Battery Safety Knowledge Hub

Technical Risk

Thermal Propagation

A cell in thermal runaway is the source. Thermal propagation is the system problem.

The design objective is not simply to add more safety components. It is to understand how the initiating cell transfers energy or creates secondary faults, then interrupt the actual escalation pathway.

MAIN PROPAGATION PATHWAYS

Thermal propagation does not happen through one mechanism. A failing cell can expose the surrounding system through several thermal, mechanical and electrical pathways at the same time.

Conduction via Shared Interfaces
Heat transfers directly through cell-to-cell contact, compression structures, busbars, cooling plates, and other shared hardware. In tightly integrated systems, these interfaces often serve as efficient thermal bridges to adjacent cells.

Convection and Direct Hot-Gas Impingement
Hot vent gases and electrolyte vapours may flow directly onto adjacent cells or components. The combination of elevated temperature, high velocity, and localized exposure imposes significant thermal loads and accelerates propagation.

Thermal Radiation and Flame Exposure
When ignition or sustained flame is present, neighbouring cells and system components are exposed to thermal radiation and direct flame. This pathway becomes increasingly significant as the event extends beyond the initial cell.

Hot Particles and Ejected Material
Thermal runaway may eject hot particles, molten material, cell fragments, or components of the electrode assembly. These materials can cause highly localized heating, damage protective barriers, and initiate further failure mechanisms.

Electrical Short-Circuiting, Insulation Damage, and Arcing
Heat, ejected particles, and mechanical damage can compromise insulation and electrical connections. These failures may result in secondary short circuits, arcing, and additional sources of heat or ignition beyond the initial cell failure.

System-Level Gas Accumulation and Ignition
Released flammable gases may migrate and accumulate within modules, packs, racks, or enclosures. If both a flammable concentration and an ignition source are present, a cell-level event can escalate into a broader fire, deflagration, or explosion hazard.

Collectively, these pathways determine how a localized thermal runaway event can propagate to the next vulnerable component within the system. Effective propagation control begins by identifying the dominant pathways within a specific system architecture and designing targeted mitigation strategies, rather than relying solely on generic safety measures.

DESIGN LEVELS

Thermal propagation should not be controlled by a single component or safety feature. A robust design incorporates multiple layers of protection, with each layer responsible for limiting escalation at a distinct system boundary.

Cell Level: Reduce Source Severity
The first protective layer is the cell itself. Chemistry, cell design, usable state-of-charge (SOC) window, and venting behaviour determine the quantity of heat, gas, and material released during an initiating failure.

Module or Cell Stack Level: Interrupt Direct Transfer
At this level, the objective is to prevent or delay failure propagation to adjacent cells. Cell spacing, barriers, compression design, cooling interfaces, and controlled vent paths are employed to interrupt primary propagation pathways.

Pack or Enclosure Level: Prevent Architectural Amplification
The pack is responsible for managing emissions from the initiating module. Vent routing, electrical separation, internal partitioning, pressure management, and thermal design are implemented to prevent a localized failure from escalating to a pack-wide event.

System or Site Level: Prevent Spread Beyond Intended Boundaries
At the highest level, the primary objective is containment. Separation distances, ventilation, pressure relief, suppression systems, monitoring, and emergency response protocols are utilized to prevent the event from spreading to adjacent racks, containers, equipment, or occupied areas.

Collectively, these layers establish a controlled escalation strategy from the cell level to the site level. The objective is not to assume that cell failure will never occur; rather, each design layer should limit the demands placed on subsequent layers, ensuring that failures remain within the smallest practical boundary.

MITIGATION QUESTIONS

The mitigation process should not begin with the selection of materials, sensors, or suppression systems. Instead, mitigation should begin with an analysis of the most probable failure propagation mechanisms and an assessment of whether the proposed countermeasure effectively interrupts that pathway.

What is the dominant pathway?
Prior to selecting a mitigation measure, it is essential to identify the mechanisms responsible for propagating the failure, such as conduction, hot gas, particles, radiation, electrical faults, or combinations thereof.

What is the available time before the subsequent cell reaches critical conditions?
The propagation delay determines the intervention window and should be compared with detection, decision, and response times to assess whether active mitigation can be implemented rapidly enough.

Does the barrier effectively interrupt the failure pathway, or does it only provide the appearance of protection in documentation?
A barrier is effective only if it blocks the relevant heat-transfer or failure propagation mechanism. Even a highly rated material may fail to protect the system if hot gas, particles, or conductive hardware bypass the barrier.

What is the trajectory of gas and particle movement within the system?
Gas and ejecta should be directed along a predetermined path away from vulnerable cells, electrical components, and confined volumes. If the system does not control this trajectory, the failure may exploit an unintended pathway.

Is the cooling system capable of continued operation during fault conditions?
Cooling can delay failure propagation by removing heat from adjacent cells, but only if it remains operational during the event. Therefore, fault logic, power supply, and coolant integrity are critical considerations.

Are high-voltage (HV) components adequately separated from vent streams?
Hot gas and conductive particles must not be permitted to contact busbars, connectors, or other high-voltage components, as this can result in insulation failure, short-circuiting, or arcing.

What are the subsequent effects following the main venting event?
The thermal load persists after the main venting ceases. Residual heat, ongoing combustion, hot surfaces, and continued heat transfer to adjacent cells can still cause delayed propagation.

Collectively, these questions evaluate whether the mitigation strategy addresses the actual escalation mechanisms rather than merely incorporating additional safety features. A robust design should clearly articulate which failure pathway is being controlled, quantify the time gained, and specify the response if the initial mitigation layer fails.

KEY PYRALIS PRINCIPLE

The best design is not necessarily the one with the most safety features. It is the one where the escalation pathway has been understood and deliberately designed against.

Sectors we support

Supporting organisations that design, test, evaluate, insure and shape battery and energy systems.

From battery developers and test facilities to insurers, system integrators and industry bodies.

BESS, Passenger & Commercial EV

Test Facilities, Standards & Industry Bodies

Battery Materials and Components

Fire protection & safety providers

Investors, Insurers & Due-diligence Teams

System integrators & OEMs

Let's start with focus session

Discuss a Battery Safety Problem

Battery safety problem, technical decision, commercial growth challenge or something in-between the two.