Engineering optimization framework demonstrates a lightweight multilayer composite barrier against thermal runaway in electric vehicles, indicating improved occupant safety and fire containment.
Electric vehicle (EV) battery fires pose acute occupant safety risks, yet no systematic Design for Six Sigma (DFSS) framework exists to optimize interior fire-safety barrier materials under simultaneous thermal, mass, and toxicological constraints. This study applies a full DMADV methodology to develop and verify a flame-retardant composite phase-change material (FR-CPCM) multilayer barrier for EV interior compartments. Voice-of-Customer inputs from UNECE R100 Rev.3, FMVSS 302, and automotive mass budgets were translated into five Critical-to-Quality targets: fire resistance duration tFR ≥ 18 min, areal density ρA ≤ 2.0 kg·m–2, thermal conductivity k = 0.50–0.65 W·m–1·K–1, hydrogen fluoride (HF) cabin concentration < 30 ppm, and recyclability ≥3/5. Twelve candidate material systems were screened using weighted composite scoring, and an aerogel–PCM–intumescent architecture with a halogen-free APP/EG/MDH flame-retardant system was selected. A three-factor, face-centered Central Composite Design (20 runs) was combined with Response Surface Methodology to model three performance responses simultaneously. Composite desirability optimization (D = 0.72) identified the optimal formulation: 32 wt % PCM, 20 wt % FR loading, and 12 mm barrier thickness. Verification confirmed tFR = 18 min (3.6× UNECE compliance margin), ρA = 1.80 kg·m–2, and k = 0.58 W·m–1·K–1. Failure Mode and Effects Analysis reduced the system risk priority number by 56% (400 → 176 across 12 failure modes). HF toxicological modeling identified a peak exposure of 240× the NIOSH-recommended exposure limit, establishing residual risk quantification as the primary future research priority, alongside full-scale UNECE validation and AI-assisted DFSS integration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sheta et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: