Battery charge control with temperature compensated voltage limit

Thierfelder, H. E.

Home/Archive/NASA NTRS

NASA NTRS · 19830026976

Battery charge control with temperature compensated voltage limit

Thierfelder, H. E.

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Battery charge control for orbiting spacecraft with mission durations from three to ten years, is a critical design feature that is discussed. Starting in 1974, the General Electric Space Systems Division designed, manufactured and tested battery systems for six different space programs. Three of these are geosynchronous missions, two are medium altitude missions and one is a near-earth mission. All six power subsystems contain nickel cadmium batteries which are charged using a temperature compensated voltage limit. This charging method was found to be successful in extending the life of nickel cadmium batteries in all three types of earth orbits. Test data and flight data are presented for each type of orbit.

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Thierfelder, H. E.. 1983-08-01. Battery charge control with temperature compensated voltage limit. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19830026976

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related reports

NASA NTRS2001

Performance of Li-Ion Cells Under Battery Voltage Charge Control

A study consisting of electrochemical characterization and Low-Earth-Orbit (LEO) cycling of Li-Ion cells from three vendors was initiated in 1999 to determine the cycling performance and to infuse the new technology in the future NASA missions. The 8-cell batteries included in this evaluation are prismatic cells manufactured by Mine Safety Appliances Company (MSA), cylindrical cells manufactured by SAFT and prismatic cells manufactured by Yardney Technical Products, Inc. (YTP). The three batteries were cycle tested in the LEO regime at 40% depth of discharge, and under a charge control technique that consists of battery voltage clamp with a current taper. The initial testing was conducted at 20 C; however, the batteries were cycled also intermittently at low temperatures. YTP 20 Ah cells consisted of mixed-oxide (Co and Ni) positive, graphitic carbon negative, LIPF6 salt mixed with organic carbonate solvents. The battery voltage clamp was 32 V. The low temperature cycling tests started after 4575 cycles at 20 C. The cells were not capable of cycling. at low temperature since the charge acceptance at battery level was poor. There was a cell in the battery that showed too high an end-of-charge (EOC) voltage thereby limiting the ability to charge the rest of the cells in the battery. The battery has completed 6714 cycles. SAFT 12 Ah cells consisted of mixed-oxide (Co and NO positive, graphitic carbon negative, LiPF6 salt mixed with organic carbonate solvents. The battery voltage clamp was for 30.8 V. The low temperature cycling tests started after 4594 cycles at 20 C. A cell that showed low end of discharge (EOD) and EOC voltages and three other cells that showed higher EOC voltages limited the charge acceptance at the selected voltage limit during charge. The cells were capable of cycling at 10 C and 0 C but the charge voltage limit had to be increased to 34.3 V (4.3 V per cell). The low temperature cycling may have induced poor chargeability since the voltage had to be increased to achieve the required charge input. The battery has completed 6226 cycles. MSA 10 Ah cells consisted of Co oxide positive, graphitic carbon negative, LiPF6 salt mixed with organic carbonate solvents. The battery voltage clamp was 30.8 V. The low temperature cycling tests were started after 2182 cycles at 20 C. The cells were capable of cycling at 10 C and 0 C. Like SAFT, the voltage limit on charge had to be increased to 36 V (4.5 V per cell). There was a cell (cell S/N 13) in the battery that showed poor performance features such as low EOD voltage and high EOC voltage. The battery has completed 3441 cycles. A reconditioning procedure that consisted of C15 charge to a taper current of C/100 and C/20 discharge improved the voltage behavior of SAFT and MSA cells with no significant effect on YTP cells. We have demonstrated that the charge operation with VT clamp at battery rather than at cell level is feasible for onboard Li-Ion battery operation.

Rao, Gopalakrishna M.↗

NASA NTRS1994

Battery charge control: Which approach is best?

The question of the best approach for battery charge control is addressed from two points of view: from the battery point-of-view; and from the spacecraft/mission point-of-view. In terms of performance, more aggressive charging can result in higher discharge voltage and capacity; however, aggressive charging usually implies more overcharge at higher rates and a concomitant higher end of charge temperature (higher stress, shorter life). In terms of life, benign charging can result in lower discharge voltage and capacity (poorer performance). Additionally, benign, or low stress charging, usually implies less overcharge at lower rates with lower end of charge temperature (lower stress, longer life). A discussion of these topics is presented in viewgraph form.

Lurie, Charles↗

NASA NTRS2009

Modular Battery Charge Controller

A new approach to masterless, distributed, digital-charge control for batteries requiring charge control has been developed and implemented. This approach is required in battery chemistries that need cell-level charge control for safety and is characterized by the use of one controller per cell, resulting in redundant sensors for critical components, such as voltage, temperature, and current. The charge controllers in a given battery interact in a masterless fashion for the purpose of cell balancing, charge control, and state-of-charge estimation. This makes the battery system invariably fault-tolerant. The solution to the single-fault failure, due to the use of a single charge controller (CC), was solved by implementing one CC per cell and linking them via an isolated communication bus [e.g., controller area network (CAN)] in a masterless fashion so that the failure of one or more CCs will not impact the remaining functional CCs. Each micro-controller-based CC digitizes the cell voltage (V(sub cell)), two cell temperatures, and the voltage across the switch (V); the latter variable is used in conjunction with V(sub cell) to estimate the bypass current for a given bypass resistor. Furthermore, CC1 digitizes the battery current (I1) and battery voltage (V(sub batt) and CC5 digitizes a second battery current (I2). As a result, redundant readings are taken for temperature, battery current, and battery voltage through the summation of the individual cell voltages given that each CC knows the voltage of the other cells. For the purpose of cell balancing, each CC periodically and independently transmits its cell voltage and stores the received cell voltage of the other cells in an array. The position in the array depends on the identifier (ID) of the transmitting CC. After eight cell voltage receptions, the array is checked to see if one or more cells did not transmit. If one or more transmissions are missing, the missing cell(s) is (are) eliminated from cell-balancing calculations. The cell-balancing algorithm is based on the error between the cell s voltage and the other cells and is categorized into four zones of operation. The algorithm is executed every second and, if cell balancing is activated, the error variable is set to a negative low value. The largest error between the cell and the other cells is found and the zone of operation determined. If the error is zero or negative, then the cell is at the lowest voltage and no balancing action is needed. If the error is less than a predetermined negative value, a Cell Bad Flag is set. If the error is positive, then cell balancing is needed, but a hysteretic zone is added to prevent the bypass circuit from triggering repeatedly near zero error. This approach keeps the cells within a predetermined voltage range.

Button, Robert↗