. In addition to the necessary single-cell tests, this study fo­
cuses on the discharge process of the battery module, with a cut-off
voltage of 19.25 V at the CC discharge stage and a two-hour hold after
the discharge. The data acquisition system was turned on throughout the
charging/discharging and holding processes.
The dimensions corresponding to the immersion heights were
marked on the outside of the acrylic shell, and the full scale (immersion
height of 132 mm) was used as the baseline case. The transformer oil in
the battery module was pumped out up to different heights (120, 90, 60,
30, and 0 mm), and after the liquid level was stabilized, the discharge
test was performed. Additionally, the cooling system can be considered
natural air cooling (ambient temperature 25 ± 0.5 ◦ C) when no coolant
is in the test module. The volume flow rate of coolant was adjusted to
0.6 L/min by the peristaltic pump for forced flow immersion cooling.
When the coolant temperature at the outlet was stabilized at 25 ◦ C and
fluctuated <1%, the discharge test was started. To closely match the
application scenario, the programming module of the NEWARE software
was used to input the dynamic stress test (DST) procedure under
different external cooling conditions.

Nominal capacity 10,000 mAh 2.4. Experimental uncertainty analysis

Operating Voltage 3.7 V
Charge cut-off voltage 4.2 V
Experimental uncertainty analysis is necessary to demonstrate the
Discharge cut-off voltage 2.75 V
Charge cut-off current 0.05C (500 mA) accuracy of the results. According to the international standard of ISO
Positive electrode NCM811 19036:2019 for the estimation of measurement uncertainty (MU), two
Negative electrode Graphite evaluation methods were used to analyze the uncertainty of the
Size 132(L) × 65(W) × 13(H) mm3 measured parameters. From Eq. (1), the uncertainty uA of the parame­
Weight 230 g
ters measured directly by the operator was calculated by the Type A

4
Q. Liu et al. Applied Energy 351 (2023) 121826

evaluation method.
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√
√ 1 ∑ N
uA (x) = √ (xi − x)2
n(n − 1) i=1
where n is the number of measurements, xi is the measured value of the
parameter, and x is the mean value of the parameter. The experimental
uncertainty uB due to the instrument itself can be calculated based on
the Type B evaluation method as follows:
α battery cell surface average temperature variation was also monitored
uB =
k during CC-CV, as shown in Fig. 2e. These individual performance data
In the Eq. (2), α is the measurement error of the instrument and k is
√̅̅̅
the coverage factor, which is generally defaulted to 3. Table 3 sum­
marizes the experimental uncertainty. More detailed explanations are in
the supplementary file.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. The electro-thermal performance of battery with natural air cooling
The electro-thermal performance of the battery cell was evaluated
using both constant current (CC)/constant voltage (CV) and hybrid pulse
power charge (HPPC) tests. The current and voltage curves are shown in
Fig. 2a~b. The direct current internal resistance of the battery is
calculated from the HPPC test results, including ohmic and polarized
resistance. The results indicate that as the battery discharges and the
(1)
state of charge (SOC) decreases, the open-circuit voltage (OCV) drops
rapidly. In contrast, the internal resistance of the battery charge and
discharge increases sharply, as shown in Fig. 2c and Fig. 2d, respec­
tively. The internal resistance remains low in the range of 100% to 40%
SOC, with an internal resistance of 16.5 mΩ for charging and a slightly
higher internal resistance of 17 mΩ for discharging. This result is
consistent with the relevant conclusions in Ref. [47] and Ref. [48]. The
(2)
and characteristics provide a foundation for further understanding the
batteries when assembled into a module.
In this series-connected battery module, a sequence of tests was
conducted at various discharge rates (0.25C, 0.5C, 0.75C, 1.0C, 1.5C,
and 2.0C) with air cooling in a constant temperature chamber at 25 ◦ C.
The ratio of discharge current to the nominal capacity of the battery is
called the discharge rate, denoted by C. For example, 0.25C for this
battery means a discharge current of 2500 mA. The changes in tem­
perature and temperature difference of each cell in the module (ΔTcell)
during the discharge and two-hour holding period were observed.
Fig. 3a~b shows that when discharging at 2C, the differences in cell
temperature performance increase due to the series topology amplifying

Fig. 2. Battery cell tests and results. The current and voltage of (a) the CC-CV test and (b) the HPPC test; (c) the curve of SOC-OCV; (d) the internal resistance of the
battery; (e) battery cell surface average temperature evolutions of the battery for different discharge rates.

5
Q. Liu et al.
the differences in heat dissipation. The cells in the middle position (Bat
2–4) exhibit higher temperatures due to their reduced ability to dissipate
heat compared to those on the sides. The ΔTcell under 2C reaches a
maximum of 3.328 ◦ C at the end of the discharge, with the maximum
temperature difference of the module (ΔTmodule) reaching 3.524 ◦ C. This
non-uniform temperature distribution can impact ion mobility and
electrolyte conductivity within the cells and shorten the total deliver­
able capacity and lifespan of the battery module. Eq. (3) (6) shows the
two types of temperature differences, where i is the battery number,
from 1 to 7. In this paper, Tmax and Tmin are the maximum and minimum
temperatures measured by the 14 thermocouples in the battery module,
respectively.
ΔTcell,i = T2i − T2i− 1 , i = 1 ∼ 7
ΔTmodule = Tmax − Tmin
Tmax = max{T1 , …, T14 }
Tmin = min{T1 , …, T14 }
In Fig. 3c and Fig. 3d, the results show that the maximum temper­
ature and the temperature difference of each cell in the module increase
linearly when the C-rate increases. In other words, the inconsistency of
thermal performance between cells magnifies. It is due to the increase in
heat generation of the cells as the C-rate increases while the external
heat dissipation conditions remain unchanged. The temperature
Fig. 3. Battery module temperature with natural air cooling at 25 ◦ C. At 2C, (a) average temperature and (b) temperature difference evolution of cells in the module.
For different discharge C-rates, (c) maximum temperature and temperature difference of cells in the module, and (d) comparison of the single cell and the module.
Applied Energy 351 (2023) 121826
gradient between battery cells can be greatly aggravated. Compared to
the individual cell, the temperature rise of the module is 6.664 ◦ C,
10.596 ◦ C, and 12.872 ◦ C at C-rates of 1, 1.5, and 2, respectively. These
findings underline the need for an improved battery thermal manage­
ment system, including enhanced heat dissipation and temperature
uniformity.
3.2. Performance of the battery module with static flow
This section discusses the effect of immersion heights on the electro-
thermal performance of batteries and illustrates the advantages of im­
mersion cooling in temperature control and voltage equalization. Air
(3) cooling is also compared with the static flow to explain the performance
under multiple application scenarios.
(4)
3.2.1. Influence of immersion heights
(5) The influence of immersion heights on battery performance in single-
phase immersion cooling with static flow is studied. The result is pre­
(6) sented in Fig. 4. Himmersion/Hfull-scale represents the ratio of coolant height
to full-scale battery height, abbreviated as HR in the following parts. The
weight of coolant, the total weight of the immersion cooling battery
system, the energy density of the system, and the weight ratio of coolant
to battery module at different HRs are listed in Table 4. The battery
module’s maximum temperature and temperature difference decrease as
the HR increases. At the full-scale height, the maximum temperature of
the battery in the module is 0.949 ◦ C and 4.378 ◦ C lower than that in air
6
Q. Liu et al. Applied Energy 351 (2023) 121826

