Encontre seu próximo livro favorito

Torne'se membro hoje e leia gratuitamente por 30 dias.
Lead-Acid Batteries for Future Automobiles

Lead-Acid Batteries for Future Automobiles

Ler amostra

Lead-Acid Batteries for Future Automobiles

1,243 página
Lançado em:
Feb 21, 2017


Lead-Acid Batteries for Future Automobiles provides an overview on the innovations that were recently introduced in automotive lead-acid batteries and other aspects of current research. Innovative concepts are presented, some of which aim to make lead-acid technology a candidate for higher levels of powertrain hybridization, namely 48-volt mild or high-volt full hybrids.

Lead-acid batteries continue to dominate the market as storage devices for automotive starting and power supply systems, but are facing competition from alternative storage technologies and being challenged by new application requirements, particularly related to new electric vehicle functions and powertrain electrification.

  • Presents an overview of development trends for future automobiles and the demands that they place on the battery
  • Describes how to adapt LABs for use in micro and mild hybrid EVs via collector construction and materials, via carbon additives, via new cell construction (bipolar), and via LAB hybrids with Li-ion and supercap systems
  • System integration of LABs into vehicle power-supply and hybridization concepts
  • Short description of competitive battery technologies
Lançado em:
Feb 21, 2017

Relacionado a Lead-Acid Batteries for Future Automobiles

Livros relacionados
Artigos relacionados

Amostra do Livro

Lead-Acid Batteries for Future Automobiles - Elsevier Science

Lead-Acid Batteries for Future Automobiles


Jürgen Garche

Eckhard Karden

Patrick T. Moseley

David A.J. Rand

Table of Contents

Cover image

Title page


List of Contributors

About the Editors



Part 1. Overview

1. Development trends for future automobiles and their demand on the battery

1.1. Lead–acid batteries in automobiles: still good enough?

1.2. Requirements in the automotive industry

1.3. Vehicle level requirements

1.4. Low-volt system topology options for advanced power supply and mild powertrain hybridization

1.5. Upcoming storage system requirements

1.6. Discussion

List of abbreviations

2. Overview of batteries for future automobiles

2.1. General requirements for batteries in electric vehicles

2.2. Energy storage in lead–acid batteries

2.3. Alkaline batteries

2.4. High-temperature sodium batteries

2.5. Lithium-ion batteries

2.6. Power sources after Lithium-ion

2.7. Supercapacitors

2.8. Fuel cells

3. Lead–acid battery fundamentals

3.1. Principles of operation

3.2. Open-circuit voltage

3.3. Voltage during discharge and charge

3.4. Designs and manufacture

3.5. Charging

3.6. Heat management in lead–acid batteries

3.7. Failure modes and remedies

3.8. Capacity

3.9. Self-discharge

3.10. Dynamic charge-acceptance

3.11. Summing up

Abbreviations, acronyms and initialisms

4. Current research topics for lead–acid batteries

4.1. Design and materials

4.2. Operating strategy

4.3. Battery monitoring

4.4. Dual battery systems

4.5. Discussion

Part 2. Battery Technology

5. Flooded starting-lighting-ignition (SLI) and enhanced flooded batteries (EFBs): State-of-the-art

5.1. History of lead–acid batteries in combustion engine cars

5.2. Board net architecture and car requirements on batteries

5.3. Flooded automotive battery design and production technologies: status and latest improvements

5.4. Market trends

Abbreviations, acronyms and initialisms

6. Automotive absorptive glass-mat lead–acid batteries: State of the art

6.1. Lead–acid batteries in vehicle electrical systems

6.2. Global standardization of automotive AGM batteries

6.3. Vehicle systems: voltages and battery technologies

6.4. Launch of automotive AGM batteries

6.5. Start–stop: factor of success for AGM batteries

6.6. Advantages of AGM over flooded automotive batteries

6.7. Cycling endurance of AGM batteries

6.8. Capability for dynamic charge-acceptance

6.9. Packaging in vehicles: heat-resilience of AGM batteries

6.10. Future applications for AGM batteries

6.11. Replacement of spent AGM batteries

6.12. Summary: automotive AGM batteries

Abbreviations, acronyms and initialisms

7. Performance-enhancing materials for lead–acid battery negative plates

7.1. Introduction

7.2. Expanders

7.3. Structural influences

7.4. Challenge of high-rate partial state-of-charge duty

7.5. Addition of carbon

7.6. Types of battery configuration

7.7. Understanding the carbon effect

7.8. Best choice of carbon

Abbreviations, acronyms and initialisms

8. Positive active-materials for lead–acid battery plates

8.1. Introduction

8.2. Operating principles

8.3. Positive plate construction

8.4. Manufacturing process

8.5. Failure modes and remedies

8.6. Future developments

Abbreviations, acronyms and initialisms

9. Current-collectors for lead–acid batteries

9.1. Introduction

9.2. Reactions at the surface of the positive grid

9.3. Antimony-free grids

9.4. Lead–calcium alloys

9.5. Tin additions to pure lead

9.6. Tin additions to lead–calcium alloys

9.7. Bookmould-cast lead–calcium–tin grids

9.8. Rolled lead–calcium–tin grids

9.9. Corrosion of lead–calcium–tin alloy grids

9.10. Grids for elevated temperatures

9.11. Spiral-wound grids

9.12. Novel grids designs

9.13. Composite grids

9.14. Thin grids

9.15. Straps and posts

Abbreviations, acronyms and initialisms

10. Alternative current-collectors

10.1. Introduction

10.2. Function, design and characteristic parameters of lead–acid battery current-collectors

10.3. Metallized injection moulded plastic grids

10.4. Copper and aluminium grids

10.5. Titanium current-collectors

10.6. Alternative current-collectors based on fibrous materials

10.7. Foam grids

10.8. Carbon honeycomb grids

10.9. Conclusion

Abbreviations, acronyms and initialisms

11. Cell design for high-rate operation

11.1. The reason why we need high-rate operation and why it is so critical and challenging

11.2. Fundamental theoretical considerations about high-rate operation

11.3. Key parameters for high-rate plate design

11.4. Alternative plate and cell designs for high-rate operation

11.5. Additional plate and cell design parameters and their impact

11.6. Outlook for the lead–acid design for further advanced high-rate applications

List of abbreviations

12. Towards sustainable road transport with the UltraBattery™

12.1. Most promising and affordable designs of hybrid electric vehicle

12.2. Failure mechanism of lead–acid batteries under high-rate partial state-of-charge duty

12.3. Improving the cycleability of lead–acid batteries under high-rate partial state-of-charge duty

12.4. The UltraBattery™

12.5. The UltraBattery™ tomorrow: challenges and prospects

12.6. Concluding remarks

Abbreviations, acronyms and initialisms

Part 3. Application Technology

13. Lead–acid battery operation in micro-hybrid and electrified vehicles

13.1. Introduction

13.2. Storage system requirements and operating strategies

13.3. Charging strategies

13.4. Lead–acid batteries in electric and hybrid vehicles

14. Monitoring techniques for 12-V lead–acid batteries in automobiles

14.1. Historic overview towards battery sensors

14.2. Requirements of battery sensors

14.3. Lead–acid battery monitoring functions

14.4. Algorithms for battery state detection of lead–acid batteries

14.5. Validation of battery state detection output signals

14.6. Field experience

14.7. Outlook on future development

15. Dual battery systems for 12-V automotive power supply

15.1. Outline

15.2. Drivers for dual storage

15.3. Requirements for a dual storage power-supply system

15.4. Potential topologies

15.5. Integration of the auxiliary battery into the vehicle and its electrical system

15.6. Market trends

16. Basics of lead–acid battery modelling and simulation

16.1. Introduction

16.2. Levels of battery modelling

16.3. Specific challenges for modelling lead–acid batteries

16.4. Models for electrical performance

16.5. Models for battery ageing

Abbreviations, acronyms and initialisms

17. Batteries for heavy trucks

17.1. Introduction

17.2. Dimensions

17.3. Key requirements

17.4. Electrical network voltage for heavy trucks

17.5. Truck battery design considerations

17.6. Advanced truck battery technologies

17.7. Advanced system integration of truck batteries

17.8. Summary

Abbreviations, acronyms and initialisms

18. Lead–acid batteries for E-bicycles and E-scooters

18.1. Introduction

18.2. Description of electric two wheelers

18.3. Market

18.4. Characteristics of electric two wheelers

18.5. Battery

18.6. Summary

Abbreviations, acronyms and initialisms

Part 4. Product Life Cycle

19. Standards and tests for lead–acid batteries in automotive applications

19.1. Standardization organizations and different levels of standardization

19.2. Obligations of standards and different kind of standards

19.3. Standardization in different regions and list of applicable standards for lead–acid batteries in automotive applications

19.4. Procedure to publish a new standard

19.5. Battery sizes in comparison and trends

19.6. Comparison of typical lead–acid battery requirements and test procedures

19.7. External standards in comparison to original equipment specifications

20. Recycling concepts for lead–acid batteries

20.1. Introduction

20.2. The process

20.3. Removal of sulfur

20.4. Battery breaking

20.5. Lead smelting

20.6. Lead refining

20.7. Electrochemical practice

20.8. Recent developments

20.9. Conclusion

Abbreviations, acronyms and initialisms

Part 5. Outlook

21. Lead–acid batteries for future automobiles: Status and prospects

21.1. Tomorrow's automobile batteries: drivers for change

21.2. Electrified vehicles and the demands placed on their batteries

21.3. Restrictions on the use of lead

21.4. Can lead–acid battery technology keep pace with increasing electrification of vehicles?

21.5. Closing remarks

Abbreviations, acronyms and initialisms





Radarweg 29, PO Box 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, Netherlands

The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom

50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States

Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.

This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).


Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary.

Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.

To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-0-444-63700-0

For information on all Elsevier publications visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: John Fedor

Acquisition Editor: Kostas Mariniakis

Editorial Project Manager: Christine McElvenny

Production Project Manager: Vijayaraj Purushothaman

Designer: Matthew Limbert

Typeset by TNQ Books and Journals

List of Contributors

J. Albers,     Johnson Controls Autobatterie GmbH & Co. KGaA, Hannover, Germany

J. Badeda

RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

Jülich Aachen Research Alliance, Jülich, Germany

IRWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

M. Bremmer,     Robert Bosch GmbH, Leonberg, Germany

C. Chumchal,     Ford-Werke GmbH, Köln, Germany

M. Denlinger,     Ford Motor Company, Research & Innovation Centre Dearborn, Dearborn, MI, United States

J.P. Douady,     Exide Technologies, Gennevilliers, France

S. Fouache,     Exide Technologies, Gennevilliers, France

J. Furukawa,     The Furukawa Battery Co., Ltd., Yokohama, Japan

J. Garche,     Fuel Cell and Battery Consulting, Ulm, Germany

M. Gelbke,     Akkumulatorenfabrik Moll GmbH + Co. KG, Bad Staffelstein, Germany

T. Hildebrandt,     Johnson Controls Autobatterie GmbH & Co. KGaA, Hannover, Germany

M. Huck

RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

Jülich Aachen Research Alliance, Jülich, Germany

J. Kabzinski

RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

Jülich Aachen Research Alliance, Jülich, Germany

E. Karden,     Ford Motor Company, Research & Innovation Centre Aachen, Aachen, Germany

A. Kirchev,     French Atomic and Alternative Energy Commission (CEA-LITEN), Le Bourget du Lac, France

J. Kizler,     Robert Bosch GmbH, Leonberg, Germany

M. Königsmann,     Robert Bosch GmbH, Leonberg, Germany

B. Kronenberg,     Robert Bosch GmbH, Leonberg, Germany

M. Kuipers,     Forschungszentrum Jülich, Aachen, Germany

D. Kurzweil,     Ford-Werke GmbH, Köln, Germany

P. Kurzweil,     University of Applied Sciences, Amberg, Germany

M. Kwiecien

RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

Jülich Aachen Research Alliance, Jülich, Germany

L.T. Lam,     CSIRO Energy Flagship, Clayton South, VIC, Australia

N. Maleschitz,     Exide Technologies

E. Meissner,     Johnson Controls Autobatterie GmbH & Co. KGaA, Hannover, Germany

A.H. Mirza,     RSR Technologies, Inc., Dallas, TX, United States

C. Mondoloni,     PSA PEUGEOT CITROËN, Centre Technique La Garenne-Colombes, La Garenne-Colombes, France

P.T. Moseley,     The Advanced Lead–Acid Battery Consortium, Durham, NC, United States

T.J. Moyer,     East Penn Manufacturing Company, Inc., Lyon Station, PA, United States

A. Osada,     Battery Association of Japan (BAJ), Tokyo, Japan

S. Peng,     Leoch International Technology Ltd, Foothill Ranch, CA, United States

K. Peters,     Glen Bank, Worsley, Manchester, United Kingdom

R.D. Prengaman,     RSR Technologies, Inc., Dallas, TX, United States

D.A.J. Rand,     CSIRO Energy Flagship, Clayton South, VIC, Australia

M. Ruch,     Robert Bosch GmbH, Leonberg, Germany

J.F. Sarrau,     Exide Technologies, Gennevilliers, France

D.U. Sauer

RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

Jülich Aachen Research Alliance, Jülich, Germany

IRWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

C. Schmucker,     Robert Bosch GmbH, Leonberg, Germany

E. Schoch,     Robert Bosch GmbH, Leonberg, Germany

J. Schöttle,     Robert Bosch GmbH, Leonberg, Germany

P. Schröer

RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

Jülich Aachen Research Alliance, Jülich, Germany

K. Smith,     East Penn Manufacturing Co., Inc., Lyon Station, PA, United States

R. Wagner,     Akkumulatorenfabrik MOLL, Bad Staffelstein, Germany

A. Warm,     Ford Motor Company, Research & Innovation Centre Aachen, Aachen, Germany

J. Wirth

RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

Jülich Aachen Research Alliance, Jülich, Germany

About the Editors

Jürgen Garche

Jürgen received his PhD with work in theoretical electrochemistry from the Dresden University of Technology (DUT) in Germany in 1970 and the Dr. Habil for research in applied electrochemistry by the same university in 1982.

He worked from 1970 to 1990 as senior researcher for batteries and fuel cells at the DUT. From 1991 to 2004, he was head of the Electrochemical Energy Storage and Energy Conversion Division of the Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research in Ulm, Germany. After his pension, he founded the consulting office Fuel Cells and Batteries (FCBAT) in Ulm, where he is still active.

He was visiting professor at the Shandong University (China) and Sapienza University of Rome (Italy), and is currently senior professor at the Ulm University. He has more than 300 publications and 10 patents, and is co-editor of five books and two journals.

Eckhard Karden

Eckhard received his diploma in physics in 1995 and his PhD in electrical engineering in 2001 from Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule (RWTH) Aachen University of Technology with projects on CAE modelling and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy of lead–acid batteries. Having spent 2.5  years as senior engineer at Institut für Stromrichtertechnik und Elektrische Antriebe (ISEA) Institute for Power Electronics and Electrical Drives of the same university, he joined Ford Motor Company in the newly established Research and Innovation Center (RIC) in Aachen, Germany. He has been focussing on batteries for low-voltage power supply and micro- and mild hybrid applications. As a Technical Specialist, he is working closely with Ford's global engineering centres and has been involved in the conceptual work, specifications, and component verification plans for the enhanced flooded batteries, battery sensors, and charging strategies that went into Ford's first generations of microhybrid vehicles. He is an active member of German, European, and international standardisation working groups for stop/start and microhybrid batteries.

Patrick T. Moseley

Pat was awarded a PhD for crystal structure analysis in 1968 by the University of Durham, UK, and a D.Sc. for research publications in materials science, by the same university, in 1994.

He worked for 23  years  at the Harwell Laboratory of the UK Atomic Energy Authority, where he brought a background of crystal structure and materials chemistry to the study of lead–acid and other varieties of battery, thus supplementing the traditional electrochemical emphasis of the subject.

From 1995, he was Manager of Electrochemistry at the International Lead Zinc Research Organization in North Carolina and Program Manager of the Advanced Lead Acid Battery Consortium. In 2005, he also became President of the Consortium. Dr. Moseley was one of the editors of the Journal of Power Sources for 25  years from 1989 to 2014. In 2008, he was awarded the Gaston Planté medal by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.

David A.J. Rand

Dr. David Rand, AM, PhD, ScD, Fellow of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (FTSE), was educated at the University of Cambridge, where he conducted research on fuel cells. In 1969, he joined the Australian Government's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) laboratories in Melbourne. After further exploration of fuel cell mechanisms and then electrochemical studies of mineral beneficiation, David established the CSIRO Battery Research Group in the late 1970s and remained its leader until 2003. He was one of the six scientists that established the Advanced Lead–Acid Battery Consortium in 1992 and served as its Manager in 1994. As a Chief Research Scientist, David became CSIRO's Scientific Advisor on hydrogen and renewable energy until his retirement in 2008. He remains active within the organisation as an Honorary Research Fellow, and has served as the Chief Energy Scientist of the World Solar Challenge since its inception in 1987. David was awarded the Faraday Medal by the Royal Society of Chemistry (UK) in 1991 and the UNESCO Gaston Planté Medal by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences in 1996. He became a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering in 1998, and became a Member of the Order of Australia in 2013 for service to science and technological development in the field of energy storage.


More than 150  years after its introduction by Gaston Planté in 1859, the lead–acid battery is still the most employed of all rechargeable battery systems; it accounts for over half of the demand world-wide. Over the years, the performance of lead–acid technology has progressed steadily to keep pace with the concomitant increase in user requirements, and has become a globally standardized commodity product.

The development of the valve-regulated lead–acid (VRLA) battery in the 1970s proved to be a major breakthrough. Eventually, in the 1990s, this radical new design found its way into demanding automotive applications. The advances in science and technology that made VRLA batteries a success in both automotive and industrial applications were reviewed in Valve-Regulated Lead–Acid Batteries published by Elsevier in 2004, with three of us as co-editors and contributors. Rather than undertake a revised edition of this book, we have decided to produce a new work directed towards advances in automotive lead–acid batteries.

Improved battery designs and materials have recently resulted in enhanced flooded batteries (EFBs) that almost match performance and durability of automotive VRLA batteries at substantially lower cost. Both technologies have allowed entry-level powertrain electrification in large volumes, and thus significant reductions in CO2 emissions, for both developed and emerging road transport markets. And innovation goes on, for example, the UltraBattery™ that integrates a supercapacitive function.

Further reduction in emissions remains in focus for the automotive industry, while a new effort is targeting autonomous driving. The latter will require entirely new comfort and safety functions to be established. Interestingly, both technology trends rely on electrification, either of the powertrain or of chassis systems and vehicle controls, and both will add new technical requirements to automotive batteries. Together with the challenges imposed by new vehicle technologies, the automotive lead–acid is now also confronted with competition from other battery chemistries, especially given the developing maturity of lithium-ion technology for this demanding application. In defining the scope for this new publication, we have attempted to create a balance between the technology of the battery itself and engineering aspects related to vehicle integration.

We are grateful to have as authors not only leading battery technologists and scientists but also experienced experts from the automotive industry. In particular, we have enjoyed our mutual learning experience while editing the chapters, and acknowledge the dedication of, and fruitful discussions with, all authors. We have elected to have our names listed in alphabetical order and are indebted to the whole Elsevier team for their assistance, specifically that provided by Christine McElvenny, Kostas Marinakis, and Vijayaraj Purush.

Jürgen Garche

Eckhard Karden

Patrick T. Moseley

David A.J. Rand


These abbreviation list contents only in different chapters used abbreviations. Abbreviations used only once are not listed here.

Part 1



1. Development trends for future automobiles and their demand on the battery

2. Overview of batteries for future automobiles

3. Lead–acid battery fundamentals

4. Current research topics for lead–acid batteries


Development trends for future automobiles and their demand on the battery

E. Karden     Ford Motor Company, Research & Innovation Centre Aachen, Aachen, Germany


Requirements to automotive batteries are changing due to increasing electrical content – for example, multiple transient high-power loads that enable various levels of autonomous driving – as well as due to fuel economy and CO2 emissions targets that drive the broad introduction of micro-hybrid technology. The cascaded process of requirements development, from vehicle functions to power-supply and powertrain system requirements and then down to storage system requirements, is illustrated. Low-volt power-supply system topologies are discussed briefly. Upcoming storage system requirements are outlined, with emphasis on shallow cycle-life at partial state-of-charge (PSoC), as well as dynamic charge-acceptance (DCA). The position of lead–acid technology for automotive applications is discussed in the light of these new requirements, but also in contrast to fast-evolving alternative storage technologies.


