Thermal runaway (TR) safety testing requires comprehensive evaluations at various levels (component tests, cell, module, and system level). Component tests, particularly for fire protection materials, play a crucial role in mitigating the effects of TR events. This research aims to establish comparable alternative methods for representing TR conditions. The effectiveness and comparability of these new methodologies necessitate a deeper analysis of parameters and damage patterns, addressing a significant research gap.
The goal is to facilitate preliminary material selection for battery packs without extensive lithium-ion battery (LIB) testing, thereby reducing costs. Traditional TR tests often suffer from poor reproducibility, whereas the proposed alternative methods offer, for example, more consistent temperature and particle output, enabling multiple tests under identical conditions. Given the variability in cell chemistries, an ideal alternative test must be flexible enough to accurately represent different cell types. By analyzing existing data from TR tests, fundamental parameters such as temperature, pressure, and the abrasive effect on the material during TR events are determined. The alternative methods investigated include the Torch and Grid Test, Rocket Test, and Pyro Test. All testing methods were evaluated based on the temperatures generated on the front and back sides, the pressure on the plate, and the abrasive effect on various reference plates, compared with cell tests.
Notably, the Pyro Test stood out, achieving a similar temperature range and comparable abrasive effect on the reference plates. The variable increase and decrease of the pyro bodies also provide flexibility. The Rocket Test shows potential but requires further fine-tuning in the setup, such as switching to a more powerful motor. The Torch and Grid Test does not meet the desired measurement parameters.