Johan Anderson

SP Fire Research,
Brinellgatan 4, Box 857,
Boras 501 15, Sweden

Johan Sj
ostr
om
SP Fire Research,
Brinellgatan 4, Box 857,
Boras 501 15, Sweden

Petra Andersson
SP Fire Research,
Brinellgatan 4, Box 857,
Boras 501 15, Sweden

Francine Amon
SP Fire Research,
Brinellgatan 4, Box 857,
Boras 501 15, Sweden

Joakim Albrektsson
SP Fire Research,
Brinellgatan 4, Box 857,
Boras 501 15, Sweden

Experimental and Numerical

Characterization of an Electrically
Propelled Vehicles Battery
Casing Including Battery Module
This paper demonstrates the possibility to predict a battery systems performance in a
fire resistance test according to the new amendment of United Nations Regulation
No. 100 Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of Vehicles with Regard to
Specific Requirements for the Electric Power Train (R100) based on careful measurements of the physical properties of the casing material, as well as modeling of the battery
modules and computer simulations. The methodology of the work consists of estimating
the heat transfer coefficients by using a gasoline pool fire model in the computational
fluid dynamics (CFD) software FIRE DYNAMICS SIMULATOR (FDS), followed by finite-element
(FE) calculations of the temperatures in the battery [DOI: 10.1115/1.4028178]

Introduction
Electrically propelled vehicles (EVs) are part of the solution to
meet emission targets set up for the transport sector in order to
control greenhouse gases and keep climatic change at an acceptable level. EVs, as well as conventional vehicles, have safety measures that must be met in order for the vehicle to be safe in all
kinds of situations and to minimize damage in case of a crash.
Keeping the weight of the vehicle as low as possible is also a key
factor in minimizing emissions and energy use.
The main goal of the European project SmartBatt Contract
No. 266074, which recently finished, was to develop an innovative
multifunctional and safe lightweight casing for the battery system
of purely electrically operated vehicles of the future. Here, the
battery casing is no longer a separate item to be considered in
the design of the bodywork, instead it is a fully integrated and
basic structural component of the vehicle body (e.g., vehicle
underbody).
In this design process several safety features were evaluated.
One of the evaluation criteria was to fulfill the fire resistance
requirement in the recent amendment of R100 [1]. The test procedure consists essentially of putting a complete battery system or a
complete vehicle over a gasoline pool fire burning for 2 min. The
requirement is that the battery must not explode during or after
this exposure. This test is conducted on a complete product (battery system or vehicle) and is thus an expensive test to conduct,
especially if the product fails. It would therefore be useful to be
able to predict the performance in such a test before the actual
final approval test, i.e., during the development phase.
During the test procedure the casing may fail to protect the
battery cells and critical temperatures may be found. Critical temperatures have been estimated to be in the range 110150  C
depending on the state of charge (SOC) and battery type [25], in
particular, as the SOC decreases the thermal reactivity decreases
indicating that a fully charged cell may have a lower critical temperature. In this paper a critical temperature on the cell on the safe

Contributed by the Heat Transfer Division of ASME for publication in the

JOURNAL OF THERMAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS. Manuscript received
January 20, 2014; final manuscript received June 24, 2014; published online August
26, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Mehmet Arik.

side had been chosen to account for all variations. Modeling of

abuse behavior of battery cells and systems has been studied previously [69]. However, most attention has been given to detailed
modeling of battery cells and not the the full system and the possibility of a thermal runaway propagating through the system.
This work shows that by careful measurement of the physical
properties of the casing material, as well as modeling of the
battery modules, computer simulations can be used to assess
the thermal impact on the battery system. The methodology of the
work consists of estimating the heat transfer coefficients by using
a model of a gasoline pool fire in the CFD software FDS, followed
by FE calculations of the temperatures in the battery.
Using this computational methodology, it was shown that
the temperatures in the battery cells were well below the specified
critical temperatures during the test. The temperatures at numerous
locations on the battery casing and the battery cells were measured
during the R100 fire test, confirming the computational result.

