A Hybrid Model Integrating Three-Terminal Switch
with PNGV Battery Models for LiFePO4 Battery
Chargers
Kai-Jun Pai
Department of Electrical Engineering
Ming Chi University of Technology
New Taipei City, Taiwan, R.O.C
carypai@mail.mcut.edu.tw
Abstract—This study A LiFePO4 battery pack (LBP) rapid
charger was developed and implemented in this study. Using
the partnership for a new generation of vehicles (PNGV)
battery and three-terminal switch models, this study can yield
a small-signal system matrix from dynamic equations to derive
transfer functions and further analyze frequency responses for
the charge voltage and current loops. In order to stratify
practical applications, the proposed equivalent model
considered the wire resistance-inductance of the power cable.
Moreover, the design features for implementing the constant-
voltage and constant-current charges are presented, and the
current overshoot during the start-up phase can be depressed
using a novel proportional shifting proportional-integral
control.
Keywords—Rapid charger, PNGV battery model, three-
terminal switch model, small-signal, proportional shifting
proportional-integral control
I. INTRODUCTION
In this study, the developed LiFePO4 battery pack (LBP)
rapid charger (LBPRC) was composed of a phase-shifted
full-bridge parallel current-doubler rectification (PSFB-
PCDR) incorporating the current feedback controller and
voltage feedback controller to accomplish the constant-
current (CC) or constant-voltage (CV) output mode.
Moreover, a simplified method that a three-terminal switch
(TTS) model was used for the PSFB-PCDR [1]–[3].
Furthermore, several studies have mentioned charging
strategies for secondary batteries in [4]–[7]. In [4], the
battery charger was a step-up converter, which could boost
the low input voltage of the photovoltaic cell, and using the
pulse-charge technologies and maximum power point
tracking technology, hence a fast maximum power point
tracking could be fulfilled during a narrow charge period. In
[5], the battery charger possessed with the bridgeless power
factor correction and the phase-shifted full-bridge (PSFB)
converter; this design could simply to accomplish the parallel
or series combination of the battery charger for electric
vehicle application. In addition, the CC–CC–CV charging
strategy was employed that should be effective to extend the
LiFePO4 battery lifespan. In [6], a two–switch buck
converter was used that could be applied in the electrically
controlled pneumatic brake system; the proposed CC–CV
charging scheme could implement to the LiFePO4 battery
charging. In [7], the resonant converter incorporating the
synchronous rectification technology was as the power stage
of the battery charger; the proposed charging method was the
CC–CV strategy.
978-1-7281-3153-5/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE
Studies [8]–[10] discussed the RC battery model and the
simple Rint model deriving the small-signal model; however,
this simple model cannot present the practical frequency
response and the corner frequency, hence the dynamic
characteristic improvement and the pole-zero compensation
cannot be implemented.
In this paper, a high-order transfer function (TF) for the
battery charger can be organized to improve the drawbacks
of the previous studies [8]–[10]. Moreover, in the charging
start-up phase, this study can use a proportional shifting
proportional-integral (PSPI) control to reduce the charging
current overshoot.
II. PNGV BATTERY MODEL
A new generation of vehicles (PNGV) battery model of
the LBP is depicted in Fig. 1. The model possesses of a an
open-circuit voltage vocv, an ohmic internal resistance Roir,
battery capacity capacitance Cx, a polarization capacity
capacitance Ct,, and a polarization internal resistance Rt,
[11]–[15].
Fig. 1. A partnership for a new generation of vehicles battery model.
In order to estimate the parameter of the PNGV battery
model, the measurement configuration of the charging
system is depicted in Fig. 2(a). The LBPRC input was an AC
input, and its positive and negative electrodes were
connected to the LBPRC output. The LBP voltage data could
be recorded by a date collector (Model number: GL240,
Graphtec Inc., Japan) every 10-ms, these data could transmit
to the computer by the USB; therefore, the LBP using a
pulse-current charge method can obtain the voltage–time
results, as shown in Fig. 2(b). Using the charge equation and
the Ohm’s law, the parameter of the PNGV battery model
can be calculated. In this study, Cx represents the LBP
capacity, which can be calculated and expressed as follows:
Cx =ibatΔt /Δvbat =ibat(t3 −t2)/(v5 −v1) (1)
According to [12] and Ohm’s law, the Roir(st) and Roir(sp)
and can be calculated and expressed as follows:
Roir(st) = (v2 − v1) / ibat (2)
 Roir(sp) = (v3 − v4 ) / ibat (3) electrodes connected to the PSFB-PCDR outlets o1 and o2. In
Fig. 4, the circuit in the a-frame can be replaced by the TTS
model, its equivalent circuit is depicted in Fig. 5 including
Using the Rt×Ct, a time constant of the capacitance– the resistance Reqs, dependent voltage source vr, and two
resistance, τ, can be yielded [12], [16–17]. From [12], Ct can current sources ir1–ir2.
be calculated as τ / Rt, where Rt can be calculated and
expressed as follows: TABLE I. PNGV BATTERY PARAMETER
Roir(st) Roir(sp) Roir Rt Ct
Rt = (v'2 −v2 ) / ibat (4) SOC Cx (F)
(mΩ) (mΩ) (mΩ) (mΩ) (F)
30% 9021.3 17.1 24.0 20.6 16.0 83.8
50% 8995.0 23.4 21.7 22.6 6.3 58.0
70% 9056.3 23.4 20.0 22.2 5.1 46.7
Average 9024.3 21.3 23.9 21.8 9.1 62.8

