Journal of Energy Storage 84 (2024) 110901

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Energy Storage

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/est

Research papers

Numerical study of critical conditions for thermal runaway of lithium-ion

battery pack during storage
Luyao Zhao a, b, c, *, Wei Li a, b, Weiyi Luo a, b, Minxue Zheng a, b, Mingyi Chen a, b
a
School of Emergency Management, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang 212013, China
b
School of Environment and Safety Engineering, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang 212013, China
c
State Key Laboratory of Fire Science, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China

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

Keywords: Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) are becoming the preferred solution for a new generation of electric vehicles and
Battery safety static energy storage equipment. In the process of storage and transportation of LIBs, the accumulation of large
Self-ignition volumes of batteries is prone to self-ignite, leading to thermal runaway, resulting in serious consequences and
Positive electrode material
losses. In this work, a three-dimensional model of LIBs thermal runaway is built to analyze the influence of
Arrangement mode
battery positive electrode material, arrangement mode and thermal insulation plate on the self-heating ignition
Heat shield
of battery pack. The critical ambient temperature (Ta,cr) triggering thermal runaway of battery pack is also
studied. The results show that the Ta,cr of a 18,650 battery with LCO, NCM and LFP as positive electrode ma­
terials are 148 ◦ C, 168 ◦ C and 201 ◦ C, respectively. The Ta,cr of the battery pack decreases with the increase of the
number of cells. This work also compares the effect of arrangement modes on Ta,cr of the battery pack, which
shows that the thinner the battery pack is, the higher its Ta,cr will be. Considering the effects of heat shield plate
on the self-ignition behavior of battery pack, it is found that the graphite composite sheet is more suitable for
battery pack storage than Al plate and aerogel layer. This work can provide guidance for improving battery safety
and reducing fire risks during storage and transportation.

1. Introduction
Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) have already been used successfully in
some areas such as everyday electronics and electric vehicles [1].
However, fire and explosion accidents caused by thermal runaway (TR)
of LIBs are frequently reported [2]. There are three modes to trigger the
TR of batteries, including electrical abuse, thermal abuse and mechan­
ical abuse [3]. However, These trigger modes depend on external heat
sources or other unexpected working conditions, which will lead to in­
ternal short circuit of the battery, and the battery temperature will rise
sharply [4]. Currently, in order to improve the transportation efficiency
of LIBs and the utilization of battery warehouse space, a large number of
modules will be accumulated, which is very likely to result in self-
ignition behavior of the battery. Self-ignition refers to the ignition of
combustibles in the air caused by self-heating, without the action of
external heat source. Moreover, self-heating is caused by certain
chemical or physical processes occurring within the material, increasing
the temperature of the material under ambient conditions [5]. Hu et al.
[6] proposed that even without the above three abuse conditions, low
heat exchange would generate weak heat in the large battery pack, thus
raising the system temperature. If the heat cannot be released to the
outside of the system in time, once the heat accumulates to a certain
extent, the system temperature will reach a critical level, stimulating the
battery to produce chemical exothermic reaction, resulting in sponta­
neous combustion of the battery.
In previous studies, the researchers considered the influence of some
factors on the thermal runaway of the battery cell or battery pack, such
as the cathode material of the battery, the arrangement of the battery
pack, and the heat insulation panels in the battery pack. In terms of
battery cathode materials, the thermal runaway behavior of batteries
can be analyzed by macroscopic abuse experiments and also charac­
terized by microscopic analysis experiments. The reactions inside the
battery can be explained by Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC),
Thermo-gravimetry (TG) and Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry
(GC–MS) [7], and the distribution of electrode materials can be char­
acterized by XRD and other methods. Wang et al. [8] conducted an
experimental study on TR propagation behavior of NCM batteries with
different Ni contents by external heating. The results showed that the
electrochemical properties of the battery did not affect the thermal