Test Object
A drawing of the battery casing is provided in Fig. 1. The
casing consists of a bottom plate which is filled with the battery
modules. In the final application, this will be fitted to the body
understructure of the vehicle. In the tests the vehicle understructure was replaced with a lid made of aluminum. The overall
dimension of the casing was approximately 1.6 m long, 0.8 m
wide at the rear, and 0.2 m high.
The battery casing comprised of a sandwich material consisting
of a top and bottom layer of aluminum sheet metal with a thickness
of 0.5 mm, with spheres of aluminum foam having a diameter of
4 mm as the core material. An epoxy containing a foaming agent
is used as adhesive. The aluminum foampolymer hybrid
is produced by the advanced pore morphology process [10].
The overall density of the sandwich material is q 0.94 g/cm3,
which is roughly a third of the density of solid aluminum
(q 2.7 g/cm3). This material offers a high bending stiffness at
low weight which is a crucial property for components in modern
vehicles.
Thermal Conductivity. Sandwich materials have a lower
thermal conductivity than sheet metals, which results in a higher

Journal of Thermal Science and Engineering Applications

C 2014 by ASME
Copyright V

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/17/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

DECEMBER 2014, Vol. 6 / 041015-1

Table 1 Thermal conductivity for Al hybrid foam sandwich

material
Method
ktherm [W/(mK)]

Fig. 1 Schematic of Smartbatt casing and packing of modules

with the front part to the left in the figure (figure courtesy of
Eva-Maria Hirtz at Fraunhofer LBF)

level of safety in the case of an external fire threat. To determine

the thermal conductivity (ktherm) tests were performed at SP and
Fraunhofer IFAM. Due to the anisotropic material characteristics,
measurements of ktherm are difficult and results are not very
repeatable. Three different types of tests were conducted: the transient plane source (TPS) method, the guarded hot plate (GHP)
method, and the divided bar (DB) method.
The TPS measurements [11] were performed on a Hotdisk TPS
2500 s following the slab module procedure in the ISO standard
for measuring thermal conductivity of plastics, ISO22007-2:2008
[12]. Since the material is not a homogeneous anisotropic material
but rather a complex sandwich structure, the method cannot be
used without support from specific heat measurements. These
were also conducted using the TPS technique, applied to a disk of
the material contained in a specific heat sample holder supplied
by Hotdisk. The specific heat results (two batches, each averaged
over five individual measurements) were 1007 6 4 J/kg K. The
conductivity measurements yielded an across-layer conductivity
of 0.31 W/mK but with a large margin of error of 60.18 W/mK.
In order to validate the result the material was also measured
using the GHP technique [13]. The same specimens used for the
TPS measurements were also used for the GHP measurements,
following the ISO 8302 standard procedure for measuring thermal
resistance. However, since the specimen size was slightly too
small, the outer edges of the hot plate had to be insulated in
order to prevent the measurement from being influenced by
thermal dissipation. The result of the GHP measurements was
0.37 6 0.02 W/mK, based on three consecutive measurements.
This is in line with TPS measurements and is thus used as the
temperature-independent thermal conductivity in the numerical
simulations below.
Parallel to these measurements the DB method was applied
to the same material. The results of those measurements were
0.4 W/mK, this value is within the margin of error of the other
two methods. Thus, three different methods find ktherm for the Al
hybrid foam sandwich material to be less than 1 W/(mK) (c.f.
Table 1), which is reasonable, being higher than the ktherm for
expanded polystyrene at 0.033 W/mK [6] but much less than the
ktherm for pure Al metal at 117 W/mK [14].