Automotive battery; Autonomous driving; Hybrid-electric vehicle; Lead–acid battery; Lithium-ion battery

1.1. Lead–acid batteries in automobiles: still good enough?

In the early days of the automobile, it was not clear that internal combustion engines (ICEs) would be the dominating propulsion technology for the coming century. In the first decade of the twentieth century, battery electric vehicles (BEVs) quickly outsold early steam-powered automobiles. Around 1900, young engineers like Ferdinand Porsche, who was employed at a carriage manufacturer named Lohner, developed electric cars that were propelled by lead–acid batteries. To overcome the range limitation and weight penalty of the rechargeable accumulator, Porsche's next development, the Lohner-Porsche Mixte (1902), was the world's first series hybrid that added a Daimler engine and an electric generator to the wheel-hub motors and the downsized battery. Economically, this concept suffered from the high cost of two powertrains and remained a luxury niche product.

In the coming two decades from 1910 to 1930, gasoline (and diesel) vehicles (ICEVs) gained market share rapidly. This development was partly due to the low price, abundancy and high specific energy of fuels made from petrol. Other important success factors were some technological innovations that improved the comfort and reliability of ICEVs and can be viewed as the introduction of minimal electrification. Manual cranking became unnecessary after the introduction of electric starter motors (Cadillac, 1912), and magnetic ignition was replaced by lower-cost battery ignition (Bosch, 1925) that required an electric generator and a rechargeable battery. Once electricity was available, other components like headlamps and windshield wipers were also electrified. Pioneers of automobile mass production, such as Henry Ford, continued to build experimental BEVs (in this case, employing Edison's nickel–iron battery around 1913 so as to save weight in relation to lead–acid batteries) but could not find a commercially viable alternative to what are now called conventional powertrains.

For the first time in automobile history, lead–acid technology had survived a paradigm shift as an enabler for new powertrain and comfort functions. Radical downsizing from a traction battery to the starting-lighting-ignition (SLI) battery had minimized its weight burden. Other electrochemical storage systems, though superior in specific energy, could not compete in terms of robust operation, simple controls and, usually, cost. Higher engine crank torque requirements and additional electric functions like fuel ignition, steering and braking assistance and heated seats are still handled by fundamentally the same power-supply system, with system voltage doubled to 12  V in the 1960s and alternators generating with higher efficiency than the early DC machines. Like alternators and starters, SLI batteries have evolved into a widely standardized commodity component. Technological progress has still taken place with polyethylene separators, polypropylene containers, antimony-free grid alloys and absorptive glass-mat (AGM) separators, to list only a few. Where necessary, innovations were applied to keep pace with growing automotive durability and reliability demands. A similarly important and frequently overlooked driver for lead–acid innovation has been cost reduction and has resulted in many process optimization of which continuous plate-making is probably the most recent advancement in the technology.

A century later, with annual global production exceeding 67-million cars and 22-million commercial vehicles, societal demand for limiting petrol consumption and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions has become a major driver for automotive development. New electric motor technologies and power electronics, as well as parallel and power-split hybrid powertrain configurations have reduced the economic and performance shortfalls of battery-electric and hybrid-electric powertrains. Nickel–metal-hydride (NiMH) and more recently lithium-ion battery technologies have arrived in volume production for hybrid and electric vehicles.

In parallel, a multitude of comfort and safety functions are being electrified, not only but also targeting autonomous driving. Such new electric functions demand new levels of peak power, voltage quality and charge throughput. In addition, reliability and safety concepts of the power-supply system as a whole have to be engineered for such applications, with significant impact on storage system requirements.

For the lead–acid battery, and the battery and lead industry behind it, both growing requirements and maturing competitive technologies present considerable challenges. Will lead–acid be able to defend its leading position as ‘the’ storage device in the 12-V electrical system that is still present in hybrid and electric cars? Will it even have an opportunity to creep into the next higher level of powertrain electrification as a cost-attractive 48-V battery? When normalized to battery size, the cell duty cycles of 48-V mild-hybrid and >200-V full-hybrid batteries are very similar. Would not this feature open a new field for competition against lithium-ion in the established hybrid traction battery business?

The foreseeable future (which is typically 5 to 10  years in automotive business) will see various concepts of powertrain electrification, as well as of high-performance power-supply systems, competing in the marketplace. Many of them will be introduced in premium segments first, for example, lithium-ion batteries will replace lead–acid SLI batteries in luxury sport cars, whereas it is still uncertain which concepts will grow substantially into or even take over the majority of mainstream automobile production, even in emerging markets with the fastest growth rates but the highest cost sensitivity. Two things are certain, however, namely: (1) interest in electrochemical storage technologies for automobiles will remain high, and (2) lead–acid will continue to be benchmarked against alternative technologies for very diverse application scenarios. Fig. 1.1 shows one of the few market projections published recently, in this case by a battery supplier.

In all these cases, mutual understanding between battery developers and automotive engineers will be required. For automotive engineers this means cascading vehicle targets over system and subsystem levels to battery component requirements, now frequently in a way that does not implicitly prejudice technology selection. For lead–acid battery developers it means understanding upcoming needs of the car industry early, perform an honest gap analysis, find economically viable technological solutions where possible, and prevent their company and their industry from spending time and money on the impossible. To defend their core business of 12-V automotive batteries, this would have to include new collaborative ways of feasibility demonstration and standard test development for technology benchmarking, all with a strong customer focus.

Figure 1.1  Expected market shares of micro-hybrid and higher electrification levels in Europe, North America and China combined market volumes. Reprinted from H. Budde-Meiwes, Dynamic Charge Acceptance of Lead–Acid Batteries for Micro-Hybrid Automotive Applications, Aachen, 2016, as a revised graphical representation of data from C. Rosenkranz, D. Weber, J. Albers, in: Advanced Automotive Battery Conf., AABC Europe, Mainz, 2016.

This chapter describes the interface between the two worlds of car and battery makers. It starts with an outline of the generic automotive product life-cycle requirements, starting from development and verification process, and including quality management and recycling.

1.2. Requirements in the automotive industry

1.2.1. Requirements cascade and V-Model

Engineering complex systems like automobiles makes use of several generic systems engineering methods. One important example is the cascaded target setting and verification process according to the V-Model, as shown in Fig. 1.2. The left side of the ‘V’ represents the decomposition of requirements, and creation of system specifications. From vehicle level targets (e.g., fuel economy in miles per gallon [mpg] or litres per 100  km), a carmaker's product development organization has to derive requirements for

• systems (e.g., powertrain or electric/electronic system),

• subsystems (e.g., power-supply system), and finally

• components (e.g., traction or SLI battery).