* Corresponding author at: School of Emergency Management, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang 212013, China.
E-mail address: zhaoly@ujs.edu.cn (L. Zhao).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2024.110901
Received 18 July 2023; Received in revised form 28 December 2023; Accepted 8 February 2024
Available online 17 February 2024
2352-152X/© 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Zhao et al.
Nomenclature
A Frequency factor (1/s)
c Dimensionless concentration
Cp Heat capacity (J/kg⋅K)
Ea Activation energy (J/mol)
hconv Convective heat transfer coefficient (W/m2⋅K)
H Heat release (J/kg)
kr Radial thermal conductivity (W/m⋅K)
kz Axial thermal conductivity (W/m⋅K)
m Reaction order
q″ Heat flux (W/m2)
Q Heat generation (J)
Ri Reaction rate (1/s)
tsei Dimensionless SEI thickness
ton Thermal runaway onset time (h)
T Temperature (◦ C)
W Active content (kg/m3)
ρ Density (kg/m3)
ε Surface emissivity
runaway propagation law of the battery, and the internal temperature
and mass loss of the battery were ranked as NCM 622 > NCM 523 >
NCM 111. Ren et al. [9] carried out DSC tests on the components of a
single battery and their mixtures to reveal the exothermic reactions
when thermal runaway occurred, and fitted the kinetic parameters
required for exothermic reactions. Zhao et al. [10] added an exothermic
reaction between metal lithium and electrolyte in the single battery
model and analyzed the impact of low-temperature aging on the thermal
runaway process. They predicted that aging would advance the start-up
time of thermal runaway and increase the total heat generation of the
battery. XRD and TG analysis by Sun et al. [11] showed that NCM 811
cell exhibited more serious structural changes than NCM 622 cell, and
proposed that the method of changing the positive electrode
morphology from polycrystal to single crystal can reduce the cation
distribution of NCM 8111 cell, so as to enhance the stability of the
positive electrode.
Besides, the arrangement of batteries has a great influence on the
thermal runaway propagation of the battery module and the design of
thermal management system. Zhu et al. [12] investigated that the heat
barrier effect of porous materials in vertical arrangement was better
than that in horizontal arrangement. Chen et al. [13] conducted an
experimental study on the combustion behavior of horizontal 4 × 1,
horizontal 2 × 2 and vertical 2 × 2 lithium batteries. Lu et al. [14]
established a three-dimensional model of stagger-arranged battery pack
and discussed the influence of cooling channel size and air supply
strategy on the cooling effect of battery pack. Zhou et al. [15] also
considered the influence of staggered arrangement when designing the
air cooling system. In order to prevent the thermal runaway propagation
of lithium batteries and improve the space utilization rate of battery
module, heat insulation panels with different properties were used to
study how to inhibit the thermal runaway propagation [16]. Lamb et al.
[17] investigated the effect of plate thickness on cascading propagation
of battery modules. The experimental results showed that the propaga­
tion was completely mitigated when the thickness of the metal plate was
3.2 mm. Zhu et al. [18] conducted a detailed study on how high thermal
conductivity flame-retardant composite phase change materials can
alleviate thermal runaway propagation. Liu et al. [19] proved that the
temperature drop efficiency of the aerogel material was better than that
of the fiber material through the thermal runaway experiment of the
battery module. The experimental results of Zhu et al. [12] also showed
that nanoporous aerogel had the best barrier and inhibition effect among
the three kinds of porous materials, nickel foam, glass wool and nano-
2
Journal of Energy Storage 84 (2024) 110901
Subscript
air Air
amb Ambient
b Battery
conv Convective heat transfer
e Electrolyte decomposition
exp Experiment
int The interface between the battery and the air domain
ne Negative-electrode reaction
pe Positive-electrode reaction
rad Radiative heat transfer
sei SEI decomposition
sim Simulation
sym Symmetry boundary
Acronyms
LFP Lithium iron phosphate
LCO Lithium cobalt oxide
NCM Nickel-Cobalt-Manganese
SOC State Of Charge
porous aerogel.
Recently, some experiments and simulations have been conducted to
study the self-ignition of a single battery cell or battery pack. In terms of
a single battery, vent sizing package 2 (VSP2), differential scanning
calorimeter (DSC) and acceleration rate calorimeter (ARC) were usually
used to measure the kinetics parameters of the battery and its compo­
nents [20,21], including heat release rate, frequency factor, activation
energy and active material content. Similarly, Chung et al. [22] fitted
the kinetic parameters of batteries with different charging rates. These
parameters can be used to model the spontaneous combustion of LIBs. In
order to understand the properties of battery during thermal runaway,
several studies have developed thermal runaway models for batteries.
Hatchard et al. [23] developed a multi-step reaction scheme model to
describe the main process of thermal runaway in LIBs. Then Kim et al.
[24] extended it to a three-dimensional model to study the effect of the
cell size and shape on thermal runaway behavior. Jeevarajan et al. [25]
used the existing model to predict that prismatic cells resulted in slower
temperature responses and slower kinetics of abuse reactions due to the
extra thermal mass compared to cylindrical cells. He et al. [26] proposed
that the value of activation energy parameter had the greatest influence
on the critical ambient temperature of the battery. Ping et al. [27] used
the single battery model to explore the key factors affecting the occur­
rence of thermal runaway of batteries, such as ambient temperature,
airflow quantities, thickness of airflow channel and so on.
In terms of the study of self-ignition in the battery pack, He et al. [28]
used oven experiments to study the spontaneous combustion behavior of
prismatic battery stack in open circuit state. They found that the critical
ambient temperature (Ta,cr) of self-heating ignition decreased with the
growth of the number of batteries [26]. The Ta,cr refers to the critical
(minimum) ambient temperature that can initiate the self-heating igni­
tion of LIB ensembles. When the ambient temperature is equal to or
larger than Ta,cr, the battery or battery pack can go to thermal runaway
by self-heating. When the ambient temperature is less than Ta,cr, the
battery or battery pack cannot go to thermal runaway. They also pre­
dicted by numerical modeling that with the increase of battery state of
charge (SOC), the Ta,cr of battery pack would decrease, and the NCM
batteries were safer than LCO batteries. Besides, He et al. [29] sum­
marized and analyzed the self-ignition process and Ta,cr value of batte­
ries with different numbers and SOCs through oven experiments, and
complemented their numerical simulation studies to verify each other.
Peng et al. [30] focused on analyzing the effect of oven temperature
on the thermal behavior of batteries by analyzing the curve of the
L. Zhao et al.
concentration and time of positive electrode reactants, and predicted the
Ta,cr value of batteries with LCO, NCA, NCM, and LMO as positive
electrode materials. Liu et al. [31] proposed that the Ta,cr range allowing
the self-ignition of the battery pack was 135 ◦ C to 192 ◦ C, which
decreased with the increase of SOC or the size of the battery stack. Hu
et al. [6] conducted a simulation study on whether the packaging ma­
terials of battery pack would accelerate the self-ignition, and the results
showed that as long as the thermal conductivity of filling materials was
the same as that of air, the material types had negligible effect on the
self-heating ignition. It is also suggested that increasing the gap between
cells can improve the Ta,cr of battery pack. Hu et al. [32] analyzed the
overall self-heating behavior of LIBs with four typical storage sizes
ranging from single cell to battery rack. The results showed that with the
increase of battery pack size, the Ta,cr and initial battery temperature of
thermal runaway would decrease significantly. They also developed a
3D anisotropic homogeneous transient heat transfer model to reduce the
computational cost of large-scale self-heating models, and predicted that
the Ta,cr of a large LIB ensemble would be 45 ◦ C when one million bat­
teries were stacked together [33].
At present, although many scholars have conducted experiments or
simulation studies on the topic of self-heating ignition of lithium bat­
teries, they have not considered the impact of battery type and
arrangement mode on self-heating ignition of battery packs. Heat shield
plates are usually used to mitigate the thermal runaway propagation.
However, on the aspect of preventing spontaneous combustion of LIBs
pack, research on the effect of heat shield is not involved. Therefore, in
order to analyze the influence of cathode materials, arrangement modes
and internal baffle materials of the battery pack on self-heating ignition
of batteries or battery packs, a three-dimensional self-heating ignition
model was established. At the same time, the heat transfer law in the
battery pack under different working conditions was also analyzed. This
paper can provide certain reference for the storage and transportation of
the battery pack.
2. Model introduction and validation
The main content of this section is firstly to explain the calculation
method of the model, then to introduce the specific parameters and
boundary conditions of the model, and finally to compare and analyze
the simulation and experimental results to ensure the reliability of the
model.
Fig. 1. Model geometry diagram.
3
Journal of Energy Storage 84 (2024) 110901
2.1. Calculation method
In order to analyze the self-heating behavior of the battery pack, a
model with complex three-dimensional geometry structure is estab­
lished by using multi-step reaction kinetics to simulate the oven exper­
iment. When the ambient temperature in the oven is higher than a
certain threshold, the battery will enter the thermal runaway state. This
means that the high temperature environment of the oven pushes the
batteries into thermal runaway. The 18,650 battery is used in this
model. Because some of the air around the battery pack is limited in
terms of mobility, a cuboid model with cylindrical batteries is con­
structed in this study. Taking battery pack 4 × 4 as an example, the
distance between two batteries in the cuboid is 20 mm, and there is a 5
mm spacing between the outer battery and the cuboid, as shown in
Fig. 1a. The total size of the cuboid is 88 mm × 88 mm × 75 mm. Due to
the symmetry of the geometric structure, one-eighth cuboid is selected
as the calculation volume to save calculation cost, as shown in Fig. 1b.
The numerical calculations are performed using the finite element
method (FEM) software COMSOL Multiphysics 6.0. The calculation time
is 22 h for all battery pack models and 200 min for single battery models.
2.2. Model introduction
2.2.1. Chemical kinetics module
Side reaction heat is the main heat generation of lithium battery
when thermal runaway occurs. When the local or overall temperature of
the battery reaches a certain threshold, the exothermic reaction will
occur and increase the battery temperature. If the heat cannot be
dissipated in time, new thermal reactions will be triggered constantly,
forming a chain reaction and finally reaching thermal runaway. Ac­
cording to the most common analysis of LIBs thermal runaway, the chain
reaction occurs in sequence, which can be divided into four stages.
Firstly, at 90 to 120 ◦ C, the SEI film formed on the surface of the negative
electrode is decomposed [20]. When the SEI film is decomposed, the
negative electrode loses its protection, and the lithium embedded in the
negative electrode then reacts with the electrolyte, which is the second
stage. Thirdly, at temperature above 120 ◦ C, the cathode material begins
to decompose, producing oxygen, which can react with the electrolyte to
produce additional heat [34]. Finally, the electrolyte breaks down at
high temperature and releases heat (>200 ◦ C) [35]. Table 1 lists the
detailed kinetic equations for the different reactions. The sum of the heat
generated by these four stages is the side reaction heat, which can be
expressed by Eq. (1):
L. Zhao et al. Journal of Energy Storage 84 (2024) 110901

