Downloaded from SAE International by Birmingham City Univ, Wednesday, August 22, 2018
Exploring the Opportunity Space For High-Power Li-Ion
Batteries in Next-Generation 48V Mild Hybrid Electric
Vehicles
Aziz Abdellahi, Saeed Khaleghi Rahimian, Berislav Blizanac, and Brian Sisk
A123 Systems Inc.
CITATION: Abdellahi, A., Khaleghi Rahimian, S., Blizanac, B., and Sisk, B., "Exploring the Opportunity Space For High-Power
Li-Ion Batteries in Next-Generation 48V Mild Hybrid Electric Vehicles," SAE Technical Paper 2017-01-1197, 2017, doi:10.4271/2017-
01-1197.
Copyright © 2017 SAE International
Abstract
48V battery packs, with rated power capabilities on the order of
8-16kW, are rapidly becoming a new standard in the automotive
industry. Improving on their 12V counterparts (2-5kW), 48V Mild
Hybrid Electric Vehicles (MHEV) allow for extended start-stop and
regenerative braking functionalities, providing fuel economy benefits
of up to 10-15% in standard passenger vehicles.
New and relatively unexplored opportunities exist to further increase
the fuel economy and performance of 48V systems. Improvement in
battery power (to ~25kW) would further enable hybridization to
near-HEV levels as well as engine downsizing, thus paving the way
to fuel economy improvements beyond the current 10-15% MHEV
limit. Additionally, new electrified features may be added, such as
electric turbo/supercharging, electric traction, electric power steering,
electric suspension and electric air conditioning. Vehicle
electrification topology and strategy are investigated with respect to
their impact on sizing, including a fuel-economy-oriented strategy
based on a belt-integrated starter generator, a P4 “through-road”
hybrid, and a 48V variant with electrified accessories.
In this paper, we explore the various opportunities for novel,
advanced 48V systems and link these capabilities with requirements
at the battery level. We conclude that future-looking vehicle features
and high levels of fuel economy benefit require the development of
48V battery packs with a high power-to-energy ratio. 48V batteries
with strong power (up to ~25kW) and HEV-level energy capabilities
(<200Wh for most scenarios) are needed to enable the technologies
explored in this work, demanding batteries with power-to-energy
ratios between 30 and 160. To serve these power and energy needs,
we present a high-power, lithium-iron-phosphate chemistry with
excellent rate capabilities. Our conclusions suggest that a family of
batteries based on high-power lithium-iron-phosphate (LFP) can meet
the needs of advanced 48V architectures, providing new features to
consumers and excellent fuel economy.
2017-01-1197
Published 03/28/2017
Introduction
Mild Hybrid Electric Vehicles (MHEV) have seen increasing
attention from automobile manufacturers in recent years due to their
improvement in fuel economy and ability to support a wide variety of
electrified devices [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. The conventional MHEV powertrain
topology consists of an internal combustion engine (ICE) coupled to
a belt-integrated starter generator (BISG) [6]. The BISG thereby
becomes the gateway between the powertrain and the electrical
network, being connected directly to a 48V (nominal) battery, and
typically to a 12V powernet via a DC/DC convertor. Such a system
could be expected to provide ~10-15% fuel economy improvement
compared to a standard ICE vehicle with start-stop [4,7].
A typical MHEV can provide from 8kW up to 16kW. The power
output of a conventional MHEV system is fundamentally limited in
terms of the ability of the BISG to provide torque to the ICE; excess
torque can create belt slip. The specific torque at which slip occurs
can be mitigated through the use of belt tensioners and other
techniques, but is nonetheless fundamentally limited. In summary,
while the MHEV battery may provide high power in short discharge
bursts to the electrical network, it is limited in its ability to generate
power at the wheels, thus limiting fuel economy opportunities.
While typical BISG architecture limits MHEV power, demand for
vehicle electrification only continues to increase, extending a
decades-long trend [8]. Accessories that are typically powered via
hydraulic power or the serpentine belt may be converted to electrical
power. Additionally, advanced features such as electric low-speed
drive, park-assist, electric-turbo, and others may utilize the 48V
system [9-10]. Finally, partial hybridization using the 48V powertrain
may be integrated to improve fuel economy.
Our work builds on previously established analyses that define
requirements focused on optimization of fuel economy in typical
MHEV and Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEV) [11, 12, 13]. Here, we
 Downloaded from SAE International by Birmingham City Univ, Wednesday, August 22, 2018
consider new architectures and applications expected to emerge in
MHEV-based vehicles over the next ten years. These new
architectures will likely stretch the fundamental limit on MHEV
performance to approximately 25kW or more. Within that context, we
investigate the power and energy requirements associated with
high-power MHEV systems focused on different objectives,
including fuel economy but also electrification of high-power
accessories for consumer benefit. We also outline the tradeoffs
between fuel economy benefits and high-power accessory usage.
This paper specifically focuses on how these new architectures,
systems, objectives, and strategies will impact battery requirements.
Our goal is to understand how the temporal dynamics of energy usage
between many different electrical devices stack up to define an
overall power demand - and in turn shape the requirements of the
battery. We conclude by determining how optimal power and energy
vary with both system power and utilization strategy, and how that
affects the design of a next-generation 48V LFP battery.
Vehicle Topologies and Applications
Vehicle Topologies
Powertrain Architectures
Mild-hybrid vehicles typically consist of a powertrain architecture in
which kinetic energy available at the wheels can be captured via
regenerative braking to store electrochemical energy in a battery.
Figure 1 displays the conventional powertrain for a 48V MHEV. In
this architecture, the wheels are directly connected to a transaxle,
which is mechanically coupled to an internal combustion engine
(ICE). The ICE is then mechanically coupled to a 48V electrical
machine, typically a motor-generator. Depending on the power level
needed, the connection between the ICE and the electrical machine
can occur using either a belt-integrated starter generator (BISG), or it
can be coupled directly via a crankshaft-integrated starter generator
(CISG). This architecture has been traditionally used for MHEV to
establish a bi-directional energy transfer pathway between the wheels
and the battery [9].
Figure 1. Powertrain architecture of a “conventional” MHEV vehicle.
The powertrain illustrated in Figure 1 is limited due to some practical
considerations. For instance, the ICE and the electrical machine need
to be closely located to each other due to the direct mechanical
connection between them. These would typically both be located
under the vehicle’s hood. The location of the battery has important
implications for the application. Placing the battery under-hood
creates challenges in terms of space utilization and temperature.
Placing it in the passenger cabin or trunk creates longer electrical
lines, and accompanying voltage drop (IR losses). While these losses
may be manageable for traditional MHEV vehicles, still-higher
currents would require different powertrain topologies.
High-power 48V packs can be used to power high-load accessories
and/or to enhance traction power via partial hybridization of the
powertrain. Both scenarios may lead to fuel economy improvements
and will be discussed below. Consideration of power levels up to
~25kW approaches the power levels of full hybrids [14], which
operate at approximately 300V. Operating at HEV-like power levels
while employing significantly reduced voltage (<60V) demands novel
topologies. Figure 2 displays a generalized topology for MHEV that
illustrates the split in energy usage between traction and accessories.
In the “accessories” path displayed in Figure 2, the energy recovered
during regenerative braking is used to power high-load accessories,
thus avoiding additional fuel consumption. Examples of high-load
accessories include electric turbo/supercharging, electric power
steering, electric suspension and electric air conditioning (AC). In
this scenario, fuel economy improvements are fundamentally limited
by the amount of energy recoverable via regenerative braking, which
is ultimately limited by the amount of kinetic energy available during
a drive cycle [4]. A detailed explanation of high-load accessories and
their power/energy requirements will be discussed below.
Figure 2. Generalized MHEV topology that unlocks the high-power
capabilities of advanced 48V battery packs. The extra power can be directed
toward either fuel economy or extra electrical accessories.
In the “traction” path of Figure 2, the battery pack is used to provide
traction power to the wheels. This requires alternative topologies
beyond the BISG, to allow for higher battery-to-wheel power
transmission. In this scenario, the fuel economy improvement is not
strictly limited to the amount of recoverable braking energy. The
battery/engine hybridization allows to operate the engine more
efficiently (by limiting time spent in inefficient torque/rpm regimes),
thus reducing the overall fuel consumption [11].
 Downloaded from SAE International by Birmingham City Univ, Wednesday, August 22, 2018

