The Comparison of Phase Change Material-Based Passive Thermal Protection System Performances For a Representative Cylinder Battery Package


Creative Commons License

TEMEL Ü. N.

5. INTERNATIONAL 19 MAY INNOVATIVE SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES CONGRESS, Samsun, Türkiye, 19 Mayıs 2021

  • Yayın Türü: Bildiri / Tam Metin Bildiri
  • Basıldığı Şehir: Samsun
  • Basıldığı Ülke: Türkiye
  • Sivas Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

The economic and environmental disadvantages of fossil fuels increase the interest in electric vehicles day by day. The most important problem encountered during the use of more economical and environmental friendly electric vehicles is the overheating of the battery cells used as a power source during operation. This causes some negativities such as loss of capacity of the battery cells, decrease in their efficiency and risk of explosion. Ideally, it is desired to keep the maximum cell temperature below 50oC and the temperature difference across the battery cells below 5oC. This requires using of the effective thermal protection methods during the operation of battery packs. In recent years, studies on passive thermal protection systems based on the use of phase change material (PCM) as an alternative to liquid and air-cooled active cooling systems have started to be the focus of attention. Especially, it is important to enhance the inherent low thermal conductivity of PCMs and using them for thermal protection of battery packs in terms of increasing system efficiency. In this study, firstly, thermally enhanced PCM/GNP composites were synthesized by adding 7% Graphene nanoparticles (GNPs) into PCM. The thermal protection performances of natural convection, FDM and 7% GNP / FDM in a representative cylinder package (using resistance instead of battery cell) have been experimentally compared. Thermal performance comparisons were made in terms of the effective protection time, maximum temperature and the maximum temperature difference criteria. In general, it has been determined that 7% GNP / RT-44 thermal protection is more successful at low discharge rates (2.2W and 4.4W), and RT-44 thermal protection is more successful at higher discharge rates (6.6W and 8.8W).