ADVANCED BATTERY MANAGEMENT

AND TECHNOLOGY PROJECT

Executive Summary

Vermont Electric Vehicle Demonstration Project

 Submitted to

Northeast Alternative Vehicle Consortium

112 South Street, Fourth Floor
Boston, MA 02111

And

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

by

Vermont Electric Vehicle Demonstration Project

Agency of Natural Resources
103 South Main Street, No. 3 South
Waterbury, VT 05671-0402

September 20, 1999

Agreement No. NAVC1096-PG009524

Prepared By

M. J. Bradley & Associates

47 Junction Square Drive
Concord, MA 01742
Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction
1.1 The Advanced Battery Management and Technology Project
1.2 Problem Statement of the ABMTP
1.3 EVermont Vehicles

2.0 Battery and APU Technology

2.1 Advanced Battery Design
2.2 Auxiliary Power Units

3.0 Battery Testing

3.1 Bench Testing of Ovonics NiMH Batteries
3.2 Laboratory Bench Testing at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell, MA
3.3 Battery Box Design
3.4 NiMH Finite Element Model

4.0 Battery Thermal Management System

4.1 BTMS Design
4.2 BTMS Design Testing – Cold Chamber
4.3 BTMS Design Testing – Warm Weather

5.0 Vehicle On Road Test Evaluations

5.1 Data Acquisition System
5.2 EVermont On-Road Field Test Course
5.3 EVermont NiMH Baseline Vehicle, EV13, 1997
5.4 HydroQuebec Vehicle Testing, EVHQ, Summer 1998
5.5 EVermont EV15 Vehicle Testing, Winter 1999
5.6 EV1, Solectria E-10 Hybrid Truck
5.7 Summer Testing July 1999

6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

6.1 Cabin Thermal Management
6.2 NiMH Vehicle Performance
6.3 Battery Thermal Management
6.4 APU Integration
6.5 Battery Thermal Management System Model

9/20/99 NAVC1096-PG009524 i
EVermont wishes to thank the many sub-contractors, companies and individuals that provided
assistance to this project.

Kevin Bracey Agency of Natural Resources

Corie Dunn Agency of Natural Resources
Tom Horn Atlantic Center for the Environment
Tom Franks Department of Public Service
Lois Jackson Department of Public Service
Mary Morrison Department of Public Service
Steve Miracle EVermont
Lauren Scharfman EVermont
Bill Conn Green Mountain Power
Jean-François Morneau Hydro Quebec
Denis Parent Hydro Quebec
Serge Roy Hydro Quebec
Denis Laurin Hydro Quebec
Tom Balon M.J. Bradley & Associates
Paul Moynihan M.J. Bradley & Associates
Amy Stillings M.J. Bradley & Associates
Joe Gagliano M.J. Bradley & Associates
Greg Wight Norwich University
Andrew Heafitz Solectria
Richardo Espinosa Solectria
Phil Girton Vermont Monitoring Cooperative

Thank you all for your hard work, research and support and most of all your enthusiasm for
electric vehicle research and technology. A special thank you to Sheila Lynch, Tom Webb and
Lisa Callaghan at NAVC and Robert Rosenfeld and DARPA for funding and supporting this
important work.

Richard Watts
Project Director, EVermont

Harold Garabedian
Research and Testing Director, EVermont

9/20/99 NAVC1096-PG009524 ii
EVermont Technical Reports
The following reports are available for $25.00 each. Checks should be sent in advance and be
made payable to EVermont, c/o Agency of Natural Resources, Building 3 South, 10 South Main
Street, Waterbury, VT 05671-0402.

Thermal Measurements and Analysis of the 1995 Solectria Force (Paul Richmond - CRREL)

Effect of Winter Conditions on Power Consumption (Deborah Diemand/Jesse Stanley - CRREL)

Electric Vehicle Traction and Rolling Resistance in Winter (Sally Shoop - CRREL)

Traction and Handling Performance of an Electric Vehicle in Winter Environment (Sally Shoop -
CRREL and Harold Garabedian - Vermont DEC)

Thermal Windshield and Foam Insulation Report (Harold Garabedian - Vermont DEC)

Electric Vehicle Thermal Management - EVermont Test Results (Harold Garabedian testimony
before the Massachusetts State Legislature)

Solectria Sunrise Thermal Analysis (Harold Garabedian - Vermont DEC)

Northeast Advanced Thermal Management Technology Project - Executive Summary

State of the Art Electric Vehicle Cold Weather Range (Harold Garabedian - Vermont DEC and
Andrew Heafitz - Solectria Corp.)

Baseline Performance of a Nickel Hydride Powered EV Operating in Vermont (Harold

Garabedian - Vermont DEC, Ricardo Espinosa - Solectria, Nick Karditsas - Ovonic Battery
Corp., and Stephen Brennan - GM-Ovonic)

Thermal Efficiency Tests and Analysis of an Electric Bus in Portland, Maine; John Duffy,
Professor, Mechanical Engineering, University of Massachusetts Lowell, January 1997.

Modification of Greater Portland Transit District Battery-Powered Electric Bus; EVermont,

February 1997.

Electric Vehicle Noise: A Report on a Study Conducted at Norwich University; Gregory D.

Wight, P.E., Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, March 1997.

Monitoring EV’s in Florida’s Environment; William Young, Florida Solar Energy Center.

9/20/99 NAVC1096-PG009524 iii

1.0 Introduction

1.1 The Advanced Battery Management and Technology Project

Claims that electric vehicles cannot be deployed in cold climates are without a doubt misleading
statements when the development and testing completed by EVermont over the last several years
is considered. EVermont is committed to the successful cold weather development and
deployment of electric and alternative fueled vehicles and has deployed a significant number of
electric light duty vehicles and one hybrid vehicle in the state of Vermont. This work has
primarily centered on cabin and battery thermal management technologies, their implementation
as well as their successful deployment.

Figure 1: NiMH Solectria Force, EVermont “EV13”

EVermont has taken their extensive
body of experience in the thermal
management of lead-acid batteries and
applied that knowledge to the thermal
management needs of the advanced
nickel metal-hydride (NiMH) battery
technology developed by the Ovonic
Battery Company (OBC). EVermont
was an early adopter of the NiMH
technology in the form of an Ovonic
battery equipped Solectria Force
vehicle. This vehicle, green in color,
was registered under Vermont plate
number “EV13” and was tested along
side other EVermont lead-acid vehicles under EVermont’s previous Northern Region Thermal
Management Technology Project (NRTMTP), contract NAVC1095-PG009521.
EVermont and the Northeast Alternative Vehicle Consortium (NAVC) are applying this
experience in the Advanced Battery Management and Technology Project (ABMTP), contract
NAVC1096-PG009524. The primary goal of the project was to identify and develop a successful
all-climate design for a NiMH battery thermal management system for application in commercial
and military vehicles. The project also investigated the application of an auxiliary power unit
(APU) as a vehicle thermal management system. The NAVC funded this project through the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Electric and Hybrid Electric Vehicle
Technology Program.

1.1.1 Major Findings from Previous Projects

The major findings of previous EVermont projects that are relevant for this project are:
(1) For cold weather operation, a 5 kW coolant heater provided the best cabin heating
performance for the light-duty Solectria Force passenger car,
(2) there was measured heat loss through the battery enclosures,
(3) for lead-acid batteries, an insulated battery box successfully helped the batteries retain heat
until the vehicle is recharged,
(4) for lead-acid batteries, cooling fans were sufficient to maintain maximum temperatures below
critical temperature levels,

9/20/99 NAVC1096-PG009524 1
(5) a Solectria Force with non-thermally managed NiMH batteries retained nearly 65% of its
warm weather range, similar to that of a thermally managed lead-acid vehicle,
(6) 20-30% of the cold weather range reduction was due primarily to vehicle friction losses (i.e.,
increased road losses).
In order to address several additional electric vehicle cold weather thermal management
challenges, EVermont, in the NRTMTP, continued to develop and evaluate light-duty electric
vehicle thermal management technologies in four areas: HVAC system improvements, improved
battery enclosure thermal management, advanced lead-acid battery cold and warm weather
performance and noise testing.

1.1.2 Battery Thermal Management Requirements

The factors that affect the range of an electric vehicle in cold weather can be divided into two
categories: (1) those affecting the on-road energy consumption of the vehicle and (2) those that
affect the energy capacity of the battery. Of the factors that affect on-road energy consumption,
the HVAC system electrical load, tire rolling resistance and lubricant viscosity are elements that
can be influenced from the standpoint of a conversion electric vehicle. Auxiliary electrical loads,
such as windshield wipers and headlights and tail lights, are for the most part fixed parameters.
Vehicle aerodynamics are also primarily a fixed parameter, however they can be altered to a
certain degree by the installation of air dams and louvers on the vehicle. Increased air density at
colder temperatures and rolling losses due to snow and slush on the road are uncontrollable
factors and affect both electric and conventional vehicle performance adversely. With respect to
the energy capacity of the battery, battery thermal effects at cold temperatures can be enhanced to
some degree in conversion electric vehicles.

1.2 Problem Statement of the ABMTP

Widespread deployment of electric and hybrid-electric vehicles depends on successfully
addressing both electric vehicle (EV) range and passenger comfort demands in hot and cold
temperature extremes. As seen in NRTMTP, a NiMH battery powered car will retain 65% of its
warm weather range compared to a non-thermally managed lead-acid electric vehicle which
retains only 20% when operated in the same cold environment. This led to assertions that the
NiMH battery technology is cold weather resistant and does not need or would not benefit from
thermal management of the battery modules. However, prior EVermont testing had indicated that
a conventional ICE vehicle suffers only a 20% decrement in fuel economy and retains nearly 80%
of its warm weather range. Experience indicates that these losses, 20% typically, are primarily
related to greater lubricant viscosity, higher air density, reduced tire operating temperature and
road losses such as snow. However, since the mechanical drive system of both the ICE vehicle
and the NiMH vehicle are similar (differential, axles, tires and wheel bearings) one would expect
that an electric vehicle should be capable of achieving 80% of its warm weather range in cold
weather. Hence, one of the objectives of ABMTP is to design a battery thermal management
system for a NiMH battery powered EV that will perform at the same level as an ICE vehicle
during cold weather operation.
Continuing upon previous experiences with lead-acid battery powered vehicles, an additional
objective was to determine whether the installation of an APU in a Solectria E-10 pickup could
also achieve extended EV range and meet cabin heating demands during cold temperature
operation. This objective would explore the problem of how to heat the cabin with the greatest
efficiency and the trade-off in fuel efficiency with battery energy.
.

9/20/99 NAVC1096-PG009524 2
1.3 EVermont Vehicles Figure 2: EVermont Vehicle Fleet Mileage
EVermont continues to deploy numerous
Mileage Chart
electric vehicles in Vermont. EVermont
July-96 November-96 July-97 November-97 July-98 November-98 April-99 Aug-99
vehicles have accrued over 150,000 25000
miles of in service and testing miles.
Figure 2 illustrates the accrued mileage 20000

for each EVermont vehicle since July of

1996. Of particular interest are the two 15000

Miles
NiMH vehicles, EV13 (with over 21,000
miles) and EV15 (8,500 miles) tested 10000

under this program and EVermont’s

5000
hybrid truck, EV1 (with 15,000 miles).
The total accumulative mileage for the 0

EV3

EV9 (GMP Car)

EV11 (CVPS Car)

EV1 (EVT Truck)

EV10 (EVT Control)

EV12 (EVT Control)

EV7 (EVT Car)
EV5 (VY Truck)

EV14 (Delco Force)

EV15 (98 GP Force)

EV17 (96 PEPCO Truck)

EV18 (96 PEPCO Truck)

EV16 (96 NYPA Force)
EV2 (GMP Truck)

EV13 (NiMH Force)

three NiMH vehicles is 36,000 miles
over the two-year study period.
EV-7 started with 21,000 miles. All other vehicles represent actual miles.
Aug. data was not available for EV2, EV3, EV5, EV10, EV11, EV12, EV17 and EV18 Vehicle
1.3.1 Project Test Vehicles
This project tested three Solectria Force NiMH vehicles referred to as “EV13”, “EVHQ” and
“EV15”, as well as one modified lead-acid Solectria truck referred to as “EV1”. These
designations are a result of the Vermont license plate numbers for each vehicle.

1.3.1.1 EV13, Solectria Force

EV13 is a 1995 Solectria Force with the following equipment: auxiliary fuel-fired heat, standard
electric heat, non-insulated warm weather battery thermal management, standard preheat, one 220
volt charger, light weight air conditioning and Ovonic NiMH batteries.
Since it was delivered in late 1996,
EV13 has accrued 21,632 miles (as of Figure 3: GM Ovonic 85Ah NiMH Battery Modules
July 20, 1999). EV13 is powered by 15
Ovonic NiMH battery modules with a
nominal voltage of 198 volts and 85Ah.
Six of the battery modules are located in
the front battery box while the
remaining nine modules are located in
the rear battery box. The total weight of
the batteries is about 587 pounds (267
kg). The pack has a total energy
capacity of 17 kWh providing a useful
range of about 85 miles.
The 85 Ah Ovonic NiMH, battery pack
in EV13 utilizes a warm weather BTMS
that does not optimize for cold weather
operation. This means that the battery boxes are fairly open to atmosphere and battery
temperatures remain at ambient when the vehicle is not in operation. This car was used as a
baseline NiMH thermal management vehicle, against which the remaining two cars with refined
cold weather thermal management systems were judged.
EV13 maintained roughly 65% of its warm weather range when operated at temperatures below -
15°C. Data collected from the baseline NiMH powered vehicles indicated that non-thermally

9/20/99 NAVC1096-PG009524 3
managed NiMH batteries can
provide near design capacity
energy, even in cold conditions
(-22°C), however total battery
voltage is suppressed (9.2%)
Figure 4: NiMH Battery Pack Voltage vs. Temperature
NiMH Powered Solectria Force
Traction Battery Voltage
Under Two Ambient Conditions
240.0
For The Same 65 Mile Test Course

230.0
and total voltage fluctuation is

Traction Battery Voltage, Volts

increased (40.2%). Within the 220.0

pack, individual modules 210.0

experience a 30.3% increase in
200.0
the difference between the
voltage of the module with the 190.0

highest charge vs. that with the 180.0

lowest. This depression of total
170.0
pack voltage resulting from the
fluctuations in the state-of- 160.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
charge of individual cells can Time, Seconds X 2
be deleterious to battery Total Volts: 58 F Total Volts: -7 F
performance and life. Note that
the battery compartment of the baseline vehicle was designed to reject heat generated by NiMH
batteries operating in warm/hot climates, and no modifications were employed for cold-weather
battery thermal management.
Technologies and strategies to improve NiMH battery performance should account for the full
range of temperatures and climates in which these batteries may operate. It is imperative that
research be continued to integrate battery thermal management systems into NiMH vehicles,
which address a wide range of operating climates. These types of systems will insure the
reliability of NiMH batteries as an energy source for EV operation.

Figure 5: EVHQ GP NiMH Solectria Force 1.3.1.2 EVHQ, Solectria Force

EVHQ is a 1997 Solectria Force.
Since it was delivered in February
1998, EVHQ has accrued 5,734
miles. This vehicle has been testing
in Quebec in warm weather under
controlled route conditions. For
cold weather operation this vehicle
was also tested within a cold
chamber at the Laboratoire des
Technologies Electrochimiques et
des Electrotechnologies d’Hydro-
Quebec (LTEE) test lab in
Shawinigan (Quebec) Canada. A
complete report with respect to this
testing is available as a separate report independent of this document. A summary of the
conclusions from the report is provided in later sections of this report.
This vehicle is outfitted with a refined BTMS design, optimized for both warm and cold weather.
This new BTMS system includes additional insulation and reduced airflow to aid in the retention
of heat generated by the batteries. This vehicle is equipped with revised battery boxes which
contain insulation and are also equipped with plugs to partially close off the ventilation holes.
This allows for ventilation of the battery pack so that on-road operation does not result in

9/20/99 NAVC1096-PG009524 4
significant induced ventilation of the
Figure 6: GP NiMH Battery Module
battery pack. For summer operation the
plugs can be removed if necessary. This
vehicle is equipped with cabin preheat
and a fuel-fired heater (4,000 watt) but
no air conditioning.
EVHQ is powered by 15 Gold Peak GP
NiMH battery modules (Ovonic license)
with a nominal voltage of 180 volts and
90Ah. As with EV13, six of the battery
modules are located in the front battery
box while the remaining nine modules
are located in the rear battery box.

1.3.1.3 EV15, Solectria Force

EV15 is a 1997 Solectria Force. Since it was delivered on November 25, 1998, EV15 has
accrued 8,466 miles. This vehicle was tested in both cold and warm weather in Vermont. The
battery box design is similar to that of the EVHQ vehicle, however the insulation and the plug
size has been optimized for cold weather operation. This vehicle is equipped with cabin preheat
and a fuel-fired heater. Like EVHQ, EV15 is powered by 15 Gold Peak GP NiMH battery
modules (Ovonic license) with a
Figure 7: EV15 GP NiMH Solectria Force nominal voltage of 180 volts and
90Ah. As with EV13, six of the
battery modules are located in the
front battery box while the
remaining nine modules are located
in the rear battery box.
In addition to the refined BTMS
design, the third NiMH vehicle is
equipped with a high current
controller to increase the torque
speed envelope of the Solectria
Force by 30% for driving on hilly
and high-speed roads. As in the
other vehicles the controller had
three forward settings, economy,
normal and power, which allowed the vehicle to be operated both at high power and at a reduced
level (normal) that will be consistent with the power setting of the first two vehicles.
EV15 was entered by EVermont and Solectria into the 11th annual Northeast Sustainable Energy
Association’s American Tour de Sol in May 1999. The vehicle captured first place overall in
points for the weeklong, real-world performance testing of nearly fifty electric vehicles. EV15
scored well for its efficiency, reliability, acceleration, handling and consumer acceptability. Also
the vehicle traveled 142 miles on a single charge during the tour.

9/20/99 NAVC1096-PG009524 5
Table 1: NiMH Program Vehicles Summary
NiMH #1, EV13 NiMH #2, EVHQ NiMH #3, EV15
Operator EVermont Hydro Quebec EVermont
Operating Environment Vermont Canada Vermont
Battery Pack 85Ah NiMH, 198 Volt 90Ah NiMH, 180 Volt 90Ah NiMH, 180 Volt
Battery Manufacturer Ovonic Gold Peak Gold Peak
BTMS Open air fan cooled Restricted air flow Restricted air flow
Drive system 42kW, Single speed 42kW, Single speed 55kW, Single Speed

1.3.1.4 EV1, Solectria E10 Pickup Truck

This vehicle is a 1994 Solectria E10 pickup truck, which was purchased from Solectria by another
company and subsequently acquired and used by EVermont. This vehicle previously participated
in NRTMTP. This vehicle, operated with lead-acid batteries, was chosen to have an APU
installed to test cabin thermal
Figure 8: EVermont EV1 Solectria E-10 management and range
performance.
This vehicle was originally
equipped with three strings of lead-
acid batteries. Each string was
comprised of 12 modules in series
for a total operating voltage of 156
volts. Two of the battery strings are
located in battery boxes below the
rear pickup bed and the third battery
string was located in the engine
compartment. To facilitate the
installation of the APU the battery
box in the engine compartment was
removed. While this did not affect
the battery voltage of the vehicle, it did decrease the energy capacity of the vehicle by one third.
This vehicle is currently equipped with 24 group 22 gel-cell batteries. Each battery has a nominal
voltage of 13 volts and a nominal capacity of 33.5 Ah when discharged at a C/1 (depleted over a
one-hour period) average discharge rate. As the pack is generally depleted in less than one hour a
capacity of about 30 Ah is used. This yields a total pack capacity of about 9.4 kWh with two
strings versus a total previous pack capacity of 14 kWh with the three strings.

9/20/99 NAVC1096-PG009524 6
2.0 Battery and APU Technology
The United States Advanced Battery Consortium (USABC) identified mid-term,
commercialization and long-term goals for advanced batteries, shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Performance Characteristics for Advanced Batteries

Specific Energy Specific Power Cost

Life Cycle (Whr/kg) (W/kg) ($/kWhr)

USABC Goals
Mid-term 600 80 15 < 150
Commercialization 1,000 150 300 < 150
Long-term 1,000 200 400 < 100
CARB Estimates for 2003
NiMH 1,000 90 300 250
Li-Ion 1,000 120 300 300
Li-Poly 1,000 150 315 < 250
Source: CARB, 1998 Zero-Emission Vehicle Biennial Program Review, July 1998

2.1 Advanced Battery Design

The EVermont project team members considered a number of potential advanced battery
technologies to test and evaluate in cold climates. The project team’s investigation into battery
technologies revealed that given the current state of battery technology and commercialization,
the only new near-term battery technologies that were realistic candidates for consideration in this
project were advanced lead-acid and NiMH batteries. NiCd batteries were considered to already
be a proven technology. Table 2 provides an overview of these batteries.

2.1.1 Advanced Nickel Metal-Hydride Batteries

NiMH batteries have been available in consumer electronics for several years, but only recently
available in sizes suitable for electric vehicles. Ovonics Battery Company (OBC) reported that
the NiMH battery provides three times the energy density, an energy to weight ratio, of a lead-
acid battery. Additionally the cycle life is expected to be at least twice that of lead-acid batteries.
While the lead-acid battery performance decreases considerably in cold weather, NiMH batteries
are more sensitive to high temperatures.
The primary disadvantages of NiMH batteries are that the batteries typically require an active
battery energy management system and to date they have been produced in limited quantities.
Both of these factors contribute to a very high cost for the battery pack ($45,000), a cost high
enough to be unattractive for all applications except where performance is at a premium.
However, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) predicts that NiMH batteries will be in
production quantities (greater than 10,000 batteries per year) by 2003 which may reduce future
production costs. Table 4 compares the production modules’ specifications and performance as
provided from the manufacturers for the two NiMH batteries used in this study.

9/20/99 NAVC1096-PG009524 7
Table 3: Comparison of Advanced Lead-Acid and Nickel Based Batteries
Ovonic Battery
Sonnenschien Company Nickel Saft Advanced
Lead-acid Metal-hydride Nickel-Cadmium
Range (miles) 50 100 100
Voltage (Volts) 156 184 / 198 168
Capacity (Ah) 50 85 100
(kWh) 7.8 15.6 / 16.8 16.8
Estimated Life (cycles) 400 1,000 2,000
Estimated Life (miles) 20,000 100,000 200,000
Warranty None 3 year 4 year / 25,000 miles
Cost $1,500 $45,000 $14,000
Energy storage $0.075 $0.450 $0.070
(cost/mile)
Data acquisition and No Yes (DAQ) No
control
Maintenance None None (Data reporting) Distilled water - single
point every 6,000 miles
Cold weather Battery warming needed Good without warming Very good without
warming
Experience in 3-4 1 4-5
production (years)
Recycling 100% 100% 100%
Source: Solectria Corporation, 1997

Table 4: Ovonic and GP Battery Production Module Specifications and Performance

NiMH Manufacturer Ovonics GP
Nominal Voltage (Volts) 13.2 12
Number of Cells 11 10
Nominal Capacity (Ah) 85 90
Nominal Energy (kWh) 1.2 1.08
Specific Energy (Wh/kg) 70 70
Energy Density (Wh/liter) 165 170
Dimensions (mm) 102 x 176 x 409 102 x 186 x 388
Weight (kg) 18.2 17.8
Life Cycle > 600 > 600
Source: GM Ovonics and GP Batteries International

2.2 Auxiliary Power Units

During the first year of the electric vehicle testing in Vermont, it was discovered that heating the
passenger compartment of an electric vehicle was a major obstacle to successful winter operation.
Electric resistance heaters, though light and inexpensive, proved to be too large a load on the
already overburdened batteries. Efforts to reduce the quantity of heat required, through the use of

9/20/99 NAVC1096-PG009524 8
seat heaters, air recirculation and vehicle insulation, were experimented with. While some of
these methods did improve the effective performance of the electric heaters, window fogging and
reduced range persisted. In the end, burning fuel in an efficient heater was chosen as the most
practical solution to the problem.
Even though we had a working solution to the EV heating problem, there was still a significant
reduction in vehicle range on very cold days. Our project team was compelled with the idea of
capturing the expansion energy of the heated air in the cabin heater and using it to create a
supplemental source of electric energy that could be used to offset this reduction in range. Thus
was born the idea of creating a “hybrid” vehicle which would burn fuel, primarily for the creation
of heat, while at the same time, extend the vehicle range to that expected at warmer temperatures.
This would be, by definition, a “co-generation” project, trading the unlimited continuous
extended range that could be obtained by installing a larger “auxiliary power unit” opting for a
unit that would provide just enough heat to the cabin.

2.2.1 Combustion Engines

The burning of fossil fuel (gasoline, diesel, etc.) in an ICE provides significant waste heat energy,
which can be used to heat the vehicle, as well as, generate electricity, extending the EV range.
The problems associated with an ICE’s use as an APU are the emissions from combustion and the
noise generated by a typical reciprocating ICE.
Most of the prime movers available at the optimal ~5kW size were either carburetor gasoline
engines or injected diesel engines. Neither engine would maintain the low emission/noise
standard that an EV offered in pure electric form. Even with further emission reductions,
accomplished by equipping the ICE to burn propane or natural gas, the unit would still produce
the “lawn mower in the trunk” effect due to the excessive vibration and exhaust noise inherent to
this type of engine. Nonetheless, a small unit operating at low rpm and located in the bed of a
pickup truck was assumed to be easily integrated and fairly unobtrusive.

2.2.1.1 Prime Movers

There were several prime movers which, when coupled to an appropriate alternator, were
identified as being able to provide the desired results. The first engine the team reviewed was a
1100 cc BMW motorcycle engine. This powerplant utilized the best fuel management system
currently available on IC motorcycle engines, as well as a three way catalytic converter in the
exhaust. It is a smooth running four-cylinder water-cooled engine, currently available and could
be coupled to a generator/alternator. Shortcomings include its relatively large size and weight
(which exceeds the 200 lb target), use of gasoline as a fuel and excess power capacity. The
generating capacity of this engine is in excess of 30 kW at full power. Fisher Electric
Technologies indicated that they could couple an efficient, permanent magnet generator to it and
possibly provide a controller. However, the team concluded that this type of engine would be far
oversized for the job.
The second possibility was the use of a rotary-type engine. An engine of this type possesses a
very good power to weight ratio and generally produces lower emissions than a similar size
reciprocating engine. This unit’s smaller size when coupled to an alternator provides for a very
compact APU.
There are several four stroke gasoline engines available from the small engine manufacturing
divisions of Honda and Kawasaki. The Honda units are generally sold as complete motor
generator sets providing AC voltage for residential and commercial use. The Solectria pickup
operates at a nominal 144 Volts and is not amenable to this type of generator unless it is used to
supply the onboard battery charger limiting output and incurring additional transfer losses.