Figure 3 displays two hybrid architectures that provide alternatives to
the conventional MHEV architecture shown in Figure 1. Figure 3a
shows the connectivity of a driveline-integrated motor generator.
Such a topology may allow the motor generator to be separated from
the ICE, and thus allow the battery to be located near the motor
generator, and away from the ICE. Figure 3b shows a P4 “through the
road” hybrid [15-16]. In this scenario, the motor-generator is not
connected to the ICE in any way. The motor-generator - or possibly
two of them - is/are connected to the rear wheels, while the ICE is
coupled to the transaxle and ultimately the front wheels. Kinetic
coupling of the front and rear axles is provided by the road itself.
Both of these architectures facilitate high current electrical loads by
re-arranging the physical proximity of components.
Electrical Architectures
Hybridized vehicles maintain two separate powernets - one for the
traditional 12V loads, and one for the higher voltage powernet. The
expected electrical architecture for MHEV is shown in Figure 4.
Here, two separate powernets are connected via a DC/DC converter.
Each has an energy storage device (battery) and accessories. This is
not the only possible architecture. Additional possibilities would
include phasing out the legacy lead-acid battery on the 12V side as
the high-power loads migrate to 48V. Doing so would allow the DC/
DC converter to directly service those low-power loads.

Practical vehicle topologies will require careful consideration of

mechanical, electrical, and thermal losses, as well as consideration of
the objectives of the system in terms of features and fuel economy. In
practice, the degree of hybridization as well as the power/energy
requirements of high-load accessories will vary from vehicle to
vehicle, thus creating a rich array of vehicle architectures. In this
paper, we will investigate the power/energy requirements, as well as
the fuel economy opportunities, associated with the vehicle
architectures described above.

Figure 4. Electrical powernet of a “conventional” MHEV vehicle.

Drive Cycles and Vehicle Simulation

Drive Cycles

a.