27.4
27.2 SOC 30%
SOC 50%
27
(a) SOC 70%
26.8
26.6
26.4
26.2
26
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Fig. 3. Voltage to time characteristics at different SOCs.

a-frame

Qa Qc o1
(b) Df1
Lcdr1
Fig. 2. Parameter measurement of PNGV battery model. (a) System
configuration. (b) Pulse-current charging and voltage–time variation. va vc
Ns1 Lcdr2 Co
Df2
The 5τ = t 2′′ − t 2′ can be defined. Therefore, substitution Cb
vtp CDR
of the 5τ = t 2′′ − t 2′ and Ct= τ / Rt can obtain an expression as
Vinps Df3 LBP
follows: Np Lcdr3
Qb Qd o2
Ct = (t2′′ − t'2 ) / 5Rt (5) vd
Ns2 Lcdr4
vb Df4
T1

In this study, the model number of the LiFePO4 battery is

LYS4882160S (3005) (Lyang Energy Tech. Corp., China). Fig. 4. PSFB-PCDR circuit schematic.
In Fig. 2, the peak value of the pulse-current was set in 17.5-
A (0.5C). For state of charges (SOCs) 30%, 50%, and 70%,
the voltage–time characteristic measurements presented in
Fig. 3. Parameters of the PNGV battery model that listed in
Table I; in this table, SOCs 30%, 50%, and 70%, were
selected, their reasons were described as follows:
 For the low, half, and high SOCs, the equivalent
electrical parameter of the LBP based on the PNGV
(a)
battery model should be measured to observe the
system responses.
 Under the light, half, and heavy loads, the LBPRC
charging system presented different frequency
responses.
III. SYSTEM MATRIX

The PSFB-PCDR circuit was composed of the DC power (b)

Vinps, power MOSFETs Qa–Qd, a DC obstructing capacitance
Cb, a transformer T1, diode rectification Df1 to Df4, current-
doubler inductors Lcdr1 to Lcdr4, and a output filter capacitor
Co, as shown in Fig. 4. The LBP positive and negative
 approximately. Thus, the average value (Table I) can be used
for the proposed PNGV battery model to simulate the system
Bode plot.
Fig. 7 presented the comparison of the frequency for the
RC model, no-wire resistance-inductance, and the PNGV
model. This figure can observe several circumstances as
(c)
follows:
Fig. 5. PSFB-PCDR equivalent circuit. (a) TTS model. (b) Incorporating  No-wire resistance-inductance: The Rc and Lc (Fig. 5)
the wire resistance-inductance with the PNGV battery model. (c) Conclusive were neglected. The open-loop gain of the charging
equivalent circuit. voltage Gov (s) replaced with the Gov1 (s). The Gov1 (s)
phase deviated the Gov (s) apparently, and the Gov1 (s)
From Fig. 5(c) and using the state-space representation, gain was lower than the Gov (s), band ranges were from
dynamic equations can be derived to yield the system matrix 20 to 100 kHz (Fig. 7).
of PSFB-PCDR as follows:
 RC model: Neglecting Ct, Resr, Lc, Rt, and Rc (Fig. 5). The
~ Gov (s) replaced with the the Gov2 (s). The gain and phase
 x'1   ip 
 x'  ~  slopes for Gov2 (s) were able to present the corner
 2 vCo  ~ frequency variation, such as the pole-zero point of Gov
 x'3  = A ~ibat  + B d y (s).
  ~ 
 x' 4   vCt  From Fig. 7 simulations, the stability analysis and the
 x' 5  ~ 
 vCx  pole-zero compensation were difficult to accomplish for the
~ (6) LBPRC design. Thus, the LBPRC analysis using the PNGV
 a11 a12 a13 a14 a15   ip   b1 
a ~    battery model is a feasible method to yield the system
 21 a 22 a 23 a 24 a 25  vCo  b2  ~ frequency response, and to design the voltage and current
=  a31 a32 a33 a34 a35  ~ ibat  + b3  d y feedback controllers for CV and CC charging, respectively.
  ~   
 a 41 a 42 a 43 a 44 a 45   vCt  b4 
 a51 a52 a53 a54 a55   v~  b5 
 Cx   