This is done in a way such that meeting all subsystem and component requirements will assure vehicle level targets are also achieved. Consequently, design verification will be undertaken individually on each component, subsystem and system. Particularly when introducing new technologies, iterative refinement of cascaded requirements may become necessary, depending on verification results after integration into the next higher-level subsystem or system.

Figure 1.2  V-Model of systems engineering and verification.

In an ideal world, all performance and durability requirements for a component would be cascaded in this systematic way. In practice, however, many mature components use legacy requirements that may rather be justified by experience over several generations of engineers. For example, the cold-cranking ability of SLI batteries is defined by minimum voltage requirements during certain current profiles (relative to the rated cold-cranking current, CCA) that differ between regions (North America, Europe, Japan) and between original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) in each region. Conversely, none of these test methods and requirements has substantially changed while lead–acid battery technology or engine technology has been evolving; for example, when AGM batteries or direct fuel injection were introduced. The concept of a greatly simplified CCA release test was powerful enough to robustly separate technology-specific requirements at the interface between battery and powertrain. This might appear surprising given that these standardized battery CCA tests are executed with freshly manufactured, fully-charged batteries, while the vehicle cold-cranking function is required over full battery service life and over a wide range of real world states-of-charge. A more stringent component-level verification would not only involve aged batteries at partial state-of-charge (PSoC), but also require quite detailed knowledge of engine cold-cranking demand under a broad range of noise factors like oil ageing. Finally, a release test to assess quickly design and product capability for any new starter battery technology would again have to be similarly generic for various engine types, ideally from all manufacturers, and be applied to beginning-of-life batteries, providing technology-specific reserves for real-world effects like battery ageing. This task would probably be too complex to be addressed if it was only about cost optimization of lead–acid SLI batteries. For the assessment of alternative SLI battery technologies, however, a simple carry-over requirement based on a century of experience with lead–acid batteries would most likely be inappropriate. For example, early lithium-ion SLI batteries showed an increasing voltage during most of the 10 or 30  s CCA profile, due to self-heating as a consequence of their low heat capacity and high internal losses at low temperature. Moreover, the sensitivity of power output to temperature is much more pronounced for lithium-ion than for lead–acid batteries. Obviously, a constant–current profile applied for 30  s at 0°F  =  −18°C would be inappropriate to assess the cold-cranking ability of most lithium-ion batteries at real world temperatures at or below −30°C.

More generally, inventors of new technologies (particularly while they are raising venture capital) tend to overvalue success in legacy tests. Instead, they should be advised to analyse carefully, and in collaboration with prospective customers, vehicle and system level requirements so as to identify as early as possible any new failure mechanisms that may be introduced by the innovative technology. The full set of requirements for a given application has to be understood early: For example, a new technology may offer great brake energy recuperation and cycling capability, but if a classical 12-V application was to be addressed, the new battery would have to cover all other functions of the existing SLI battery as well. If new materials or production processes are involved, new failure mechanisms would have to be investigated for the very broad range of customer usage conditions, particularly regarding vibration and ambient temperature.

Another important aspect that may drive decisions in automotive engineering is development risk. At an early stage of the cascaded target-setting process, fundamental technology choices and even supplier selections have to be made. For a high-volume programme, risks have to be minimized at this point while not compromising too much on variable cost. In many cases this will exclude an innovative solution. Low-volume programmes, particularly in the premium segment, may be used to introduce new technologies, e.g., electrified chassis systems. For supporting systems in such projects, however, choices will be made either in favour of low risk, and hence robustness of programme timing, or of variable cost and commonality with other applications. Accordingly, the situation gave rise to, for example, a few 48-V systems launched with supercapacitors despite the fact that lithium-ion batteries were already considered to be superior; yet not mature enough at the decision point [3].

1.2.2. Robustness and reliability

Robust design and reliability are very important requirements for automotive systems, including the power-supply system (see also Section 13.2.6, Chapter 13).

An important method that is being used at all levels of automotive systems engineering, is the failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA). Long before start of production, it assesses the potential failure mechanisms of the item under study, their impact on system operation (severity) as well as their potential root causes with likelihood of occurrence (probability) and possible countermeasures to avoid or early detect a failure. For a design FMEA (DFMEA), the item under study is a technical system or component, e.g., the SLI battery as a component of the automotive power-supply system. A process FMEA (PFMEA) analyses the manufacturing process of the component and all failures that may occur during each step of production or assembly. Both DFMEA and PFMEA are tools to establish test methods and process controls, and will be carefully reviewed by OEMs when releasing a new product or process.

Whenever electric power supply contributes to functional safety, ISO 26262 recommends additional precautions. For example, this may be the case for electric steering or braking systems. As long as the engine, and hence the alternator, are running, redundant power supply from battery and alternator may be found sufficient in a hazard analysis and risk assessment. This may change if the engine is shut down at significant vehicle speed (rolling stop–start), in which case the required Automotive Safety Integrity Level (ASIL) for the storage system alone may be increased and potentially require a highly reliable battery monitoring system or a dual-battery system (see Chapter 15). Engineering requirements for safety-relevant power-supply functions are a complex topic, and no easy solutions are available off the shelf today.

1.2.3. Materials, environmental, recycling

Safety is essential to OEMs and to their customers, and should be considered at both the component and vehicle level, also considering service and end-of-life. Lead–acid is a well-understood and mature system with an aqueous electrolyte that is inherently safe and thereby makes battery fires and explosions an extremely rare event.

The largest weight fractions of lead–acid batteries are contributed by a heavy metal, lead, and a potentially hazardous liquid, sulfuric acid. As long as contained in a battery, though, these materials do not present significant risks to customers or the environment. For example, they do not form volatile toxic substances. Protection of the vehicle occupants has to be assured by vehicle design for crash cases, which may allow packaging lead–acid batteries in crash zones. If injuries by electrolyte spillage cannot be excluded by vehicle construction, AGM batteries may be used as an inherently spill-safe alternative. Environmental and labour protection standards for production and recycling of lead and lead-based batteries have reached very high protection levels over the past decades. Very low levels of water consumption, where possible under given electrical and package (thermal) requirements, have made electrolyte refilling dispensable for many vehicles worldwide, eliminating one of the remaining potential injury risks for service staff.

The introduction of micro-hybrid technology has greatly improved the CO2 footprint of lead–acid batteries: Life-cycle assessment of lead–acid batteries [4] shows that they can save far more CO2 than is produced for their manufacture, as illustrated in Fig. 1.3.