Pre-test Numerical Calculations and Modeling

The fire resistance test according to the test procedure as
described in Annex 8E Fire Resistance, of R100, consists of
exposure to a commercial fuel grade pool fire underneath either a
complete vehicle or under a complete battery system. The fire
exposure is 130 s. The pool fire size to be used is determined from

TPS

GHP

DB

0.31 (60.18)

0.37 (60.04)

0.4

the actual geometrical size of the vehicle or battery system

(2050 cm larger than the dimensions of the vehicle/system) and
thus the thermal attack on the tested object varies depending on
geometry of the tested object.
In the initial phase of the design some preliminary simulations
were conducted where the thermal attack was estimated based on
measurements from different pool fire sizes that had been conducted as part of the development work for appendix 8E in R100
[15] and the peak temperatures in the battery cells were calculated
in order to verify that the casing design had a chance to withstand
the final R100 test.
The work was done in two consecutive steps:

FDS simulations were conducted to determine the effect of a

fire on the battery casing using established pool fire models,
in particular it was important to calculate the heat transfer
coefficient h [W/m2 K].
The temperature field in the battery was computed using the
multiphysics FE software COMSOL Multiphysics (COMSOL) in a
simplified 2D model of the battery and the battery casing.

Poolfire Simulations. The boundary values to be used in the

FE simulations were calculated using FDS and consists of estimating the heat transfer coefficients C1 (natural convection) and C2
(forced convection) from the FDS 5.5.3 [16] model of a gasoline
pool fire which has been proved to give similar temperature
results as experiments previously [16]. The FDS software solves
the NavierStokes equations in the limit of low-speed, thermally
driven flow with an emphasis on smoke and heat transport from
fires. The algorithm used is an explicit predictorcorrector scheme
that is second order accurate in space and time where turbulence
is treated by means of large Eddy simulation in the Smagorinsky
form. The FDS software with default settings uses structured, uniform staggered grid in order to utilize the efficiency of the
fast Fourier transforms in the pressure solver. The combustion
chemistry is simplified and a generalized lumped species approach
together with the eddy dissipation concept is used for a single step
reaction between fuel and oxidizer. In the default setting radiation
is calculated using 100 discrete angles in a finite volume approximation of the radiation transport equation with gray gas. The FDS
model is not limited to these simple algorithms however any additional physics included incur increased computational costs. The
default model options have been selected based on results from a
wide variety of full-scale validation experiments [17].
The FDS simulations result in estimated heat transfer coefficients. Symmetry of the test object was taken into account in the
FE simulations and only half the main or rear part of the battery
pack was simulated, thus the poolfire was designed to be a
square with a side that is 15 cm longer. The heat transfer coefficients found in the simulations are computed using semiempirical formulae using appropriate values of the velocities and
the temperatures, see p. 59 of McGrattan et al. [16]. The heat
release rate (HRR) from the gasoline pool fire model in FDS was
higher than measured in the experiments, but still the temperatures were similar compared to the results presented in Andersson and Bobert [15] and the heat transfer coefficient was
therefore deemed to be accurate enough. A simple mesh sensitivity study was performed were the grid cell size was halved while
observing possible changes in the results. Only insignificant
changes to the temperatures and the heat transfer coefficients
were found in a change from 10 cm to 5 cm grid size and the
results were thus deemed to be accurate enough. The results
shown are from the 5 cm mesh.

041015-2 / Vol. 6, DECEMBER 2014

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/17/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Transactions of the ASME

Fig. 4 Battery module/brick configuration prior to sealing the casing prototype. Note battery module, fitted with thermocouples, in center of larger volume shown on right.