~
v~bat = C ip [ v~Co
~
ibat ~
vCt v~Cx
T
]
(7)
= [c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 ] [ ~ ~
ip vCo ibat
~ ~
vCt v~Cx ]
T

~ ~
ibat = E ip [ v~Co
~
ibat v~Ct v~Cx ]
T

(8)
= [e1 e2 e3 e4
~
e5 ] ip [ v~Co
~
ibat v~Ct v~Cx ]
T

~
where x'5 = dv~Cx /dt, x'4 = d~
vCt / dt, x'3 = d ibat /dt, x'2 = dv~Co
~
/dt, and x'1= dip /dt. Table II lists calculations for matrix (a)
elements A, B, C, and E.

TABLE II. MATRIX ELEMENT CALCULATIONS FOR A, B, C, AND E

Magnitude (dB)

Notation Calculation
－(Reqs+ －1
a11 a12 a13 a14 a15 Resr / Lo 0 0
Resr) / Lo / Lo
a21 a22 a23 a24 a25 1 / Co 0 －1 / Co 0 0
1/ －(Resr+ －1 / －1
a31 a32 a33 a34 a35 Resr / Lc
Lc Rx) / Lc Lc / Lc
Phase (Degree)

－1 /
a41 a42 a43 a44 a45 0 0 1 / Ct 0
RtCt
a51 a52 a53 a54 a55 0 0 1 / Cx 0 0
b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 Vinps/ nLo 0 0 0 0
c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 0 0 Rx 1 1
e1 e2 e3 e4 e5 0 0 1 0 0
(b)
IV. OPEN-LOOP FREQUENCY RESPONSE Fig. 6. Gov in different SOCs. (s). (a) Using the three SOCs and the
From Tables I, II, and (6)–(8), simulations by the Matlab average parameters. (b) Enlarging scale from Fig. 6(a).
based on different SOC parameters resulted in different
frequency responses, as shown in Fig. 6(a). Enlarging the Fig. 8(a) depicts a PSPI control configuration with its
magnitude and phase scales from Fig. 6(a), the average value practical circuit, this control technology can be employed to
solid-line in Fig. 6(b) could be observed that three SOC reduce the charging current overshoot during the LBPRC
(30%, 50%, and 70%) frequency responses were start-up phase. The Rs were used to detect the charging
current becoming the vibat, and the SA was used to amplify
the vibat, then the SA can output a voltage signal vcfci;
therefore, a reference command of the charging current Io(ref)
compares with the vcfci to output an error voltage vcfco via the
proportional (P) or PI compensation to control the PSFB
controller.
Fig. 7. Frequency response simulation using different battery models.
In Fig. 8(b), during the Phase I, the LBPRC can be
controlled by the voltage feedback controller with the soft-
start (SS) control, and Vbat slowly increases, thus avoiding
the voltage overshoot occurrence. During the Phase II, as the
Ibat increases to reach the current setting for the Iset, the
shifting component Scfc (Fig. 8(a)) can be connected to the
position p1, enabling the current feedback controller to
implement P control; thus, the current feedback controller
response speed can be expedited to reduce the charging
current overshoot. Finally, the Ibat reaches the target charging
current feedback controller Iconst, the Scfc is switched to the
position p2, and then the current feedback controller
implements the PI control to stabilize the LBP charging
current for achieving the constant-current charging during
the Phase III.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 8. The proposed PSPI control. (a) PSPI configuration. (b) Phases I to
III.
V. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
At the SOC level of 30% (Fig. 6(a)) and the charging rate
of 0.5C, the LBP started to charge from a Vbat level of 26.92-
V; the target value of the average charging current was
maintained at 17.5-A (0.5C). During the start-up phase, an
excess of current overshoot occurred because the zero break
frequency was set be very low frequency. The peak vale of
current overshoot was 34-A, which has exceeded the
operating CC of 16.5-A (34 – 17.5 =16.5-A). As illustrated