cooling for 1C and 2C discharge, and the temperature difference is Table 4

3.10 ◦ C and 4.36 ◦ C lower, respectively. The effect of HR on the average Information of weight and energy density for different HRs.
module temperature is not evident at 1C, and the average temperature HR Immersion Weight of Weight of Energy Weight ratio
decreases approximately linearly with the increase of the HR at 2C. The height (mm) Coolant the system density of of coolant to
advantage of single-phase immersion cooling in heat dissipation is (kg) (kg) the system the battery
(Wh/kg) module
gradually prominent as C-rate increases. As shown in Fig. 4, its advan­
tage in temperature uniformity is outstanding in comparison. 0 0 0 1.61 160.87 0
The temperature difference and temperature distribution of the 0.22 30 0.09 1.70 151.92 0.06
0.43 60 0.19 1.80 143.91 0.12
batteries in the module under different immersion heights are shown in 0.65 90 0.28 1.89 136.71 0.18
Fig. 5. Under different HRs, the temperature difference of the module is 0.86 120 0.38 1.99 130.19 0.24
within 1 ◦ C at the early stage of 1C discharge (before 500 s). After that, 1 132 0.42 2.03 127.76 0.26
the differences in the control effect of the immersion height on the
temperature gradient are gradually noticeable. As shown in Fig. 5a, the
cooling with HR = 1 displays a superior temperature equalization effect.
module temperature difference decreases approximately linearly as the
The comparison of the average temperature and temperature difference
HR increases from 0.22 to 0.86. In Fig. 5b, at the early stage of 2C
of the module are shown in Fig. 7b. As the discharge rate increases to 3C,
discharge, the temperature difference of the module is slightly higher
full-scale immersion cooling exhibits a more pronounced advantage in
than that of air-cooling for HR <0.86. During the discharge, the heat
temperature control and equalization ability. During 3C discharge, the
generation of the battery increases and accumulates, and the tempera­
temperature difference of the battery module never exceeds the safe
ture homogenization of immersion cooling becomes pronounced. The
range of 5 ◦ C for HR = 1, whereas for HR = 0.86, it reaches up to
temperature difference of the air-cooled module reaches the threshold
5.346 ◦ C.
value of 5 ◦ C at 1040 s. With increasing HR, the time to reach the
The temperature gradient of the battery module leads to impedance
threshold value pushes back, and it is 198 s and 618 s for HR of 0.22 and
inhomogeneity, which in turn causes different thermal performances of
0.43, respectively.
the cells at different locations in the module [13]. Concerning electrical
The temperature equilibration behavior of each cell in the module
performance, the consequences of the development of temperature
can be observed in Fig. 5c and Fig. 5d when HR increases. The com­
gradients are an uneven state of charge and health between cells [7],
parison of the color block shades in the heat map shows that immersion
exacerbating the degradation of the module.
cooling is more effective in thermal removal and temperature uniformity
The inconsistency of thermal behavior affects the electrical perfor­
at 2C discharge than at 1C. At 1C, the temperature distribution in the
mance of the battery [49]. In the series-connected module, voltage di­
module is balanced because the temperature of Bat7 increases as the HR
vision effects exist, so the cell performance in the module can be
increases and the remaining cells decrease to some extent. At 2C, the
reflected by the voltage balance. Voltage imbalance can cause inaccu­
temperature of each cell decreases, and the degree of temperature
rate estimation of critical parameters such as SOC and SOH [50]. Also,
reduction is more significant in the central part of the module.
some of the cells in the module can degrade faster than the expected
At 1C and 2C discharges, the temperature performance of immersion
lifespan due to the imbalance [44,51]. More seriously, the voltage
cooling with HRs of 0.86 and 1 have not yet shown any significant dif­
imbalance leads to overcharging of the cells, which can cause safety
ference, so the modules with both HRs were discharged at 3C to analyze
issues. The voltage deviation of batteries in the module (δU,t), which
their performance further. As shown in Fig. 7a, the temperature differ­
reflects the degree of voltage imbalance, is defined as,
ence between HRs of 0.86 and 1 demonstrates a tendency to widen
gradually during 3C discharge, indicating that full-scale immersion

Fig. 4. Average temperature and temperature difference of the battery module at different immersion height ratios, including photographs of the experi­
mental process.