Table 1 2.3. Model validation

Chemical kinetic model of lithium battery thermal runaway [23–25].
Chemical mechanisms Equation In the model validation process of this paper, the single battery
model was validated through the lithium cobalt oxide battery oven
SEI decomposition Qsei = Hsei Wne Rsei
dcsei
( )
Ea,sei msei experiment by Hatchard et al. [23], while the battery pack was verified
Rsei = − = Asei exp − csei by Liu et al.’s NCM battery oven experiment [31]. Therefore, the pa­
dt RT
Negative-electrode Qne = Hne Wne Rne rameters of the model were divided into two parts in this paper, as
reaction dcne dtsei shown in Tables 2 and 3. Table 2 contains the kinetic parameters of the
Rne = − = − =
( dt ) dt ( ) different cathode materials (the positive electrode parameters of lithium
tsei Ea,ne
Ane exp − cne exp −
tsei,ref RT iron phosphate batteries will be used and discussed in Section 3.1),
Positive-electrode Qpe = Hpe Wpe Rpe
( )
Table 3 contains the other parameters used in the model.
reaction dα Ea,pe Fig. 2 shows the temperature comparison between experimental and
Rpe = − = Ape exp − α(1 − α)
dt RT
simulation results of a single battery at different ambient temperatures.
Electrolyte Qe = He We Re
decomposition dce
( )
Ee me Thermal runaway is considered to occur if the temperature rise rate of
Re = − = Ae exp − c the cell is greater than the thermal runaway criterion of 10 ◦ C/min in
dt RT e
SAEJ 2464 standard [26]. In this paper, the maximum temperature
curve of the battery is used to judge whether the single battery or battery
Q = Qsei + Qne + Qpe + Qe (1) pack has thermal runaway. As can be seen from Fig. 2, the initial warm-
In Eq. (1), Qi = Hi Wi Ri, where Hi (J/g) is the specific heat release, Wi up stages are well predicted very well for all oven temperatures. Both
(g/m3) is the specific active material content, and Ri (1/s) is the reaction experimental and numerical simulation results show that the battery
rate of battery components. The reaction rate Ri obeys Arrhenius’s law will go to thermal runaway for oven temperatures of 150 ◦ C and 155 ◦ C,
(as shown in Table 1). The decomposition rate of each component’s while it will not lead to thermal runaway for 145 ◦ C. Though the
chemical reaction is solved by the domain differential equation module, maximum temperature of thermal runaway is not well predicted, the
the heat production is computed by coupling with the solid heat transfer model can well analyze the Ta,cr and qualitative behavior of the battery
module, and the temperature value in the domain differential equation when thermal runaway occurs.
will be updated. This module uses Eq. (1) to predict the total heat Ta,cr is the minimum ambient temperature that a single battery or
released by each battery under different operating conditions. battery pack required to initiate self-heating ignition. In this paper, the
maximum temperature curve of the battery pack is used to determine
2.2.2. Heat transfer module whether the battery pack goes to thermal runaway, which means that
The three-dimensional self-ignition model of the battery satisfies the even if only one battery in the battery pack has a self-heating ignition,
energy balance equation in Eq. (2): the battery pack is considered to have experienced thermal runaway. In
( ) ( ) ( ) addition, the Ta,cr of battery packs with different battery numbers was
∂ ∂ ∂T ∂ ∂T ∂ ∂T verified in this paper, as shown in Table 4. For the simulation, the bat­
ρCp,b T = Q + kx + ky + kz , (2)
∂t ∂x ∂x ∂y ∂y ∂z ∂z teries were arranged in the same way as in Liu et al.’s experiment [31].
Due to experimental error, the experiment can provide a range of values
where Q (W/m3) is the heat generation term reflected by the side re­ for Ta,cr, and the computational model can predict the exact value of Ta,
actions of Eq. (1), ρ is the cell density, Cp,b is the average heat capacity of cr. It can be seen from the table that the predicted Ta,cr values are in good
the cell, T is the temperature of the cell, and kx, ky, kz are the thermal agreement with the experimental results.
conductivity of the cylindrical battery in the x, y, z axis direction. At the
same time, it is also assumed that the specific heat, density and thermal
conductivity of the battery are fixed and do not change with the ambient 2.4. Mesh independence analysis
temperature.
In the battery pack arrangement process, the gap in the battery pack In order to determine the appropriate grid size and time step, the grid
is very small, the convection in the gap can be ignored, and heat transfer independence and time step independence are studied in this paper. The
at the interface between the battery and the air domain is calculated influence of the number of meshes and time step on the calculation re­
using the following formula: sults of the model is illustrated by taking the battery pack 4 × 4 as an
⃒ ⃒ example. The model was calculated using free tetrahedral meshes with
∂ ⃒ ∂ ⃒ 3082 (mesh 1), 4881 (mesh 2), 12,891 (mesh 3) and 24,872 (mesh 4)
ρCp,b T ⃒⃒int,b = ρCp,air T ⃒⃒ (3)
∂t ∂t int,air elements respectively. The temperature curve of the battery pack is the
key parameter to analyze whether the thermal runaway occurs and the
Heat convection and heat radiation are the main forms of heat ex­
time of thermal runaway under different working conditions. The
change that occur at the heat flux surface, and no heat goes through the
analysis results are shown in the Fig. 3a, which shows the thermal
symmetric boundary. Thermal convection is divided into natural con­
runaway time of the battery pack with different meshes. It can be seen
vection and forced convection [36], and only natural convection is
from the figure that the temperature range calculated by the four meshes
considered in this model. The calculation formula is:
is almost the same before the thermal runaway of the battery pack oc­
q″conv = hconv (Ts − Ta ), (4) curs, and the number of meshes has a little influence on the time when
the thermal runaway of the battery pack occurs. When the number of
where hconv, Ts and Ta are the convective heat transfer coefficient, the meshes varies from 3082 to 24,872, the time of thermal runaway of
battery surface temperature and the ambient temperature, respectively.
According to Stefan-Boltzmann law, the formula for calculating heat Table 2
transfer by thermal radiation is: Kinetic parameters of different cathode materials in the model [30].
( ) LCO NCM
q″rad = εσ Ts4 − Ta4 , (5) LFP