Car makers are required to design their products for very high recycling efficiency. Lead–acid batteries are currently the only battery technology that operates in a closed loop with, for example in Europe, more than 99% being collected and recycled when they come to the end of their useful life for further use in lead–acid batteries. A lead-based battery is comprised of approximately 85% recycled material. These characteristics are not currently met by alternative battery technologies. The European Directive on End-of-Life Vehicles 2000/53/EC (ELV Directive) aims at increasing recyclability of waste vehicles and avoiding pollution of other recycling streams (e.g., steel scrap) with heavy metals. These twin objectives have long been achieved for lead batteries through their high recycling efficiency. A detailed review of recycling technologies is given in Chapter 20.

Figure 1.3  CO 2 net impacts and savings associated with batteries required over one vehicle's-lifetime. Battery technology assumptions are discussed in Section 1.4.1 . Reprinted from V.C. Usbeck, A. Kacker, J. Gediga, Life Cycle Assessment of Lead-Based Batteries for Vehicles. http://www.acea.be/uploads/publications/LCA_of_Pb-based_batteries_for_vehicles_-_Executive_summary_10_04_2014.pdf, April 2014, reprinted with permission from Thinkstep (formerly PE International).

1.3. Vehicle level requirements

1.3.1. Power-supply system functions

Traditionally, the 12-V automotive battery has the following power-supply functions [5,6]:

• cranking the cold engine (key start);

• providing electricity to vehicle loads if the alternator output does not meet power demand (e.g., during idle), while key is off (e.g., parking lights) or if alternator is defective;

• supplying quiescent loads, typically 10–20  mA in modern vehicles, after all electronic modules have reached sleep mode, with the requirement that the engine can still be cranked at moderate ambient temperatures after an assumed parking duration of several weeks;

• maintaining voltage quality by buffering rapid variations in power demand, which tend to grow in amplitude and frequency of occurrence due to novel systems like stop–start or electrified chassis systems.

The expanding functions of the vehicle electric/electronic system call for significant improvements in the power-supply system. Examples for voltage and current profiles with new transient loads are shown in Fig. 13.3, Chapter 13 and Figs 15.2 and 15.3, Chapter 15. The addition of comfort loads operated while the alternator is not running or running at limited output (e.g., during engine idle) leads to a significant increase in battery energy (Wh) or charge (Ah) throughput during shallow cycling under PSoC conditions. By contrast, new transient loads are demanding in terms of peak power and voltage quality requirements. Examples for voltage and current profiles with such transient loads are shown in Fig. 13.3, Chapter 13 and Figs 15.2 and 15.3, Chapter 15. Such loads include several electronic driver assistance and electrified chassis systems that will be, among other benefits, enablers for different levels of autonomous driving.

Electrification of safety-relevant functions would typically require high levels of reliability from the 12-V storage system [7]. If these can no longer be achieved with a single unmonitored battery, such requirements would call for battery monitoring and diagnostics with high confidence levels and/or dual-battery systems. Tightening voltage limits for sensitive loads in presence of large transient loads will add further requirements to the storage system that may be translated into battery requirements for internal resistance and combined with open-circuit voltage (lithium-ion versus lead–acid, see Fig. 15.12, Chapter 15), or eventually drive the introduction of a dual-battery or even dual-voltage topologies.

Recharging the SLI battery in a sufficiently short driving time is a power-supply system function that enables all of these battery functions to be maintained. This necessity imposes requirements on both the alternator (sizing and control, see Section 13.2.1, Chapter 13) and the battery. Specifications for SLI batteries include static charge-acceptance requirements that define minimum levels of charging current or charge amount returned from a low (e.g., 50%) SoC after typical urban trip durations (10–30  min) under winter conditions (e.g., 0°C or −18°C). More recently, several OEMs have added test methods and requirements that separately address SoC recovery after extended parking, during which the battery has been discharged by a significant fraction of its rated capacity due to quiescent loads and self-discharge.

1.3.2. Drivetrain electrification functions

Powertrain electrification in BEVs and plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles (PHEVs) introduces electricity from the mains as an alternative energy source for propulsion (Fig. 1.4). By contrast, full-hybrid vehicles still use fuel from the tank as the exclusive primary energy source but improve energy efficiency by shifting operating points of the internal combustion engine and brake energy recuperation. Full-hybrid vehicles can drive electrically for limited distances. Some PHEVs use the same powertrain with just a larger traction battery that substantially enhances electric range. Conversely, mild- and medium-hybrids offer electric propulsion-assist but no substantial electric-only driving function. This functional separation of hybrid levels is not always strictly observed: If some 48-V concepts realize minimal electric driving functions like electric parking manoeuvres, they would still not be classified as full-hybrids due to their low electric power installed. Micro-hybrid vehicles do not apply active torque assist but only engine stop–start, brake energy recuperation and an alternator control strategy that reduces engine torque in favour of fuel economy, CO2 emissions and/or acceleration performance (sometimes termed ‘passive boost’). The maximum brake energy recuperation that can be achieved in low-voltage mild- and micro-hybrid vehicles as a function of both installed electric generator power and battery dynamic charge-acceptance (DCA) is given in Fig. 1.5; DCA is discussed in Section 1.5.4.

Figure 1.4  Hybrid types (vertical) and functionalities (horizontal).

As the diagram demonstrates, micro-hybrid functionality may be realized in a traditional 12-V power-supply system with a single lead–acid battery. Thus, 12-V micro-hybridization reduces the fuel consumption and CO2 emissions of a vehicle in the current European standard driving cycle (NEDC) by 4–8%, depending on vehicle and drivetrain properties [9,10]. Benefits in the new regulation that is based on the Worldwide Harmonized Light-Duty Vehicles Test Cycle (WLTC) will be slightly lower but still very significant.

In some applications, the 12-V alternator is replaced by a belt-driven starter/generator, fundamentally the same claw-pole machine type with the diode bridge rectifier being replaced by a MOSFET bidirectional AC/DC converter. This set-up allows motoring the claw-pole machine for a more comfortable engine restart than with the classical starter motor. In principle, it is also possible to provide small low-end torque assist through a belt-driven starter–generator for small and compact cars. Such minimal mild-hybrid functionality in a 12-V system is incentivized by tax legislation in some markets.

Figure 1.5  Brake energy recuperation power limitation under estimated 90th percentile customer usage conditions in low-voltage micro- and mild-hybrid systems [8] . EFB+C stands for an e nhanced f looded b attery that has been optimized for dynamic c harge-acceptance, which utilizes the available alternator peak power to a significantly higher fraction and more consistently than normal automotive lead–acid batteries.

1.4. Low-volt system topology options for advanced power supply and mild powertrain hybridization

Cascading targets from vehicle to powertrain and/or power-supply systems, choices have to be made regarding the storage system topology. Various topologies will be used, depending on vehicle segment, powertrain requirements, feature content and other OEM considerations.