b.
Figure 3. Novel powertrain architectures that can facilitate high power loads
Figure 5. Drive cycles studied including NEDC (a) and FTP-72 (b)
and high currents at low voltage (<60V). (a) Parallel Hybrid configuration (b)
P4 Through-the-road hybrid
 Downloaded from SAE International by Birmingham City Univ, Wednesday, August 22, 2018
Evaluation and optimization of battery technologies in this work is
performed by comparison to known, regulatory drive cycles. Here,
we determine the amount of fuel economy improvement and energy
available for accessory usage and traction power based on vehicle
simulation of those drive cycles. The drive cycles considered are
illustrated in Figure 5.
For this work, we have chosen two drive cycles to represent the
automotive markets in the United States and Europe. To represent the
United States, we use the Federal Test Protocol-72 (FTP-72), also
known as the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS),
depending on the specifics of the test. For Europe, we use the New
European Drive Cycle (NEDC). These cycles also complement each
other well, in that the FTP-72 is highly dynamic, with many speed
changes, while the NEDC uses a more mechanical profile with
constant velocity and acceleration periods.
In the following sections, power and energy requirements for
high-load accessories and partial hybridization will be discussed in
the context of these drive cycles.
Vehicle Simulation
Evaluation of battery technology against drive cycles is performed
via vehicle simulation using the Autonomie [17] simulation package.
For this simulation, a mid-sized vehicle (C-class) vehicle was
simulated, using parameters displayed in Table 1. In this case, the
battery/motor-generator system was simulated using a variable
resistance to limit the power of the electrical system to the chosen
12kW, 20kW and 25kW limits. Additionally, we used an oversized
battery with 22Ah usable energy as an effectively infinite reservoir.
Doing so allows the simulation to capture all of the energy
opportunity available at the battery terminals. In addition, a variable
accessory load is also applied to the simulation, as described in
“Accessory Applications” below.
Table 1. Battery Simulation Parameters
Battery Technologies
Description of Battery Technology
Two batteries are considered for this work, both based on lithium-
iron-phosphate (LFP) cathode chemistry paired with a conventional
graphite anode. Both are based on formulations developed to provide
high levels of power over a wide temperature range, leveraging small
cathode particles (<100nm) to allow rapid transfer of ions and
electrons in/out of the cathode particle matrix [18, 19, 20, 21]. These
two technologies will be referred to as “Technology A” and
“Technology B”. The basic cathode material is common for both,
with minor differences on the anode to accommodate differences in
the layer structure. Table 2 below describes non-proprietary details of
the battery chemistry and intrinsic performance characteristics.
Table 2. Battery Characteristics
In this work, we will consider a pair of layers (anode and cathode) as
a basic unit of “currency” for Technologies A and B, understanding
that a battery may be scaled for various applications by adding or
subtracting layers, or adding multiple batteries in parallel. In all
cases, we consider a 48V battery based on a 14S1P configuration of
Technology A or B.
By using a flexible scaling approach, batteries can be designed based
on either Technology A or Technology B that vary in energy and power
capabilities while providing a consistent power to energy ratio (P/E),
since both power and energy scale with added layers. This flexibility
allows us to choose the basic technology based on the nature of the
application, while we generally scale the number of layers to
accommodate changes in scale (i.e., a larger motor generator).
Battery Test Results
Figure 6 demonstrates the charge power capability of batteries based
on Technology A and Technology B by displaying voltage vs time
during a Hybrid Pulse Power Characterization (HPPC) pulse. Power
 Downloaded from SAE International by Birmingham City Univ, Wednesday, August 22, 2018
capabilities are reported in C-rate to remove the dependence on
capacity. HPPC measurements were performed at 50% state of charge
(SOC), at C-rates of 12.5C during charge and 18.75C during
discharge. Voltage responses at higher C-rates were calculated from
the impedance obtained during the initial HPPC measurement. Both
batteries have charging limits at room temperature of 3.7V/cell. 10s
discharge power capabilities (not shown) are calculated using a 2.8V
cutoff, resulting in 85% energy efficiency on each pulse
(2.8/3.3V≈85%).
In addition to displaying the voltage of the cell during the pulse under
tested conditions, Figure 6 displays simulated responses for charge
currents varying over a wider range. These are simulated by scaling
the IR voltage increase linearly with C-rate, and clipping the voltage
at 3.7V in accordance with operational limits of the cell. The figure
shows the voltage reaching the limit more quickly for higher C-rates,
in accordance with expectations.
Figure 6. Charge pulse power performance at room temperature for (a)
Technology A (b) Technology B (a) The voltage response to different constant
current pulses is illustrated.
Note that the time required to reach the voltage limit is different for
Technologies A and B. Technology A reaches its cutoff voltage more
slowly at a given C-rate. This is indicative of the difference in
intended application. Both technologies are intended for high-power
applications, with Technology A positioned more toward extremely
high P/E applications, while Technology B was designed to provide
high power with more usable energy.
Figure 7 displays a schematic comparing charge power vs. energy of
Technologies A and B, compared to a reference plug-in hybrid
(PHEV) cell. The charge power capabilities were calculated using the
formula Pch = OCV*Ncells * Cmax *Cap, where Pch is the 10s-charge
power, OCV is the cell’s open circuit voltage (3.3V), Ncells is the
number of cells in the battery pack (14), Cmax is the maximum 10s
C-rate as determined from Figure 6 and Cap is the cell capacity in
Ah. In the above formula, the open-circuit voltage is used in lieu of
the measured voltage at the battery terminal so as not to include Joule
heating in the power acceptance.
Here, Technology A has the greatest P/E, demonstrating that it is
oriented toward capturing a great amount of power from regenerative
braking. The (reference) PHEV cell is a compromise to allow both.
Technology B falls between the two, providing high power while
