半固态与液态电解质大容量电池热失控产热产气特征对比

doi:10.19799/j.cnki.2095-4239.2025.0371

储能科学与技术 ›› 2025, Vol. 14 ›› Issue (10): 3982-3989.doi: 10.19799/j.cnki.2095-4239.2025.0371

半固态与液态电解质大容量电池热失控产热产气特征对比

陈晔¹^,²^,³^,⁴(), 李晋¹^,²^,³^,⁴, 储玉喜¹^,²^,³^,⁴, 马畅¹^,²^,³^,⁴, 卓萍¹^,²^,³^,⁴()

^1.应急管理部天津消防研究所，天津 300381
^2.工业与公共建筑火灾防控技术应急管理部重点实验室，天津 300381
^3.天津市消防安全技术重点实验室，天津 300381
^4.电化学能源消防安全联合创新应急管理部重点实验室，天津 300381

收稿日期:2025-04-16 修回日期:2025-05-06 出版日期:2025-10-28 发布日期:2025-10-20
通讯作者: 卓萍 E-mail:chenye@tfri.com.cn;zhuoping@tfri.com.cn
作者简介:陈晔（1988—），男，博士，副研究员，研究方向为锂离子电池、氢能火灾安全，E-mail：chenye@tfri.com.cn；
基金资助:
国家重点研发计划(2022YFE0207400);内蒙古“科技突围”项目(2024KJTW0016)

Comparative analysis of heat and gas production characteristics during thermal runaway of semisolid and liquid electrolyte lithium-ion batteries

Ye CHEN¹^,²^,³^,⁴(), Jin LI¹^,²^,³^,⁴, Yuxi CHU¹^,²^,³^,⁴, Chang MA¹^,²^,³^,⁴, Ping ZHUO¹^,²^,³^,⁴()

^1.Tianjin Fire Research Institute of Emergency Management Department, Tianjin 300381, China
^2.Key Laboratory of Fire Protection Technology for Industry and Public Building, Ministry of Emergency Management, Tianjin 300381, China
^3.Tianjin Key Laboratory of Fire Safety Technology, Tianjin 300381, China
^4.Key Laboratory of Electrochemical Energy Safety, Ministry of Emergency Management, Tianjin 300381, China

Received:2025-04-16 Revised:2025-05-06 Online:2025-10-28 Published:2025-10-20
Contact: Ping ZHUO E-mail:chenye@tfri.com.cn;zhuoping@tfri.com.cn

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

以固态电解质替代传统的液态电解质是锂离子电池本质安全水平提升的重要手段。为了探讨电解质固态化后大容量锂离子电池热失控产热产气特征改善情况，本工作将已商业化应用的磷酸铁锂体系半固态电解质电池(LFP-SS)与液态电解质电池(LFP-L)和三元体系液态电解质电池(NCM523)进行了对比研究。结果表明，LFP-SS的热失控起始温度未超过220 ℃而最高温度超过470 ℃，热安全性能略差于LFP-L；LFP-SS热失控后的单位容量产气量为0.541 L/Ah，高于LFP-L，但两种电池热失控产生混合气体各组分比例未有明显差异，且LFP-SS电池的爆炸极限范围更窄；与45 Ah半固态电解质软包磷酸铁锂(LFP)电池相比，LFP-SS大容量电池的热失控危害增强，但爆炸风险降低；NCM523电池的热稳定性和热安全性明显低于LFP电池，单位容量产气体积是LFP电池的3.4~4.2倍，但产生混合气中的氢气比例约为LFP电池的1/2，爆炸极限范围亦窄于LFP电池。

关键词: 电池, 半固态, 热失控, 产热, 产气

Abstract:

Replacing traditional liquid electrolytes with solid-state electrolytes is a critical strategy for enhancing the intrinsic safety of lithium-ion batteries. To evaluate the impact of electrolyte solidification on heat and gas generation during thermal runaway, this study compares commercially available semi-solid electrolyte lithium iron phosphate batteries (LFP-SS) with liquid electrolyte lithium iron phosphate batteries (LFP-L) and liquid electrolyte ternary battery (NCM523). The results show that the thermal runaway initiation temperature of LFP-SS does not exceed 220 ℃, while its peak temperature exceeds 470 ℃, suggesting slightly lower thermal safety than LFP-L. The unit capacity gas production of LFP-SS after thermal runaway is 0.541 L/Ah, which is higher than that of LFP-L. However, both batteries produce mixed gases with similar compositions, although the explosion limit range of LFP-SS is narrower. Compared with the 45 Ah semisolid electrolyte LFP soft pack battery, the large-capacity LFP-SS cell exhibits intensified thermal hazards but reduced explosion risk. The NCM523 battery demonstrates significantly lower thermal stability and safety than both LFP types, with gas production per unit capacity 3.4—4.2 times higher. However, its hydrogen content is approximately half that of the LFP batteries, and its explosion limit range is also narrower.