Fig. 5 Thermocouple placement, thermocouple 19 is placed against the bottom of the

casing while thermocouple 1215 is placed on the battery module and Thermocouple 17
and 19 is between the module and the casing. Note that thermocouples 16 and 18 are
placed in wells within the battery module. Thermocouple 11 is attached to the manual disconnect in the tunnel.

that measure the oxygen level within the exhaust gases; these
measurements were used to estimate the HRR of the fire. Visible
and infrared video were also recorded during and after the test.
There are some optional test setups in R100; the requirements
of the fire resistance test protocol, given the options used for this
work, are summarized as follows:

The fire was ignited 2 min after the data acquisition system was
started and was suppressed 130 s after ignition. The most notable
temperature measurements during the test were made with
thermocouple 11, which was mounted on the manual disconnect
and measured gas temperature in the tunnel connecting the
two housing volumes. The maximum temperature of this

Device under test is placed on a grating table above fuel pan,

the rack (grating table) is 50 cm above fuel surface
Fuel in pan is commercial grade positive-ignition fuel.
Fuel pan extends 2050 cm beyond extended edge of device
under test.

The only deviation from R100 is the use of foam fire suppressant. R100 specifies that either the device under test or the fuel
pan must be movable so that the fire can be immediately removed
from the device when the test time has expired. For this test, foam
fire suppressant was applied to the fuel pan 130 s after ignition of
the fuel.
Results. The temperatures measured inside the casing prototype are shown in Fig. 6 with a close-up on the temperatures that
are interesting for the simulation validations in Fig. 7; please note
that the time scale has been changed to allow for easier comparison with the simulations in Fig. 7.

Fig. 6 Temperature measurements inside the casing prototype

during the fire resistance test

041015-4 / Vol. 6, DECEMBER 2014

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/17/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Transactions of the ASME

Fig. 4 Battery module/brick configuration prior to sealing the casing prototype. Note battery module, fitted with thermocouples, in center of larger volume shown on right.

Fig. 5 Thermocouple placement, thermocouple 19 is placed against the bottom of the

casing while thermocouple 1215 is placed on the battery module and Thermocouple 17
and 19 is between the module and the casing. Note that thermocouples 16 and 18 are
placed in wells within the battery module. Thermocouple 11 is attached to the manual disconnect in the tunnel.

that measure the oxygen level within the exhaust gases; these
measurements were used to estimate the HRR of the fire. Visible
and infrared video were also recorded during and after the test.
There are some optional test setups in R100; the requirements
of the fire resistance test protocol, given the options used for this
work, are summarized as follows:

The fire was ignited 2 min after the data acquisition system was
started and was suppressed 130 s after ignition. The most notable
temperature measurements during the test were made with
thermocouple 11, which was mounted on the manual disconnect
and measured gas temperature in the tunnel connecting the
two housing volumes. The maximum temperature of this

Device under test is placed on a grating table above fuel pan,

the rack (grating table) is 50 cm above fuel surface
Fuel in pan is commercial grade positive-ignition fuel.
Fuel pan extends 2050 cm beyond extended edge of device
under test.

The only deviation from R100 is the use of foam fire suppressant. R100 specifies that either the device under test or the fuel
pan must be movable so that the fire can be immediately removed
from the device when the test time has expired. For this test, foam
fire suppressant was applied to the fuel pan 130 s after ignition of
the fuel.
Results. The temperatures measured inside the casing prototype are shown in Fig. 6 with a close-up on the temperatures that
are interesting for the simulation validations in Fig. 7; please note
that the time scale has been changed to allow for easier comparison with the simulations in Fig. 7.

Fig. 6 Temperature measurements inside the casing prototype

during the fire resistance test

041015-4 / Vol. 6, DECEMBER 2014

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/17/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Transactions of the ASME

Fig. 7 Close up on some of the temperature measurements

inside the casing prototype during the fire resistance test

Fig. 9 The heat transfer coefficients estimated by the FDS simulations for the battery casing in for the measured HRR
Table 3 Heat transfer coefficient calculated from poolfire
model in FDS before test and calculated based on actual HRR
in validation test
Test

h top

h lower

h side

Pretest
Post-test

12
7.5

10
11.7

8
7.5

Fig. 8 HRR during fire resistance test. The dashed line represent the prescribed HRR used in the FDS simulations.