moderating the P/E. This information will be used as part of the
sizing exercise below.
Figure 7. A plot of 10-second charge power vs. nameplate energy shows the
ability of these battery technologies to scale as needed to accommodate the
application. Each technology node is represented by a separate radiant on this
graph, indicating P/E. Moving along the radiant to add/subtract power and
energy is accomplished by varying the number of layers. The corresponding
power of a generic PHEV cell in a 48V pack configuration is illustrated for
comparative purposes (a 10s max C-rate of 10C is assumed).
Optimizing Batteries for Advanced Mild Hybrid
Applications
Fuel Economy Applications
BISG Systems
Brake regeneration improves fuel economy by virtue of acquiring
additional “free” energy from vehicle kinetic energy that otherwise
would have been lost to waste heat via mechanical brakes. For
MHEV applications, a portion of this energy is captured by a
motor-generator and converted into electrical energy, which may be
used for a variety of purposes. In a limiting assumption, we may
assume that all of the electrical energy captured from braking is used
to improve the fuel economy of the vehicle. In such a case, the
functional strategy of the combustion engine is essentially
unchanged, and the regenerative braking energy is used to offset both
the base accessory load (which would otherwise have to be
replenished by burning fuel) as well as to provide some traction
power to the wheels (lightening the load on the ICE). In this way,
brake regeneration energy is assumed to directly offset energy that
 Downloaded from SAE International by Birmingham City Univ, Wednesday, August 22, 2018
would have to be gained from fuel. Conversion from energy
recovered to improvement in fuel economy is scaled by a factor
related to the efficiency of the ICE.
Figure 8 shows the relationship between brake energy collected from
each drive cycle as a function of the power capabilities of the battery
pack, for a mid-sized passenger vehicle as specified in Table 1. The
relationship between regenerative braking energy and power is nearly
linear for small devices < 5kW, as ample kinetic energy at the wheels
dominates the power of the energy storage system. For larger power
capabilities in the 25kW range, the incremental braking energy per
increased system power (dE/dP) is drastically reduced. This
represents a shift from limitation of the energy storage system to a
limitation in the available kinetic energy from the drive profile.
Figure 8. Brake regeneration energy collected per mile of driving, and
associated fuel economy benefits, on the NEDC and FTP-72 profiles.
For a mid-size vehicle in a MHEV, the energy recovered yields an
improvement of 13% for a 12kW energy storage system, and 15% for
a 20kW system when tested against the NEDC. Values are higher for
FTP-72; however, combining with highway driving (as would be
done for regulatory calculations in the United States) would make the
regulatory values similar. Fuel economy benefits are derived directly
from the Autonomie vehicle simulations, and account for efficiency
of converting fuel to kinetic energy of 20-30%. Note that the fuel
economy here is what would be achievable from brake regeneration
alone. Other potential sources and limitations on fuel economy are
included in Discussion as well as other work [4].
Hybrid Systems
In addition to collecting regeneration energy, fuel economy can be
achieved through hybridization. Achieving hybridization requires
rapid shuttling of energy between a battery and motor-generator,
which must be physically coupled to the ICE. While 300V+ powernets
are typically used to reduce losses over cables that may run the length
of the vehicle, 48V systems may in principle be used for the same
function, provided the cable runs are shortened to allow acceptable IR
voltage drops and I2R heat profiles. Here, we consider the possibility
that a P4 through-road hybrid [15] could be used as a 48V vehicle that
provides equivalent function as a traditional power-split hybrid [14],
and what sort of battery would be needed to serve one with motor-
generator capability of 25kW, 12.5kW on each wheel.
Autonomie simulation was performed using a standard power-split
parallel model to simulate a P4 hybrid architecture with 25kW battery/
generator capacity. Doing so yielded an average fuel economy of 54mpg
(4.3 liters/100km), thus providing a 60% fuel economy improvement
over conventional ICE vehicle with base 33mpg (7.2 liters/100km).
These results are in general agreement with previous work [12].
Accessory Applications
In addition to fuel economy, high-power MHEV supports propulsion,
provides new features, and facilitates electrification of conventional
accessories. Table 3 lists selected high-power loads [22-23] that may
be present on future MHEV vehicles. Electric AC and power steering
replace mechanical devices that are typically driven via the serpentine
belt in current vehicles. Electric suspension provides additional
functionality to that typically found on production vehicles. Electric
turbo/super-charging can complement or replace turbochargers driven
by exhaust gas in current vehicles.
Table 3. High-power 48V accessories (NEDC)
From the peak power loads in Table 3, we derive two accessory
scenarios, devised to create different degrees of load on the battery,
both in terms of power as well as range of utilized state of charge
(SOC). For both profiles, a synthetic power vs. time trace was created
by simulating usage for each device independently.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Birmingham City Univ, Wednesday, August 22, 2018
Figure 9. Power vs. time profiles for the individual accessory loads under
“Profile 1” and “Profile 2” utilization scenarios [NEDC drive cycle]
Suspension (a), Air Conditioning (AC) (b), Power Steering (c), and Turbo (d)
Electric suspension was modeled as activating randomly during a
drive cycle, with each 1 second pulse starting at full power (12kW)
and decaying to half power (6kW) during a pulse before deactivating
(Figure 9a). Profile 1 activates the electric suspension 3 times per
minute of driving, while Profile 2 activates 6 times per minute.
Electric air conditioning was modeled as a device that operates at a
full 4kW when activated, with a 50% duty cycle (Figure 9b). For
profile 1, the period of the on/off cycle was selected as 1/10 of the
duration of the drive cycle. For profile 2, the period is equal to the
drive cycle. The period was chosen to be intentionally unrealistic,
with the goal of maximizing the SOC swing for profile 2.