9/20/99 NAVC1096-PG009524 9
Several conversations with Fisher Electric Technology provided information on a general purpose
Kawasaki four stroke gasoline engine that Fisher was familiar with. This unit is rated at 20 hp, is
fairly compact, readily available and relatively inexpensive (~$1,500 for the engine).

2.2.1.2 Prime Receivers

Fisher Electric Technology in St. Petersburg, Florida, was the prime candidate for a supplier of an
efficient DC alternator. This company produces permanent magnet motors and generators and
has experience in the electric vehicle industry. While they offered to create a custom built
alternator to match any prime mover the project team sent them, the team was specifically
interested in the previously mentioned Kawasaki engine with which they were familiar. This
company also had a working relationship with Moller International and was interested in
producing an alternator for the BETA 2 engine. At the time of the discussion, Fisher had
supplied more than two dozen alternators for use in hybrid electric vehicles. The advantage to a
DC alternator is that it can be tied in directly between the battery controller and the batteries
providing power to either charge the batteries or supply power directly to the motor.

Figure 9: EVermont EV1 Solectria E-10

2.2.2 Integration of APU
Once our goal was established, we
began the process of choosing a
power unit, with an ICE
determined as the best choice.
ICE options ranged from an air-
cooled Briggs and Stratton to a
liquid cooled BMW motorcycle
engine. We knew that a liquid
cooled engine would be quieter
and enable us to efficiently
transfer heat into the vehicle. We
also knew that it would take about
5,000 watts of waste heat from the
engine to heat the vehicle. If half
Figure 10: Kawasaki FD620D, Fisher A7/28AF of the waste heat energy from an ICE
goes out the exhaust, we would need
an engine that produced about
10,000 watts of total waste heat.
This size engine would also produce
about 2,500 watts of mechanical
energy. Our goal for a successful
cogeneration / hybrid was to heat the
vehicle while offsetting the 20% cold
weather range reduction. This range
reduction translates into about 1,200
watts. We either had to extract
additional waste heat from the APU
exhaust or go with a greater
generating capacity than we really
needed.

9/20/99 NAVC1096-PG009524 10
Investigation of commercially available APUs resulted in the purchase of a Fisher alternator
mated to a Kawasaki four-stroke gasoline engine. The Kawasaki FD620D 617cc engine is rated
at 20 hp maximum with 16 hp available at 2700 rpm. This operating rpm corresponds to the
lowest specific fuel consumption for this engine. The unit is coupled to a Fisher model A7/28AF
brushless alternator rated at 10 kW (~70 amps) output at 144 volts and 2700 rpm. The total
weight of the system is approximately 130lb (30lb for the alternator, the remainder for the engine,
fluids and connections). It was clear that this power unit was much larger than what we had
initially set out to install, but the potential for further extending the vehicle range along with the
quality and efficiency of the Fisher products enticed
us to choose this path. Based on the system Figure 11: EV1 Lift Bed
mechanical output approximately 25,000 watts of
useful heat energy would be available from this unit
at full power.

2.2.3 Physical Integration

The physical dimensions and weight of the unit
drove the physical integration of the APU into the
vehicle. We had originally intended to mount the
unit along with the fuel tank in the bed of the truck.
Because of the need to lift the bed of an E 10 truck
in order to access the controllers and batteries, the
bed would have required extensive modification.
This location also would have required long hoses to
the vehicle heater core, which would have led to
excessive heat loss.
The idea of removing the front batteries and
associated box (the vehicle originally had front and
rear battery boxes), and installing the power unit
under the hood emerged as the most sensible
solution. This reduced the battery storage capacity
by 1/3 (the vehicle originally had three parallel
strings so voltage remained the same), but if the range reduction became an issue, these batteries
could be re-installed in the rear of the vehicle. The APU would now have to overcome a 47%
loss to return winter range to summer
Figure 12: EV1 Rear Battery Box capacity. Taking into account the
removal of the front twelve batteries
and their enclosure, the installation
of this power unit has created a total
vehicle weight reduction of over 100
pounds.
The APU installation in the engine
compartment of the truck was fairly
straightforward. A steel frame was
fabricated which was mounted to the
vehicle frame via rubber mounts. To
this frame was mounted the power
unit and the radiator assembly. The
belt driven cooling fan was replaced
with an electric unit and a dual

9/20/99 NAVC1096-PG009524 11
thermostat assembly was created. The heater core is supplied with hot water by the opening of
the first thermostat at 180°F. The second thermostat controls flow to the radiator and opens at
195°F. The engine contains a mechanical coolant circulation pump that is capable of providing
an adequate flow to the heater core. No heat regulation valves are presently installed in this
system but one may be added in the hose to the heater core for summer operation.
Included with the Kawasaki engine is a built in alternator that has been coupled to the vehicles
12-volt system to provide redundancy for the DC to DC converter. In order to utilize this layout,
a diode was installed on the output side of the DC to DC converter to protect it from any voltage
fluctuations that might be produced
Figure 13: APU Installed in Engine Compartment by the alternator. The factory
installed starter motor is used to
crank the Kawasaki engine and a
small battery has been added to the
12-volt system in order to satisfy
the surge of current required by the
starter.
An automatic (electric) fuel
enrichment device has been
installed on the APU carburetor to
facilitate cold starts. A 15-gallon
fuel tank has been mounted under
the cab, between the frame rails
(transmission tunnel), and its filler
pipe runs up to the right front inner
fender well. The hood must be opened in order to add fuel but this was determined to be an
acceptable compromise. A charcoal canister has been installed in order to absorb fuel tank
vapors. This canister has a simple evacuation system, which consists of a small hose connected
to the intake manifold of the engine. We found that a solenoid control system was not necessary
for acceptable idle quality because of the small size of this hose and the moderate rpm operation
of the APU.
The engine possesses an internal Figure 14: Fisher AC/DC Converter
flyweight type throttle control that
is presently attached to the vehicle
accelerator pedal. This setup
increases alternator output as
increased current flow to the drive
motors is called for. The exhaust
system begins with a header pipe
going down to a section of
flexible pipe with a connection
flange on the bottom. From there,
the exhaust passes through a
catalytic converter and two
mufflers before leaving the
vehicle at the rear bumper. The
unit’s ignition switch is mounted
on the center console and is run in series with the vehicle ignition switch. The starter motor is
then engaged by turning the ignition switch to the crank position.

9/20/99 NAVC1096-PG009524 12
APU instrumentation in the instrument cluster includes fuel level, oil pressure, water temperature
and DC volts (12-volt system). Solectria instruments located in the center console include
battery pack volts, current and a state of charge (Ah) meter. Additional instruments in the center
console include power unit output current, Fisher alternator and vehicle battery temperatures,
manifold vacuum, hour meter and a tachometer. The Solectria installed electric power steering
and brake vacuum pump has been retained along with an Espar kerosene burning air heater. The
General Motors anti lock brake system was disabled during Solectria conversion of the vehicle.
Removing this unit saved 23 pounds and freed up valuable space under the hood.
The electric interface between the Solectria drive system and the APU is between the battery
connection to the motor controllers via a three-phase rectifier that converts the alternating APU
output to DC current. This means that any power produced by the alternator will flow directly
into the controllers or the batteries depending on which has the lowest potential. Initial testing
indicated that a problem could occur with this set up that results from the APU being operated
while generating current via regenerative braking with the batteries fully charged. This produces
excessively high voltage and the
Figure 15: Completion of APU Installation
controllers drop off line. Cycling the
drive selector switch through the off
position will reset the controllers but
this situation needs to be avoided.
We have come up with three ways to
prevent this occurrence. First, do not
run the APU with the batteries fully
charged. This should always be
observed so as to avoid overcharging
but precludes the option of warming
the cabin on a cold morning.
Second, operate the electric heater
while the engine is running. This
will absorb excess energy and
prevent over-voltage. Third, switch
off the regenerative brakes.
Two other problems associated with this installation were vibration and noise. These were
predictable and by no means a surprise. Both have been addressed and significant improvements
have been made. The power steering assembly was originally attached to the engine-mounting
frame. The location and mass of this assembly produced a harmonic vibration that was
unacceptable. Relocating this from the frame to the vehicle chassis eliminated this portion of the
problem. Modifications to the engine mounts were also necessary to further reduce vibrations
being transmitted into the frame of the vehicle by the APU itself. The exhaust system was
originally assembled with one muffler. The sound level emanating from this system was
excessive. An extension was added to the pipe and a second muffler was hung on the outside of
the frame rail near the rear of the bed. This effectively reduced the exhaust noise to an acceptable
level.

9/20/99 NAVC1096-PG009524 13
3.0 Battery Testing

3.1 Bench Testing of Ovonics NiMH Batteries

NiMH battery capacity is significantly less susceptible to low temperatures than lead-acid
batteries. Lead-acid batteries typically suffer about a 50% reduction in discharge capacity
withdrawn at a C/3 rate when battery temperatures drop below freezing. NiMH batteries on the
other hand can deliver 80% or more of their rated capacity at 0°F. Below 0°F increased internal
resistance of the NiMH batteries does result in more significant decreases in capacity. NiMH
batteries are however more susceptible to high operating temperatures than their lead-acid
counterparts and as such any thermal management system which provides insulation to the
batteries for extreme cold weather operation must compensate with additional cooling
capabilities. It is estimated that repeated operation of NiMH batteries in excess of 40°C (104°F)
will result in reduced cycle life, about 60% of specification.

3.2 Laboratory Bench Testing at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell, MA

A 15-module pack of Ovonic NiMH electric vehicle batteries was purchased and evaluated at the
UMASS Lowell battery evaluation laboratory. A total of 30 cycle tests were performed of each
individual module. Moderate rate 20 amp cycles were performed at –20, 0, 20 and 40 degrees
centigrade. Module voltage, current, impedance and temperature were measured at one-second
intervals and average values were stored as time series files at three-minute intervals. Battery
performance characteristics such as capacity, round trip efficiency, energy density, power density
and heat dissipation were derived from the data. High rate 80 amp cycles were performed at –20
and 0 degrees centigrade. A final experiment was a 15-module pack test.
The battery pack delivered to
Figure 16: Average Capacity for Ovonic NiMH Battery
UMASS Lowell consisted of 15, 11-
cell modules with nominal ratings of
Average Battery Capacity 13.2 volts and 85 Ah as provided by
120 the manufacturer. The 11-cell
NiMH module has roughly the same
100
operating voltage range as a 12-volt
80
lead-acid battery module comprised
of 6 cells. At 20°C the average
capacity value was approximately
Ah

60

40
87.75 Ah at a 20-amp discharge rate
(this is approximately C/4). This
20 capacity correlates well to the 89Ah
average determined by Ovonic
0
-20C 0C 20C 40C utilizing a C/3 rate. On a kWh basis
Degrees Centrigrade

CC discharge Ah output Ah input

the batteries had an average round
trip efficiency of 83.5%.

9/20/99 NAVC1096-PG009524 14
Figure 17: Round Trip Efficiency for Ovonic NiMH Batteries
Figures 16, 17, 18 and 19 show
that the impedance and voltage
Round Trip Efficiency
were both optimized at 20°C,
100 however these parameters were
most impacted at -20°C.
80
Discharge voltage was depressed
at -20°C and further depressed at
Efficiency Percent

60
higher discharge currents.
Generally speaking Ovonic
40
NiMH batteries exhibited a loss
of specific power (W/kg) at cold
20
temperatures, however, specific
energy (Wh/kg) capacity fell
0
-20C 0C 20C 40C only a small amount. On the
Degrees Centigrade
other hand at high temperatures
Efficiency

specific power was retained, however,

Figure 18: AC Impedance of Ovonic NiMH Batteries
total energy capacity began to fall off.
This was in part due to higher self- AC Impedance
discharge rates (1.5% per day at 20°C) at 8.5

higher temperatures. The results obtained

at UMASS Lowell agreed well with the 8

information provided by OBC. The

testing identified an optimum operating 7.5
Milliohms

temperature range of 0°C to 30°C for the

Ovonic NiMH batteries. 7

Above 40°C actual cycle life begins to fall

6.5
off and above 60°C a failure is possible.
Above 30°C energy capacity began to fall
6
off to less than acceptable levels and -20C 0C 20C 40C
Degrees Centigrade

below -10°C specific power fell off far Impedance

enough to indicate vehicle performance
Figure 19: Ovonic Battery Average Discharge Voltage could be hampered.
In summary, at temperatures above
Discharge Voltage 30°C the NiMH batteries exhibit a
14
drop in total Ah capacity and
discharge voltage that results in a
13.8
loss of kWh capacity and reduced
13.6 range. At temperatures below 0°C
13.4
the batteries generally maintain their
Ah capacity but voltage is again
Volts

13.2
depressed resulting in a loss of kWh
13 capacity and reduced range.
Optimum power and capacity are
12.8
maintained between approximately
12.6
-20C 0C 20C 40C
0°C and 30°C. Self-discharge is
Degrees Centigrade
relatively high at 1.5% per day at
Voltage

9/20/99 NAVC1096-PG009524 15
20°C, which increases dramatically with battery operating temperature.
A complete report of the results from the ULowell testing is available as a separate report. The
report is titled “Characterization of Ovonic Nickel Metal Hydride Electric Vehicle Batteries”,
authored by Dr. Ziyad M. Salameh and Dr. William A. Lynch and completed August 1998. The
report is 284 pages in length including all appendices.