7
Q. Liu et al.
Fig. 5. Temperature difference of battery module at (a) 1C-rate and (b) 2C-rate, and the heat map of each cell temperature in the module under different immersion
height ratios (c) at 1C and (d) at 2C.
ΔUt Umax,t − Umin,t
δU,t = = (7)
Ut Ut
∑ of the tabs (about 3 mm) are already submerged by transformer oil. As
n
Ui,t
U t = i=1 (8)
n the transformer oil is in direct contact with the tabs, which are not
Where n is the total number of batteries in the module, and i is the
battery number. Umax,t , Umin,t and Ut are the maximum, minimum, and
average voltage of individual batteries in the module at the time of t.
The variation of the voltage deviation (δU,t) and voltage difference
(ΔUt) of the batteries in the module with the immersion height is shown
in Fig. 6. The coordinates of Fig. 6a and Fig. 6c are the same. The results
presented in the bar graphs show that δU,t at 2C is significantly larger
than that of 1C, while δU,t under immersion cooling is much lower than
that under air cooling. It indicates that the higher the discharge current,
the worse the battery equalization. In comparison, immersion cooling
can significantly improve the equalization performance. When the im­
mersion height ratio (HR) is only 0.22, the δU,t decreases by 3.84% and
5.91% at 1C and 2C, respectively. With the increase of HR, the δU,t de­
creases and then increases, and such a phenomenon is more evident for
2C. It can be seen from Fig. 6 that the δU,t is minimal at HR of 0.43 and
0.65, which is about 4.3%, but then it increases to about 7.9% as HR
continuously increases to 1. It can be analyzed in terms of the two stages
of HR variation.
Stage 1: HR increases from 0 to 0.65. The transformer oil is only in
direct contact with the aluminum plastic film of the pouch cells. With
the increase of HR, the temperature difference of the module decreases
significantly, resulting in improved consistency of internal resistance
between cells [13,52], and thus improving the voltage equalization
8
Applied Energy 351 (2023) 121826
behavior.
Stage 2: HR increases from 0.86 to 1. When HR is 0.86, it can be seen
from the experimental pictures in Fig. 4 that the cell bulk and a portion
HR increases to 1, the tabs of the cell are fully submerged. In both cases,
electrical insulation. Many previous studies highlighted that impurity
particles in transformer oils are an inherent occurrence that cannot be
completely eliminated [53,54]. When transformer oil is chosen as the
coolant for battery immersion cooling, it is also difficult to avoid
contamination and impurities during oil production and utilization. The
impurities would impact the formation and migration of electrostatic
charge in the oil, resulting in the distortion of the electric field distri­
bution around these impurities [55]. Studies have shown that the tem­
perature gradient affects the concentration distribution of the impurities
[56,57], and the impurities are subjected to electrical forces due to
charging, polarization, and other phenomena [58], which leads to
further distortion of the local electric field. As the HR increases to 0.86
and 1, even though the temperature distribution of the battery module is
more uniform, the impurities in the transformer oil suffer from the
combined effect of thermal and electric fields during battery discharge,
resulting in distortion of the local electric field, which affects the cell
voltage of the battery module. Therefore, the voltage deviation increases
rather than decreases. And the higher the discharge rate, the more
serious the distortion. These findings indicate that fast charging and
discharging conditions not only demand better electrochemical perfor­
mance from the battery itself but also impose strict requirements on the
purity of the external immersion coolant.The evolution of the voltage
deviation with time during the discharge is shown in Fig. 6b and Fig. 6d.
Q. Liu et al. Applied Energy 351 (2023) 121826

Fig. 6. Voltage deviation of batteries with different immersion heights. (a) At the end of 1C discharge, δU,t and the voltage difference (ΔUt) of batteries, (b) variation
of δU,t with time during 1C discharge, (c) at the end of 2C discharge, δU,t and ΔUt of batteries, and (d) variation of δU,t with time during 2C discharge.

Fig. 7. Comparison of electrical and thermal performance at 1C, 2C, and 3C discharges for battery module with immersion height ratios (HRs) of 0.86 and 1. (a) The
evolution of temperature difference of module; (b) the average temperature and temperature difference of module; (c) the evolution of voltage deviation of batteries;
and (d) the voltage deviation of batteries at the end of discharge.