Electric power steering was modeled as activating randomly during
the drive cycle, with pulses whose intensity varied randomly between
0.5 and 1.5kW for both profiles, simulating variable load on the
steering system depending on vehicle speed, steering angle, and other
considerations. As with electric suspension, power steering was
modeled as a random process of an event with a duration of 3
seconds, activating 6 times/minute for profile 1, and 12 times/minute
for profile 2 (Figure 9c).
Electric turbo/super-charger was modeled as a constant-power
discharge to the wheels from the battery. Turbo pulses were applied
during acceleration in cases where the vehicle velocity was less than
30 km/h, and the acceleration was greater than 0.2 km/hr/s (Figure
9d). Figure 10 displays total power vs. time curves for both profiles.
In all cases, the other electrical loads, consisting of the other various
electrical loads that are serviced by the battery and alternator in
conventional vehicles, are modeled as 240W constant power for both
profiles.
Figure 10. Total accessory load during the NEDC drive cycle under the
“Profile 1” and “Profile 2” utilization scenarios
Battery Requirements and Sizing Methodology
We use different assumptions to determine appropriate requirements
for the applications studied in this work. For BISG focused on fuel
economy, we require that the battery can capture the majority of the
brake regeneration energy available at the terminals of the battery. We
match the 10s charge power of the battery at room temperature to the
 Downloaded from SAE International by Birmingham City Univ, Wednesday, August 22, 2018
peak power of the motor generator. As a result, the power needed for
fuel economy is taken as making the 10s power of the battery equal to
the motor generator output.
For the P4 through-road hybrid, the battery is required to accept
charging via the motor-generators on each wheel, and is expected to
provide traction power through the same path. As such, its power
requirements are connected to the 10s discharge power capabilities of
Technology A and Technology B.
For accessory applications, the power requirement is driven more by
discharge than charge, as the accessory loads required will drain the
battery in sharp pulses that may be significantly stronger than the
charging pulses. This work assumes that when the consumer uses any
of the features studied in this work - including suspension, steering,
turbo, and air conditioning - that it must be available. As a result, the
power needed for accessories is taken as the peak simulated
accessory demand.
Figure 11. 48V pack power of Technology A and Technology B vs Charge
requirements (a) and discharge requirement (b) of the BISG, P4 hybrid and
accessory applications. These results allow sizing the cell capacity based
purely on power considerations.
Analysis of the usable energy requirement for all scenarios is taken as
the energy swing between the highest SOC and lowest SOC in the
battery. To determine the energy profile of the battery, we analyze the
energy content vs. time derived from vehicle simulation, subtract the
power profile as appropriate, and correct to ensure charge neutrality
(e.g., the SOC at the end is the same as at the beginning). Charge
neutrality is obtained by subtracting the trendline from the SOC plot,
assuming no specific charging strategy (we assume that the ICE
charges the battery at a constant rate). The range of energy content
(subtract minimum from maximum) is divided by the allowable SOC
range (50% total usable energy) and the 3.3V LFP OCV (with 14
cells in series) to yield the size, in Ah, for the battery.
Figure 11(a)-(b) overlays the power requirement of the BISG, P4
Hybrid and accessory applications with the power-to-energy ratio of
Technology A and B cells. This graph demonstrates the outcome of
sizing the battery solely based on power requirements alone, ignoring
energy requirements. As expected, the 20kW BISG demands a larger
battery than the 12kW machine, due to the larger power output of the
device. Differences in chemistry demand a higher capacity battery
from Technology B compared to Technology A, owing to the
differences in P/E. In Figure 11b, the P4 hybrid’s 25kW motor-
generator further expands the battery power requirement, and the
capacity of the battery accordingly.
Depending on chemistry and application, the size of the battery when
sized for power alone can be as small as 6Ah (for a 12kW BISG) or
as large as 25Ah (for a P4 hybrid based on Technology B batteries).
These sizes represent a lower bound for sizing, which may increase
based on energy demands, end-of-life margin, and other
considerations, as will be discussed further below.
Figure 12 displays the energy variation of the battery under three
separate scenarios. Having sized the battery based solely on power
requirements in the section above, we now size the battery based only
on energy requirements for each application, using the range between
highest and lowest SOC to define the usable energy, and dividing by a
50% range of usable to nameplate energy. In the first scenario under
which BISG-based fuel economy against NEDC is sought, we find an
energy variation of 85Wh for the 12kW generator, and 105Wh for the
20kW generator. This method of sizing based on energy requirements
alone results with a nameplate capacity of 3.6Ah and 4.6Ah,
respectively for those two BISG devices, as shown in Figure 12a.
Values differ for FTP-72, but the trends are similar, as shown in
Figure 12 and Table 4 below.
Figure 12b shows similar energy swings for the P4 hybrid. The
hybridization scheme results in a needed energy of 170Wh during the
NEDC drive cycle, leading to a nameplate capacity needed of 3.6Ah.
These results agree well with work conducted at the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL); these results find that 80Wh
usable is needed for hybridization on the FTP-72 cycle, while NREL
determined a range of 50-150Wh to provide full hybrid functionality
[12].
Figure 12c shows energy swings for the accessory-driven strategy
using accessory Profiles 1 and 2. These strategies result in energy
swings of 140Wh and 440Wh for profiles 1 and 2, respectively,
leading to nameplate capacities of 6.1Ah and 19Ah within the NEDC
drive cycle. In this case, note that the majority of the SOC swing for
Profile 2 is driven by the AC thermostat strategy - an unrealistic
strategy that was deliberately chosen to maximize the SOC variation.
In a more reasonable strategy (Profile 1), that SOC swing (and thus
usable energy needed) is drastically reduced.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Birmingham City Univ, Wednesday, August 22, 2018