3.3 Battery Box Design

Because NiMH battery technology is generally exothermic, a conservation of energy approach
has been taken in the application of passive technologies to retain heat with the battery
compartments. These design modifications have been applied to maintain the batteries above the
ambient temperature without the addition of an active heat source. The conservation technologies
employed have been battery compartment insulation and reduction of battery box ventilation
through the application of ‘proof of concept’ flow restrictors and ventilation system flapper
valves. The addition of the insulation reduces conductive losses from the system, whereas the
modifications to the ventilation systems are designed to reduce convective losses.
Solectria considers the exact specification of the battery box for the Solectria Force confidential,
however an overview of the design strategy is contained here. Each battery box was
manufactured in aluminum to conserve weight. Ventilation holes were cut into the bottom of the
battery box to allow for vertical ventilation and drainage should water enter the box. A plastic
weather shield was located about one inch below each box to limit the amount of water intrusion.
The battery box is lined with rigid insulation. The NiMH batteries were installed in plastic
support frames that act as both insulators and spacers. Ventilation fans are located in the top of
the box to draw cooling air through the pack. Round plugs with smaller holes are used to limit
cooling airflow during winter operation. These plugs are easily removed for summer operation.
The results of prior testing from EVermont’s NRTMTP project on different battery insulations,
concluded that the choice of foam board alone would provide good heat retention during vehicle
operation.
In EV13 the battery boxes were left somewhat “open”, employing openings in the bottom of the
battery boxes, which allowed intrinsic cooling of the batteries from airflow induced when the
vehicle was in motion. Maximum heat exchange was achieved by narrowing the spacing between
the battery modules such that the velocity of the cooling air was increased.
Battery box modifications were pursued in the second project vehicle, EVHQ, to maintain the
batteries at optimal temperature regardless of ambient temperature, design modifications were
also made to the motor controller to overcome some of the side effects associated with the
instability in battery operation. NiMH batteries experience a voltage ‘sag’ under high current
load. This instability was exacerbated at cold temperature to the point where system controls to
protect the controller from over current would come into play and disable controller operation.
A microprocessor controlled data acquisition system (DAQ) monitored the temperatures and
voltages of the battery modules to implement control strategy algorithms to maintain the batteries
in the front and rear compartments at uniform and optimal temperatures. The voltages are used as
safety limits to prevent the batteries from being overcharged or over discharged. Temperature
sensors, two in each box, were monitored which the DAQ in turn uses to controls fans. The fans
draw air through the front and rear battery boxes to keep the two boxes in equilibrium with each
other by cooling the warmer of the two packs. The boxes themselves were designed internally to
equalize the fans’ cooling effect on each battery. The DAQ also monitored the overall average
temperature in the boxes and cooled the entire pack as appropriate.

9/20/99 NAVC1096-PG009524 16
3.4 NiMH Finite Element Model
In addition to the areas of modifications (insulation and air restriction) initiated by Solectria
Corporation on the battery boxes, there are a number of other governing parameters that influence
the performance of the system. The construction of different prototypes corresponding to various
configurations in order to test them for a design optimization purpose is a costly undertaking. An
alternative to this kind of analysis is numerical modeling, which offers better flexibility and lower
costs compared to prototype testing.
The NiMH Finite Element Model focuses on the thermal modeling of the system rather than the
study of parameter effects. The model is able to predict the velocity and temperature distributions
inside both battery boxes (front and rear).

3.4.1 Results - Hot Case

The hot case corresponds theoretically to an ambient temperature of +20°C. In reality, the
ambient temperature depends on time as temperature increased to +23°C by the end of the
simulation. The comparison of the predicted temperature evolution with the experimental data
collected (from the sensor located on module #2 in the front battery box) is shown in Figure 20.
Close agreement is found between numerical and experimental results regardless the state of the
fans. In fact, the model accurately predicts the temperature profile of the box. The average
relative error is approximately 0.2% based on the Kelvin absolute temperature scale.
Examination of the results for the rear box shows that the predictions are also in accordance with
the experimental data. The average error is 0.19% for the left side (module #11) and 0.12% for
the right side (module #14). The highest value of the absolute error in prediction is approximately
1.5°C.
Figure 20: Temperature Evolution in the Front Box (terminal #2)

34

32
Fans On

30
Temperature [oC]

28
Monitoring
Model
26 Fans Off

24
Turbulent combined
Laminar free free and forced
22 convection convection

20
0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600
Time [sec.]

9/20/99 NAVC1096-PG009524 17
The results demonstrate that the simulation model describes with satisfactory accuracy the
thermal behavior of the modules for the hot case even though the insulation is ignored in the
simulation. This can be explained by the fact that when the fans are running, the insulation does
not play a significant role, because the fans extract the heat generated by the modules from the
boxes and the air is continuously renewed. In contrast, the effect of the insulation is expected to
be strong if the fans are inactivated (Off position). However, the results show that there is no
effect in this case. This result may be attributed to the fact that the fans were not running for the
first 1,977 seconds (~33 minutes).
Examination of the results concerning the front box reveal that the hottest region in the box is
located in the core of module #2 (and module #5 by symmetry). Even though the fans are
running, the corresponding temperature is as high as 303 K (30°C). It is interesting to mention
here that the temperature at the location of the sensor is lower than that at the center of the
module; the difference is approximately 2°C.
In terms of the velocity distribution, the air movement underneath the modules seems to be quasi
uniform because of the existence of the plenum. Similarly, the flow between the modules is quite
homogeneous except for the air space at the front face of the box (between module #3 and the
wall) where the velocity is less important than elsewhere. On the other hand, the mass of air on
the top of the module #3 seems to be still. This is attributed to the vortex (flow recirculation)
created by the ascendant and descendant flows. This phenomenon is not observed for the other
modules since they are closer to the fan and the vortex cannot occur.
In the rear box, the hottest modules are those located at the center (#10, #11, #12 and #14) and the
most critical one seems to be the last one, module #14. This is a result of poor air circulation on
the backside of this specific module. In this particular region, the fan is relatively far from the
module, which favors free convection forces to drive the cooling air by density or temperature
differences. It should be mentioned here that the heat transfer deteriorates when the convection
mechanism changes from forced to free. Consequently, the temperature rises rapidly as the heat
removal decreases.

3.4.2 Results - Cold Case

The cold case corresponds theoretically to an ambient temperature near -20°C. In reality, the
ambient temperature depends on time as increased to –16.6°C by the end of the simulation.
The comparison between the numerical predictions and the test data are presented for the front
box in Figure 21. As shown, the modeled temperature diverged from the actual temperature over
time by an increasing margin for the front battery box. This same result also occurred for the rear
battery box. There are several variables that could result in the discrepancy between the
monitored and modeled results, such as insulation and airflow. The effect of insulation on the
temperature evolution was investigated for both boxes.
Insulation of 10 mm thickness was added on each side of the box. The results of the insulation on
the temperature evolution in the front box are shown in Figure 22. It should be noted here that
similar simulations were performed on the rear box, but the results are not presented since they
drive to the same conclusion: the insulation does not have a great impact on the temperature
prediction. Indeed, the insulation decreases the temperature difference between the model and
the experimental data by approximately 1°C.
The second suspected parameter is the mass flow induced by free convection forces, as the fans
did not function in the cold case. In reality, the flow at the inlets cannot be imposed since it
depends on the order of magnitude of the free convection forces. In other words, the larger the
temperature differences between the outlet and the inlet, the greater is the mass flow. Hence, as

9/20/99 NAVC1096-PG009524 18
Figure 21: Temperature Evolution in the Front Box (cold case)

-2

-4

-6
Temperature [oC]

-8
Monitoring
Model
-10

-12

-14

-16

-18
0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600
Time [sec.]

Figure 22: Effects of the Insulation and the Plugs on the Temperature Evolution in the Front Box

Model 1: No insulation, no plugs

Model 2: No insulation, with plugs
Model 3: With insulation, with plugs
0

-2

-4

-6
oC]

Monitoring
-8
Model 1

-10 Model 2
Model 3
-12

-14

-16

-18
0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600
Time [sec.]

9/20/99 NAVC1096-PG009524 19
the box temperature increases with time, the mass flow of air becomes more important. From the
modeling standpoint, it is more realistic to compute this quantity than to impose it. Nevertheless,
a negligible value representing the air flow through the inlets was imposed when the fans were
not functioning to keep the model relatively simple. It is difficult to determine the exact amount
of air crossing the box to impose it as a boundary condition at the inlets.
The option corresponding to the imposed mass flow was chosen in the present study to minimize
the complexity of the model and consequently the cost of the study. Now the question is: does
the value of air mass flow imposed represent the reality? The issue does not arise when the fans
are functioning because the driven flow is known (mass flow of the fans). When the fans are not
functioning, the “No plugs’’ situation for the same test parameters was used as a reference case
for the study of the mass flow effect.
The results reported in Figure 22 reveal that the air mass flow has no effect on the temperature
evolution. In order to confirm the modeled prediction, a comparison between the data collected
as temperature evolution in the front box for the “No plugs’’ and the “With plugs’’ situations is
displayed on Figure 23. The original curves show a constant difference of 3.75°C in average. The
difference is mainly due to the temperature offset at the initial time. The original curve
corresponding to the “With plugs’’ situation has been adjusted by subtracting the average
difference (3.75°C), and the resulting curve reveals that the difference collapses. The slight
remaining difference may be attributed to the range of precision of the sensors since the
maximum difference is approximately 1°C. The same trend was observed for the rear box.
Therefore, we can state with confidence that the air mass flow has no effect on the temperature
evolution when the fans are not operating during the tests corresponding to the cold case.
Consequently, the air mass flow imposed in the model is credible since it has no impact on the
accuracy of solution according to the modeled results and the experimental data.
Figure 23: Comparison between the Case with and without Plugs for the Front Box

-2

-4
Temperature evolution [oC]

-6

-8 No plugs-monitored
With plugs-monitered
-10 With plugs-adjusted

-12

-14

-16

-18
0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600
Time [sec.]

9/20/99 NAVC1096-PG009524 20
The isotherm contour results show that the temperature distribution in this case is quite different
in shape compared to the hot case. Contrary to the later case where the fans start working after
approximately 33 minutes of running, the fans stay off during the entire simulation. Therefore,
the flow of the air is induced by ascending forces associated with free convection as explained
before. In this situation, the velocities involved are too low to generate a significant flow, which
would reject the heat generated by the batteries outside the box. As a result, the heat is trapped
inside and a relative uniform temperature distribution is observed through the batteries. A reverse
trend is observed in the mass of air located on the top of the modules. In fact, the isotherm
contour at this location is characterized by many regions presenting different temperatures (the
difference could be as high as 4°C). This phenomenon is attributed to the nature of the air flow.
As a consequence of free convection, the flow is disturbed and is characterized by many
recirculating zones. The velocity reflects the complexity and the disturbance of the flow on the
top of the batteries. This observation may be a key to understanding the disagreement between
the model and the monitored data for the cold case. In fact, in this case the geometry details and
location of the heat generation within the battery could change the entire velocity field and
consequently, the thermal field as the two fields are coupled. This problem was not observed for
the hot case as the flow is driven mechanically. Hence, the flow is less disturbed and the
temperature distribution through the region in question is relatively uniform. Furthermore, when
the fans are functioning the heat transfer is due to forced convection. In this case, the temperature
does not interact with the velocity. These reasons could explain why the model’s accuracy is
better for the hot case.

9/20/99 NAVC1096-PG009524 21
4.0 Battery Thermal Management System

4.1 BTMS Design

A battery thermal management system (BTMS) for NiMH batteries was initially developed by
Solectria and Ovonics to thermally manage the dual battery compartments of a Solectria Force.
The system performed two major tasks: fan cooling of the batteries to dissipate heat generated
during use, charging and self discharge, and balancing the temperatures in the front and rear
boxes with each other, again by fan cooling the warmer of the two packs. No active heating was
included in the design as NiMH batteries were perceived as cold weather resistant. All heating
was provided by the charging and discharging of the batteries.
In light of a design objective to maximize the energy capacity and power output of the NiMH
battery pack in cold weather, Solectria designed several new improvements to the NiMH BTMS
which was baselined using EV13. EVermont’s goal was to determine the reduction of battery
management power loads and maximization of available battery capacity by selectively insulating
and reducing airflow through the battery boxes in cold weather. These reduced power BTMS
cars, EVHQ and EV15 were tested side by side with EV13 for comparison. Areas that the project
observed to determine successful operation of the new design included: less frequent use of the
cooling fans (i.e., less power consumption), better balancing of the battery temperatures, better
temperature balance between the front and rear battery boxes, higher overall battery temperatures
in cold weather (below the minimum fan operating points) and no battery overheating.
The Solectria BTMS utilizes a combination of rigid insulation and an air gap to limit conductive
heat loss to the ambient air and maintain uniform battery temperatures within the battery box.
When necessary, battery cooling is provided by drawing air over the batteries using a small
blower. Ambient air is drawn in, flows between the batteries and is then exhausted. If there is a
temperature differential between the front and rear battery boxes the cooling fans are used to
bring the warmer of the two boxes down to the temperature of the other box. This design basis
controls battery temperature by all but eliminating conductive losses (insulation) and utilizing air
to control battery temperature by convection.
The existing system relied on both convection and conduction to remove heat from the batteries.
The new system design relied more heavily on convection. By insulating the battery boxes with
0.25” to 1” of insulation, conduction heat losses were reduced. The primary method for heat
removal from the batteries was the operation of the fans, drawing ambient air between the
batteries. The main difference was that the batteries would retain heat from their exothermic
chemical reactions much more effectively while the fans were off, increasing their overall
operating temperature in cold weather. The fans would still have the ability to fully cool the
batteries, but the batteries retained more heat in cold weather.
The battery thermal characterization showed that a tight hysteretic control loop using one of the
battery terminals for the feedback point was the best control algorithm. Solectria programmed
two advanced BC1600 chargers with this algorithm and sent them to EVermont for installation in
two of the cars. They have been in use, and anecdotal observations showed that energy use
during charging had been reduced as an unexpected beneficial side effect.