9
Q. Liu et al.
In the last stage of the discharge, δU,t increases sharply, while the rest of
the period varies very slightly. The δU,t at every moment of the 2C
discharge is still greater than that of the 1C discharge, although the
disparity is slight. As can be seen from the enlarged plots, a tendency of
slightly higher δU,t with higher immersion height ratios is shown in the
pre-mid stage of discharge. The advantage of immersion cooling in
voltage equalization is mainly highlighted in the last stage of the whole
discharge period.
The electrical performance of the battery module was further
analyzed under 3C discharge conditions with HRs of 0.86 and 1. Similar
to the thermal performance, the gap in δU,t between HR = 0.86 and HR
= 1 also widens at 3C discharge, as observed in Fig. 7c and Fig. 7d. The
difference between two HRs primarily occurs at the last stage of
discharge. At the end of the 3C discharge, the δU,t for HR = 1 reaches
15.40%, whereas it is only 11.83% for HR = 0.86. This disparity in δU,t is
attributed to the combined influence of two factors: the polarization of
the battery during discharge and the distortion of the local electric field
caused by impurities in the transformer oil. At HR = 1, a larger volume
of transformer oil is in direct contact with the tabs, so the electric field
distortion caused by impurities within the oil is more serious. Although
the module with HR = 1 exhibits a better temperature equalization ef­
fect at the 3C discharge, contributing to the reduction of the δU,t, the
distortion of the local electric field in the transformer oil with a larger
volume becomes more serious as the discharge rate increases. Conse­
quently, this leads to an increase in the δU,t. Under the combined influ­
ence of these two effects, the δU,t exhibits a widening gap between HR =
1 and HR = 0.86 as the discharge rate increases to 3C.
3.2.2. Comparison of performance under static flow and natural air cooling
Fig. 8 presents the evolution of the voltage deviation δU,t during the
battery discharge and the subsequent two-hour hold after current
interruption under both air cooling and immersion cooling. The results
reveal a consistent pattern, irrespective of the cooling methods or
discharge rates. Specifically, δU,t remains lower in the early stage of
discharge, and rises sharply in the late stage, and reaches its peak value
at the end of discharge. After the discharge current interruption, the δU,t
decreases rapidly until the voltage is re-equalized. The voltage deviation
of batteries becomes more pronounced as the C-rate increases. The
Fig. 8. Evolution of voltage deviations at 1C, 2C, and 3C discharges and two-hour hold under natural air cooling (AC) and static flow immersion cooling (IC).
10
Applied Energy 351 (2023) 121826
voltage consistency during the discharge process is influenced by the
consistency of the open circuit voltage, polarization voltage, and ohmic
voltage drop. In battery modules that have undergone consistency
screening before assembly, the consistency of polarization voltage is the
dominant factor causing voltage deviation [13]. As the discharge rate
increases, the difference in ohmic voltage drop is insignificant, while the
polarization voltage increases nonlinearly, and the polarization internal
resistance is strongly dependent on temperature [52]. Therefore, when
the battery is discharged at a high rate, the temperature gradient be­
tween the cells grows, leading to the increased difference in the polar­
ization internal resistance. As a result, δU,t increases, and the voltage
imbalance behavior is intensified.
The results in Fig. 8 also suggest that the static flow immersion
cooling (IC) can improve voltage equalization and consistency of the
module. At 1C, the maximum δU,t is 6.1% for IC with static flow and
11.09% for air cooling. This advantage of IC with static flow increased
further at 2C (of 7.9% with IC and 17.1% with air cooling). Even at 3C,
immersion cooling still exhibits the advantage in voltage equalization. It
is likely because the temperature directly impacts internal electro­
chemical performance of the batteries. Non-uniform temperature dis­
tribution within the module can lead to different internal resistances and
degradation rates of capacity for cells at different temperatures, aggra­
vating voltage imbalance and exacerbating performance inconsistency
between cells. In addition, the increase in temperature gradient caused
by uneven heat dissipation further deteriorates it. Therefore, besides
improving thermal performance, the benefits of immersion cooling in
terms of voltage equalization should not be overlooked.
For the application scenarios of battery modules with different state
of charges (SOCs), the temperature control capability of air cooling (AC)
and immersion cooling (IC) is comparatively analyzed. The horizontal
coordinate value in Fig. 9 indicates the SOC of the module after dis­
charging 10% of the nominal capacity. The experimental protocol at a
SOC of 60% was to discharge the battery module from 70% to 60% SOC
at 1C or 2C and hold it for two hours. And SOC of 1 means that the
module was fully charged. As can be seen from the Fig. 9, when the
module is discharged in the lower-capacity range (from 10% SOC to 0%
SOC), both the temperature and temperature difference of the module
increase significantly. This observation aligns with the variations
Q. Liu et al.
Fig. 9. The effect of cooling methods on (a) temperature difference and (b)
average temperature of the battery module under different SOCs.
observed in the internal resistance, as depicted in Fig. 2d. At the end of
the 2C discharge in the lower-capacity range, the average temperature of
the air-cooled battery module reaches 46.65 ◦ C, which exceeds the
optimal operating temperature range. And the average temperatures of
the module after the full process discharge at 2C and 3C from the fully
charged state are 44.78 ◦ C and 60.74 ◦ C, respectively. Given these re­
sults, the temperature of the module would be significantly higher after
3C discharge in the lower-capacity range, raising concerns about safety
issues in laboratory conditions. Therefore, the experiments were not
extend to higher rates.
In the 90% ~ 20% SOC range, where the temperature performance
remains relatively stable, the results depicted in Fig. 9 reveal that IC has
advantages over AC. Specifically, for 1C and 2C discharge, the temper­
ature difference of the module with IC are 0.22 ◦ C and 0.28 ◦ C lower
than those with AC, respectively. And the average temperature of the
module with IC are 0.596 ◦ C and 1.154 ◦ C lower than those with AC for
1C and 2C discharge, respectively. And in the 20% ~ 0% SOC range, the
advantage of immersion cooling over air cooling becomes more pro­
nounced. However, the average temperature with IC exceeds the
threshold at 2C discharges. Thus, a more effective thermal management
approach is needed for high C- rate occasions.
3.3. Performance of the battery module with forced flow
The immersion cooling provides reasonable control over the electro-
thermal performance of the battery, with the advantage of forced flow
being more pronounced at higher discharge C-rates. The performance of
11
Applied Energy 351 (2023) 121826
the module with immersion cooling was evaluated under forced flow at
2C and 3C discharge. Coolant volumetric flow rates of 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8,
and 1.0 L/min were selected for the pre-experiments. As depicted in
Fig. S1, the temperature performance of the battery module remains
stable when the flow rate is set at 0.6 L/min. Moreover, it is evident that
increasing the flow rate beyond this value only yields slight improve­
ments in thermal performance. Therefore, the coolant flow rate was
fixed at 0.6 L/min. And the inlet temperature was 25 ◦ C. For the entire
discharge process and the first 30 min of hold-on time, forced flow im­
mersion cooling was applied, and static flow immersion cooling was
used for the remaining times.
The variation of critical thermal performance parameters during the
discharge process with forced flow immersion cooling is shown in
Fig. 10. The increasing coolant temperature at the outlet is similar to the
battery temperature. The highest coolant outlet temperatures are
29.70 ◦ C and 31.70 ◦ C after complete discharge at 2C and 3C, respec­
tively. The maximum and minimum temperatures monitored by the 14
thermocouples in the module are plotted with time in Fig. 10b. In the
last stage of discharge, the temperature rise rate of the module at 3C is
significantly higher than that at 2C. At the same time, the temperature
disparity also increases rapidly and reaches a maximum value of 3.72 ◦ C.
In contrast, this disparity changes slightly after 60% SOC during 2C
discharge and reaches a maximum value of 1.83 ◦ C at the end of
discharge. The maximum temperature differences between the battery
module and the formed cell are presented in Fig. 10c. The temperature
difference of the formed cell follows the same trend as that of the
module, first increasing, then remaining constant, and finally increasing
rapidly again at the end of discharge. The stage of constant temperature
difference corresponds to the discharge plateau of the battery, in which
the electrochemical potential is relatively balanced. The maximum
temperature difference of the cell at 2C and 3C is 1.38 ◦ C and 2.29 ◦ C,
respectively. As shown in Fig. 10d, Bat1 and Bat7 exhibit the lowest
temperatures due to their location at the edges of the module, which
allows for more efficient convective heat transfer for the more intense
disturbance caused by the circulating flow. In contrast, the five batteries
in the middle of the module have higher temperatures during the pro­
cess. It is due to the weak convective heat exchange of the cells in the
middle of the module.
The temperature and temperature non-uniformity of the module can
significantly influence the relaxation of the battery, leading to errors in
capacity estimation and affecting its subsequent use. It is essential to
quickly restore the battery temperature to its pre-use state for efficient
and accurate utilization. The recovery time, defined as the time required
to reduce the temperature of each battery to its initial value after
discharge, is shown to be 1060 s for a 2C discharge in Fig. 10d. Fig. 11
illustrates that the higher the discharge rate, the longer the recovery
time required. And the recovery time for forced flow is shorter than that
for air cooling and static flow. For example, at 1C discharge, the re­
covery time for air cooling and static flow is 5634 s and 5580 s,
respectively, while only 790 s for forced flow. Similarly, at a 2C
discharge rate, the recovery time for air cooling and static flow is 6420 s
and 6290 s, respectively, while only 1060 s for forced flow. In contrast,
neither air cooling nor static flow can restore the initial temperature
within the 7200 s hold-on time for a 3C discharge due to the inherent
limitations of these cooling methods in dissipating heat quickly.
As demonstrated in Fig. 12, an analysis of the thermal performance
of battery modules under three different heat dissipation conditions
reveals that immersion cooling with the forced flow is particularly
effective at reducing the maximum module temperature at higher
discharge rates. And homogeneous temperature distribution can be
obtained with both immersion cooling methods. However, at 3C
discharge, the static flow method is insufficient in mitigating thermal
issues, as the temperature of each cell exceeds the upper limit of 40 ◦ C
for optimal operation [11]. The cell in the module with the highest
temperature is Bat 5 at 44.321 ◦ C. Therefore, thermal management of
forced flow is necessary at higher discharge rates.
Q. Liu et al. Applied Energy 351 (2023) 121826