for which it matches, but does not exceed, the power and energy
requirements. This optimal P/E varies between 30 (for accessory
Profile 2 on NEDC) up to 160 (Large BISG on FTP-72).

Table 4. Battery Requirements and Sizing(Unless stated all quantities are

expressed at the pack level)

Figure 13 displays a plot of power requirement vs. energy

requirement. From these results, we could conclude that Technology
A is most appropriate for all applications except possibly accessory
profile 2. However, this assumes we optimize only to the power and
energy considerations examined in this work. Other requirements that
may alter this methodology and shift the optimal P/E are considered
in the Discussion section below.

Figure 12. Energy content variation in the battery for NEDC profile for fuel
economy application using a 12kW or 20kW generator (a), a P4 through-road
hybrid (25kW) (b), and accessory applications using Profiles 1 and 2 (Figure
10) (c).

Finally, for each application, we combine the energy-first and

power-first approaches above to determine overall requirements for
each combination of application and battery technology. Battery
requirements for power and energy, as well as the derived P/E value,
are summarized for FTP-72 and NEDC in Table 4.
Figure 13. P/E ratio of the different applications relative to the power/energy
ratios of technology A and B. The black circles represents the application
Usable energy needs vary from 2.2Ah needed for a 12kW BISG
requirement, with the capacity being determined purely by the energy
through 19Ah needed on NEDC for accessory Profile 2, driven by an
requirement and the power being determined purely by the power
artificially slow AC thermostat strategy. Power requirements vary in a
requirement. The P/E ratios of Technology A and B are illustrated on
slightly more narrow range, from 12 to 27kW. From the power and discharge.
energy requirements, we derive an optimal P/E for each application
 Downloaded from SAE International by Birmingham City Univ, Wednesday, August 22, 2018
Discussion
Battery Requirements and Sizing Considerations
In this work, we have analyzed battery requirements for power and
energy, and solved for the optimal battery under the assumption that
it meets, but does not exceed, all of its requirements. We also made
simplifying assumptions regarding what fraction of peak power is
“good enough” to meet the requirement of the application.
A key assumption for power in this work was the determination that
matching 10s generator power to the generator peak power was a
reasonable way to size the battery. For the regulatory cycles
considered in this work, pulses of duration greater than 10s happen
only once each - during the strongest braking event on the cycle. Two
factors allow us to reasonably use 10s power ratings. First, the 30s
power for Technology A and Technology B account are comparable
to their respective 10s power capabilities (for example, the ratio of
30s to 10s charge power is 90% for Technology A at 50% SOC).
Additionally, pulses in excess of 30s provide < 20% of the total brake
regeneration of both FTP-72 and NEDC. As such, it can be
reasonably estimated that sizing for 10s power instead of continuous
power results in a minimal loss of regenerative braking potential.
This methodology allows us to capture the majority of the brake
regeneration available to the battery while not “over-engineering” the
battery by sizing to peaks or “corner cases”.
Another key assumption is that we require the accessory load to
match the stack-up of all of the main high-discharge loads, including
turbo, air conditioning, power steering, and power suspension. All of
these features are necessary for a combination of safety and
drivability, for which compromise may not be tolerated by
automakers, their customers, or (in the case of safety devices) by
regulatory bodies. We specifically fail to include resistive heating
devices in this analysis, assuming that they would take the place of
air conditioning in this analysis if needed.
Sizing in this work is based on beginning of life power and capacity
performance. Depending on the specific application, manufacturer,
and consumer expectations, the battery may be oversized initially to
allow degradation over life, or certain features may be somewhat
more limited at end of life. It could be assumed that sizing for
end-of-life may result in a slightly larger capacity than that
demonstrated in this work. Because both capacity and resistance will
be impacted by aging, it is unlikely that sizing for end of life would
substantially affect the choice of battery type.
Effect of Temperature on Battery Performance
The sizing methodology presented in this paper is based on the
room-temperature performance of LFP/Graphite cells. Rate
capabilities of Li-ion batteries are however known to decrease with
temperature. The sizing methodology therefore assumes that
room-temperature and higher temperatures will drive requirements.
This assumption is reasonable because in practice, some combination
of cabin heating, self-heating, or other means of heating will limit the
time spent by the battery at low temperatures. This approach is
suitable for fuel-economy oriented strategies, where smaller fuel
economy benefits can be accepted at low temperatures without
affecting the overall performance of the vehicle. For accessory
utilization of the 48V system, a higher level of functionality may be
required - particularly for any safety-related functions (eg, electric
braking). Such requirements are likely to impact discharge power
more than charge.
Additional Sources of Fuel Economy Benefit
This work considers fuel economy savings through use of brake
regeneration or application of a P4 hybrid. Here, we consider that the
electrification is largely a benefit to the consumer experience.
However, this fails to consider additional benefits due to
electrification of devices that are currently mechanical or hydraulic.
By removing devices that are currently driven by the serpentine belt,
the mechanical efficiency of the engine will be improved to some
degree, which we have not considered in this work.
Additionally, we have not examined synergistic fuel economy effects
beyond the use of Autonomie’s hybrid controller. Further benefit may
be realized by considering the combination of hybridization, engine
downsizing, and turbo/supercharging, among other possible
combinations. Optimizing these aspects would allow for fuel savings
for all of the applications studied in this work.
Effects of Battery and Vehicle Management Strategies
The battery and vehicle management strategies used in this work
were simplified relative to commercial implementations in order to
more clearly investigate the topics studied in this work. For instance,
for the BISG options, the primary focus was brake regeneration, not
the ultimate use of the recovered energy. No specific optimization of
the battery management or vehicle management strategies was
undertaken as part of this work. As described above, optimizing the
use of the vehicle/battery would allow for greater fuel economy, less
needed usable energy, more available power, or other considerations.
For the P4 hybrid, optimizing the strategy beyond Autonomie’s
controller could also provide additional benefit, as described above.
Accessory strategy can also be important to battery optimization. In
this work, we considered accessory demand as a no-compromise
approach in which the battery needs to be capable of accepting all
accessory demands, including potentially unrealistic AC utilization.