in Fig. 9(b), the time scale of the waveform window was
curtailed to 10-ms/div. Form Fig. 9, several circumstances
can be discussed in the following.
 Before the constant-current charging mode, a prolonged
start-up time of 30-ms was observed.
 Because of the LBPRC input was an AC power with a
power factor correction supplying, a DC voltage of 400-
V mixing the low-frequency ripple supplied to the PSFB-
PCDR; thus, a low-frequency current ripple of 60-Hz was
observed in Fig. 9.
 The peak value of the current overshoot was 34-A, and
the average charge current was 17.5-A.
When the charging start voltage was 27.23-V (SOC
70%), the start-up time was 40-ms, current overshoot peak
was 28-A, and average charging current was 17.5-A, as
shown in Fig. 9(c)
(a)
 (b)
(c)
Fig. 9. Using PI control. (a) Start-charging voltage: 26.92 V, SOC: 30%,
time scale: 100 ms/div. (b) Start-charging voltage: 26.92 V, SOC: 30%, time
scale: 10 ms/div. (c) Start-charging voltage: 27.23 V, SOC: 70%, time scale:
10 ms/div.
When the LBPRC’s CFC incorporates with the PSPI
control, the waveforms of the start-charging voltage and
current are presented in Fig. 10. In Fig. 10(a) and (b), the
time scale of the waveform window was 100- and 10-
ms/div., respectively. The LBP started to charge from a Vbat
of 26.92-V (SOC 30%), the start-up time cut to 11-ms, the
peak value of the current overshoot reduced to 19-A. In Fig.
10(c), when the start-charging voltage was 27.23-V (SOC
70%), the start-up time was 10-ms, peak value of current
overshoot was 19-A, and average charging current was 17.5-
A. Thus, the CFC with the PSPI control technology can be
effective to reduce the current overshoot in 19-A, which has
approximate to the average charging current of 17.5-A, and
the start-up time was curtailed to 10-ms.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 10. CFC with the PSPI control technology. (a) Start-charging voltage:
26.92-V, SOC: 30%, time scale: 100-ms/div. (b) Start-charging voltage:
26.92-V, SOC: 30%, time scale: 10 ms/div. (c) Start-charging voltage:
27.23-V, SOC: 70%, time scale: 10 ms/div.
VI. CONCLUSION
This study presented the developed and implemented
LBPRC for the battery pack charging. In this paper, this
study focus was on the system matrix establishment and the
frequency response analysis for the charging voltage and
current loops; therefore, both TTS and PNGV battery models
were applied to derive the small-signal transfer function.
Consequently, the LBPRC can adopt both CV and CC power
to replenish the battery pack. Moreover, the PSPI control
technology integrating into the CFC was effective to reduce
the start-up current overshoot.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author acknowledges the Ministry of Science and
Technology, Taiwan, R.O.C. supplying a research fund. The
grants: MOST 104–2221–E–236–002, 105–2221–E–236–
003, and 108–2221–E–131–010–MY2.
REFERENCES
[1] G. Di Capua, S. A. Shirsavar, M. A. Hallworth, and N. Femia, “An
enhanced model for small-signal analysis of the phase-shifted full-
bridge converter,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 30, pp. 1567–
1576, 2015.
[2] M. J. Schutten and D. A. Torrey, “Improved small-signal analysis for
the phase-shifted PWM power converter,” IEEE Trans. Power
Electron, vol. 18, pp. 659–669, 2013.
[3] L. Cao, “Small signal modeling for phase-shifted PWM converters
with acurrent doublerrectifier,” In Proceedings of the IEEE
International Conference on Power Electronics Specialists