thermocouple was much higher and did not recover as fast as the
others, this part of the casing was however not modeled in the
simulations. As expected, the thermocouples mounted on and in
the battery module (thermocouples 1218, shown with solid lines
in Fig. 6) experienced less severe temperature increase compared
to those mounted in direct contact with the casing.
The HRR is shown in Fig. 8 and clearly indicates the ignition
event, the growing energy of the fire, and the rapid decrease of the
fire intensity due to the foam fire suppressant. The curve is
delayed due to the transport time of the combustion gases traveling up through the exhaust system and into the analyzers.
In order to comply with the requirements of R100 the casing
prototype must satisfy the criterion that there shall be no evidence
of explosion. The casing prototype did not show evidence of
explosion.

Validation of the Simulations

In order to get an as fair validation of the FE simulations as
possible the HRR curve measured in the test was used for the
comparison. The HRR curve was approximated into a simpler
form as shown in Fig. 8 and used as input into a FDS simulation
to determine the heat transfer coefficients.
In Fig. 9, the heat transfer coefficients obtained in the FDS simulation using the HRR curve from Fig. 8 are shown as functions
of time for the lid as well as the bottom casing using the measured
HRR determined by the test in FDS. Comparing Figs. 2 and 9 it is
evident that qualitatively the two different approaches yield similar results though there are some quantitative differences. These
differences are also shown in Table 3.
A refined geometrical and physical model was created for the
thermal calculations. This model was evaluated using ABAQUS, into
which the computer aided design files of the casing were

Fig. 10 The temperatures as estimated by the COMSOL (dashed

line), ABAQUS (solid line) worst case calculations, and the test
data (dashed-dotted line) on the middle lower side of the battery
module

imported. The ABAQUS software solves similarly to the COMSOL

software the heat conduction equation with appropriate boundary
conditions. Adaptive meshing was used to accommodate for differences in temperature distribution on different parts and in total
367,796 nodes were used. The time evolution of the heat transfer
coefficients as presented in Fig. 9 was implemented in the model.
Moreover, one significant difference was that in the final manufactured battery casing the lid was made in solid aluminum and
the model was changed accordingly.
During the test, the temperatures on the inside of the battery
casing and on the battery were carefully monitored. The highest
temperature measured on the battery module was on the mid
lower side, compare TC 19 in Fig. 6 slightly above 90  C, showing
good agreement with the simulations. A comparison of the measured and computed worst case scenarios using both COMSOL and
ABAQUS is displayed in Fig. 10. Note that the temperature increase
on the battery module was significantly faster in the fire resistance
test than in the model; this phenomenon could not be explained by
the significantly higher values of the heat transfer coefficients during the initial phase of the FDS simulation as seen in Fig. 10.
However, the meshes in ABAQUS and COMSOL are slightly different

Journal of Thermal Science and Engineering Applications

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/17/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

DECEMBER 2014, Vol. 6 / 041015-5

Fig. 11 Temperature at different depths of the battery module

at the middle of the battery module in the center of rear part
after 120 s into the test

and this may have an effect when comparing the temperatures.

Another feature seen in Fig. 10 is that the temperatures predicted
by the ABAQUS simulations are higher compared to both those
predicted by the COMSOL model and those measured in the fire resistance test. The time evolution of the heat transfer coefficients
found using the FDS simulations are used in the ABAQUS simulation to test whether the high initial values could explain the fast
temperature growth.
The physical model was refined in the sense that time dependent heat transfer coefficients were imported, see Figs. 9 and 10 for
the configuration and temperature distribution of the model. However, due to limited computational resources the radiation and
convection inside the battery casing was neglected as discussed
above.
Analogous to the COMSOL model, a thin plastic film was introduced below the battery. However, due to meshing and the interactions between different regions in the ABAQUS model, this plastic
film was integrated into the battery module. The simulations show
a very steep temperature gradient over this film. Figure 11 shows
the temperature profile as a function of distance into the battery
module including the plastic film. The maximum temperature at
the bottom of the battery is then approximately 105  C which is
very close to the experiment values found during the test, represented by the black line. However, due to the very steep temperature gradient over the film it is difficult to give good estimation on
the exact temperature. Comparing the temperatures in Fig. 11 on
the outside of the battery module (zero distance) with the maximum temperatures found in the test in Fig. 7, a relatively good
correspondence is found.