Such an approach can significantly drive power and energy
requirements. Intelligent usage of accessories such as AC, whose
duty cycle can be flexible, can significantly reduce energy usage - as
the difference between Profile 1 and Profile 2 demonstrates.
Limitations on MHEV Fuel Economy
In this work, the brake regeneration strategy was a “greedy”
approach, in which all other vehicle considerations were subjugated
to a lesser role than the collection of brake regeneration - including
drivability, noise/vibration/harshness (NVH), and others. Balancing
these considerations will compromise brake-regeneration, and fuel
economy, to some degree. Further, no attempt was made to optimize
the use of discharge energy, instead assuming that it is returned to
kinetic energy at some point during the cycle, and crediting the fuel
economy accordingly. In reality, this approach is unrealistic, although
its impact on fuel economy is minor. Its impact on the SOC swing is
also minor, slightly expanding or contracting the needed usable
energy slightly.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Birmingham City Univ, Wednesday, August 22, 2018
Dynamometer Testing vs. Real-World
There are two significant differences between dynamometer testing
for emissions regulations and real-world driving: first, the style of
driving and overall requirements on the vehicle; second, the electrical
accessories that are active during operation. Both factors can have
profound impacts on how batteries are optimized.
Driving style, speed, location, and many other factors can create
differences between regulatory drive cycles and real-world driving.
NREL showed the impact of hills and other topology on the needed
usable energy, and showed that more challenging driving increases
usable energy somewhat [12]. Liu and co-authors at Clemson
University demonstrated that driver habits, including aggression,
impact fuel economy of MHEV systems [24]. Studies such as these
suggest that designing for real-world driving instead of benefit against
regulatory drive cycles can alter the optimal design of the battery to
some degree - although the NREL work suggests that the incremental
improvement from increased sizing presents diminishing returns. As a
result, the impact on sizing would be expected to be limited.
Accessory usage significantly affects optimization. None of the
electrical accessories presented in this work, except possibly the
turbo, would normally activate on a regulatory drive cycle tested on a
dynamometer. That includes the electric suspension (no bumps),
electric power steering (no turns), and AC (no need for cooling
except for a few specialized cycles). Electrifying accessories does
provide a benefit - some of these accessories would otherwise be
powered by the ICE via the serpentine belt, creating some drag even
during dynamometer driving. Electrifying such accessories provides
fuel economy savings. However, the on-cycle benefit of having a
high-capacity battery to power these accessories is questionable in
the absence of significant hybridization. Wider adoption of electrified
accessories, and MHEV batteries, would likely be facilitated by the
use of off-cycle credits which are granted by regulatory bodies to
facilitate adoption of technologies whose benefits are not readily
demonstrated on-cycle [25].
Choosing Between Fuel Economy and Features
A challenge in fostering adoption of some advanced fuel economy
technologies is that they may increase vehicle costs to consumers
without necessarily demonstrating value beyond fuel savings. A
strategy of using an electric turbocharger with electrified accessories
solves this problem. The brake regeneration gained provides vehicle
manufacturers and their customers with a choice: they can use the
excess energy for fuel economy savings, or for features such as active
suspension and turbo that improve the drivability and feel of the
vehicle. Further, because many of these accessories do not activate
during the regulatory cycle, the vehicle manufacturer is not penalized
by including them - instead, on the cycle, the excess brake
regeneration energy would be fed solely into traction power,
increasing fuel economy of the vehicle and providing regulatory
benefit. In this way, combining MHEV and electrified accessories
provides benefit to regulators, automakers, and consumers.
Conclusions
Mild hybrid architectures between 8-16kW have gained increased
interest due to their potential for their fuel economy savings,
including real-world benefits to consumers and regulatory benefits to
automakers. We find that increasing the power and energy capability
of the battery up to ~25kW enables a wide array electrified
accessories that can increase the appeal of MHEV-powered vehicles
to consumers. Our work concludes that 48V batteries with strong
power (up to ~25kW) and HEV-level energy capabilities (<200Wh
for most scenarios) are needed to enable advanced MHEV
capabilities, with optimal power-to-energy ratios between 30 and 160.
Additionally, use of an electric turbo allows significant fuel economy
savings on regulatory dynamometer driving, while providing
flexibility to provide both fuel savings and increased drivability in the
real world. Properly optimizing batteries to facilitate these new uses
is critical to maximizing function while minimizing cost. We find that
utilizing a family of high-power lithium iron phosphate electrodes
ratios allows flexibility with respect to battery capacity while
providing the optimal combination of power and energy, enabling
wider adoption of MHEV.
References
1. Crowe, P., Hybrid CARS, September 19, 2013. Accessed
October 15, 2013, http://www.hybridcars.com/48-volt-micro-
hybrid-system-unveiled/
2. Wang, U., “Meet the Microhybrid: A new Class of Green Cars.”
Forbes, January 17, 2012. Accessed October 15, 2013, http://
www.forbes.com/sites/uciliawang/2012/01/17/a-new-class-of-
hybridelectric-car-emerges-to-woo-consumers/
3. Zheng, Y., Zhao, F., Luo, Y., and Li K. “Energy Optimization
for the Mild Hybrid Electric Vehicle with CVT Under Driving
Conditions.” In Proceedings of the FISITA 2012 World
Automotive Congress, pp.375-386. Springer Berlin Heidelberg,
2013.
4. Rick, A. and Sisk, B., "A Simulation Based Analysis of 12V
and 48V Microhybrid Systems Across Vehicle Segments and
Drive Cycles," SAE Technical Paper 2015-01-1151, 2015,
doi:10.4271/2015-01-1151.
5. Zhang, Z., Rick, A., and Sisk, B., "Model Development and
Simulations of 12V Dual Batteries towards Design Optimization
of Microhybrid Vehicles," SAE Technical Paper 2015-01-1199,
2015, doi:10.4271/2015-01-1199.
6. Husain, I.,” Electric and Hybrid Vehicles: Design
Fundamentals”, 2nd Edition, CRC Taylor and Francis, Boca
Raton,FL.
7. Downloadable Dynamometer Database (http://www.anl.gov/
energy-systems/group/downloadable-dynamometer-database),
Advanced Powertrain Research Facility (APRF) at Argonne
National Laboratory.
8. Leen, G. and Heffernan, D., “Expanding Automotive
Electronic Systems,” IEEE Computer 35(1):88-93, 2002,
doi:10.1109/2.976923.
9. Kuypers, M., "Application of 48 Volt for Mild Hybrid Vehicles
and High Power Loads," SAE Technical Paper 2014-01-1790,
2014, doi:10.4271/2014-01-1790.
10. Sorger, H., Schoeggl, P., Schoeffman, W., et al., “Vehicle
Integration of a New Engine Concept for 48V - Opportunities
for Efficiency Improvement and Optimization of the Overall
System Complexity,” in Internationaler Motorenkongress 2016,
31-69.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Birmingham City Univ, Wednesday, August 22, 2018