Fig. 10. Evolution of critical thermal parameters during 2C and 3C discharges under forced flow immersion cooling. (a) Coolant temperature at the outlet, (b)
maximum and minimum temperature of the battery module, (c) maximum temperature difference between the battery module and the formed single cell, and(d)
schematic of the temperature recovery time of the module.

Fig. 11. The temperature recovery time of the module under air cooling, static
flow, and forced flow immersion cooling at different discharge rates.
Fig. 12. Comparison of the maximum temperature of individual batteries in the
3.4. Analysis of module equalization behavior module under air cooling, static flow, and forced flow at different
discharge rates.
The equalization between cells in a battery module becomes an
important indicator to evaluate the module’s performance. A compre­
hensive analysis of the electro-thermal equalization behavior of the
module under three cooling methods is performed.

12
Q. Liu et al. Applied Energy 351 (2023) 121826

The box plots of the average temperature, temperature difference, (9) – (11).
and discharge termination voltage of the individual cells in the module
ERU = 1 − CV,U (9)
are shown in Fig. 13. The plots show the overall trend and discrete
distribution of the cell performance. The comparisons of the median and
ERT = 1 − CV,T (10)
mean values for the three cooling methods show that the average tem­
perature and temperature difference of the cell under forced flow is ERΔT = 1 − CV,ΔT (11)
lower at different C-rates. The gaps in the average temperature of cells
for the three cooling methods widen with the increasing C-rates. And the Here the CV,U, CV,T and CV,ΔT refer to the volatility of the voltage,
gaps of the cell temperature difference at 1C and 2C are not evident with average temperature, and temperature difference of the individual cells
the mean values below 1 ◦ C, and the gaps widen at 3C. The mean value in the module, respectively. The volatility and equalization rate (ER) are
of the voltage fluctuates around 2.75 V. It can be inferred from the box opposite events. In order to compare more intuitively, the equalization
length that the temperature difference and voltage of the module are rate is chosen for assessment. The dimensionless CV reflects the
more uneven for the three cooling methods as the C-rate increases. The discrepancy between performance indicators and mean values, and
distribution of the electro-thermal parameters of the battery module represents the absolute indicator that signifies the variability, as shown
with air-cooling is discrete, and the equalization is the worst. In com­ in Eq. (12) – (14). n is the total number of batteries in the module, and i is
parison, battery overall equalization performances are best with static the battery number.
flow immersion cooling at 1C and 2C. However, at 3C, the voltage √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√ [ n ( ]̅
imbalance of static flow increases significantly, and the advantage of √1 ∑ Ui − U )2
CV,U = √ (12)
equalization is diminished. n i=1 U
In addition to the qualitative analysis, the effect of different cooling
methods on the equalization behavior of the cells is also quantified. The
equalization rates (ERs) are introduced as indicators and given by Eq.

Fig. 13. The box plots of the average temperature, temperature difference, and discharge termination voltage of the individual cells in the module with three
cooling methods.

13
Q. Liu et al. Applied Energy 351 (2023) 121826

√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√ [ n ( ] lower, the coolant flowing from the lower part to the upper part affects
√1 ∑ Ti − T )2
CV,T = √ (13)
n i=1 T battery heat generation increases, the ERΔT increases to 52.04% at 2C. In
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√ [ n (
√1 ∑ ΔTi − ΔT )2
] module under air cooling is significant, and the ERΔT decreases with
CV,ΔT = √ (14)
n i=1 ΔT
Radar plots indicating the electro-thermal equalization rates of the
three cooling methods at different discharge rates are shown in Fig. 14.
According to the area of the graphics in Fig. 14, the electro-thermal
equalization shows an overall trend of static flow > forced flow > air
cooling. As shown in Fig. 14a, for ERU, all three cooling methods show a
decreasing trend with increasing discharge rates, which indicates that a
higher C-rate is more likely to lead to voltage imbalance. The ERU of the
air cooling decreases from 96.63% (at 1C) to 94.11% (at 2C) and 93.73%
(at 3C). The significant variations of ERU for static and forced flows at 2C
to 3C are similar to the shape of the graphics, with a numerical reduction
of 2.88% and 2.52%, respectively. From the shapes of the graphics in
Fig. 14b, the overall variations of ERT for static and forced flow are slight
when the discharge rate increases from 1C to 3C, with decreases from
99.32% to 98.34% and from 98.63% to 97.93%, respectively. On the
other hand, the ERT of air cooling shows apparent changes, especially at
3C, when the thermal equalization behavior of the battery module be­
comes worse in terms of average temperature.
Unlike ERU and ERT, forced flow at 1C has the lowest ERΔT of 36.64%,
as shown in Fig. 14c. It is because when the battery heat generation is
the temperature distribution on the vertical surface of the battery. As the
comparison, the fluctuation of the cell temperature difference in the
increasing C-rate and is 33.24% at 3C. For static flow, although the
average value of the cell temperature difference increases with C-rate (as
depicted in Fig. 13), the consistency of this parameter among the battery
module is improved, expressed by the increase in ERΔT.
The above analysis shows that the electro-thermal equalization
behavior under air cooling tends to deteriorate with the increase of the
C-rate. The battery module equalization behaviors are better under
static flow, and the advantages in thermal equalization, especially in
temperature difference, are more prominent. Within the conditions
covered in this paper, the forced flow has the best electro-thermal
equalization behavior at 2C.
3.5. Performance of battery module under dynamic conditions
The dynamic stress test (DST) is a simulation test procedure specified
in the USABC Electric Vehicle Battery Test Procedures Manual to
simulate the motor drive load under actual vehicle operating conditions
[59]. And the DST involves a 360-s sequence of power steps, incorpo­
rating seven distinct power levels. The DST is conducted on the battery
module using both air cooling and static flow to investigate the effect of
cooling methods on the dynamic performance of batteries. The results in
Fig. 15 indicate that the voltage deviation increases as the current

Fig. 14. Radar plots of the electro-thermal equalization rates of the battery module with the three cooling methods at different C-rates: (a) ERU, (b) ERT, and (c) ERΔT.