Hpe (J/kg) 3.14E5 7.9E5 1.947E5

where ε, σ are the emissivity of the battery surface and Stefan-Boltz­ Ape (1/s) 6.667E13 2.25E14 2.0E8
Ea,pe (J/mol) 1.396E5 1.54E5 1.03E5
mann’s constant respectively.
Wpe (kg/m3) 1.3E3 1.293E3 0.96E3

4
L. Zhao et al. Journal of Energy Storage 84 (2024) 110901

Table 3 3. Results and discussions

Physical and kinetic parameters of LCO used in the model.
Description Symbol Value The main content of this section is to study the influence of different
factors on the spontaneous combustion of battery pack. Section 3.1
SEI-decomposition activation energy Ea,sei (J/mol) 1.35E5 [24]
Negative-solvent activation energy Ea,ne (J/mol) 1.35E5 [24] discusses the effect of cathode material and the number of batteries on
Electrolyte decomposition activation energy Ee (J/mol) 2.74E5 [24] the Ta,cr. Section 3.2 predicts the effect of rectangular arrangement of
SEI decomposition frequency factor Asei (1/s) 1.67E15 [24] different lengths on spontaneous combustion of battery packs, and an­
Negative-solvent frequency factor Ane (1/s) 2.5E13 [24] alyzes the heat transfer law of battery pack. Section 3.3 mainly studies
Electrolyte decomposition frequency factor Ae (1/s) 5.14E25 [24]
SEI-decomposition heat release Hsei (J/kg) 2.57E5 [24]
the influence of thermal insulation panels with different physical
Negative-solvent heat release Hne (J/kg) 1.714E6 [24] properties on spontaneous combustion of battery packs.
Electrolyte decomposition heat release He (J/kg) 1.55E5 [24]
Specific negative active content Wne (kg/m3) 610 [24] 3.1. Different cathode materials
Specific electrolyte content We (kg/m3) 406.9 [24]
Reaction order for SEI decomposition msei 1 [24]
Reaction order for electrolyte decomposition me 1 [24] The cathode materials have a great influence on the thermal response
Thermal conductivity kx, ky, kz (W/m/K) 3.4 [6] of the battery, and LCO, NCM and LFP batteries are common in practical
Average specific heat capacity of battery Cp (J/kg/K) 990 [26] applications. Therefore, these three kinds of batteries are selected to
Density of battery ρ (kg/m3) 2164.7 [26]
study their Ta,cr and thermal response in the open-circuit state. Then the
Surface emissivity ε 0.8 [6]
Convective heat transfer coefficient hconv (W/m2⋅K) 7.17 [6]
3D model of a single cell is extended to the 3D model of battery packs to
Initial value of tsei tsei,ref 0.033 [6] understand the influence of the number of cells on the battery pack Ta,cr.
Initial value of α α0 0.04 [6] The number of batteries studied are 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 64 and 100 respec­
Initial value of cn cn,0 0.75 [6] tively (when the number of batteries is >1, battery packs are arranged in
Initial value of ce ce,0 1 [6]
a square way). The positive electrode parameters used in the model are
Initial value of csei csei,0 0.15 [6]
shown in Table 2.
When calculating the heat generation terms of batteries with
different positive electrode materials, the parameters in Table 2 are put
into the expression for calculating the heat of positive-electrolyte reac­
tion, keeping the decomposition heat release of other components un­
changed, so as to compare the Ta,cr of batteries with different positive
electrode materials.
It is found by simulation that the Ta,cr of LCO, NCM, and LFP battery
cells are respectively 148 ◦ C, 168 ◦ C and 201 ◦ C. It is well known that
NCM battery is safer than LCO battery in terms of fire [26], because
NCM battery has more stable cathode material, which is matched with
the predicted results of this paper, that is, the Ta,cr of NCM battery is
20 ◦ C higher than that of LCO battery. The Ta,cr of LCO battery is the
lowest, while the Ta,cr of LFP battery is the highest, indicating that the
thermal stability and safety of LFP battery are the best, which is also
proved by previous research results [37]. Fig. 4 marks the temperature
distribution of LCO, NCM and LFP cells at their respective Ta,cr, where 1/
8 of the battery is selected as the calculation domain of this model. It can
be seen from Fig. 4 that the temperature in the center of the battery is the
highest, while the temperature around the battery is low. The heat en­
ergy flows from the high temperature area to the low temperature area,
reaches the battery surface, and then reduces the battery temperature by
Fig. 2. Comparison of simulation and experimental results for a LCO battery.
heat exchange between the battery surface and the air.
Fig. 5 shows the relationship between battery pack Ta,cr and number
Table 4 of batteries. It is clear that as the number of batteries increases, the Ta,cr
Comparisons between the numerical and experimental results of Ta,cr for NCM of battery pack decreases. The decreasing trend is fast at first and then
batteries. slows down. Taking LCO battery as an example, when the number of
Number of batteries 1 3 4 9
batteries are 1, 4, 16, 36, 64 and 100, the Ta,cr of battery packs are
148 ◦ C, 128 ◦ C, 122 ◦ C, 119 ◦ C, 118 ◦ C and 116 ◦ C respectively. The
Ta,cr-sim 168 ◦ C 149 ◦ C 148 ◦ C 145 ◦ C
simulation results shows that the Ta,cr of the single cell is 20 ◦ C higher
Ta,cr-exp [31] 162 ± 4 ◦ C 153 ± 4 ◦ C 151 ± 4 ◦ C 146 ± 4 ◦ C
than that of the battery pack 2 × 2, and the Ta,cr difference between
battery packs with different sizes ranges from 1 ◦ C to 12 ◦ C. This is
battery pack is advanced from t = 20.061 h to t = 19.719 h, the error is because when the battery pack is arranged in a square, the heat in the
about 1.73 %. In order to ensure the calculation speed and complex center of the battery pack first needs to be transferred by the outside
accuracy of the model, mesh 3 (error is 0.24 % compared with mesh 4) battery, and then through the peripheral battery surface and air con­
was selected for calculation. Fig. 3b shows the influence of the time step vection heat transfer, which reduces the heat dissipation rate of the
on the calculation results, with a relative tolerance of 0.001. The results battery pack. At the same time, the air gap in the battery pack is very
show that the effect of time step is negligible. Therefore, the time step of thin, the air flow is limited, the heat convection in the battery pack can
0.1 h is adopted in this paper to save computing resources (the time step be ignored, and the heat dissipation area is relatively small. Therefore,
will be increased when necessary to ensure data accuracy). the Ta,cr of a single battery is higher than that of the battery pack. In the
battery pack, the growth in the number of batteries means an increase in
the heat source, so the Ta,cr of battery packs will decline with the number
of cells increases. However, the heat transfer path of the battery pack is
basically the same, so the Ta,cr difference between battery packs with