Discussions and Conclusions

This work shows that by careful measurement of the physical
properties of the casing material, as well as modeling of the battery modules, computer simulations can be used to assess the thermal impact on the battery system. The methodology of the work
consists of estimating the heat transfer coefficients by using a
model of a gasoline pool fire validated by the CFD software FDS,
followed by FE calculations of the temperatures in the battery.
Using this computational methodology, it was shown that the
temperatures in the battery cells were well below the specified
critical temperatures during the test. The temperatures at numerous locations on the battery casing and the battery cells were
measured during the R100 fire test, confirming the computational
result.
The fire resistance test showed that when one battery module is
used and the rest of the space is packed with bricks the casing prototype passed the explosion criterion of the R100 fire resistance
test. If the test had been conducted using 88 fully charged battery
modules mounted in the design configuration, without bricks, the
results may not be consistent with those obtained during this

test, especially considering the higher temperatures experienced

toward the edges of the casing. Given the additional energy
supplied by the battery modules, it is possible that the casing prototype would have failed the explosion criterion in this situation.
The tests showed that conducting a test on a dummy can be useful, it is, however, important that the dummy does not have weaknesses that compromise the results of the test. In this particular
case the aluminum sheet lid used to mimic the floor structure of
the vehicle might have been a weak point as this was not as strong
as a floor structure. Further, the test made it clear that the specific
geometry of the EV battery casing and its placement underneath
the vehicle floor mean that the fire insult was much more intense
in the component version of the R100 test that was conducted,
compared to the whole vehicle version of the R100 test.
The simulations predicted that the battery would be intact after
the fire test with a maximum temperature below 100  C on the
lower boundary of the battery. Although the temperature increase
in the battery casing was faster than predicted in the fire resistance
test, the results from the simulations were found to be in good
agreement to those obtained in fire test. In particular, the temperatures on the edge of the battery cell module were predicted within
a few degrees around 95105  C from the simulations whereas the
test showed a temperature of around 90  C as seen in Fig. 10.
The difference in heating behavior found in Fig. 10 could be an
effect of thermal properties of the casing material varying with
temperature. It is known that thermal conductivity of porous materials have a much stronger temperature dependence compared to
solid homogeneous materials since internal radiation becomes
more important at higher temperatures. Therefore, the increased
heating rate at the later stage of the experiment could be due to
the thermal conductivity increasing in the aluminum foam. This
was not taken into account in the simulations.

Acknowledgment
This work was sponsored by the 7th Framework Project Smartbatt, Grant agreement number 266074 which is gratefully
acknowledged.
The authors also would like to thank all partners of the Smartbatt consortium for their valuable co-operation.

