Optimized Nail for Penetration Test on Lithium-Ion Cells and Its Utilization for the Validation of a Multilayer Electro-Thermal Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript designs an optimized nail for battery penetration tests and discusses its application to the validation of an electrothermal model. This work is meaningful, however, it requires a great improvement before acceptance.

1. Despite a detailed electrothermal model for accurately capturing the electrothermal behavior of the battery, a variety of widely used electrothermal models should be reviewed thoroughly in the Introduction, such as a control-oriented electrothermal model for pouch-type electric vehicle batteries proposed by Hu.
2. Key expressions of the electrical and thermal submodels proposed in this manuscript and the coupling mechanism should be provided.
3. For developing an accurate 3-D electrothermal model for pouch-type lithium-ion batteries, more detailed battery parameters such as the specific heat capacity, thermal conductivity, and density of each micro component should be given in Table 1.
4. The authors should give an explanation for the decision of giving the potential variation of the two tabs in Fig. 9, which in fact cannot be verified experimentally.
5. Severe internal short circuits actually started before the nail was fully penetrated, which led to significant variations in battery voltage, SOC, and temperature, and it seemed unreasonable to not consider this stage in the simulation.
6. For battery modeling, it is recommended to cite a handful of studies about electrochemical model, such as in “doi.org/10.1109/TTE.2021.3050987”.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for your comments and suggestions. We believe that your input triggered further internal discussions and increased the quality of the manuscript. 

Best Regards,
Luigi Aiello
Wolfgang Sinz

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Detail feedback is attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for your comments and suggestions. Please forgive us if in some cases we provided too long explanations, the intention was to be as much clear as possible.

Best Regards,
Luigi Aiello
Wolfgang Sinz

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

After careful revision by the authors, the quality of the paper has been improved. I have no more questions

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks to the authors for considering most of the corrections and feedback. The present quality is satisfactory after revision.