4.2 BTMS Design Testing – Cold Chamber

Following the on-road field study during the winter of 1996-1997, the EVHQ car was equipped
with design modifications to minimize the effect of the cold on the NiMH batteries. The
modifications were passive in nature and included better insulation of the battery compartments
and the use of airflow restrictors in the compartment’s ventilation system. In order to validate the

9/20/99 NAVC1096-PG009524 22
efficiency of the design modifications that were undertaken, Jean-François Morneau of Hydro-
Quebec’s Laboratoire des Technologies Électrochimiques et des Électrotechnologies (LTEE) in
Canada was contracted to perform a series of controlled cold chamber NiMH vehicle tests. The
LTEE Report for this testing, Evaluation of Cold Temperature Performance of a NiMH battery
Powered E.V. is available as a separate document.

Figure 24: LTEE Cold Chamber The EVHQ was installed in the cold
chamber and a load bank consisting
of eight resistors was used to apply
a load profile to the batteries,
simulating real driving conditions.
The tests were made with two
configurations (full flow through
ventilation system and restricted
flow conditions), at two
temperatures (-20°C and 20°C).
Each combination of temperature
and configuration were performed
three times, making a total of twelve
tests.
The results obtained from these tests
are very interesting and show that
the modifications are efficient in
maintaining battery performance in cold weather operation. After one test cycle, it was found
that temperature tended to equilibrate to a temperature over 20°C (for the conditions used in the
tests), and consequently the battery voltage response came very close to the ones observed in
warm weather conditions. Also, the standard deviation of the highest and the lowest individual
voltages was much lower than observed during the winter field study conducted by EVermont:
0.86V and 0.95V compared to an average of Figure 25: Resistive Load Bank
0.55V. With the BTMS modification, the results
obtained tend to demonstrate that the design
modification would be efficient for the regular
use of the vehicle.
Some care has to be taken in the analysis and the
generalization of the results obtained in these
tests. The results are directly dependent on the
test conditions that were used. For instance, if
longer test cycles or greater wind speed had been
used, the results obtained would certainly be
different. However, the same tendencies would
have been observed (augmentation of mean
battery temperatures and voltages). The
important thing to remember from these tests, is
that the heat generation of NiMH batteries is so
great, that bringing the heat exchange between
the battery compartments and the ambient
environment to the minimum, will contribute to
maintain battery performance. NiMH batteries
would then have a big advantage over their
competitors since no other thermal management

9/20/99 NAVC1096-PG009524 23
techniques, like the use of electric heaters, would be necessary. This passive type of thermal
battery management is ideal since it uses wasted energy to maintain battery performance.
The efficiency of the two modifications is however directly dependent on how the vehicle is used.
In order to maintain temperature within the battery compartments at an optimum level, the EV
has to be used on a regular basis.
Another factor that can influence the efficiency of the design modifications is the effect of the
wind. When operating in cold weather, care must be taken to restrict the airflow through the
battery compartment as best as possible and during extreme cold weather, the flow should be
completely blocked. To ensure that flow conditions are optimum for all weather conditions,
automatic variable flow restrictors should be used. This would also prevent damage to the
batteries if flow restrictor plugs are left in place during extreme hot temperatures.
Based on the results obtained with the tests presented here, it is recommended that the
modifications performed on the Solectria (more insulation of the battery compartments and use of
air flow restrictors) be implemented for better NiMH battery management. Additionally, even
more improvement may be possible in cold weather and for safety precautions for the operation
in hot weather, with airflow restrictors that operate in response to the operating ambient
temperature.

4.3 BTMS Design Testing – Warm Weather

Due to the nature of the modifications made to EVHQ, it was also important to study the thermal
response of the system when operating in warm weather conditions. Normally, for a non-
thermally managed Solectria Force with NiMH, forced ventilation of the battery compartments is
necessary in warm temperature, in order to prevent batteries from overheating. There was a
possibility that with the addition of insulation, the forced ventilation might be insufficient. The
batteries could then overheat, which would result in permanent battery damage.
The objective of the on-road tests was to evaluate the warm weather performance of a Solectria
Force modified for cold weather operation. These tests were necessary to complement on-road
winter testing and controlled laboratory testing to demonstrate the performance and the viability
of the system over a wide range of real world operating conditions. Summer testing was done in
Shawinigan, Québec, at Hydro-Québec’s Laboratoire des Technologies Électrochimiques et des
Électrotechnologies (LTEE), on the same car used in Vermont for winter testing. The course
designed for the tests presents characteristics similar to the one used by EVermont. This course
was run seven times, on seven different days (ambient temperatures ranging from 23.15°C to
28.99°C). The LTEE Report for this testing, On-Road Summer Testing of NiMH Battery
Powered E.V. is available as a separate document.

4.3.1 Test Description

This project had the objective to conduct on-road testing in warm weather conditions of a
“winterized” EV equipped with NiMH batteries. The warm weather performance will be
compared to the performance obtained during winter testing. To ensure that the results from the
two test series can be compared, great care must be taken to ensure that winter test conditions are
reproduced as best as possible. The parameters that must be reproduced are the ones not directly
related to the weather, which are the driving conditions and the test course.
During the tests, all usual parameters were recorded by the CR10X data acquisition system
installed in the vehicle by EVermont. This system records all electric parameters (battery
Voltages, current and temperatures, ambient temperature, Ah, kWh). The tests were done with
the vehicle speed selector set to power mode and the vehicle speed held within ±10 km/h of the

9/20/99 NAVC1096-PG009524 24
speed limit at all time. A total of seven runs was done, on seven different days, from August 19,
1998 to August 31, 1998.

4.3.1.1 Test Course

For comparison purposes, the course used for the tests had to present similar characteristics as the
one used in Vermont. The developed course is 32.7 km long, which is approximately the same
length of EVermont’s course (32.64 km). For each test, this course was run three times, for a
total trip of around 98.1 km., Figure 26 presents the test course in light green.
The test course starts at LTEE facility on avenue de la Montagne, in Shawinigan, in a 50 km/h
zone. The first stop sign is encountered at about 1.2 km from the starting point. The course turns
left at this intersection on to Garnier, toward the city of Shawinigan. Another stop sign is
encountered and the road then goes downhill and uphill under Highway 55. The first stop light is
encountered at 3 km. At this point, the course enters an urban zone for about 2 km (2 stop signs
and 2 traffic lights). A right turn is made to exit the city limits at 5 km, where a 6% downhill
grade is encountered before arriving to “Baie-de-Shawinigan” at 6.3 km. The course then follows
Shawinigan’s bay, where the speed limit increases to 90 km/h at 7.1 km. An 8% grade hill is then
encountered from 7.9 km to 9.3 km, where highway 55 is taken (speed limit of 100 km/h).
The course follows highway 55 until it reaches the 17th km. During the highway portion of the
course, between exits 211 and 220, the road goes mainly uphill, with a significant downhill-uphill
combination when passing over Garnier Street. The highway is left at exit 220 and a left turn is
made, heading north, passing over the highway and entering a rural road for 6.9 km, towards St-
Gérard-des-Laurentides village. The first part of this course portion is in relatively flat terrain,
with a speed limit of 70 km/h. After a left turn on 103rd street, at 21.1 km, the speed limit
decreases to 50 km/h for a few
Figure 26: EVHQ Warm Weather Test Course hundred meters and then increases to
80 km/h. At this point, the course
continues with a combination of
slight up and downhill elements,
until turning left at a stop sign and
entering the St-Gérard-des-
Laurentides village at 24.5 km from
the beginning (50 km/h).
After going through the village, a
left turn is made on to route 351,
heading south, in Shawinigan’s
direction for about 6.2 km. Road
351 presents relatively flat rolling
conditions, with a speed limit of 80
km/h. When re-entering
Shawinigan’s city limits, the speed
limit is reduced to 50 km/h and a
stop is encountered (30.7 km). A
left turn is made back on to avenue
de la Montagne, towards LTEE for
the end of the course (32.7 km).

9/20/99 NAVC1096-PG009524 25
4.3.1.2 Summer Testing Results
The testing results show that for the conditions of the six tests, the temperature did not reach
critical levels. The highest temperature observed in the battery compartments was 47.5°C, which
is relatively high but not dangerous. This temperature was maintained only for a short period of
time, during a “harder” part of the course. On a lower stress part of the course, the ventilation
system was enough to cool down the battery compartments. However, the general trend of the
battery temperature is upwards. As a general concept, the temperature in the battery compartment
is a balance between the heat generated by the batteries and the heat loss of the battery
compartments. A temperature elevation means that all the generated heat cannot be evacuated
from the compartment. This shows that for heavy, and maybe even medium duty cycles, at
ambient temperatures of over 20°C, the ventilation system might not be sufficient to keep the
batteries cool, which could then lead to overheating.
In order to prevent any overheating damage in any type of conditions of vehicle utilization, it
would be necessary to modify the ventilation system or the configuration of the battery
compartments. A better airflow between the battery cells or higher volume of air passing through
the compartments would help to evacuate the excess generated heat. However, with the current
configuration of the system, the driver should be aware of the potential overheating danger when
operating the vehicle in more stressful driving conditions (weather and type of road). A possible
solution for this problem is a warning light that alerts the driver when battery temperature
reducing measures are necessary. In these cases a more conservative way of driving is required
(operation in normal or economy mode) in order to keep the heat generation as low as possible, to
prevent battery damage.

9/20/99 NAVC1096-PG009524 26
5.0 Vehicle On Road Test Evaluations
Two intensive vehicle evaluation campaigns were undertaken on EV13 and other EVermont
vehicles. One in warm weather to baseline the vehicles and the other in extreme cold weather to
evaluate system performance. During these periods the vehicles were fitted with appropriate
electronic sensors to measure energy use and temperatures of the vehicles, components and
ambient conditions. This data was
Figure 27: EV15, EV13, EV1, EVHQ and Richard Watts
high resolution time series data,
collected and stored via the
Campbell CR 10 data logger.
The vehicles involved in these
tests were also driven on a daily
basis as a way of collecting
anecdotal performance
information and, when necessary,
to gather additional data to
reinforce the tests preformed in
this project.
Under the guidance of EVermont,
the data was handled by Vermont
Monitoring Cooperative (VMC).
VMC, under the auspices of the Vermont Department of Forest, Parks and Recreation, maintains
long-term environmental monitoring data sets, stores data in a data management system and has a
staff dedicated to maintaining and analyzing environmental data.

5.1 Data Acquisition System

The Solectria Force is a four-door conversion electric vehicle based on a Chevrolet (Geo) Metro.
It is powered by a Solectria UMOC 440 controller coupled to an AT1200 transmission with an
ACgtx20 AC induction motor. Through a “Power Selector Switch”, the driver controls this fixed
reduction drive system. The Drive Selector has three positions: economy, normal and power. The
system offers regenerative braking for capture of braking energy. The drive system components
weigh 58 Kg, or only 5.5% of the total weight of the vehicle.
Battery management is accomplished
Figure 28: Solectria Drive Selector Switch with a proprietary battery management
system, “DAQ”, developed by Solectria.
This system monitors individual battery
voltages at all times and prevents
individual batteries from being over-
discharged or over-charged.
DAQ also provides thermal management
control for the battery pack. Its main
goal is to maintain temperature
uniformity between battery
compartments as well as to keep
temperatures within optimal operating
range. DAQ has various algorithms
allowing proper thermal-management
control under a variety of conditions,

9/20/1999 NAVC1096-PG009524 27
depending on the ambient environment.

5.2 EVermont On-Road Field Test Course

EVermont designed a 20.4-mile (32.8 km) road course establishing a structured setting to collect
data. The test course was used to assess and compare vehicle performance on a single real-world
driving route. Reducing the number of variables between vehicles (day, time, temperature, roads
and driving conditions) enabled legitimate comparisons to be drawn among vehicles. At the same
time, data was collected from operating on-road, in “real-life” situations throughout the project’s
period. The initial test course evaluations were held in February 1997 to collect cold weather
data and in July 1997 to provide comparison points during warmer weather. Additional warm
weather testing was performed in July and August 1999.
The 20.4-mile test course, shown in Figure 29, begins in Middlesex, Vermont at the Vermont
General Services Division (GSD) facility on U.S. Route 2. Out of the GSD facility the course
follows Route 2 East to Montpelier. This section of the course consists of seven miles of rolling
rural secondary two-lane road. Exiting from the GSD facility, the vehicle encounters an uphill
section of roadway with a posted speed of 50 MPH. This uphill continues for 0.3 miles, at which
time the vehicle descends the hill as Route 2 travels through Middlesex Village where the speed
limit is reduced to 35 MPH and mile 1 of the course is completed. Once through the Village, the
speed limit returns to 50 MPH, with Route 2 continuing east. The road generally follows the
Winooski River, heading upstream, and consists of rolling terrain.
Between miles 2 and 3, Route 2 crosses over Interstate 89. At about mile 5 the speed limit is
reduced to 35 MPH and then to 25 MPH at about mile 6. The reduced speed limits signify the
entry into Montpelier. At mile 7, a traffic light is encountered, and course conditions change
from rural secondary roads to urban traffic conditions. This leg through the center of Montpelier
is approximately 2 miles in length, and includes two additional traffic lights. The course rejoins

Figure 29: EVermont Test Course

Route 2 east briefly, and by mile 9 is on Hill Street in Montpelier. From the base of Hill Street in
Montpelier to where it plateaus in Berlin is a 12% grade. This 0.7-mile section of road has a
surface that starts out as asphalt in need of repair and then changes to gravel. The course
continues on the gravel surfaced road with a down and uphill section while bearing left onto
Stewart Road, but overall climbing in elevation.

