DOE OSTI2023
As part of the U.S. DOE EVs@Scale consortium Next-Gen Profiles (NGP) project, the profile capture of production electric vehicles undergoing high power charging (HPC) is conducted over a wide range of conditions to explore variance and performance. Charge session parameters are collected from both the electric vehicle (EV) and electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) at a rate of 10Hz and entered into a time-series database for analysis. These charge profiles are captured under nominal and off-nominal conditions, exploring the impact of battery state of charge (SOC), battery temperature, vehicle condition, smart charge management (SCM), and EVSE limitations. Nominal conditions are defined to be ideal conditions that should transfer the maximum allowable energy in the minimum possible amount of time. Nominal condition profiles are compared across EVs to characterize state-of-the-art EV charging performance against one another. Off-nominal condition profiles are compared against its nominal condition profile counterpart to highlight the variance across less desirable starting conditions within a single EV. Under nominal conditions, most EVs can achieve the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) rated peak-power and charge times. Peak power across EVs has variance due to the vehicle design, battery topology, charging strategy, etc. These 10-100% nominal preconditioned charge profiles across 13 EVs (11 light-duty (LD), 2 heavy-duty (HD)) were used for analysis in power curve analysis, power distribution, SOC and range comparison, thermal impacts of current draw, battery pack size and energy charged, and ramp rates. Power curve analysis show the uniqueness in power vs time curves across all EVs, breaking down the features of a typical profile and where variation is typically seen. Power distribution results showed that over 50% of charge time is spent below 50kW and only 12.1% is spent above 200kW. SOC and range performance yielded different top performing EVs when exploring goals of performance from SOC and range gained after 10-min (EV2) and 20-min (EV8), and time-to-achieve 80% SOC (EV8) and 200 miles of range (EV1). Current draw from 400-volt EVs had a higher thermal impact to cable/connector temperatures when compared to 800-volt EVs, due to a higher current requirement to achieve similar power levels. There was high variance in C rating, a useful metric when comparing the relationship between peak/average charge session power and relative battery pack size, across EVs under test. Ramp rates during initial power transfer were examined, fastest and slowest speeds ranging from 192.5kW/second to 2.6kW/second respectively. A similar analysis of ramp rates was also conducted for OCPP curtailment testing, where EVs underwent a 2-minute 65A curtailment request before returning to full-power charge. Under off-nominal conditions, most EVs experienced variation from the nominal condition profiles. EVs that underwent the full set of NGP defined testing conditions were compared, analysis of which was categorized by 800-volt and 400-volt EVs. It should be noted that the 800-volt EVs had significantly higher peak power ratings than the 400-volt EVs, and thus were more prone to variance. Initial state of charge, battery temperature, and vehicle condition had a considerable impact on peak power levels and charge time for the 800-volt vehicles under test. EVSE limited tests lowered achievable power down to 200kW, greatly impacted 800-volt charging power, and had little to no effect on 400-volt charging power. Adapter testing was performed on a single 400-volt EV, where power and current limitations were found but overall charge time was not significantly impacted. Adapter and boost converter testing was performed on a single 800-volt EV, where both charge power and charge time were greatly impacted. Charge profiles are unique, and comparing such requires analysis that examines starting conditions, vehicle and battery topologies,