Evaluation of Lithium Iron Phosphate Batteries for

Electric Vehicles Application

F. P. Tredeau Z. M. Salameh
Student Member, IEEE Senior Member, IEEE

University of Massachusetts Lowell

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Lowell, MA 01854

Abstract—160 Ah LiFePO4 prismatic cells were tested for

capacity, cycle life and realistic road test evaluation for the
application of electric vehicle. The testing was done to
compare the performance of LiFePO4 cells to LiCoO2 cells
that were previously shown to be not suitable for use in EVs.
The testing was done in the Battery Evaluation Lab at UMass,
Lowell (Massachusetts), which is briefly described. A brief
explanation of the various types of Lithium based secondary
cells is given as background. Cycle tests and capacity
measurements were done on eight cells over the course of 50
full cycles lasting several weeks. Cycles were to 100% Depth
of Discharge (DOD) at 20°C. The capacity tests showed that
the cells had a full 160 Ah capacity and the cycle tests showed
that the cells had still had full capacity after 50 cycles. There
was no degradation of terminal voltage during discharge and
no heating effect. The realistic road test consisted of
subjecting two sample cells to the currents that are required
in an actual road trip in an EV. The profile of the realistic
road test is described. The road test profile was done on both
cells four times at each of four ambient temperatures: -20°C,
0°C, +20°C and +40°C. The resulting conclusion is that the
LiFePO4 cells are superior to the previously tested LiCoO2
cells for use in EVs and are recommended for future designs.
Index Terms—Batteries, Battery Temperature, Cycle Life,
Lithium Iron Phosphate, Electric Vehicle.
I. LITHIUM BASED CELLS
A. Specific Energy of Lithium Batteries
Because the terminal voltage of lithium based cells is
80% to 300% higher than other commonly available
chemistries, cells employing lithium offer a much higher
energy density, both gravimetric and volumetric than all
other non-exotic, rechargeable battery chemistries. While
the amp-hour capacity of the various lithium cells is
comparable to NiMH and NiCd, the energy density is much
higher due to the higher terminal voltage. This
characteristic is the overriding reason for the advent of
lithium based batteries in EVs in recent years.
B. Shortfalls of Lithium Batteries
Until recently, lithium based cells suffered from several
undesirable characteristics.
Some large format lithium cells have demonstrated short
cycle life and high internal resistance. [1] In the early
1990s, there were several highly publicized incidents of
lithium batteries exploding in portable devices.[2] Also,
some lithium batteries have a limited shelf life. This means
the capacity becomes depressed over time. The industry
rule of thumb is that the capacity is depressed 10% per year
under optimal conditions. Most manufacturers guarantee
not more that 5 year shelf life.
C. Lithium Ion vs. Lithium Polymer
“Ion” implies an aqueous electrolyte. These cells show
considerable expansion when cycling requiring a rigid
encasement and are more vulnerable to bursting. Ion cells
are currently more common due to ease of manufacture and
higher energy density. “Polymer” implies a polymer mesh
separator and gelatinous electrolyte. Li Poly cells can be
manufactured with flexible encasement. They also show a
much lower tendency to catch fire than Li Ion and are
therefore safer. Until recently, polymer type lithium cells
were more difficult to manufacture than the aqueous
electrolyte “ion” type. As manufacturing improves, it is
expected that polymer types will become more widely
available.

978-1-4244-2601-0/09/$25.00 ©2009 IEEE 1266

 D. Various Chemistries of Lithium Cells rechargeable batteries that would be found in portable
TABLE 1. SPECIFIC ENERGY OF VARIOUS BATTERY CHEMISTRIES appliances or on single cell primary batteries. The 20- and
40-amp regulators are for use on large batteries that would
A Comparison of the Specific Energy of be used in electric vehicles, etc.
Various Electro-Chemical Cells
Energy Terminal
Density Voltage
(Wh/Kg) (Volts)
Lead Acid 12.3 [3] 2.0
NiMH 46 [4] 1.7
NiCd 56 [5] 1.2
NiZn 75 [6] 1.7
USABC Mid-Term 80-100[7]
LiMnO4 100 4.0
LiFePO4 100 3.3
LiNiO2 130 3.6
LiCoO2 140 3.7
USABC Long-Term 150-200

II. BATTERY EVALUATION LAB AT UMASS LOWELL

Fig 1. Battery Exerciser at the Battery Evaluation Lab at UMass Lowell.
The testing was done at the Battery Evaluation Lab at The central tower houses two sets of eight current regulators and their
UMass, Lowell, Massachusetts, USA. analog/digital multiplexers. One of the environmental chambers is in the
foreground.
A. History
C. Cell Under Test (CUT) Ah ratings, dimensions,
The lab was built in the 1990's specifically for the weight, projected energy densities
evaluation of various kinds of new battery innovations and
The Cell Under Test (CUT), shown in Figure 2, is a
their suitability for use in electric vehicles. Among types
model TS-LFP160AHA which is rated by the manufacturer
of batteries that have been tested are Lead-Acid, Nickel-
to be 160 Ah. A nominal terminal voltage of 3.3 volts
Cadmium, Nickel-Zinc and Nickel-Metal-Hydride.
results in 528 Wh energy rating. The LiFePO4 CUT is a
Lithium-Ion batteries using the Synergistic Battery Pack
prismatic cell in a plastic case measuring 27.5 x 18.3 x 7.1
were also evaluated at UML [8].
cm for a volume of 3,674 cubic centimeters. This yields
B. Capabilities volumetric energy density of 143 Wh /L. The CUT weighs
The lab itself has sufficient power service to supply all approximately 5.2 Kg resulting in a gravimetric energy
the battery exercisers (described below) and to power the density of 101.5 Wh/Kg.
environmental chambers simultaneously. The lab is also
equipped with an eye wash station as well as an emergency
shower for use in the case of an accident involving caustic
materials.
The Battery Evaluation Lab presently has three,
independent, custom built battery exerciser/data recording
systems. Each of the three systems controls different types
of current regulators that are appropriate for different kinds
of batteries. The types of current regulators are:
• Eight single-channel, ±20 amp, 20 volt
• Eight single-channel, ±40 amp, 10 volt
• Two three-channel ±4 amp, 10 volt
• One three-channel ±2 amp, 20 volt
The last two current regulator types are usually used
together in one system. The 20 volt systems are
appropriate for work with 12-volt batteries and the 10-volt
regulators are mainly used with 6-volt batteries. The
voltage overhead is required for battery charging. The fact
that the regulators can source or sink current indicates that
they can both charge and discharge batteries. The 4-amp Fig 2. The TS LFP160AHA Lithium Iron Phosphate Cell.
and 2-amp regulators are intended for work on small,
1267
 III. CYCLE TEST OF LIFEPO4 CELL The cycle life of a battery or cell is defined to be the
The cycle tests conducted on the CUT were done for number of full cycles that the unit can sustain before the
three purposes: capacity loses 20% of its initial peak capacity
1. To confirm that the manufacturer’s ratings are The long term goal of the USABC is a cycle life of at
sustained by field tests least 1000. The data show that the Wh capacity of the cells
2. Use the results of 50 cycles to project the probable fell by less than 0.5% over the course of 50 full cycles.
cycle life for the CUT. This was true for all eight specimens tested. Based on that
3. To determine through actual measurement the trend, we can project that the cell will have a cycle life of at
exothermic / endothermic behavior of the CUT least 1000, thereby meeting the USABC long term goal.
during charge and discharge.
A. Typical Cycle Test results including current, Amp-Hour Capacities for 160 Ah Cell #6
180
voltage and case temperature
160
The method used in the cycle tests was the Constant 140
Current / Constant Voltage (CCCV) protocol.
120 Discharging

Amp Hours
Voltage and Current vs Timefor Cell #4, Cycle #2 100
AmpHours

Terminal Voltage (volts)

280 4.4
260 Current 4.2 80 Charging
240 4.0 AmpHours
220 Voltage 3.8 60
200 3.6
180 3.4 40
160 3.2
140 3.0 20
120 2.8
100 2.6 0
80 2.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Current (amps)