9/20/1999 NAVC1096-PG009524 28
At mile 10 there is a stop sign at the intersection of Paine Turnpike. Paine Turnpike is a paved
secondary road and the terrain is generally rolling but climbs in elevation. Another traffic light is
encountered at the intersection with Vermont Route 62 (mile 11). Route 62 is taken a short
distance (0.1 miles) to the entrance ramp of Interstate 89. At this point the course changes to
rural interstate conditions. The course continues to climb in elevation to mile 12. At this point a
6% downhill grade is encountered on the interstate for a distance of 2 miles. The roadway then
changes to a rolling terrain with slight up and downhill elements. The interstate is exited at exit
9, where a stop sign is encountered. A local road is taken to Route 2 and then the course ends
with a return to the GSD facility.

5.3 EVermont NiMH Baseline Vehicle, EV13, 1997

Solectria Force EV13 has been in continuous use since being delivered on January 15, 1997 and
has logged over 21,000 miles since that time. The data presented here is the baseline information
used for the project. The first three data sets (Figures 30, 31 and 32) present data collected from
operating the vehicle under two distinctly different ambient conditions, one ‘Cold’ at –22°C, the
other ‘Mild’ at 14°C. Ambient temperature was the major factor that varies between these data
sets. The vehicle was operated by the same driver, in the same manner, over the same test course.
The test course was an on-road test course where the posted speed limits range from 25 to 55
miles per hour. During these data collection periods the vehicle was always operated within 5
MPH of the legal posted limit, as well as following all other traffic codes. Prior to each test
course run the vehicle was left outside overnight and allowed to charge in the same manner.
Measurements of battery temperature (four separate), battery voltage (individual, plus total),
current, total amp-hour and kilowatt-hours are recorded every other second through an on-board
DAQ.

Figure 30: Baseline Traction Battery Voltage from EV13 The total voltage of the battery
pack is presented for two
conditions in Figure 30, a
relatively Mild day when the
average temperature during the
test course run was 58o F (14o
C), and a Cold day when the
average temperature was -7o F
(-22o C). On the Cold day, the
overnight low temperature was
-13o F (-25o C).
The general pattern of traction
battery voltage for the two
days track parallel each other,
a demonstration of the
effectiveness of the
operational controls (see
Figure 30). On the Mild day
the total traction voltage averages 208.0 volts, whereas on the Cold day it averages 189.4 volts, or
9.2% less. The standard deviation of the total voltage is 9.51 volts on the Mild day and 13.35 on
the Cold day. Based on these observations there is 40.4% more fluctuation in total voltage on the
Cold day versus the Mild day.

9/20/1999 NAVC1096-PG009524 29
The DAQ monitors the Figure 31: High and Low Battery Voltage for EV13
individual voltage of each
battery within the total battery
pack as illustrated in Figure 31.
The system is set up to record
the highest voltage and lowest
voltage of each battery in the
string every other second. For
the Mild day the average of the
‘High’ battery voltage was 14.0
volts, whereas the comparable
value for the Cold day was 12.9,
or the average ‘High’ was 7.9%
less on the Cold day. The
respective standard deviations
for these readings were 0.66 and
0.86 volts, or the fluctuation in
voltage among the high battery
was 30.3% more on the Cold day versus the Mild day.
For the ‘Low’ battery, the average for the Mild day was 13.8 volts, whereas for the Cold day it
was 12.3, or the average ‘Low’ battery voltage was 10.9% lower on the Cold day. The standard
deviation on the Mild day was 0.62, and on the Cold day 0.95, therefore there was 53.2% more
fluctuation in the average ‘Low’ battery voltage on the Cold day versus the Mild day.
The temperature of four batteries was monitored during the two test course runs and the data is
illustrated in Figure 32. These batteries were located at the extreme corners of the two battery
compartments; one in the front of the vehicle, the other in the rear. The initial temperatures
represent the standing temperatures of the batteries prior to the start of the test course run, with
temperature increasing throughout the run. On the Mild day, the temperatures within each
compartment are generally within two degrees centigrade of each other and generally within six
degrees centigrade between the front and rear compartment.
On the Cold day, the rear
Figure 32: Baseline Battery Temperatures for EV13
compartment battery temperatures
remained within two degrees
centigrade of each other throughout
the test course run. The front
compartment temperatures displayed
a different pattern. While the front
left battery tracked well with both
rear batteries monitored, about two-
thirds of the way through the run,
there was a point of departure. The
front battery compartment contained
a lesser number of batteries and had
greater exposure to the ambient
condition. The data for the front
right battery produced a noticeably
different pattern than all other
recordings.

9/20/1999 NAVC1096-PG009524 30
There was concern that the sensors may be biased by the ambient condition, and therefore was
not an accurate representation of battery.
EV13 completed eight runs of the test course by March 1997. The conditions under which these
runs have been completed range in average ambient air temperature of -6.5o F (-22o C) to 58o F
(14o C). On the Cold day, the battery pack delivered 83.2 Amp-Hours, or 98% of its design Ah
capacity. The 2% reduction in Ah capacity coupled with the nearly 10% reduction in average
voltage helps to account for some of the 35% decrease in range. The majority of change in
performance (20%) may be attributed to increases in friction load placed on the vehicle because
of cold weather conditions. For
Table 5: Energy Delivered by Battery Pack of EV13 comparison purposes, an EV
Voltage powered by non-thermally
Date kWh Ah managed lead-acid battery pack
(mean)
January 30, 1997 14.4 83.2 173.1 would experience approximately
an 80% decrease in performance
May 13, 1997 15.1 81.4 185.5 as compared to the approximately
July 24, 1997 14.2 77.1 184.2 35% percent depicted here. A
thermally managed lead-acid
battery car would display about
the same performance, and a conventional internal combustion engine powered vehicle
experiences a estimated to 20 to 30% decrement of performance.
Several observations were made as a result of these baseline test runs. The temperature of the
four batteries rose during the testing indicating that heat generation exceeds conduction and
natural convection losses with the fans off. Batteries within the same compartment remained at
generally the same temperature within ±2°C. The front battery compartment was generally cooler
than the rear compartment by approximately 6°C. This was consistent with the fact that the front
battery compartment had greater Figure 33: EV13 Performance, Varying Temperatures
exposure to ambient conditions
and contained fewer batteries. EV-13 (NiMH Car) Performance
65 Mile Test Drive
Jan- Mar, 1997
Average pack voltage on the 100.0%

milder day was 208.6 volts while 90.0%

the average pack voltage on the 80.0%

Percent of Mild Weather Performance

cold day was 189.4 volts, or 70.0%

9.2% less. This voltage drop was 60.0%

attributed to lower overall 50.0%

operating temperature of the 40.0%

battery pack. During cold 30.0%

weather testing it was also 20.0%

observed that the vehicle was 10.0%

less responsive as a result of the 0.0%

lower operating voltage. Not -6.5 3.0 14.0 22.0 27.0

Temperature, deg. F
35.5 40.0 56.5

only was the overall battery pack

voltage reduced during colder temperatures but the voltage deviation of individual batteries was
40.4% greater indicating temperature imbalances within each box. Average total battery pack
capacity on an amp hour basis was relatively constant however the total energy provided by the
pack was reduced about 6.2% in cold weather due to lower pack voltage. It was estimated that
additional cold weather thermal management would alleviate this loss of capacity.

9/20/1999 NAVC1096-PG009524 31
5.4 HydroQuebec Vehicle Testing, EVHQ, Summer 1998
5.4.1 Vehicle Modifications
Design consideration for NiMH
Figure 34: EVHQ NiMH Solectria Force
batteries compartments focused
on the need to reject heat and
prevent the overheating of this
battery technology. Systems to
accomplish this have been mainly
comprised of measurements of
battery temperature to control
active ventilation of the battery
compartment for heat rejection. If
the overheat condition is not
threatened the system remains
passive, allowing ‘passive’
ventilation of the compartment as
a result of vehicle travel and
conductive losses due to an un-
insulated compartment.
To investigate the potential benefits of cold weather thermal management of NiMH batteries,
simple passive design modifications were made to the battery compartments of the Solectria
Force. The design of the Solectria Force includes two battery compartments, one forward and
one aft. Both compartments were insulated to reduce conductive losses, thereby conserving
losses during battery discharge and having that energy available for battery warming.
Additionally, modifications were made to the ventilation portals in the battery compartments to
control the volume of air that could pass through, thereby reducing infiltration losses.
5.4.2 Data Collection
To evaluate the effect of the Figure 35: Average Front and Rear Battery Thermocouples vs.
Time, EVHQ and EV13 (March 17, 1998 Test Drive)
design modifications, two
vehicles were fully instrumented
to measure battery temperatures,
voltage, current and other
vehicle operational and
environmental parameters. Data
were collected by means of on-
board data acquisition systems,
sampling all parameters and
storing the data every other
second. One of the vehicles
(EVHQ) contained the design
modifications described above,
the other vehicle (EV13) did not.
Figure 35 presents data from a
test drive in which both vehicles
were driven in a controlled manner on two loops of the EVermont on-road test course. Collecting
data in this way limits a number of variables (time of day, weather, vehicle operation), at the
same time allows for vehicle operation in “real-life” situations.

9/20/1999 NAVC1096-PG009524 32
5.4.3 Battery Temperature
On March 17, 1998 the two vehicles were driven on the test course. Both vehicles were left out
in the weather to charge under identical conditions the night before. The overnight low
temperature was recorded to be –18oC. Figure 35 presents the time series data of the average
front and rear battery thermocouples as recorded during the test drive. The data indicates that the
batteries in EVHQ, with the modification, were warmer than the unmodified vehicle by 138%.
Also, the temperature differential between the front and rear compartments of the modified
vehicle as compared to the unmodified vehicle averaged 38% less. This is a desirable
characteristic.
5.4.4 Battery Voltage
To consider the effect of the thermal management system in maintaining battery voltage, data
from two test drives were considered; one cold day and one warm day. The test drive of March
17, 1998 represented the cold day. The ambient temperature for this drive averaged –13oC. The
test drive for the warm day was conducted on April 15, 1998. The ambient temperature for this
test drive averaged 23oC. On the cold day the airflow through the battery compartment
ventilation system was ‘choked’ through the use of adjustable plugs inserted into the portals. On
the warm day, the portals were ‘unchoked’, allowing for full flow, if called for by the system. In
Figure 36, the average module voltage for the warm and cold day test drives are presented in an
X-Y plot. The excellent agreement of the voltage reading confirmed the controlled operation of
the vehicle. The correlation line of the voltages initially followed the 45o slope line quite closely,
however as the test
progressed the correlation Figure 36: Correlation of Average Module Voltage of the Warm Day
line of the data falls (23oC) to the Cold Day (-13oC)
slightly below the 45o
Correlation of Average Module Voltage of 15 April 98 (Warm) to Average Module Voltage of 17
slope. This indicates that Mar 98 (Cold)

slightly greater voltages 15

were experienced during 14.5

the test drive on the warm

14
day versus the cold day.
Average Module Voltage 17 Mar 98

The voltages of the warm 13.5

17 Mar 98; Tamb = -13C

day were about 4% 13

y = 0.8903x + 1.1441
2
R = 0.9949
greater at the end of the 12.5

test over the cold day. 12

5.4.5 Results 11.5

Baseline testing of NiMH 11

15 Apr 98; Tamb = 23C

powered EV13 identified 10.5

that extreme cold weather 10

operation could reduce 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13

Average Module Voltage 15 Apr 98
13.5 14 14.5 15

battery voltage in the

order of 10%. As
demonstrated, a simple system that conserves the energy through insulation and adjusting the
ventilation rate of the battery compartments can reduce this effect to an estimated 4%, a 60%
improvement. The system applied was a manually operated design and demonstrates an
engineering solution for cold weather thermal management. An automated system for regulating
airflow based on temperature would be the next design iteration of NiMH battery thermal
management for the full range of environmental conditions that a vehicle may encounter.