5
L. Zhao et al. Journal of Energy Storage 84 (2024) 110901

Fig. 3. (a) Mesh independence and (b) Time step independence for the battery temperature curve (The ambient temperature is 122 ◦ C, and the cathode material of
the battery is lithium cobaltate).

Fig. 4. Temperature distribution of cells with different cathode materials under their respective thermal runaway criticality conditions.

different sizes is smaller than the gap in Ta,cr between battery pack 2 × 2
and a single cell. This is also the reason why Fig. 5 first drops rapidly and
then slowly.

3.2. Different battery pack arrangements

The main content of this section is to discuss the influence of four

Fig. 5. The curve of battery pack Ta,cr with different sizes.
different arrangements on Ta,cr of the battery pack, and LCO battery is
selected as the research object. The number of batteries studied is 64,
and the arrays are arranged into array 1 (8 × 8 staggered), array 2 (8 ×
8), array 3 (4 × 16), and array 4 (2 × 32), as shown in Fig. 6.
In this model, the Ta,cr of battery packs in array 1, array 2, array 3 and
array 4 are respectively 118 ◦ C, 119 ◦ C, 120 ◦ C and 123 ◦ C. This means
that the more elongated and sparse the array, the higher the Ta,cr of
battery pack will be. This is because the slender battery pack not only
increases the contact area with the surrounding air, but also improves
the heat dissipation efficiency of the battery in the central position, so
the Ta,cr of the array 4 is the highest. The closely arranged battery packs
will more restrict the flow of air in the battery pack, and it is easier to
accumulate heat in the battery pack, so the Ta,cr of the array 1 will be the
lowest. Compared with Hu et al. [6] (the predicted value is 125 ◦ C), the
prediction of Ta,cr for a battery pack with 100 cells is relatively low in
this paper.
Fig. 6 shows the time each battery reaches thermal runaway in four
different arrangements, when the ambient temperature of battery pack

6
L. Zhao et al.
Fig. 6. Thermal runaway propagation paths under different arrangement modes (The time values in the figure represent the time when the battery begins to
experience thermal runaway).
is Ta,cr. As can be clearly seen from the figure that thermal runaway
occurs first in the center position and later in the edge position. This
shows that the arrangement mode only affects the Ta,cr of battery packs,
and does not affect the sequence of thermal runaway of the battery in­
side the module.
In this study, the process of the battery module self-heating ignition
is divided into four stages, namely, the thermal balance between battery
pack and ambient temperature, the spontaneous heat production and
heat accumulation of battery module, the self-ignition of module and the
heat dissipation of module. Array 2 is taken as an example to explain the
process of self-ignition of the battery pack. Fig. 7 represents the tem­
perature distribution of array 2 at different characteristic time when
battery pack under thermal runaway critical ambient temperature. Ar­
rows in the figure represent the direction of heat transfer.
When the calculation period is 0 h to 5.05 h, the temperature in the
battery pack is lower than Ta,cr, which is equivalent to the external
environment slowly heating the battery pack until the internal tem­
perature of the battery pack is the same as the ambient temperature, as
shown in Fig. 7a–c. In the later part of the first stage (4.2 h to 5.1 h), the
peripheral cells of the battery pack, such as cell 1, have begun to produce
weak heat and dissipate heat to the external environment or transfer
heat inside the battery pack. Stage II is the longest period (5.05 h to
15.322 h) in the process of self-heating ignition of the battery pack.
When the temperature of the battery pack is the same as that of Ta,cr, it
will spontaneously generate heat and flow to the low temperature region
(as shown in Fig. 7d). When the heat inside the battery pack accumulates
to a certain extent and cannot be dissipated in time, the battery in the
module will thermal runaway in sequence, which is the third stage of
spontaneous combustion of the battery pack (15.322 h to 16.189 h). Due
to the small air gap in the battery pack, the heat exchange between the
battery side and the air in the module can be ignored. It can only ex­
change heat through the two bottom surfaces, or transfer heat to the
peripheral battery by heat conduction and then dissipate heat to the
outside environment. Therefore, the central battery of the module has
7
Journal of Energy Storage 84 (2024) 110901
the worst heat dissipation and is prone to thermal runaway (as shown in
Fig. 7e–h). The fourth stage occurs at 16.189 h to 22 h, when the battery
pack temperature slowly drops until it reaches the ambient temperature.
3.3. Heat insulation panels of different materials
Due to the complex electrochemical composition of lithium battery,
it is impossible to completely avoid fire when thermal runaway occurs,
so many researchers have studied the suppression effect of heat insu­
lation plate on TR propagation. The function of the heat shield is usually
to prevent heat transfer to the battery and thermal runaway. In order to
avoid battery contact or mechanical damage during transportation,
partitions are also used in the battery module. However, the thermal
conductivity of the partition also has a certain influence on the spon­
taneous combustion of the battery pack. Therefore, Al plate with high
thermal conductivity, aerogel layer with low thermal conductivity, and
graphite composite plate with sandwich structure (high thermal con­
ductivity in the outer layer, low thermal conductivity in the middle) are
selected to study the influence on the battery pack Ta,cr.
The work of this section is to select array 2 in Section 3.2 as the
research object, to explore the influence of natural convection (case 1),
aerogel layer (case 2), Al plate (case 3) and graphite composite sheet
(case 4) on the battery pack Ta,cr. The battery’s cathode material is still
LCO, and the parameters of the heat insulation panels are shown in
Table 5.
Table 6 summarizes the Ta,cr and ton of the battery pack in these four
cases. The calculation results of this model show that the Ta,cr of battery
packs in natural state, equipped with aerogel layer, aluminum plate and
graphite composite plate are 119 ◦ C, 119 ◦ C, 121 ◦ C and 121 ◦ C,
respectively. This shows that compared with case 1, although the aer­
ogel layer cannot enhance the Ta,cr of the battery pack, it can delay the
time of thermal runaway of the module. Graphite composite plate and Al
plate can not only increase the Ta,cr of the battery pack, but also delay
the occurrence of thermal runaway compared with the natural
L. Zhao et al. Journal of Energy Storage 84 (2024) 110901

