ReviewMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Cellular Structures for Electric Vehicle Battery Systems: A Critical Review and Design Guidelines.
Review in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Architected cellular materials are increasingly proposed for electric-vehicle (EV) battery systems as lightweight solutions that can combine crashworthiness, intrusion mitigation and, in some cases, thermal functionality. However, the literature remains fragmented across heterogeneous architectures, metrics and test conditions, which often prevents design-oriented comparison and limits transferability to pack-level implementation. This review consolidates the state of the art on cellular structures for EV battery applications, covering foams, honeycombs, lattice/TPMS architectures and auxetic or bio-inspired concepts. A unified, design-oriented comparative framework is introduced to discuss mechanical performance (e.g., specific energy absorption, peak crushing force, deformation control), thermal considerations and manufacturing-scalability constraints under an EV battery-pack perspective. By explicitly linking cellular architecture selection to pack safety and integration requirements, including limited crush space, joining interfaces, enclosure stiffness and emerging "pack-as-a-structure" concepts, this work translates dispersed results into actionable engineering insights. Finally, decision-oriented guidelines and a selection flowchart are proposed to support early-stage architecture choice and highlight the most critical research gaps, particularly in multiphysics validation, standardized benchmarking and production-ready integration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.