Key words: battery, semi-solid electrolyte, thermal runaway, heat generation, gas generation

中图分类号:

X 913.4

陈晔, 李晋, 储玉喜, 马畅, 卓萍. 半固态与液态电解质大容量电池热失控产热产气特征对比[J]. 储能科学与技术, 2025, 14(10): 3982-3989.

Ye CHEN, Jin LI, Yuxi CHU, Chang MA, Ping ZHUO. Comparative analysis of heat and gas production characteristics during thermal runaway of semisolid and liquid electrolyte lithium-ion batteries[J]. Energy Storage Science and Technology, 2025, 14(10): 3982-3989.

图/表 8

表1

图1

图2

图3

图4

图5

图6

表2

参考文献 15

[1]	WEI G, HUANG R J, ZHANG G X, et al. A comprehensive insight into the thermal runaway issues in the view of lithium-ion battery intrinsic safety performance and venting gas explosion hazards[J]. Applied Energy, 2023, 349: 121651. DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy. 2023.121651.
[2]	WANG Z P, YUAN J, ZHU X Q, et al. Overcharge-to-thermal-runaway behavior and safety assessment of commercial lithium-ion cells with different cathode materials: A comparison study[J]. Journal of Energy Chemistry, 2021, 55: 484-498. DOI: 10.1016/j.jechem.2020.07.028.
[3]	李磊, 李钊, 姬丹, 等. 过充电触发的LFP和NCM锂离子电池的热失控行为: 差异与原因[J]. 储能科学与技术, 2022, 11(5): 1419-1427. DOI: 10.19799/j.cnki.2095-4239.2021.0548.
	LI L, LI Z, JI D, et al. Overcharge induced thermal runaway behaviors of pouch-type lithium-ion batteries with LFP and NCM cathodes: The differences and reasons[J]. Energy Storage Science and Technology, 2022, 11(5): 1419-1427. DOI: 10.19799/j.cnki.2095-4239.2021.0548.
[4]	WANG J F, LI Y H, LIU F, et al. A comparative study of overcharge thermal runaway force-electrical-thermal characteristics and safety assessment of lithium batteries with different cathode materials[J]. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2024, 256: 124092. DOI: 10. 1016/j.applthermaleng.2024.124092.
[5]	YANG M J, RONG M Z, YE Y J, et al. Comprehensive analysis of gas production for commercial LiFePO₄ batteries during overcharge-thermal runaway[J]. Journal of Energy Storage, 2023, 72: 108323. DOI: 10.1016/j.est.2023.108323.
[6]	WANG K, WU D J, CHANG C Y, et al. Charging rate effect on overcharge-induced thermal runaway characteristics and gas venting behaviors for commercial lithium iron phosphate batteries[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2024, 434: 139992. DOI: 10. 1016/j.jclepro.2023.139992.
[7]	ZHANG J B, GUO Q Z, LIU S Y, et al. Investigation on gas generation and corresponding explosion characteristics of lithium-ion batteries during thermal runaway at different charge states[J]. Journal of Energy Storage, 2024, 80: 110201. DOI: 10.1016/j.est. 2023.110201.
[8]	ZHANG Q S, YANG K B, NIU J H, et al. Research on the lower explosion limit of thermal runaway gas in lithium batteries under high-temperature and slight overcharge conditions[J]. Journal of Energy Storage, 2024, 79: 109976. DOI: 10.1016/j.est.2023. 109976.
[9]	WANG H B, XU H, ZHANG Z L, et al. Fire and explosion characteristics of vent gas from lithium-ion batteries after thermal runaway: A comparative study[J]. eTransportation, 2022, 13: 100190. DOI: 10.1016/j.etran.2022.100190.
[10]	SHEN H J, WANG H W, LI M H, et al. Thermal runaway characteristics and gas composition analysis of lithium-ion batteries with different LFP and NCM cathode materials under inert atmosphere[J]. Electronics, 2023, 12(7): 1603. DOI: 10.3390/ electronics12071603.
[11]	JIA Z Z, QIN P, LI Z, et al. Analysis of gas release during the process of thermal runaway of lithium-ion batteries with three different cathode materials[J]. Journal of Energy Storage, 2022, 50: 104302. DOI: 10.1016/j.est.2022.104302.
[12]	LIN C J, YAN H T, QI C, et al. Thermal runaway and gas production characteristics of semi-solid electrolyte and liquid electrolyte lithium-Ion batteries: A comparative study[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2024, 189: 577-586. DOI: 10. 1016/j.psep.2024.06.111.
[13]	MEI W X, CHENG Z X, WANG L B, et al. Thermal hazard comparison and assessment of Li-ion battery and Na-ion battery[J]. Journal of Energy Chemistry, 2025, 102: 18-26. DOI: 10.1016/j.jechem.2024.10.036.
[14]	陈晔, 李晋, 吴候福, 等. 大容量储能电池模组热失控传播行为与燃爆风险分析[J]. 储能科学与技术, 2024, 13(8): 2803-2812. DOI: 10. 19799/j.cnki.2095-4239.2024.0216.
	CHEN Y, LI J, WU H F, et al. Analysis of thermal runaway propagation and explosion risk of a large battery module for energy storage[J]. Energy Storage Science and Technology, 2024, 13(8): 2803-2812. DOI: 10.19799/j.cnki.2095-4239.2024. 0216.
[15]	朱艳丽, 徐艺博, 王聪杰, 等. 不同荷电状态磷酸铁锂电池热失控温度与产气特性分析[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2024, 24(1): 143-151. DOI: 10.13637/j.issn.1009-6094.2023.0588.
	ZHU Y L, XU Y B, WANG C J, et al. Analysis of thermal runaway temperature and gas production characteristics of lithium iron phosphate batteries with different states of charge[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2024, 24(1): 143-151. DOI: 10.13637/j.issn.1009-6094.2023.0588.