1.4.1. 12-V single voltage single battery

The classical power-supply system topology will continue to find applications as a baseline system. With the introduction of micro-hybrid alternator control strategies (see Chapter 13), PSoC operation of the energy storage system became a necessity and led to the mainstream introduction of battery sensors that are typically integrated into the negative battery terminal clamp (see Chapter 14). Replacing the 12-V conventional flooded lead–acid battery with an AGM or enhanced flooded battery (EFB) has achieved significantly better component durability in terms of deep and shallow cycling robustness (Fig. 1.3 refers to this as refed as improved technology, see Section 1.5.3). In addition, lead–acid batteries may be optimized for enhanced brake energy recuperation (advanced lead–acid technology in Fig. 1.3, EFB+C in Fig. 1.5, see Section 1.5.4). Significant weight savings can be expected if the lead–acid battery is replaced with a lithium-ion battery of compatible voltage, which to date cannot fully meet the technical requirements particularly for high-temperature package in the engine bay and extreme winter operation (see Section 2.5.1, Chapter 2). Any new technology would have to demonstrate very low impact on functional safety by unforeseen failures, whereas failure-in-time (FIT) rates for lead–acid batteries have reached very low levels with the introduction of integrated battery sensors.

1.4.2. 12-V dual (or multi) storage devices

The storage system may be split to two (or more) lead–acid batteries. For example, one battery would be responsible for engine starting while the other would stabilize voltage quality in the vehicle, and may as well take over the majority of cycling requirements. Such topologies allow separation between two subnets, one of which may handle power-hungry loads while the other one maintains voltage quality for sensitive loads. The two batteries might be identical or specified differently according to their tasks in the power-supply system, e.g., a small conventional flooded battery in the engine bay with a short electric connection for engine starting, and a small motorcycle or large cycle-proof AGM battery in the rear of the vehicle. Such dual-battery systems and the breakdown of storage system requirements to the individual batteries are discussed in Section 13.3.7, Chapter 13 and Section 15.3.1, Chapter 15. At least for engineering trials, dual lead–acid storage systems have also been constructed for the 24-V power-supply system in sleeper cabin trucks where hotel loads present a daily deep-cycling challenge (see Section 18.6.2, Chapter 18).

More recently, dual-storage systems have been introduced that combine a lead–acid battery with other storage technologies, either a double-layer capacitor or a lithium-ion or NiMH battery. In many cases, the primary purpose is to enhance brake energy recuperation. Several of these configurations have a DC/DC converter or controlled switch array between the two storage systems to control energy flows and allow the auxiliary storage device to operate at a voltage not necessarily equal to 12-V system voltage. Certain choices of advanced battery chemistries allow parallel operation in the voltage window between the open-circuit voltage of the lead–acid battery and the maximum allowable alternator voltage for brake energy recuperation. Requirements to and design concepts for dual-storage systems of lead–acid plus another storage technology are discussed in Chapter 15, with further references given there.

1.4.3. 12-V  +  48-V dual voltage, dual-storage devices

Basic 48-V power-supply systems would utilize a belt-driven starter–generator, using the same powertrain topology as a 12-V starter–generator system (see Section 1.3.2). Alternative powertrain configurations may have the electric machine attached to the crankshaft or the transmission. In any case, increasing the electric machine power from 12-V alternator (or starter–generator) output ratings in the range of 2–3.5  kW to typical peak powers of 7–11  kW for 48-V machines enables a level of brake energy recuperation that exceeds the normal electric load consumption in typical drive cycles. To realize additional savings in fuel and reductions in CO2 emissions, most 48-V vehicles would add some electric powertrain functionality – either direct propulsion-assist through the starter–generator (mild-hybridization) or electric boosting that enables secondary fuel savings through engine downsizing. It can be expected that most 48-V projects planned for midterm volume production have a combined business case with new electric or electrified vehicle functions and CO2 emissions reduction [11].

1.4.4. 12-V  +  high voltage hybrid traction

Medium-, full- and plug-in hybrid vehicles, as well as BEVs so far employ exclusively advanced battery technologies (NiMH, lithium-ion) as high voltage traction batteries. Nevertheless, these vehicles have a 12-V power-supply system for all carry-over electric and electronic functions like lighting, entertainment system and many driver assistance systems, but also to supply controllers of the high-volt electric traction system and allow its complete shutdown during parking. This 12-V power-supply system is typically buffered by a lead–acid starter battery that also supplies quiescent loads during parking. More information on this topic can be found in Section 13.4, Chapter 13.

1.5. Upcoming storage system requirements

1.5.1. Usable versus rated capacity

The rated capacity of a starter battery is not entirely available for battery functions. Even without a PSoC regulation strategy, charging conditions in vehicle operation would not allow for a complete recharge, and a significant minority of customers may park their vehicle with a battery SoC of only around 70–80%. Conversely, cranking capability under winter conditions significantly drops for low state-of-charge, somewhere between 50% and 30%. Between these two SoC levels all capacitive functions of the battery have to be performed, e.g., key-off load supply for several weeks of parking, reliable limp-home operation in case of alternator failure, comfort and hotel loads. The addition of, for example, mobile communication functions for parking vehicles will add to the quiescent drain and push usable capacity requirements. The design rules that car makers use for sizing a battery to such functional requirements were developed back in a time when statistical user data analysis and simulation tools were not available, but long experience has justified them.

It is obvious that battery technology changes could allow downsizing (in terms of nominal capacity). First, improved accuracy and reliability of battery state detection algorithms may allow reducing the safety margins for battery discharge. Second, a battery with improved static and/or DCA may assure that worst-case customers would reliably park their car at 5% or 10% higher SoC than today. Similarly, the usable SoC window would be extended if the lower boundary, at which winter power performance drops quickly, can be shifted downward. Lithium-ion starter batteries, for example, show a stronger degradation of power performance with falling temperature than lead–acid batteries, but are less sensitive to SoC variation. Together with their consistent charge-acceptance, this may allow a lower C20 rating for a lithium-ion starter battery than for the AGM battery that it would replace.

1.5.2. Discharge power performance

Power performance of SLI batteries has historically been expressed as cold-cranking current with somewhat artificial test profiles that have already been discussed in Section 1.2.1. For auxiliary batteries in 12-V dual-battery systems, or in HEVs if cold-cranking is performed by the electric traction machine, these legacy requirements may no longer be useful. New test profiles should be developed that are more representative for generalized dynamic load cases. To prepare for new designs (e.g., derived from motorcycle batteries) or technologies (e.g., lithium-ion), these profiles should be applied at the lower end of the useful SoC range, rather than for a fully charged battery. It will be useful to standardize new dynamic load performance test methods for 12-V auxiliary batteries soon.

