Acupuncture test does not perform power battery how to detect safety?
A few days ago, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology released three drafts of mandatory standards, one of which is related to GB "Safety Requirements for Lithium-ion Power Battery for Electric Vehicles" (referred to as GBXXXXX-XXXX). The testing procedures have also undergone significant changes.
Looking at the requirements for single cells under GB, there are now five safety tests: over-discharge, overcharge, short circuit, heating, and temperature cycling, compared to 10 tests in GB/T 31485-2015. The acupuncture test has been removed from the single-cell requirements.
According to the draft commentary, there are three main reasons for removing the acupuncture test: first, the access management regulations are not strictly enforced; second, the IEC standards do not include acupuncture; third, it is considered inconsistent with real-world failure modes. However, some of these explanations remain unclear.
Although the acupuncture test is currently not being executed, it's important to consider the broader context of power battery safety testing. In the Annex 3 of the new energy vehicle product special inspection program, it's mentioned that the acupuncture test is temporarily not performed, but the reason is not clearly stated. Why is it only “temporary†and not “permanent� Could it be reintroduced in the future? This ambiguity leaves room for uncertainty.
Another point raised is that the IEC standards don’t use acupuncture. However, this explanation lacks completeness. While IEC62660-2 and IEC62660-3 don't include acupuncture, other standards like SAE J2464 and UL-2580 still do. Even though FreedomCAR isn't a formal standard, it includes acupuncture as a reference method. Most internal company testing protocols still require acupuncture, making this reasoning less convincing.
The third argument is that acupuncture doesn’t match real-world failure modes. While it’s true that no test can fully replicate all actual failure scenarios, many tests are designed to simulate common failure conditions. Acupuncture does mimic situations where foreign objects penetrate a battery, causing a short circuit. So, the claim that it’s inconsistent with real failure modes seems weak.
Interestingly, in the thermal diffusion test of the battery pack under GBXXXXX-XXXX, acupuncture has been proposed as a potential triggering method. This suggests that even if it’s removed from some sections, it may still play a role in others.
There are several unclear aspects in the draft consultation. As the pure electric vehicle market continues to grow, battery capacities are increasing, leading to higher risks when failures occur. For example, 25Ah, 40Ah, 70Ah, and even 100Ah NMC prismatic batteries could escalate from level 3 or 4 to level 5 in severity. While technical improvements can reduce the impact of acupuncture, they often compromise other performance aspects. This makes it a complex challenge that requires time to resolve.
For manufacturers, the removal of acupuncture might lower the difficulty of obtaining regulatory approval, helping them deliver products faster. However, it’s crucial not to lose sight of safety and reliability. Regulatory tests are just one part of the equation. Real-world product development requires maintaining high standards and continuing research into all testing methods.
In conclusion, while the acupuncture test has been removed from the draft, it’s important to remain aware that this is just a regulatory requirement. It doesn’t mean that safety should be compromised. The market is constantly evolving, and standards will likely continue to adjust. Staying adaptable and committed to quality is essential in this fast-paced environment.
Gas Explosion-Proof Motor,Explosion Proof Motors,Gas Explosion Proof Motors,Explosion Proof Electric Motor
Yizheng Beide Material Co., Ltd. , https://www.beidevendor.com