Fig. 7. The battery temperature distribution at different characteristic time in array 2 under thermal runaway critical ambient temperature (a–h), and cell location
label diagram (i).

convection battery pack. This is mainly because the thermal conduc­

Table 5
tivity of the graphite composite plate and aluminum plate is higher than
Thermal physical parameters of heat insulation panels with different materials.
that of the aerogel layer and the air, which improves the heat transfer
Item ρ (kg/ Cp (J/kg/ k (W/m/K) rate between the batteries and improves the heat dissipation rate of the
m3) K)
battery pack as a whole.
Air 1.204 1007 0.025 Fig. 8 shows the temperature distribution of the battery pack
Aerogel layer [38] 195 920 0.065
equipped with different plates when the module begins to thermal
Al plate [39] 2700 880 230
Graphite composite 2200 700 Outer Middle
runaway. Arrows in the figure represent the direction of heat transfer. It
sheet [39] structure structure can be seen from the figure that the heat accumulates in different lo­
Plane/axial cations in the battery pack equipped with the different barriers, when
800/25 0.02 the module starts to experience thermal runaway. As the battery pack is
in a state of natural convection, the cell 4 first begins thermal runaway,
that is, heat accumulation in the center of the battery pack, and the
Table 6 reasons for this phenomenon are explained in Section 3.2. When the
Thermal runaway critical temperature (Ta,cr) and thermal runaway onset time battery is assembled with aerogel layer, cell 4 and cell 5 are at the
(ton) of battery packs with different barriers. highest temperature of the battery pack. This is mainly because the
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 aerogel layer causes the heat transfer rate of the battery pack in the y
Ta,cr 119 ◦ C 119 ◦ C 121 ◦ C 121 ◦ C
direction to be higher than the heat transfer rate in the x direction. When
ton 15.322 h 16.669 h 19.125 h 18.581 h the battery pack is equipped with Al plate, the maximum temperature
difference of the battery pack is only 20 ◦ C. The results show that the Al
plate can well uniform the temperature distribution of the battery pack.
However, the graphite composite plate does not act as a bridge for
heat transfer likes the Al plate, using the outer batteries to balance the

8
L. Zhao et al. Journal of Energy Storage 84 (2024) 110901

Fig. 8. Four cases (battery pack: (a) in the natural state, (b) with Al plate, (c) with aerogel layer, and (d) with graphite composite sheet) began to occur thermal
runaway temperature distribution in their respective Ta, cr (arrows in the figure indicate the direction of heat transfer at this time).

Fig. 9. Maximum time - temperature curve of the monitored battery: (a) in natural state, (b) with aerogel layer, (c) with Al plate, and (d) with graphite composite
sheet under critical conditions.