1.5.3. Shallow-cycle-life; service life in partial state-of-charge operation

Cyclic wear has historically been a dominating battery failure mode for SLI batteries in heavy-duty applications like taxis. Growing electric content in normal cars also increases the cyclic use of 12-V automotive batteries, where depth-of-discharge (DoD) may vary greatly. Transient high-power loads such as those demanded by electrified chassis systems cause only short pulses (<<1% DoD) of high current amplitude (typically, 1–3C rates). By contrast, cycling depth per event may be substantial (sometimes >10% DoD) at moderate rates (typically, 0.2–0.5C) when caused by engine-off operation of comfort loads like follow-me-home lights, entertainment systems or interior cooling and heating.

Any kind of powertrain hybridization will increase cyclic battery use significantly with quantitative throughput demands that vary greatly between hybridization levels [12]. Micro-hybrids will typically need less than 10  Wh  km−¹ of electrical energy. Throughput for mild-, medium- and full-hybrid traction batteries ranges from 30 to 120  Wh  km−¹ [13,14]. Pure electric driving with PHEVs or BEVs consumes 100 to 300  Wh  km−¹ for propulsion, depending on vehicle weight and driving conditions.

To allow regenerative braking, batteries in all HEVs are operated under PSoC conditions to provide significant charge-acceptance for short recuperation pulses. By contrast, classical 12-V automotive batteries historically have been continuously charged at fixed alternator output voltage (see Section 13.3.1, Chapter 13). Nevertheless, field studies show that the SoC distribution in conventional passenger cars was already very broad, with many batteries operated around 50% SoC without causing apparent problems [15,16]. Stop–start and regenerative braking use of SLI batteries in micro-hybrid vehicles aggravate the situation by forcing significant additional throughput. A significant fraction of the battery capacity might be lost early during service life due to sulfation, for flooded batteries particularly in the lower regions of negative plates.

The vast majority of charge throughput in automotive 12-V batteries, even with advanced brake energy recuperation and transient loads, occurs at medium discharge rates, compared with the power capability of these designs that is optimized for cold-cranking and voltage quality. By contrast, traction batteries for mild-, medium- and full-hybrid vehicles are usually specified for a peak current that is in the same order of magnitude as the typical current at which most of the (much higher) throughput occurs, e.g., measured as root mean square current Irms. For such applications, the term high-rate partial state-of-charge (HRPSoC) and related cycling tests have been introduced [17]. Several design measures that have achieved good results in AGM batteries for mild- or medium-hybrid propulsion applications will not necessarily be equally useful for 12-V micro-hybrid batteries, particularly when they use EFB technology.

Technology-specific PSoC cycling tests have been introduced for 12-V lead–acid batteries since the 1990s when first premium cars began increasing the electrical feature content substantially [18]: for example, a partial cycling test at 17.5% DoD with approximately C/3 discharge rate that later became part of EN 50342-6:2015. For broad roll-out of stop–start technology, additional PSoC cycling tests were introduced by OEMs since 2006, employing very shallow cycles (1–2% DoD) at typical load currents between 0.5C and 1C rate and restricted recharge time.

A double logarithmic plot of the requirement levels for lead–acid battery durability in terms of cyclic throughput as a function of cycling depth is presented in Fig. 1.6. Details about the cycling test definitions for stop–start micro-cycling, PSoC cycling at 17.5% DoD and classical cycling at 50% DoD can be found in Section 19.6.2, Chapter 19 and the standards referenced therein. It should be noticed that cycling conditions such as temperature, discharge rates, charge voltage, charge factor and target SoC level, vary greatly between these test definitions for stop–start micro-, and each of these factors alone would have a significant impact on cycling durability. Further, the ageing mechanisms limiting battery life in each of these tests are fundamentally different, e.g., for flooded and enhanced flooded batteries typically: (1) negative surface sulfation for micro-cycling tests, (2) positive active-mass (PAM) degradation for 50% DoD and (3) a combination of negative sulfation and positive degradation in different height regions of the electrodes as a consequence of inhomogeneous acid concentration for 17.5% DoD. Hence, a direct comparison of cycling throughputs in these tests would be misleading for an analysis of individual ageing effects. It can be assumed, however, that each of the test definitions and requirement levels has been chosen with best available application know-how in mind, so they should represent typical automotive lead–acid battery durability design cases for the respective DoD levels. The points in this diagram represent only standardized requirement levels; some OEM requirements and some existing battery products well exceed these minimum requirements.

As an example, several Japanese OEM stop–start batteries (see for example Refs. [19] and [20]) pass 60,000 cycles in the stop–start durability test of SBA S0101:2006, which applies a DoD of 1.37% if the typical C20 of a JIS D23-sized EFB is assumed as 60  Ah. Multiplication of DoD and cycle count yields slightly over 800 Cn charge throughput for the filled blue circle in Fig. 1.6. The diagram indicates a substantial spread of cycling capability between conventional flooded, different grades of EFBs and AGM batteries – for example, a factor 4.5 between highest and lowest cycle-life requirements at 50% DoD. Particularly for deep cycling, as well as for high-temperature corrosion stability, high durability requirements usually go along with high battery weight. This correlation does not hold for shallow cycle-life, and some of the lightest EFB products designed to SBA-based Japanese specifications may exceed stop–start cycling test durability of heavy-duty European products that were designed for greater deep-cycling durability. These observations illustrate the obvious fact that adding more lead in different battery components may help against PAM degradation or grid corrosion, but have a very marginal effect on negative sulfation. With growing field experience from large fleets of micro-hybrid vehicles, and considering new requirements arising from increasing electrical content, cycle-life requirements and the trade-offs discussed here, for example, with respect to battery weight, will continue to be revised.

Figure 1.6  Battery cycle-life, counted as throughput capability, as a function of micro-cycling depth-of-discharge (DoD). For M1, M2 and M3 durability levels, see Table 5.3 , Chapter 5 .

The test definitions referenced in this section are highly technology specific for established lead–acid automotive batteries. For the assessment of alternative technologies, e.g., lithium-ion starter batteries, new tests will have to be developed and standardized that address the specific failure mechanisms and potential weaknesses of the respective technology. In addition, due to the higher cost of virtually any alternative technology, longer service life than an average between four and seven years, as typical for lead–acid batteries, may be targeted (for example, vehicle life), which would have a multiplicative effect on all throughput requirements.

1.5.4. Dynamic charge-acceptance

The DCA of a micro-hybrid 12-V battery may be defined as the average charging current over all recuperation events during a representative trip applying a PSoC micro-cycling strategy, and should be normalized to the battery's nominal capacity. The typical duration of recuperation events is between 1 and 20  s, and may be longer for downhill driving. As recuperation opportunity (engine not fuelled and drivetrain connected from wheels to generator) extends to roughly one-twelfth to one-sixth, most typically 10–12%, of total trip duration (strongly depending on traffic conditions and drive style), maximum

Você chegou ao final desta amostra. Inscreva-se para ler mais!
Página 1 de 1


O que as pessoas pensam sobre Lead-Acid Batteries for Future Automobiles

0 avaliações / 0 Análises
O que você acha?
Classificação: 0 de 5 estrelas

Avaliações de leitores