60 2.2
40 E 2.0 Cycle Number
20 1.8
0 1.6
-20 1.4
-40 A B C D F 1.2 Fig. 4 Showing the Amp-hour capacity of cell #6 over the course of 50
-60 1.0
-80 0.8 cycles. Since the cell was partially charged when it was received, the first
-100 0.6 cycle did not deliver the full 160 Ah. Thereafter, the charge and discharge
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 Ah where nearly identical indicating nearly 100% amp-hour efficiency.
Time (hours)
Fig. 3 Showing full cycle #2 for cell #4. All the phases of a full cycle are
present in this graph. (A) indicates constant current discharge, (B) is the Watt Hour Capacity of 160 Ah Cell #7
constant voltage discharge. (C) is the one hour rest after discharge. (D) is 700
the constant current part of charging and (E) is the constant voltage part of
charging. Finally, (F) is the one hour rest after charging. 600

500
Figure 3 shows the detail of a CCCV cycle used in these
400
tests. Note that there are two one-hour rest periods inserted Discharging
WattHours
between charging and discharging periods to avoid 300 Charging
damaging thermal stress. Eight specimens of the CUT WattHours
200
were subjected to 50 full cycles at 20˚C in the battery
exerciser. 100

B. Capacity History for Ah and Wh over 50 cycles 0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
The following two graphs show typical results for the 50 Cycle Number
cycle tests done at 20˚C. All eight specimens showed Fig. 5 Showing the Watt-hour capacity of cell #7. The upper data set is
similar performance. The cycling data indicate that the cell for charging and the lower is for discharging.
does indeed have a full 160 Ah capacity and it delivers over
510 watt-hours during a full discharge. The round-trip
energy efficiency is approximately 90%. The D. Thermal Effects of Cell Cycling
manufacturer’s ratings are thus confirmed. During all the cycle tests, case temperatures were
It should also be observed that the cells demonstrate full recorded on a minute-to-minute basis. The thermal record
Ah and Wh capacity from the first cycle. This means that, showed no temperature rise inconsistent with the current
unlike the various nickel based chemistries, the LiFePO4 flow and small internal resistance. There was no
cells do not require a “break in” period where the cells anomalous temperature change at low or high SOC. There
must be cycled several times before they provide full was no case distension.
capacity. This indicates that the cells will not need unusual cooling
or heating when operating in normal temperature ranges.
C. Cycle Life Projection Like any battery, the cells will need proper ventilation
when used in an EV.
1268
 E. Realistic Road Test of LiFePO4 Cell minimum during heavy discharge or go above maximum
The Realistic Road Test (RRT) has been developed at during charge, the test continued. If the cell made it
UMass Lowell in order to perform a consistent, rigorous through the test without an out-of-limit excursion, it was
and challenging exercise of batteries and cells to help deemed to be a success. The cell was again discharged to
evaluate their suitability for use in EVs. The test consists 0% SOC in order to measure the residual Wh remaining in
of second-by-second currents, both charging and the cell after a long ride. At all four temperatures, both
discharging, that were recorded on a 40 mile drive in an cells performed successfully in the RRT.
EV. The test takes approximately 3 hours. The peak Using the data gathered and by comparing the “driving”
discharge (driving) is 198.4 amps and the peak charge amps, the “regen” amps and the residual amps, the
(regen) is 114 amps. efficiency with which regenerative current is actually
The graph below shows the current profile for the entire recouped is shown in Table 2 below.
test. Detail of a typical three minute segment is shown in The data indicate that the cell suffer from capacity and
Figure 7. power loss at low temperatures. The unrecovered energy
and case temperature rise both indicate that battery heating
Realistic Road Test Current will be necessary if the cells are to be used in cold weather.
250
The following table summarizes the results of the RRT
200
data for cell #27. The data for cell #28 is similar.
150
Current (amps)

100 TABLE 2. REALISTIC ROAD TEST ON CELL #27

50
0
-50
-100
-150
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Time (hours)

Fig. 6 Showing the current for the complete RRT. Positive current is
discharging (driving) and negative current is charging (regenerative
breaking).

