This page describes a representative engineering scenario for this application type. It is written to illustrate how the material is selected and what typically changes as a result. It is not an account of a specific named customer project.
The situation
A pack design must demonstrate that a single cell thermal runaway does not propagate within the required warning period. The first barrier candidate meets the requirement at 3 mm between cells. Across the pack that thickness costs enough volume to move the vehicle below its range target.
Why the trade-off is harder than it looks
Barrier thickness does not trade linearly against range, because losing cell count also changes pack voltage, current density and cooling behaviour. Pack teams therefore fight hard over each millimetre, and a barrier that is merely adequate at a large thickness often is not a viable answer at all.
The approach
- Aerogel barrier at 1.5 mm evaluated against the same propagation criterion
- The barrier also serves as the compression pad, which was already consuming stack height, so the net volume cost is lower than the barrier thickness suggests
- Die-cut with tab reliefs and locating features so assembly time does not increase
- Sample sheet supplied for in-house propagation testing before tooling is committed
What typically changes
- The propagation requirement is met without reducing cell count
- Counting the displaced compression pad, net stack height is close to unchanged
- Assembly handling improves because the part locates positively rather than being placed loose
- The design review closes on evidence from the customer own test programme, not supplier claims
Talk to us about your project
Send us your line list, drawings or target U-values and we will come back with a thickness recommendation, a bill of material and a quotation. Contact our technical team.