9
L. Zhao et al.
temperature of the internal batteries. It relies on the high thermal con­
ductivity of its outer structure, so that the heat is dispersed from the x
and z directions along the baffle. This may be the main reason why cell 6
is currently at the highest module temperature position in case 4.
Similarly, the physical properties of the baffle can be used to explain
the sequence in which thermal runaway occurs in the characteristic
batteries within the module. When the ambient temperature is Ta,cr,
Fig. 9 shows the maximum temperature-time change curves of the four
characteristic batteries in the module that cell 1, cell 2, cell 3, and cell 4
(as shown in Fig. 9) under four different conditions.
Different from case 1, the sequence of occurrence of thermal
runaway in the battery pack equipped with aerogel layer is cell 3, cell 4,
cell 2 and cell 1. Moreover, the time interval of thermal runaway of
characteristic battery in case 2 is shorter than that in case 1. In case 3,
the temperature curves of characteristic cells in the module nearly
coincide, and the thermal runaway time interval is the shortest. At t =
18.765 h, the cell 3 first occurs thermal runaway, then at t = 18.774 h,
the cell 2 and the cell 4 simultaneously occur thermal runaway, and
finally at t = 18.784, the cell 1 occurs thermal runaway. In the battery
pack equipped with graphite composite plate, the cell 4 does not occur
thermal runaway, and the remaining three characteristic batteries occur
thermal runaway in the same order as the case 1, but the time interval
for the three characteristic batteries to occur thermal runaway is shorter
than the case 1.
This is because even a barrier such as the aerogel layer, which is used
as an insulating material in the experiment, has a higher thermal con­
ductivity than the air, which improves the heat transfer efficiency inside
the battery pack. When the central battery starts to produce heat, the
aerogel layer can disperse the temperature of the central battery to
transmit heat to the peripheral batteries. So the heat accumulation point
inside the battery pack will not be the center of the module, and the cell
3 will occur thermal runaway earlier than the cell 4 in case 2. This can
also be the reason for the characteristic battery thermal runaway
sequence in case 3. Since the thermal conductivity of the Al plate is 880
(W/m/K), which greatly improves the uniformity of the internal tem­
perature of the battery pack, so that the cell 2 and the cell 4 simulta­
neously occur thermal runaway. At the same time, because the aerogel
layer has the same order of magnitude of thermal conductivity as air, the
thermal runaway time interval of the characteristic batteries in the
battery pack in case 2 is only slightly shorter than that in case 1. In case
3, because the graphite composite plate has a sandwich structure, the
plane thermal conductivity of its outer plate is 800 (W/m/K), which can
quickly dissipate heat from the plane directions. At the same time, the
thermal conductivity in the middle of the sandwich is only 0.02 (W/m/
K), which reduces mutual heat transfer in the axial direction to a certain
extent, so the cell 4 does not occur thermal runaway. In addition, the
graphite composite plate is also a very light material, so it is the best
choice in the storage and transportation of lithium battery packs among
these three plates.
4. Conclusions
This paper establishes a 3D self-ignition model to explore the influ­
ence of positive electrode materials, arrangement modes and heat
insulation panels on the battery pack Ta,cr. The simulation results of the
single battery model established in this paper are basically consistent
with the previous experimental results, which can well predict the TR
behavior of the battery. The model predicts the following results:
The Ta,cr of a single battery grows with the stability of the cathode
material of the battery. The Ta,cr of LCO, NCM and LFP batteries are
148 ◦ C, 168 ◦ C and 201 ◦ C, respectively, and the Ta,cr of battery pack
drops with the growth of the number of cells. As the module become
more elongated and dispersed, the Ta,cr of battery pack would grow. The
Ta,cr of battery packs arranged 8 × 8 (staggered), 8 × 8, 4 × 16, and 2 ×
32 are 118 ◦ C, 119 ◦ C, 120 ◦ C, and 123 ◦ C, respectively. The TR path of
the battery pack is from the center to the periphery. The battery pack
10
Journal of Energy Storage 84 (2024) 110901
arrangements do not affect the TR path of the batteries in the module.
The model predicts that the Ta,cr of the battery pack in natural state,
equipped with aerogel layer, Al plate and graphite composite plate are
119 ◦ C, 119 ◦ C, 121 ◦ C and 121 ◦ C, respectively. Compared with the
battery pack in nature, the Al plate and the aerogel layer can disperse the
heat in the center of the battery pack, changing the order in which the
batteries in the module occurs thermal runaway. The high thermal
conductivity of the Al plate can better improve heat dissipation rate of
the module, so the Ta,cr of the battery pack can be increased. However,
the aerogel plate can only delay the time of spontaneous combustion of
the module, but do not increase the Ta,cr of the battery pack. The
graphite composite plate has a reasonable sandwich structure, which
does not use the outer battery to balance the temperature of the inner
battery like the Al plate. Besides, the module can dissipate heat directly
through the plane direction of the outer structure, thereby increasing the
Ta,cr of the battery pack. Therefore, the graphite composite plate is more
suitable for the storage and transportation of battery packs in these three
plates.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Luyao Zhao: Conceptualization, Software, Writing – review &
editing. Wei Li: Methodology, Writing – original draft. Weiyi Luo:
Investigation. Minxue Zheng: Supervision. Mingyi Chen: Funding
acquisition, 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
This research was funded by the National Natural Science Founda­
tion of China (52204213), the Opening Fund of State Key Laboratory of
Fire Science (HZ2021-KF08), the Innovation and Entrepreneurship Plan
of Jiangsu Province (2020), the Special Scientific Research Project of
School of Emergency Management of Jiangsu University (KY-B-09), and
the Project of Research on Educational Reform and Talent Development
of School of Emergency Management of Jiangsu University (JG-03-03,
JG-03-05, JG-04-08, JG-04-10).
References
[1] P. Sun, A review of battery fires in electric vehicles, Fire Technol. 56 (2020)
1361–1410, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-019-00944-3.
[2] S. Lin, Z. Ling, S. Li, C. Cai, Z. Zhang, X. Fang, Mitigation of lithium-ion battery
thermal runaway and inhibition of thermal runaway propagation using inorganic
salt hydrate with integrated latent heat and thermochemical storage, Energy 266
(2023) 126481, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.126481.
[3] Z. Wang, S. Chen, X. He, C. Wang, D. Zhao, A multi-factor evaluation method for
the thermal runaway risk of lithium-ion batteries, J. Energy Storage 45 (2022)
103767, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2021.103767.
[4] D. Kong, H. Lv, P. Ping, G. Wang, A review of early warning methods of thermal
runaway of lithium ion batteries, J. Energy Storage 64 (2023) 107073, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.est.2023.107073.
[5] J.N. Carras, B.C. Young, Self-heating of coal and related materials: models,
application and test methods, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 20 (1994) 1–15, https://
doi.org/10.1016/0360-1285(94)90004-3.
[6] Z. Hu, X. He, F. Restuccia, G. Rein, Numerical study of self-heating ignition of a box
of lithium-ion batteries during storage, Fire Technol. 56 (2020) 2603–2621,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-020-00998-8.
[7] Y. Zhang, S. Cheng, W. Mei, L. Jiang, Z. Jia, Z. Cheng, J. Sun, Q. Wang,
Understanding of thermal runaway mechanism of LiFePO4 battery in-depth by
three-level analysis, Appl. Energy 336 (2023) 120695, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2023.120695.
L. Zhao et al.
[8] H. Wang, Z. Du, X. Rui, S. Wang, C. Jin, L. He, F. Zhang, Q. Wang, X. Feng,
A comparative analysis on thermal runaway behavior of Li (Ni Co Mn) O2 battery
with different nickel contents at cell and module level, J. Hazard. Mater. 393