9/20/1999 NAVC1096-PG009524 33
5.5 EVermont EV15 Vehicle Testing, Winter 1999
5.5.1 Drive System/Batteries
Because NiMH battery technology is generally exothermic, a conservation of energy approach
has been taken in the application of passive technologies to retain heat within the battery
compartments. These design modifications have been applied to maintain the batteries above the
ambient temperature without the addition of an active heat source. The conservation technologies
employed are battery compartment insulation and reduction of battery box ventilation through the
application of ‘proof of concept’
flow restrictors and ventilation Figure 37: EV15, GP NiMH Solectria Force
system flapper valves. The
addition of the insulation is to
reduce conductive losses from the
system, whereas the modifications
to the ventilation systems are
designed to reduce convective
losses.
Battery box modifications were
pursued in the second project
vehicle (EVHQ) to maintain the
batteries at optimal temperature
regardless of ambient temperature,
design modifications were also
made to the motor controller to
overcome some of the side effects associated with the instability in battery operation. NiMH
batteries experience a voltage ‘sag’ under high current load. This instability is exacerbated at
cold temperatures to the point where system controls to protect the controller from over current
would come into play and disable controller operation.
5.5.2 Vehicle Testing
On November 30, 1998, EVermont took possession of the EV15 with 354 miles recorded on the
odometer. As of February 18, 1999 the vehicle had accumulated 3,635 miles. On average, this
represents approximately 300 miles per week. The vehicle was taken out of service the week of
January 10, 1999 for the installation of the fuel based heating system. The car was fitted with a
data logger to continuously monitor vehicle energy parameters and operational parameters
initially on December 11, 1998, with upgrades to the system performed on January 6, 1999 and
January 15, 1999. A manually recorded operators log has been continuously kept since delivery
of the vehicle.
The vehicle performed well. The modified controller and high efficiency motor provided
responsive operation. The vehicle was able to maintain speed on hilly terrain and has presented
itself as far superior to previous designs at cold temperatures. Several test course runs were
completed during a paired-test (base design car run serially against the modified design vehicle).
The paired tests collected data to compare battery/drive system performance as well as cabin
thermal management systems. A summary of the paired tests can be found in Table 6. Vehicle
performance was significantly increased with no loss in overall vehicle efficiency.

9/20/1999 NAVC1096-PG009524 34
 Table 6: Test Drive Data Summary of EV13 and EV15, Winter 1999

EV13 EV15

January 31, 1999

Start End Start End
Time 5:10 AM 6:10 AM 3:55 AM 4:52 AM
Amp-Hours 0.00 59.08 0.62 55.18
Tripmeter 0.0 38.4 0.0 37.6
Odometer 20,323 20,361 2,967 3,005
Amp-Hours/Mile 0.643 0.696
o
Air Temperature, C -28 -28 -26 -26
February 1, 1999
Time 4:35 AM 5:52 AM 6:20 AM 7:35 AM
Amp-Hours 0.34 69.93 0.41 70.40
Tripmeter 0.0 50.2 0.0 50.2
Odometer 20,362 20,413 3,039 3,089
Amp-Hours/Mile 0.733 0.714
o
Air Temperature, C -22 -22 -21 -22

5.5.3 Winter Testing, Cabin Thermal Management

Data sets have been
assembled that include
the paired-tests
reference above. In
addition, data sets from
an internal combustion
powered Geo Metro and
a Solectria Force with
an electric resistance
heating system have
been assembled. Cabin
heating and maintaining
a clear windshield can
represent a significant
energy requirement. To
date, systems which rely
solely upon battery
energy are inefficient
(on a system basis, see
Figure 38) and
historically ineffective.
The EV15 design Figure 38: Full Cycle Efficiency of Energy Use for Cabin Heating, Fuel
integration enhancement vs. Electricity

9/20/1999 NAVC1096-PG009524 35
of a fuel-fired heater represents a third generation effort. The attached charts (Figures 39 – 42)
illustrate the performance improvements associated with this latest generation of fossil fuel fired
heating and how that performance compares to the heater performance of an internal combustion
engine (ICE) vehicle.

5.5.3.1 EV12 Electric Resistance Heat

EV12 was used as a baseline comparison for all heating systems as it represents the original
CARB requirement for electric vehicles to rely solely on resistance heat. Currently CARB allows
vehicles to maintain zero emission
Figure 39: EV12 Cabin Heating, Electric Resistance status while being equipped with a
fuel-fired heater. However, the
vehicle is required to rely solely on
electric resistance heating at ambient
temperatures above 40oF. When the
ambient temperature falls below this,
supplemental heat using a fuel-fired
heater is allowed.
EV12 is equipped only with an
electric resistance heater. On January
16, 1996 a controlled heating
evaluation was performed on EV12
from a starting ambient temperature
of -20°C. The warm up is displayed
in Figure 39. Two items in the chart
are important for this analysis including the discharge temperature from the heater and the vehicle
temperature as measured at the headrest of the vehicle. The electric resistance heater provides
heat immediately however, it takes nearly 25 minutes for the outlet temperatures to reach steady
state at 20°C while the interior temperature at the headrest never exceeds 0°C.

5.5.3.2 ICE Metro Engine

Heat Figure 40: ICE Metro Cabin Heating
In a conventional vehicle, heat is
provided to the passenger cabin
utilizing a small heat exchanger
that transfers heat from the
engine coolant to the heating
system. As shown in Figure 40
the heat necessary to heat the
cabin to approximately 20°C can
easily be provided and
maintained by a typical engine.
The difference is that cabin heat
is not provided until the car has
warmed up. The ICE Metro in
Figure 40 takes about 2 minutes
to provide full heat with
defroster temperatures above 40°C.

9/20/1999 NAVC1096-PG009524 36
5.5.3.3 EV13, Fuel-Fired Heat Figure 41: EV13 Fuel-Fired Heat
EV13 is equipped with a second
generation fuel-fired heater as well as air
conditioning. As shown in Figure 41,
EV13 provided plenty of heating
capacity with a warm up time of just
under two minutes. This is roughly
equivalent to an ICE vehicle. The heater
in EV13 is slightly oversized and the
control algorithm control has fairly wide
set points such that the defroster outlet
temperature fluctuates. This is basically
a function of controlling the heater in an
on/off fashion instead of a percentage
fashion.

Figure 42: EV15 Fuel-Fired Heat

5.5.3.4 EV15, Fuel-Fired Heat

EV15, provides a greater amount of
heat to the passenger cabin (note both
defroster and vent temperatures) and
does it in less time than a conventional
ICE vehicle.

Figure 43: EV1 Wiring Layout

5.6 EV1, Solectria E-10 Hybrid Truck

EV1 is a Solectria E-10 pickup conversion of a Chevrolet
S10. The vehicle is equipped with dual drive motors and
dual controllers. This vehicle was originally equipped
with three strings of group 22, gel cell batteries in
parallel. Each string consists of 12 battery modules in
series for a total nominal operating voltage of 156 volts.
The total rating of the original three-string pack was
approximately 90Ah or about 14kWh. To facilitate the
installation of the APU in the engine compartment one of
the three strings was removed lowering the total battery
capacity to 60Ah at 156 volts or about 9.4kWh.
The APU is operated in a generally load following mode
in that its output follows the demand of the vehicle.
When vehicle demand exceeds the APU output the
remaining energy is drawn from the batteries. As a result
the

9/20/1999 NAVC1096-PG009524 37
batteries see less severe duty than when the vehicle is operated without the APU. Load following
is generally considered more efficient from an energy standpoint as the energy produced is used
immediately by the vehicle and does not undergo a loss associated with passing the energy
through the batteries first. In both modes of operation, hybrid and electric, regenerative braking
energy is captured and routed to the batteries. As a result of the load following architecture this
hybrid vehicle is a charge depleting or range extending hybrid. This is because the batteries are
continually being drawn down.
Once the batteries are depleted the vehicle can still be operated but the vehicle power output to
the drive wheels is limited to the 10kw rating of the APU and acceleration suffers as a result. The
top speed is also limited to about 45 mph on level ground when operating solely on the APU.
5.6.1 Heating System Performance
To evaluate the heating/defrosting
system performance the cabin and Figure 44: EV1 Windshield Defrost Test 1/22/98
windshield temperatures were
monitored during a January
morning (1/22/98) when ambient
temperature was below 0°F the
previous evening.
This testing demonstrated that the
APU was more than capable of
supplying adequate heat to the
passenger compartment. As with an
ICE vehicle the engine did need
time to warm up to operating
temperature but this time was
generally shorter than a larger
engine as the engine mass of the
APU in EV1 is much smaller and
takes less time to heat up. Also unlike an ICE vehicle that takes coolant from the engine while
the engine is simultaneously supplying coolant to the primary engine radiator, the APU in EV1
uses the vehicles heater core as the primary radiator allowing all of the APU waste heat if
necessary to heat the passenger cabin.

Figure 45: EVs at the Montpelier Airport, July 1999

5.7 Summer Testing July
1999
All of the project vehicles were
brought together for a final round
of summer comparison testing. In
addition to EV13, EVHQ, EV15
and EV1 a number of additional
vehicles were present for
comparison. These vehicles
included EV7 (the blue vehicle in
Figure 45), EV9 a lead-acid
Solectria Force with 10,198 miles,
EV7 another lead-acid Force with
over 30,202 miles, EV16 a lead-
acid Force that will be a baseline

9/20/1999 NAVC1096-PG009524 38
Figure 46: EVHQ ¼ Mile Acceleration Chart
car for super capacitor testing in the
EVHQ: Acceleration Test 1
future and EV14 a Delco advance
VehSpeed CurrAmps
lead-acid battery car with over 7,482
80 250
miles.
70
200
5.7.1 ¼ Mile Acceleration
60
150 Testing
Prior to range testing all of the

Drive Current (amps)

Vehicle Speed (mph)

50

40
100
vehicles were brought together at the
50 Montpelier airport for acceleration
30
testing on one of the inactive
20
0
runways.
10
-50
Multiple ¼ mile acceleration runs
0 -100
were made in both directions to
Time (2 second Interval)
cancel out the effect of wind and
grade on the results.
A summary chart and comparison Figure 47: NiMH Vehicle Comparison Chart
chart is included here in Figure 46
and Figure 47. The ¼ mile Vehicle Acceleration Test
acceleration values were 51 mph EV13 EVHQ EV15

1400
for EV13 and EV15 and 66 mph
for EVHQ. 1200

1000

5.7.2 EV1 On Road Testing

Feet and MPH

800

with EV18 August 12,

1999 600

Both EV1 and EV18 are Solectria 400

E-10 pickup trucks and are

200
electric vehicle conversions based
on the popular Chevrolet S-10 0
1/4 Mile Stopping Distance (feet) 1/4 Mile Maximum Speed (mph) Constant Speed (mph) Constant Speed Stopping
pickup. EV1 is equipped with 24 Distance (feet)

sealed gel-type, lead-acid group

22 batteries. These batteries are rated at 30Ah nominal and are oriented in two parallel strings of
12 batteries each. EV18 is similar to EV1 except it is equipped with 24 sealed gel-type, lead-acid
group 24 batteries. These batteries are rated at 48 Ah nominal and are oriented in two parallel
strings of 12 batteries each. Both of
the vehicles were driven on the
EVermont test course. EV18 was
operated in power mode while EV1
was operated in power mode with
the APU operating.
EV18 traveled 40.8 miles on 12.2
kWh or 299 Wh/mile gross AC.
The energy consumed was
measured at the wall meter upstream
of the battery charger. This would
equate to about 240 Wh/mile net
from the batteries assuming the Figure 48: Northeast Sustainable Energy Association
charging is 80% efficient. Add 10% (NESEA), Well to Wheels Use of Transportation Energy

9/20/1999 NAVC1096-PG009524 39
for utility transmission line losses and 13.56 kWh of generation is required at the plant. At 55%
efficiency the plant will consume 84,121 Btu to generate this energy. This is equivalent to 0.76
gallons of gasoline for a fuel economy equivalent of 53 mpg.
EV1 on the same EVermont test route traveled 104 miles on 11.4 kWh of AC wall energy and
2.66 gallons of gasoline consumed by the APU. We assume that EV1 consumes electricity and
captures regeneration energy at the same rate as EV18. In electrical energy terms, in order to
travel 104 miles the vehicle would need 25 kWh net to complete the route (240 x 104). The 11.4
from the wall provides for only 9.1
Figure 49: EV1 and EV18 Maximum Range kWh available from the batteries
assuming 80% charging efficiency.
Vehicle Range The total energy required (25 kWh)
120 less the 9.1 kWh provided by the
104
batteries, leaves 15.9 kWh provided
100 by the APU. In this case we have
not assigned any battery losses to
80
the energy provided by the APU as
the power from the APU is
Miles

60
generally used to move the vehicle
40
40.8 as it is generated. The APU
consumed 2.66 gallons of gasoline
20
15
to produce the 15.9 kWh for a heat
rate of 18,402 Btu/kWh. This leads
0
EV1 EV18
to a total energy efficiency of about
EV1 (Batteries Only)
18.5% for the APU (3,413/18,402).
The conventional gasoline powered Chevrolet S10 gets about 21 mpg in mixed driving. For a
strictly apples to apples comparison to EV18 (the pure electric E-10), transportation and refinery
losses must also be assessed bringing the total ICE vehicle fuel consumption from 21 mpg down
to 17 mpg.
Using the same method as EV18 and the Chevrolet S-10, the 11.4 kWh consumed by EV1 is
equivalent to 0.71 gallon of gasoline. When refining and transportation losses are considered the
2.66 gallons consumed by the APU is actually 3.27 gallons equivalent for a total of 3.98 gallons
to go 104 miles for an effective fuel economy of 26 miles per gallon.
There are three major differences between EV18, EV1 and a conventional Chevrolet S-10 that
make up the fuel economy difference. The smallest of the three is the overall engine efficiency.
The S-10 IC engine is about 18% efficient in mixed driving. The second is the addition of
regenerative braking on EV1. This accounts for as much as 5 kWh of energy in the 104-mile
range test. The third and largest factor is the use of battery energy to supplement the APU as this
energy is averaged at about 53 mpg (using the above assumptions about power generation)
compared to the 18% of APU.
If you instead used the APU to supply all of the energy with no regenerative braking you would
need about 30 kWh to make the trip. To produce 30 kWh the APU would consume 5.02 gallons
of gasoline from the pump. The vehicle would then be getting 20.7 mpg or about the same as the
conventional S10.