Conference, Orlando, FL, USA, 17–21 June 2007, pp. 423–429.
[4] H. Chiu, Y. Lo, T. Lee, Q. Chen, W. Yu, J. Lee, F. Shih, and S. Mou,
“A battery charger with maximum power point tracking function for
low-power photovoltaic system applications,” Int. J. Circuit Theory
Appl., vol. 39, pp. 241–256, 2011.
[5] H. Chiu, Y. Lo, P. Tseng, Y. Liu, Y. Chang, Y. Liao, K. Jen, K. Fu, C.
Chung, and K. Chen, “Design and implementation of a high-
efficiency LiFePO4 battery charger for electric vehicle applications,”
Int. J. Circuit Theory Appl, vol. 42, pp. 759–768, 2014.
[6] X. Gong, Z. Huang, K. Liu, H. Li, and W. Liu, “A LiFePO4 battery
management system for heavy-haul train electrically controlled
pneumatic brake system application,” In Proceedings of theIEEE
Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition (ECCE), Montreal, QC,
Canada, 20–24 September 2015, pp. 1346–1450.
[7] C. Lin, C. Wang, M. Huang, and M. Li, “Series-resonant battery
charger with synchronous rectifiers for LiFePO4 battery pack,” In
Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Industrial Electronics and
Applications, Beijing, China, 21–23 June 2011, pp. 316–321.
[8] M. R. Abedi, B. Song, and R. Kim, “Dynamic performance
improvement of bidirectional battery chargers using predictive current
control,” In Proceedings of theIEEE International Conference on
Power and Energy Society General Meeting, San Diego, CA, USA,
22–26 July 2012, pp. 1–8.
[9] R. Pagano, M. Baker, and R. E. Radke, “A 0.18-m monolithic Li-ion
battery charger for wireless devices based on partial current sensing
and adaptive reference voltage,” IEEE J. Solid-State Circuit, vol. 47,
pp. 1355–1368, 2012.
[10] T. Huang, R. Peng, T. Tsai, K. Chen, and C. Wey, “Fast charging and
high efficiency switching-based charger with continuous built-in
resistance detection and automatic energy deliver control for portable
electronics,” IEEE J. Solid-State Circuit, vol. 49, pp. 1580–1594,
2014.
[11] X. Zhang, W. Zhang, and G. Lei, “A review of li-ion battery
equivalent circuit models,” Trans. Electr. Electron. Mater., vol. 17,
pp. 311–316, 2015.
[12] S. Castano, L. Gauchia, E. Voncila, and J. Sanz, “Dynamical
modeling procedure of a Li-ion battery pack suitable for real-time
applications,” Energy Convers. Manag., vol. 92, pp. 396–405, 2015.
[13] K. Leslie, I. Demirkiran, E. Rask, and H. Lohse-Busch, “An
investigation into the PNGV battery model with the addition of a
dynamic temperature range,” In Proceedings of the 2013 Proceedings
of IEEE Southeastcon, Jacksonville, FL, USA, 4–7 April 2013, pp. 1–
6.
[14] W. Gao, M. Jiang, and Y. Hou, “Research on PNGV model parameter
identification of LiFePO4 Li-ion battery based on FMRLS,” In
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Industrial
Electronics and Applications, Beijing, China, 21–23 June 2011, pp.
2294–2297.
[15] Advanced Vehicles, FreedomCAR Battery Test Manual for Power-
Assist Hybrid Electric Vehicles. Available online:
https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/battery/freedomcar_manual_0
4_15_03.pdf (accessed on October 2018).
[16] C. Liu, W. Liu, L. Wang, G. Hu, L. Ma, and B. Ren, “A new method
of modeling and state of charge estimation of thebattery,” J. Power
Source, vol. 320, pp. 1–12, 2016.
[17] T. Feng, L. Yang, X. Zhao, H. Zhang, and J. Qiang, “Online
identification of lithium-ion battery parameters based on an improved
equivalent-circuit model and its implementation on battery state-of-
power prediction,” J. Power Source, vol. 281, pp. 192–203, 2015.