14
Q. Liu et al.
increases and vice versa. At the same time, the voltage equalization of
the module remains similar under both cooling methods until 6310 s
(the first 11 cycles). As shown in Fig. S2, the average temperature dif­
ference of the air-cooled battery module in the 10th and 11th cycles
remains relatively stable. Since the 12th cycle, the average temperature
difference of the battery module increases. Therefore, the voltage de­
viation under air cooling increases after 11 cycles, eventually reaching a
maximum value of 17.65% at the final cycle (18th cycle). It remains
more stable and consistent with the initial state under static flow im­
mersion cooling, reaching the cut-off voltage with 19 cycles. The 10th to
the 15th cycles correspond to a SOC of 47.37% to 21.06% for the bat­
tery. The battery voltage decreases slowly within this interval. Both
methods show similar trends in terms of maximum temperature, but the
final temperature under static flow is 1.565 ◦ C lower than under air
cooling. Regarding module temperature uniformity, the value remains
stable at around 0.58 ◦ C under static flow, with the highest value being
1.907 ◦ C lower than under air cooling. These results suggest that the
immersion cooling battery module provides more stable and consistent
electrical and thermal performance under dynamic conditions, making it
more suitable for variable application scenarios.
4. Conclusion
The test platform for the electro-thermal performance of the battery
module with single-phase immersion cooling is developed. The experi­
mental study evaluates the temporal characteristics of the series-
Fig. 15. Performance of the battery module for the DST test under air cooling and static-flow immersion cooling conditions. (a) Current-voltage and voltage de­
viation between batteries; (b) Maximum temperature and temperature difference evolution of the battery module.
15
Applied Energy 351 (2023) 121826
connected module under air cooling, static flow, and forced flow im­
mersion cooling. The main findings are as follows:
1. At the initial stage of 1C discharge, the immersion height ratios (HR)
have little effect on the temperature difference. The temperature
gradient decreases at subsequent stages with higher HR but with
similar effects for HR of 0.86 and 1. The maximum temperature of
the full-scale immersed module is 0.949 ◦ C and 4.378 ◦ C lower than
that of the air-cooled one at 1C and 2C, with temperature differences
of 3.10 ◦ C and 4.36 ◦ C lower, respectively.
2. The voltage imbalance of the module increases sharply at the end of
discharge, and voltage deviation increases with the increase of C-
rates. As HR increases, the maximum δU,t first decreases and then
increases. When HR increases from 0.43 to 1, δU,t increases from
4.3% to 7.9% at the end of 2C discharge. In the pre-mid discharge
stage, the δU,t rises with HR increase. The advantage of immersion
cooling in voltage equalization is highlighted in the last stage of
discharge.
3. The temperature recovery time of the module under forced flow is
shortened by 7 times, 6 times, and >6 times than that of air cooling
and static flow for the discharge of 1C, 2C, and 3C, respectively. The
higher the C-rates, the more pronounced the advantages of forced
flow in terms of thermal performance.
4. The electro-thermal equilibrium of the module shows a trend of static
flow > forced flow > air cooling. As the discharge rates increase, the
Q. Liu et al.
equalization behavior continues to deteriorate under air cooling.
And the equalization behavior under forced flow is optimal at 2C.
5. Immersion cooling improves the electrical and thermal performance
of the battery module under dynamic conditions closer to the actual
application scenario.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Qian Liu: Writing – original draft, Software, Investigation, Formal
analysis, Conceptualization. Chen Sun: Visualization, Investigation,
Data curation. Jingshu Zhang: Investigation, Formal analysis, Data
curation. Qianlei Shi: Software, Investigation, Formal analysis. Kaix­
uan Li: Validation, Methodology. Boxu Yu: Supervision, Investigation.
Chao Xu: Writing – review & editing, Supervision. Xing Ju: Writing –
review & editing, Supervision.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the support of the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (Project No. 51821004).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.121826.
References
[1] Alkhulaifi YM, Qasem NAA, Zubair SM. Exergoeconomic assessment of the ejector-
based battery thermal management system for electric and hybrid-electric vehicles.
Energy 2022;245:123252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.123252.
[2] Dai H, Jiang B, Hu X, Lin X, Wei X, Pecht M. Advanced battery management
strategies for a sustainable energy future: multilayer design concepts and research
trends. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2021;138:110480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2020.110480.
[3] Kong D, Wang G, Ping P, Wen J. A coupled conjugate heat transfer and CFD model
for the thermal runaway evolution and jet fire of 18650 lithium-ion battery under
thermal abuse. ETransportation 2022;12:100157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
etran.2022.100157.
[4] Liaw BY, Roth EP, Jungst RG, Nagasubramanian G, Case HL, Doughty DH.
Correlation of Arrhenius behaviors in power and capacity fades with cell
impedance and heat generation in cylindrical lithium-ion cells. J Power Sources
2003;119–121:874–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7753(03)00196-4.
[5] Waldmann T, Wilka M, Kasper M, Fleischhammer M, Wohlfahrt-Mehrens M.
Temperature dependent ageing mechanisms in Lithium-ion batteries – a post-
mortem study. J Power Sources 2014;262:129–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jpowsour.2014.03.112.
[6] Käbitz S, Gerschler JB, Ecker M, Yurdagel Y, Emmermacher B, André D, et al. Cycle
and calendar life study of a graphite|LiNi1/3Mn1/3Co1/3O2 Li-ion high energy
system. Part a: full cell characterization. J Power Sources 2013;239:572–83.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.03.045.
[7] Feng X, Xu C, He X, Wang L, Zhang G, Ouyang M. Mechanisms for the evolution of
cell variations within a LiNixCoyMnzO2/graphite lithium-ion battery pack caused
by temperature non-uniformity. J Clean Prod 2018;205:447–62. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.003.