参数	LFP-SS1	LFP-SS2	LFP-L	NCM523
尺寸(长×宽×高)/mm	207×174×72	207×174×72	207×174×72	194×110×50.7
标称容量/Ah	314	280	314	163
标称能量/Wh	1005	896	1005	610
工作电压/V	2.50~3.65	2.50~3.65	2.50~3.65	2.80~4.35
质量/kg	5.60	5.48	5.62	2.45
荷电状态/%	100	100	100	100

电池类型	爆炸下限/%	爆炸上限/%
LFP-SS1	5.14	59.79
LFP-SS2	5.33	57.27
LFP-L	5.15	61.63
NCM	5.69	55.80

半固态与液态电解质大容量电池热失控产热产气特征对比

Comparative analysis of heat and gas production characteristics during thermal runaway of semisolid and liquid electrolyte lithium-ion batteries

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 8

参考文献 15

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	陈晔, 李晋, 赵瑞兰, 张少禹, 储玉喜, 杨康, 廖晓雪, 蒋波, 卓萍. 不同荷电状态下电池模组热失控传播对比试验[J]. 储能科学与技术, 2025, 14(9): 3402-3413.
[2]	谈秀雯, 李凌. 局部过热下锂电池热失控特性及其热管理研究[J]. 储能科学与技术, 2025, 14(9): 3521-3529.
[3]	杨文文, 刘建学, 邓佳瑶. 柔性自支撑NiCo₂S₄@氮掺杂碳纳米纤维的制备及其储铝性能研究[J]. 储能科学与技术, 2025, 14(9): 3269-3278.
[4]	谢红伟, 时玮, 陈诗荣, 施洪生, 李华伟, 焦学文. 退役电池特征指标提取和处理方法综述[J]. 储能科学与技术, 2025, 14(9): 3581-3595.
[5]	陈峥, 胡竞元, 赵志刚, 申江卫, 夏雪磊, 魏福星. 双体系混装电池组热特性研究及风冷散热结构优化[J]. 储能科学与技术, 2025, 14(9): 3463-3475.
[6]	李秀春, 常永刚, 解炜, 李晓明, 陈成猛. 钠离子电池煤基炭负极可控制备：研究进展与展望[J]. 储能科学与技术, 2025, 14(9): 3373-3388.
[7]	陈文艳, 贺瑞璘, 常建, 邓永红. 不同形态液态金属电极的储锂机制研究[J]. 储能科学与技术, 2025, 14(9): 3290-3300.
[8]	邓拓, 周海平, 刘煜, 刘畅, 李梓恺, 吴孟强. 化学气相沉积法制备硅碳负极的研究进展[J]. 储能科学与技术, 2025, 14(9): 3354-3372.
[9]	赵岩, 刘浩, 易宗琳, 李莉, 谢莉婧, 苏方远. FEC与VC在锂离子电池石墨负极界面行为研究[J]. 储能科学与技术, 2025, 14(9): 3249-3258.
[10]	钱艺华, 赵耀洪, 王青, 郭鹏, 裴大婷, 曾以柔. 钠离子卤化物固态电解质研究进展与展望[J]. 储能科学与技术, 2025, 14(9): 3389-3401.
[11]	林季锦, 刘倩, 曲涛, 李京鲲, 黄东永, 朱晓庆, 巨星. 锂离子电池储能系统浸没液冷的技术经济性分析[J]. 储能科学与技术, 2025, 14(9): 3622-3635.
[12]	储玉喜, 马畅, 陈红光, 张少禹, 卓萍. 180 Ah钠离子电池热失控与产气特性分析[J]. 储能科学与技术, 2025, 14(9): 3611-3618.
[13]	徐成善, 李涵, 王炎, 卢兰光, 冯旭宁, 欧阳明高. 双层储能电池火蔓延特性及触发过程能量传递机制研究[J]. 储能科学与技术, 2025, 14(9): 3552-3563.
[14]	刘明轩, 陈文涛, 申韶鹏, 张世杰, 韦振, 马彪, 李丹华, 刘仕强, 王芳. 储能用锂离子电池加速老化及老化后安全特性研究[J]. 储能科学与技术, 2025, 14(9): 3530-3537.
[15]	封居强, 张成知, 陈雨杭. 基于数字孪生的高精度SOC和温度联合估计方法[J]. 储能科学与技术, 2025, 14(9): 3567-3580.