References
[1] United Nations: Economic and Social Council, http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/2012/wp29grsp/ECE-TRANS-WP29-GRSP-2012-10e.pdf
[2] Doughty, D. H., and Roth, E. P., 2012, A General Discussion of Li-Ion Battery
Safety, Electrochem. Soc. Interface, 21(2), pp 3744.
[3] Roth, E. P., and Doughty, D. H., 2004, Thermal Abuse Performance of HighPower 18650 Li-Ion Cells, J. Power Sources, 128(2), pp. 308318.
[4] Jhu, C.-Y., Wang, Y. W., Shu, C.-M.,Chang, J.-C., and Wu, H.-C., 2011,
Thermal Explosion Hazards on 18650 Li-Ion Batteries With VSP2 Adiabatic
Calorimeter, J. Hazard. Mater., 192(1), pp. 99107.
[5] Wen, C.-Y., Jhu, C.-Y., Wang, Y.-W., Chiang, C.-C., and Shu, C.-M., 2012,
Thermal Runaway Features of 18650 Li-Ion Batteries for LiFePo4 Cathode
Material by DSC and VSP2, J. Therm. Anal. Calorim., 109(3), pp. 12971302.
[6] Kim, G.-H., Pesaran, A., and Spotnitz, R., 2007, A Three-Dimensional Thermal Abuse Model for Li-Ion Cells, J. Power Sources, 170(2), pp. 476489.
[7] Spotnitz, R., Weaver, J., Yeduvaka, G., Doughty, D. H., and Roth, E. P., 2007,
Simulation of Abuse Tolerance of Lithium-Ion Battery Packs, J. Power Sources, 163(2), pp. 10801086.
[8] Kim, U. S., Yi, J., Shin, C. B., Han, T., and Park, S., 2011, Modeling the Thermal Behavior of a Li-Ion Battery During Charge, J. Power Sources, 196(11),
pp. 51155121.
[9] Spotnitz, R., and Muller, R., 2012, Simulation of Abuse Behavior of Li-Ion
Batteries, Electrochem. Soc. Interface, 21(2), pp 5760.
[10] Weise, J., Ruparelia, D., Wichmann, M., and Baumeister, J., 2010,
Investigation of the Mechanical Behaviour of Particulate AluminiumEpoxy
Hybrid Foams in Dependence Upon the Metal and Polymer Content, International Conference on Cellular Materials, CellMat 2010, Dresden, Germany,
Oct. 2729, pp. 340346.
[11] Gustafsson, S. E., 1991, Transient Plane Source Techniques for Thermal Conductivity and Thermal Diffusivity Measurements of Solid Materials, Rev. Sci.
Instrum., 62(3), pp. 797804.
[12] ISO 22007-2, 2008, PlasticsDetermination of Thermal Conductivity and
Thermal DiffusivityPart 2: Transient Plane Heat Source (Hot Disc) Method,
ISO, Geneva, Switzerland.

041015-6 / Vol. 6, DECEMBER 2014

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/17/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Transactions of the ASME

[13] Hammerschmidt, U., 2002, Guarded Hot-Plate (GHP) Method: Uncertainty

Assessment, Int. J. Thermophys., 23(6), pp. 15511570.
[14] Lide, D. R., ed., 1995, CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 76th ed.,
CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
[15] Andersson, P., and Bobert, M., 2012, Developing a Fire Resistance Test for
Vehicles With Rechargeable Energy Storage Systems, 2nd International
Conference on Fires in Vehicles, Chicago, IL, Sept. 2728, pp. 269273.
[16] McGrattan, K., Hostikka, S., McDermott, R., Floyd, J., Weinschenk, C., and
Overholt, K., 2010, Fire Dynamics Simulator (Version 5)Users Guide,
NIST Special Publication No. 1019-5.

[17] McGrattan, K., Hostikka, S., McDermott, R., Floyd, J., Weinschenk, C., and
Overholt, K., 2010, Fire Dynamics Simulator (Version 5)Users Guide,
NIST Special Publication 1018.
[18] Kruger, I., Sievers, M., and Scmitz, G., 2009, Thermal Modeling of
Automotive Lithium-Ion Cells Using the Finite Elements Method in
Modelica, Proceedings of 7th Modelica Conference, Como, Italy. Sept. 2022,
pp. 18.
[19] Pesaran, A., and Keyser, M., 2001, Thermal Characteristics of Selected EV
and HEV Batteries, Proceedings of the Annual Battery Conference: Advances
and Applications, Long Beach, CA, Jan. 912, pp. 219225.

Journal of Thermal Science and Engineering Applications

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/17/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

DECEMBER 2014, Vol. 6 / 041015-7