[8] Wu N, Ye X, Yao J, Zhang X, Zhou X, Yu B. Efficient thermal management of the
large-format pouch lithium-ion cell via the boiling-cooling system operated with
intermittent flow. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2021;170:121018. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2021.121018.
[9] Xu J, Guo Z, Xu Z, Zhou X, Mei X. A systematic review and comparison of liquid-
based cooling system for lithium-ion batteries. ETransportation 2023:100242.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etran.2023.100242.
[10] Bahiraei F, Ghalkhani M, Fartaj A, Nazri G-A. A pseudo 3D electrochemical-
thermal modeling and analysis of a lithium-ion battery for electric vehicle thermal
16
Applied Energy 351 (2023) 121826
management applications. Appl Therm Eng 2017;125:904–18. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.07.060.
[11] Chombo PV, Laoonual Y. A review of safety strategies of a Li-ion battery. J Power
Sources 2020;478:228649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2020.228649.
[12] Diao W, Pecht M, Liu T. Management of imbalances in parallel-connected lithium-
ion battery packs. J Energy Stor 2019;24:100781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
est.2019.100781.
[13] Wang B, Ji C, Wang S, Sun J, Pan S, Wang D, et al. Study of non-uniform
temperature and discharging distribution for lithium-ion battery modules in series
and parallel connection. Appl Therm Eng 2020;168:114831. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2019.114831.
[14] Lee S, Kim W, Han M. Analysis of voltage deviation among the battery cells
according to driving characteristics for the commercial electric vehicle. Trans
Korean Soc Automot Eng 2023;31:43–9. https://doi.org/10.7467/
KSAE.2023.31.1.043.
[15] Yang W, Zhou F, Zhou H, Liu Y. Thermal performance of axial air cooling system
with bionic surface structure for cylindrical lithium-ion battery module. Int J Heat
Mass Transf 2020;161:120307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijheatmasstransfer.2020.120307.
[16] Zhou Z, Wang D, Peng Y, Li M, Wang B, Cao B, et al. Experimental study on the
thermal management performance of phase change material module for the large
format prismatic lithium-ion battery. Energy 2022;238:122081. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2021.122081.
[17] Lv Y, Liu G, Zhang G, Yang X. A novel thermal management structure using
serpentine phase change material coupled with forced air convection for
cylindrical battery modules. J Power Sources 2020;468:228398. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jpowsour.2020.228398.
[18] Zhang W, Qiu J, Yin X, Wang D. A novel heat pipe assisted separation type battery
thermal management system based on phase change material. Appl Therm Eng
2020;165:114571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2019.114571.
[19] Wu W, Wang S, Wu W, Chen K, Hong S, Lai Y. A critical review of battery thermal
performance and liquid based battery thermal management. Energy Convers
Manag 2019;182:262–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.12.051.
[20] Panchal S, Khasow R, Dincer I, Agelin-Chaab M, Fraser R, Fowler M. Thermal
design and simulation of mini-channel cold plate for water cooled large sized
prismatic lithium-ion battery. Appl Therm Eng 2017;122:80–90. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.05.010.
[21] Kalkan O, Celen A, Bakirci K. Multi-objective optimization of a mini channeled cold
plate for using thermal management of a Li-ion battery. Energy 2022;251:123949.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.123949.
[22] Sheng L, Zhang H, Su L, Zhang Z, Zhang H, Li K, et al. Effect analysis on thermal
profile management of a cylindrical lithium-ion battery utilizing a cellular liquid
cooling jacket. Energy 2021;220:119725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2020.119725.
[23] Kanbur BB, Wu C, Fan S, Duan F. System-level experimental investigations of the
direct immersion cooling data center units with thermodynamic and
thermoeconomic assessments. Energy 2021;217:119373. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2020.119373.
[24] Birbarah P, Gebrael T, Foulkes T, Stillwell A, Moore A, Pilawa-Podgurski R, et al.
Water immersion cooling of high power density electronics. Int J Heat Mass Transf
2020;147:118918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2019.118918.
[25] Roe C, Feng X, White G, Li R, Wang H, Rui X, et al. Immersion cooling for lithium-
ion batteries – a review. J Power Sources 2022;525:231094. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jpowsour.2022.231094.
[26] Williams NP, O’Shaughnessy SM. Immersion cooling of lithium-ion batteries for
electric vehicles. In: 2022 28th Int. Workshop Therm Investig ICs Syst THERMINIC;
2022. p. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/THERMINIC57263.2022.9950646.
[27] Wang Z, Zhao R, Wang S, Huang D. Heat transfer characteristics and influencing
factors of immersion coupled direct cooling for battery thermal management.
J Energy Stor 2023;62:106821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2023.106821.
[28] Li Y, Bai M, Zhou Z, Lv J, Hu C, Gao L, et al. Experimental study of liquid
immersion cooling for different cylindrical lithium-ion batteries under rapid
charging conditions. Therm Sci Eng Prog 2023;37:101569. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tsep.2022.101569.
[29] Li Y, Bai M, Zhou Z, Wu W-T, Lv J, Gao L, et al. Experimental investigations of
liquid immersion cooling for 18650 lithium-ion battery pack under fast charging
conditions. Appl Therm Eng 2023;227:120287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2023.120287.
[30] Samieian MA, Garcia CE, Diaz LB, Hales A, Patel Y, Offer GJ. Large scale immersion
bath for isothermal testing of lithium-ion cells. HardwareX 2022;12:e00359.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ohx.2022.e00359.
[31] Liu J, Fan Y, Xie Q. Feasibility study of a novel oil-immersed battery cooling
system: experiments and theoretical analysis. Appl Therm Eng 2022;208:118251.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2022.118251.
[32] A model-scale experimental and theoretical study on a mineral oil-immersed
battery cooling system. Renew. Energy 2022;201:712–23. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2022.11.010.
[33] Sundin DW, Sponholtz S. Thermal Management of Li-ion Batteries with Single-
Phase Liquid Immersion Cooling. IEEE Open J Veh Technol 2020;1:82–92. https://