Realistic Road Test Current

250
200
150
Current (amps)

100
50
0 IV. CONCLUSION
-50
-100
-150
1.000 1.010 1.020 1.030
Time (hours)
Fig. 7 Showing about three minutes of sample current near the one hour
mark.
The RRT was performed on two LiFePO4 cells, each at
four ambient air temperatures, namely: -20˚C, 0.0˚C, +20˚C
and +40˚C. The protocol of the test was to, first; discharge
the cell using a CCCV regimen (as described above) to 0%
SOC. The cell was then charged using CCCV to maximum
safe voltage as prescribed by the manufacturer (3.7V).
That allowed the actual Wh capacity to be measured at the
various temperatures. The cell would then undergo the
realistic part of the RRT described above. During this part
of the test, the cell voltage was monitored on a second-by-
second basis. As long as the voltage did not sag below
The cycling tests showed that the cells performed to the
manufacturer’s specifications in both Ah and Wh capacity.
The LiFePO4 cells showed less than 0.5% loss of capacity
1.040 1.050 over the 50 cycles of 100% DOD. The tests were
conducted at the optimal ambient air temperature with
moderate current loads. Adequate rest time was provided
and there were no deleterious case temperature rises. This
indicates that the life cycle claim of the manufacturer of
>1000 cycles before capacity falls to 80% is probably
valid. This is a marked improvement over the performance
of LiCoO2 cells. Similar cycle tests on LiCoO2 cells from
the same source showed an average 20% capacity loss over
50 cycles and poor power density. The LiFePO4 cell is
clearly preferable to the LiCoO2 cell and is recommended
for new EVs.
The realistic road test showed that the battery voltage
stayed within limits and the battery is capable of providing
the current needed all times. Cell heating is recommended
when used in cold weather.
1269
 V. AUTHORS
Frank Tredeau received his BSEE from Northeastern
University in 1986 and his MS Eng from University of
Massachusetts, Lowell in 2003. He is currently a Ph.D
candidate at University of Massachusetts, Lowell. He is a
life member of Tau Beta Pi. He has held technical and
management positions on the staffs of GTE Laboratories,
MASSCOMP (later Concurrent Computer), American
Power Conversion, UB Networks (later Newbridge
Networks), Raytheon Company and Celox Networks. He is
the owner/operator of Tredeau Designs, LLC.
Ziyad Salameh received his Diploma from Moscow Power
Engineering Institute in 1974 and his M.S and Ph.D from
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in 1980 and 1982
respectively. He is currently a professor at the University of
Massachusetts, Lowell. He is also Director of the Center
for Electric Cars and Energy Conversion. His areas of
interest are electric vehicles and renewable energy sources.
He has authored or co-authored over 100 research papers.
1270
VI. REFERENCES
[1] Tredeau F.P., Salameh Z.M., Kim B.G., Performance
Evaluation of Lithium Cobalt Cells and the Suitability for
use in Electric Vehicles, VPPC08 Harbin, Heilongjiang,
China, 2008
[2] Frost, Sullivan, Allaying end-user safety concerns vital
to industrial applications of lithium batteries, EDN-Asia,
14-Sep-2005,
available at: http://www.ednasia.com/article-12503-
allayingendusersafetyconcernsvitaltoindustrialapplication
soflithiumbatteries-Asia.html
[3] Rand D. A. J., Moseley P. T., Garche J., Park C. D.,
Valve-regulated Lead-acid Batteries, Elsevier B. V., pg
109, 2004
[4] Panasonic EV Energy Co., Ltd., NiMH Plastic Case
Prismatic Module product specification available at
http://www.peve.jp/e/hevjyusi.html
[5] Kreith D., Goswami D. Y., Energy management and
conservation handbook, CRC Press, pg. 12-10, 2008
[6] Tredeau F. P., “Characterization of Nickel-Zinc
Battery,” MS. Eng. Thesis, Dept. Electrical and
Computing Eng., Univ. Massachusetts, Lowell, 2003
[7] Dianne Publishing, Electric Vehicles, Table V1, pg 31,
1995
[8] William A., UMass, Lowell, Nickel Cadmium Battery
Evaluation, Modeling, and Application in an Electric
Vehicle, 1997