Battery cabinet quality indicators

In this rapidly evolving field, while key performance indicators can be readily accessed, the performance evaluation and comparison of battery technologies remain a challenging task, due to the huge variation in the quality and quantity of data reported and the lack of a common methodology.

Poor battery quality can lead to major safety and reliability issues in the field in applications including consumer electronics [1, 2], electric vehicles [3, 4], aviation, and more. However, detecting latent cell defects —which are responsible for these battery quality issues—during production is notoriously challenging.

For a successful implementation, the suggested reporting methodology needs to be adopted by most scientists and implemented in all battery research projects for monitoring the progress beyond the state-of-the-art. Editors and Board members of high- level scientific journals could greatly assist in the implementation of such recommendations.

This technique is often combined with digital photography. While dissection is a standard procedure in battery QC, this method is (obviously) destructive as well as quite labor-intensive and slow. Pros: High-resolution, detailed views into internal cell structures. Cons: Destructive, labor-intensive, and slow (~hours).

Whilst this development will not have an immediate impact on the benchmarking of battery technologies, it will set a best practice for the reporting of results. The impact of implementing such methodologies should become apparent within 3-4 years of its adoption in research projects and journal publications.

Nearly every battery scientist and engineer is familiar with cycling and storage tests. These are long-term performance tests where cells are cycled (charged/discharged) or left at rest to observe degradation over time.