(2020) 122361, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122361.
[9] D. Ren, X. Liu, X. Feng, L. Lu, M. Ouyang, J. Li, X. He, Model-based thermal
runaway prediction of lithium-ion batteries from kinetics analysis of cell
components, Appl. Energy 228 (2018) 633–644, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2018.06.126.
[10] L. Zhao, M. Zheng, J. Zhang, H. Liu, W. Li, M. Chen, Numerical modeling of
thermal runaway for low temperature cycling lithium-ion batteries, J. Energy
Storage 63 (2023) 107053, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2023.107053.
[11] Y. Sun, D. Ren, G. Liu, D. Mu, L. Wang, B. Wu, J. Liu, N. Wu, X. He, Correlation
between thermal stabilities of nickel-rich cathode materials and battery thermal
runaway, Int. J. Energy Res. 45 (2021) 20867–20877, https://doi.org/10.1002/
er.7143.
[12] Y. Zhu, Y. Zhou, H. Gao, Z. Wang, W. Bai, D. Ouyang, J. Wang, Synergistic
inhibition of thermal runaway propagation of lithium-ion batteries by porous
materials and water mist, J. Clean. Prod. 406 (2023) 137099, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.13 7099.
[13] M. Chen, R. Yuen, J. Wang, An experimental study about the effect of arrangement
on the fire behaviors of lithium-ion batteries, J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 129 (2017)
181–188, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-017-6158-y.
[14] Z. Lu, X. Yu, L. Wei, Y. Qiu, L. Zhang, X. Meng, L. Jin, Parametric study of forced air
cooling strategy for lithium-ion battery pack with staggered arrangement, Appl.
Therm. Eng. 136 (2018) 28–40, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2018.02.080.
[15] T. Hai, A. Abidi, A.M. Abed, J. Zhou, E.H. Malekshah, H.Ş. Aybar, Three-
dimensional numerical study of the effect of an air-cooled system on thermal
management of a cylindrical lithium-ion battery pack with two different
arrangements of battery cells, J. Power Sources 550 (2022) 232117, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2022.232117.
[16] C.F. Lopez, J.A. Jeevarajan, P.P. Mukherjee, Experimental analysis of thermal
runaway and propagation in lithium-ion battery modules, J. Electrochem. Soc. 162
(2015) A1905–A1915, https://doi.org/10.1149/2.0921509jes.
[17] L. Torres-Castro, A. Kurzawski, J. Hewson, J. Lamb, Passive mitigation of cascading
propagation in multi-cell lithium ion batteries, J. Electrochem. Soc. 167 (2020)
090515, https://doi.org/10.1149/1945-7111/ab84fa.
[18] M. Chen, M. Zhu, S. Zhang, D. Ouyang, J. Weng, R. Wei, Y. Chen, L. Zhao, J. Wang,
Experimental investigation on mitigation of thermal runaway propagation of
lithium-ion battery module with flame retardant phase change materials, Appl.
Therm. Eng. 235 (2023) 121401, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2023.121401.
[19] F. Liu, J. Wang, N. Yang, F. Wang, Y. Chen, D. Lu, H. Liu, Q. Du, X. Ren, M. Shi,
Experimental study on the alleviation of thermal runaway propagation from an
over-charged lithium-ion battery module using different thermal insulation layers,
Energy 257 (2022) 124768, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.124768.
[20] M.N. Richard, J.R. Dahn, Accelerating rate calorimetry study on the thermal
stability of lithium intercalated graphite in electrolyte. I. Experimental,
J. Electrochem. Soc. 146 (1999) 2068–2077, https://doi.org/10.1149/1.1391893.
[21] A.M. Andersson, M. Herstedt, A.G. Bishop, K. Edström, The influence of lithium salt
on the interfacial reactions controlling the thermal stability of graphite anodes,
Electrochim. Acta 47 (2002) 1885–1898, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-4686
(02)00044-0.
[22] Y.-H. Chung, W.-C. Jhang, W.-C. Chen, Y.-W. Wang, C.-M. Shu, Thermal hazard
assessment for three C rates for a Li-polymer battery by using vent sizing package
2, J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 127 (2017) 809–817, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-
016-5755-5.
[23] T.D. Hatchard, D.D. MacNeil, A. Basu, J.R. Dahn, Thermal model of cylindrical and
prismatic lithium-ion cells, J. Electrochem. Soc. 148 (2001) A755, https://doi.org/
10.1149/1.1377592.
11
Journal of Energy Storage 84 (2024) 110901
[24] G.-H. Kim, A. Pesaran, R. Spotnitz, A three-dimensional thermal abuse model for
lithium-ion cells, J. Power Sources 170 (2007) 476–489, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jpowsour.2007.04.018.
[25] C.F. Lopez, J.A. Jeevarajan, P.P. Mukherjee, Characterization of lithium-ion
battery thermal abuse behavior using experimental and computational analysis,
J. Electrochem. Soc. 162 (2015) A2163–A2173, https://doi.org/10.1149/
2.0751510jes.
[26] X. He, Z. Hu, F. Restuccia, H. Yuan, G. Rein, Self-heating ignition of large
ensembles of Lithium-ion batteries during storage with different states of charge
and cathodes, Appl. Therm. Eng. 197 (2021) 117349, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2021.117349.
[27] P. Ping, Q. Wang, Y. Chung, J. Wen, Modelling electro-thermal response of lithium-
ion batteries from normal to abuse conditions, Appl. Energy 205 (2017)
1327–1344, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.08.073.
[28] X. He, F. Restuccia, Y. Zhang, Z. Hu, X. Huang, J. Fang, G. Rein, Experimental study
of self-heating ignition of lithium-ion batteries during storage: effect of the number
of cells, Fire Technol. 56 (2020) 2649–2669, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-
020-01011-y.
[29] X. He, Z. Hu, F. Restuccia, J. Fang, G. Rein, Experimental study of the effect of the
state of charge on self-heating ignition of large ensembles of lithium-ion batteries
in storage, Appl. Therm. Eng. 212 (2022) 118621, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2022. 118621.
[30] P. Peng, F. Jiang, Thermal safety of lithium-ion batteries with various cathode
materials: a numerical study, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 103 (2016) 1008–1016,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2016.07.088.
[31] Y. Liu, P. Sun, S. Lin, H. Niu, X. Huang, Self-heating ignition of open-circuit
cylindrical Li-ion battery pile: towards fire-safe storage and transport, J. Energy
Storage 32 (2020) 101842, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2020.101842.
[32] Z. Hu, X. He, F. Restuccia, H. Yuan, G. Rein, Numerical study of scale effects on
self-heating ignition of lithium-ion batteries stored in boxes, shelves and racks,
Appl. Therm. Eng. 190 (2021) 116780, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2021.116780.
[33] Z. Hu, X. He, F. Restuccia, G. Rein, Anisotropic and homogeneous model of heat
transfer for self-heating ignition of large ensembles of lithium-ion batteries during
storage, Appl. Therm. Eng. 197 (2021) 117301, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2021.117301.
[34] S. Abada, M. Petit, A. Lecocq, G. Marlair, V. Sauvant-Moynot, F. Huet, Combined
experimental and modeling approaches of the thermal runaway of fresh and aged
lithium-ion batteries, J. Power Sources 399 (2018) 264–273, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jpowsour.2018.07.094.
[35] Q. Wang, J. Sun, X. Yao, C. Chen, Thermal stability of LiPF6/EC+DEC electrolyte
with charged electrodes for lithium ion batteries, Thermochim. Acta 437 (2005)
12–16, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tca.2005.06.010.
[36] G. Sowmya, F. Gamaoun, A. Abdulrahman, R.S. Varun Kumar, B.
C. Prasannakumara, Significance of thermal stress in a convective-radiative
annular fin with magnetic field and heat generation: application of DTM and
MRPSM, Propulsion Power Res. 11 (2022) 527–543, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jppr.2022.11.001.
[37] J. Jyoti, B.P. Singh, S.K. Tripathi, Recent advancements in development of different
cathode materials for rechargeable lithium ion batteries, J. Energy Storage 43
(2021) 103112, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2021.103112.
[38] X. Rui, X. Feng, H. Wang, H. Yang, Y. Zhang, M. Wan, Y. Wei, M. Ouyang,
Synergistic effect of insulation and liquid cooling on mitigating the thermal
runaway propagation in lithium-ion battery module, Appl. Therm. Eng. 199 (2021)
117521, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2021.117521.
[39] C. Yuan, Q. Wang, Y. Wang, Y. Zhao, Inhibition effect of different interstitial
materials on thermal runaway propagation in the cylindrical lithium-ion battery
module, Appl. Therm. Eng. 153 (2019) 39–50, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2019.02.127.