9/20/1999 NAVC1096-PG009524 40
5.1.1 Range Testing EV13, EVHQ
and EV15 Figure 50: EV13 Speed Trace on Test Route
EV13, EVHQ and EV15 were
brought together for a final summer
comparison round of range testing in
Montpelier on the EVermont test
course. Both EV13 and EV15 were
able to complete four laps of the
EVermont test course with a total
route mileage of 82 miles. EVHQ
experienced a voltage alarm,
triggered by low module voltage, that
prevented it from completing the
fourth lap of the route and stopped at
the 70.25-mile mark. EV15
completed the route using only 73.53
Ah (about 15.44 kWh). Energy
consumption for this vehicle was 0.90 Ah/mile and 0.188 kWh/mile. EV13 consumed 80.13 Ah
(about 16.8 kWh). Energy consumption for this vehicle was 0.98 Ah/mile and 0.205 kWh/mile.
EVHQ had an alarm at 69 Ah. The vehicle was consuming energy at 0.98 Ah/mile or about
0.206 kWh/mile. Figure 50 illustrates the EVermont test course as a speed trace. Figure 51 shows
the battery voltage reading for EVHQ. It is evident from this chart that the alarm in question is a
low voltage alarm for one of the GP NiMH modules, possibly brought on by moderately high
battery temperatures (40°C to 45°C) for this vehicle.

Figure 51: EVHQ Battery Voltage on Test Route

9/20/1999 NAVC1096-PG009524 27
6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

6.1 Cabin Thermal Management

A challenge to cold weather operation of electric vehicles has been insufficient heat available for
passenger comfort. This report finds that through proper engineering and efficient use of energy
in cold temperatures, the passenger cabin of an electric vehicle can be as comfortable as a
conventional vehicle. Testing of the fuel-fired heaters in the NiMH vehicles indicate that these
heaters quickly bring the cabin up to desired temperature and satisfy comfort requirements.
Cabin temperatures beginning at -10°C were easily elevated to 20°C with defroster outlet
temperatures of over 40°C, while the control vehicle (electric heat only) remained around 0°C for
the duration of the test. The fuel-fired heater in EV15 provided comparable outlet temperatures
and heating to that of a conventional gasoline vehicle. High efficiency fuel-fired heaters are
technically justified, as they are the most efficient means for providing cabin comfort with the
benefit of providing an additional source of on-board energy. Over the course of a Vermont
winter, the total fuel consumed for the cabin heater is about 5 gallons.
A comparison of total system energy efficiencies of fuel-fired heaters vs. electric resistance
heaters, from the extraction of fossil fuel to the heating of the vehicle cabin, concludes that fuel-
fired heat can be twice as efficient as electric resistance heat. The calculation of fuel-fired heater
efficiency is based on the efficiency of the process used to extract fossil fuel (which drives the
heater), the handling and distribution of the fuel and finally the actual heater efficiency. These
sub-system efficiencies have been documented as 80%, 98% and 80% respectively, resulting in
an overall fuel-fired heater efficiency of approximately 62%. The steps to powering an electric
resistance heater are the generation of electricity from fuel at the power plant, the distribution of
that power, the charging and discharging of the battery pack and the heating of the heating
element. Efficiencies of each of these steps are 55%, 90%, 80% and 100% respectively. This
yields an electric resistance heater system total efficiency of approximately 39%.
A comparison of these analyses concludes that electric resistance heaters are less efficient than
fuel-fired heaters, overall. Supporting this finding, CARB allows electric vehicles with fuel-fired
heaters to maintain their zero emissions status as long as the fuel-fired heater is not operated at
ambient temperatures above 40°F.
Recommendations for improving cabin thermal management include continued integration,
optimization of a fuel-fired heating system with a cabin thermal management system and further
refinement of the pre-heat system. This can be achieved through integration of a flow control
mechanism for regulation of heat transfer to the cabin and integration of the cabin pre-heat
system and the fuel-fired system. Integration of a flow control mechanism would allow the heat
transfer fluid flow to be controlled, therefore, eliminating heater cycling. Integration of the cabin
pre-heat and fuel-fired systems could include several options; using the fuel-fired heater for pre-
heat, or using the electric resistance heater to heat the fluid which would in turn pre-heat the
cabin. Refinements to the pre-heat system considered are the ability to use in an ‘off-schedule’
situation and to be operated by remote control.

9/20/1999 NAVC1096-PG009524 42
6.2 NiMH Vehicle Performance Figure 52: NiMH Pack Voltage vs. Temperature
Data collected from the NiMH powered
vehicles indicated that non-thermally Average Total Volts Vs Average Battery Temperature
Current >25 and < 35 Amps
200
managed NiMH batteries can provide near
design Ah capacity, even in cold A-Hrs >5 & < 20
195
conditions (-22°C), however total battery
voltage is suppressed (9.2%) (Figure 52) 190
A-Hrs >20 & <30

and total voltage fluctuation is increased

Average Total Volts

(40.2%) reducing available pack kWh. 185 A-Hrs >30 & <40

Within the pack, individual modules

experience a 30.3% increase in the 180
A-Hrs >40 & <50

difference between the voltage of the A-Hrs >50 & <60

module with the highest charge vs. that 175

with the lowest. This depression of total

pack voltage resulting from the 170
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

fluctuations in the state-of-charge of Average Battery Temp

individual cells can be deleterious to

battery performance and life.
There is a measurable correlation between vehicle range and ambient temperature. Factors which
influence this decrease in range are the additional friction forces associated with cold weather
mechanical operation, the use of accessory equipment and the reduction in the energy content of
the battery pack at colder temperatures due to decreased battery voltage. As shown in Figure 52,
the average pack voltage for a given state of charge for the NiMH batteries is suppressed at low
battery temperatures and high states of charge. This voltage effect is less pronounced as battery
state of charge decreases such that at 60% depth of discharge the voltage difference due to cold
battery temperatures is relatively small. This is because the battery discharge process is
exothermic, giving off heat as the batteries are discharged. The rise in battery temperature is, in
part, a measure of the performance of the heat conservation design of the battery thermal
management system – retaining heat in the cold weather and rejecting it in the warm/hot weather.
Electric vehicles consume more energy during cold weather operation when compared to warm
weather use. Energy consumed during EV testing performed in the winter when ambient
temperatures averaged -7.5°C, was higher than similar testing performed in the summer (ambient
Figure 53: NiMH Cold Weather Range Comparison temperatures averaged 25°C).
During the winter testing, energy
Effects of Temperature on Vehicle Range
Normalized to 21 deg. C
consumption averaged 250 to
110% 235 watt-hours/mile, whereas in
100% the summer output averaged 205
Estimated
ICE
90% watt-hours/mile (for EV13 and
Percent of Vehicle Range at 21 deg. C

NiMH
80% EVHQ) and 188 watt-hours/mile
TM Pb-Acid
70% for EV15. Thus in cold climates,
60% EV performance is not only
50% hampered by reduced battery
Pb-Acid
40%
output, but also by increased
30%
battery drain. As shown in
20%
Figure 53, in the extreme (-20°C)
10%
the ICE is reduced to just under
0%
-20 -15
80% of its 20°C range, whereas
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

the thermally managed NiMH

Temperature, deg. C

electric vehicle is reduced to

9/20/1999 NAVC1096-PG009524 43
approximately 65%. This represents
a difference in range of less than 20% Figure 54: BTM NiMH Battery Temperature vs. Ambient
in the extreme cold case between the
thermally managed NiMH vehicle
and a conventional vehicle. This
project has demonstrated increased
cold weather NiMH vehicle range by
23% through the application of
battery thermal management
technologies.
There is a measurable decrease in
NiMH battery capacity (kWh) when
operating temperatures are higher
than optimal. For the NiMH batteries
this temperature is around 45°C.
Above this temperature energy
content was significantly lower and vehicle range decreased as a result. As such, any thermal
management system that provides insulation to the batteries for extreme cold weather operation
must compensate with additional cooling capabilities. Future studies for consideration of this
problem could include cooling systems driven by a closed-loop liquid cooling mechanism similar
to how waste heat is drawn away from the APU, or consideration of different battery box designs.

6.3 Battery Thermal Management

Testing of individual locations within the battery packs during controlled testing in a cold
chamber indicates that a variation in individual battery temperatures occur, regardless of
enclosure type (i.e., insulated vs. non-insulated). As a result of this battery voltage and vehicle
performance suffers to some extent.
Warm weather testing of battery performance is essential when insulating the battery pack
compartment, as the insulating material may cause overheating of the batteries during usage or
charging. In previous studies, EVermont determined that fan cooling was sufficient to cool lead-
acid batteries in moderately warm weather. Warm weather testing indicates that NiMH battery
temperatures increased while discharging in all three of the NiMH vehicles despite fan cooling.
In EV13 the combination of fan cooling and no insulation did alleviate some of the heat load, but
battery temperatures still increased. As a result, a minimum requirement for summer operation is
that the plugs used to limit cold weather ventilation rate must be removed.
In order to prevent any overheating damage in any type of operating conditions, it would be
necessary to modify the ventilation system or the configuration of the battery compartments. A
better airflow between the battery cells or higher volume of air passing through the compartments
would help to evacuate the excess generated heat. However, with the actual configuration of the
system, the driver should be aware of the potential overheating danger when operating the vehicle
in more stressful driving conditions (weather and type of road). In these cases a more
conservative way of driving is required (operation in normal or economy mode) in order to keep
the heat generation as low as possible to prevent battery damage.
At temperatures above 30°C the NiMH batteries exhibit a drop in total Ah capacity that results in
a loss of kWh capacity and reduced range. At temperatures below 0°C the batteries generally
maintain their Ah capacity but voltage is depressed resulting in a loss of kWh capacity and
reduced range. Optimum power and capacity are maintained between approximately 0°C and

9/20/1999 NAVC1096-PG009524 44
30°C. Self-discharge is about 1.5% per day at 20°C, which increases dramatically with battery
operating temperature.

6.4 APU Integration

Integration of the APU into the Solectria E 10 pickup (EV1) provided excellent cabin heating
capabilities and sufficient range extension to compensate for the removal of the front battery
pack. Vehicle energy economy based on a total energy standpoint is better than a conventional
ICE vehicle, but realized only about half that of the pure electric.
Although the APU integration is considered successful overall, initial testing indicated that a
problem could occur while the APU is running, the batteries are fully charged and regenerative
braking is employed. In a case like this, excessively high voltage causes the controllers to drop
off line. Several solutions were identified with varying degrees of practicality. These are to not
run the APU with the batteries fully charged. This easily avoids overcharging but precludes the
option of warming the cabin on a cold morning. The second is to operate the electric heater while
the engine is running thus absorbing excess energy or third to disengage the regenerative brakes.
The next steps in APU integration should focus on improved combination of the APU and energy
management system to allow full use of all vehicle subsystems such as regenerative brakes and
fuel-fired APU heat.

6.5 Battery Thermal Management System Model

The thermal performance of NiMH batteries powering the Solectria Force vehicle has been
numerically modeled for the running phase. The BTMS numerical model was constructed and
validated using experimental data collected in the cold chamber. Results have shown that the
model is reliable for the hot case (corresponding to +20°C). However, a disagreement is
observed between the prediction of the model and the experimental data for the cold case
(corresponding to -20°C) after 30 minutes of running.
The effects of some parameters such as the insulation and the air mass flow have been studied for
the later case in order to improve the model’s accuracy. The results reveal that these factors do
not have a significant impact on the predicted solution. Other factors, which have not been
investigated or taken into account, may be responsible for the observed discrepancy. These
parameters can be summarized as follows:
• geometry details: protuberance on the surface of the modules and the shape of the terminals
• difference in the temperature boundary conditions: the ambient temperature could be different
from one side of the box to the other
• resistance of the module at low temperatures: the resistance dependency on temperature
should be checked
• physical properties of the modules: variable thermal conductivity and specific heat
• areas of heat generation: regions where heat is generated must be identified.
The impact of these parameters on the predicted results should be investigated in the future to
enhance the accuracy of the model.
Possibilities for further development of the model include the addition of other features to the
model for the design and thermal management purposes. The features in question include the
fans’ control algorithm, the battery efficiency (necessary to model the recharge phase) and so on.
The model could be used as transient (time dependent) or steady (time independent). It should be

9/20/1999 NAVC1096-PG009524 45
noted that the transient model can be easily switched to a steady state model since the former is
more general. The steady state model is interesting to use to investigate the existence of overheat
regions under critical operating conditions (high ambient temperature and current for example).
Concerning the transient model, it can be used to predict the temperature evolution of the
batteries and estimate the running time of the fans and many other quantities that maybe
interesting to know in order to design an efficient system.
Several additional recommendations for improving the model exist. These include performing
sensitivity tests and parametric evaluations to provide further validation, seamlessly integrate the
battery box design model and the thermal model, and develop a comprehensive thermal
management system.

9/20/1999 NAVC1096-PG009524 46