doi.org/10.1109/OJVT.2020.2972541.
[34] Satyanarayana G, Ruben Sudhakar D, Muthya Goud V, Ramesh J, Pathanjali G.
Experimental investigation and comparative analysis of immersion cooling of
lithium-ion batteries using mineral and therminol oil. Appl Therm Eng 2023:
120187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2023.120187.
Q. Liu et al.
[35] Wang H, Tao T, Xu J, Shi H, Mei X, Gou P. Thermal performance of a liquid-
immersed battery thermal management system for lithium-ion pouch batteries.
J Energy Stor 2022;46:103835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2021.103835.
[36] Suresh Patil M, Seo J-H, Lee M-Y. A novel dielectric fluid immersion cooling
technology for Li-ion battery thermal management. Energy Convers Manag 2021;
229:113715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113715.
[37] Dubey P, Pulugundla G, Srouji AK. Direct comparison of immersion and cold-plate
based cooling for automotive Li-ion battery modules. Energies 2021;14:1259.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en14051259.
[38] Wu S, Lao L, Wu L, Liu L, Lin C, Zhang Q. Effect analysis on integration efficiency
and safety performance of a battery thermal management system based on direct
contact liquid cooling. Appl Therm Eng 2022;201:117788. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2021.117788.
[39] Zilberman I, Schmitt J, Ludwig S, Naumann M, Jossen A. Simulation of voltage
imbalance in large lithium-ion battery packs influenced by cell-to-cell variations
and balancing systems. J Energy Stor 2020;32:101828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
est.2020.101828.
[40] Feng F, Hu X, Liu J, Lin X, Liu B. A review of equalization strategies for series
battery packs: variables, objectives, and algorithms. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2019;
116:109464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109464.
[41] Klein MP, Park JW. Current distribution measurements in parallel-connected
Lithium-ion cylindrical cells under non-uniform temperature conditions.
J Electrochem Soc 2017;164:A1893. https://doi.org/10.1149/2.0011709jes.
[42] Sun T, Shen T, Zheng Y, Ren D, Zhu W, Li J, et al. Modeling the inhomogeneous
lithium plating in lithium-ion batteries induced by non-uniform temperature
distribution. Electrochim Acta 2022;425:140701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
electacta.2022.140701.
[43] Yang Y, Chen L, Tong K, Yang L, Jiang K, Kong Y, et al. Thermal-electrical
characteristics of lithium-ion battery module in series connection with a hybrid
cooling. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2022;184:122309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijheatmasstransfer.2021.122309.
[44] Yang N, Zhang X, Shang B, Li G. Unbalanced discharging and aging due to
temperature differences among the cells in a lithium-ion battery pack with parallel
combination. J Power Sources 2016;306:733–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jpowsour.2015.12.079.
[45] Fuller TF, Doyle M, Newman J. Simulation and optimization of the dual Lithium
ion insertion cell. J Electrochem Soc 1994;141:1. https://doi.org/10.1149/
1.2054684.
[46] Zhou L, Zheng Y, Ouyang M, Lu L. A study on parameter variation effects on
battery packs for electric vehicles. J Power Sources 2017;364:242–52. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2017.08.033.
17
Applied Energy 351 (2023) 121826
[47] Wang K, Gao F, Zhu Y, Liu H, Qi C, Yang K, et al. Internal resistance and heat
generation of soft package Li4Ti5O12 battery during charge and discharge. Energy
2018;149:364–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.02.052.
[48] Chen L, Zhang M, Ding Y, Wu S, Li Y, Liang G, et al. Estimation the internal
resistance of lithium-ion-battery using a multi-factor dynamic internal resistance
model with an error compensation strategy. Energy Rep 2021;7:3050–9. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.05.027.
[49] Paul S, Diegelmann C, Kabza H, Tillmetz W. Analysis of ageing inhomogeneities in
lithium-ion battery systems. J Power Sources 2013;239:642–50. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.01.068.
[50] Liu Y, Zhang C, Jiang J, Zhang L, Zhang W, Wang LY. Deduction of the
transformation regulation on voltage curve for lithium-ion batteries and its
application in parameters estimation. ETransportation 2022;12:100164. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.etran.2022.100164.
[51] Wu B, Yufit V, Marinescu M, Offer GJ, Martinez-Botas RF, Brandon NP. Coupled
thermal–electrochemical modelling of uneven heat generation in lithium-ion
battery packs. J Power Sources 2013;243:544–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jpowsour.2013.05.164.
[52] Yao L, Wang Z. Polarization characteristics of the Lithium-ion battery (in Chinese).
Trans Beijing Inst Technol 2014;34. https://doi.org/10.15918/j.tbit1001-
0645.2014.09.028. 912–916+922.
[53] Palmer S, Sharpley WA. Electric strength of transformer insulation. Proc Inst Electr
Eng 1969;116:2029. https://doi.org/10.1049/piee.1969.0372.
[54] Gallagher TJ. Simple dielectric liquids: Mobility, conduction, and breakdown.
Oxford [Eng.]: Clarendon Press; 1975.
[55] Mahmud S, Chen G, Golosnoy IO, Wilson G, Jarman P. Bridging in contaminated
transformer oil under DC and AC electric field. J Phys Conf Ser 2013;472:012007.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/472/1/012007.
[56] Tang J, Zhang Y, Pan C, Zhuo R, Wang D, Li X. Impact of oil velocity on partial
discharge characteristics induced by bubbles in transformer oil. IEEE Trans Dielectr
Electr Insul 2018;25:1605–13. https://doi.org/10.1109/TDEI.2018.006888.
[57] Pan C, Tang J, Zhang Y, Luo X, Li X. Variation of discharge characteristics with
temperature in moving transformer oil contaminated by metallic particles. IEEE
Access 2018;6:40050–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2856580.
[58] Li J, Hu Q, Zhao X, Yao X, Yao Y, Yao Y. Partial-discharge characteristics of free
spherical conducting particles under AC condition in transformer oils. IEEE Trans
Power Deliv 2011;26:538–46. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRD.2010.2103575.
[59] Mu H, Xiong R. Chapter 1 - modeling, evaluation, and state estimation for batteries.
In: Zhang H, Cao D, Du H, editors. Model. Dyn. Control Electrified Veh. Woodhead
Publishing; 2018. p. 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812786-5.00001-
X.