11. Nelson, R.,”Power requirements for batteries in hybrid electric 24. Liu, Z., Ivanco, A., and Filipi, Z., "Impacts of Real-World
vehicles”, Journal of Power Sources 91 (2000), 2-26. Driving and Driver Aggressiveness on Fuel Consumption of
12. Gonder, J., Pesaran, A., Howell, D., Tataria, H.,” Lower-Energy 48V Mild Hybrid Vehicle," SAE Int. J. Alt. Power. 5(2):249-258,
Requirements for Power-Assist HEV Energy Storage Systems- 2016, doi:10.4271/2016-01-1166.
Analysis and Rationale”, 27th International Battery Seminar and 25. “Light Duty Greenhouse Gas Standards Compliance
Exhibit, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 2010. Information”, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, https://
13. United States Council for Automotive Research LLC. USABC www3.epa.gov/otaq/regs/ld-hwy/greenhouse/ld-ghg.htm,
48V HEV Goals. Accessed September 1st, 2016, http://www. accessed 10/13/2016.
uscar.org/guest/article_view.php?articles_id=85
Contact Information
14. Gutmann, G.,” Hybrid electric vehicles and electrochemical
storage systems -a technology push-pull couple”, Journal of Brian Sisk
Power Sources 84 (1999), 275-279. VP, Cell Development
A123 Systems
15. Galvagno, E., Morina, D., Sorniotti, A., Velardocchia, M.,
200 West Street
“Drivability analysis of through-the-road-parallel hybrid
Waltham, MA, 02451
vehicles”, Meccanica (2013) 48: 351. doi:10.1007/s11012-012-
bsisk@a123systems.com
9606-6.
16. Venhovens, P., Pisu, P., Prucka, R., Makkar, B. et al.,
"Conceptualization and Implementation of an AWD Parallel Definitions/Abbreviations
Hybrid Powertrain Concept," SAE Technical Paper 2013-01- AC - Air Conditioning
1448, 2013, doi:10.4271/2013-01-1448. BISG - Belt-Integrated Starter Generator
17. Halbach, S., Sharer, P., Pagerit, S., Rousseau, A. et al., "Model CISG - Crank-Integrated Starter Generator
Architecture, Methods, and Interfaces for Efficient Math-Based
C-rate - Current rate for a battery scaled by capacity (units of A/Ah,
Design and Simulation of Automotive Control Systems," SAE
or hr-1)
Technical Paper 2010-01-0241, 2010, doi:10.4271/2010-01-0241.
FTP-72 - Federal Test Protocol 72, a regulatory drive cycle
18. Morgan, D., Van der Ven, A., Ceder, G.,” Li Conductivity
in LixMPO4 (M = Mn, Fe, Co, Ni) Olivine Materials”, HPPC - Hybrid Pulse Power Characterization
Electrochemical and Solid-State Letters, 7 (2004), A30-A32. ICE - Internal Combustion Engine
19. Sides, C., Croce, F., Young, V., Martin, C., Scrosati, B.,” IR - Voltage loss (I=current, R=resistance)
A High-Rate, Nanocomposite LiFePO4/Carbon Cathode”, I2R - Energy loss from heat (I=current, R=resistance)
Electrochemical and Solid-State Letters. 8 (2005), A484-A487.
LFP - Lithium ferrophosphate or lithium-iron-phosphate
20. Kang, B., Ceder, G.,” Battery materials for ultrafast charging
MHEV - Mild Hybrid Electric Vehicle
and discharging”, Nature 458 (2009), 190-193.
HEV - Hybrid Electric Vehicle
21. Meethong, N., Kao, Y.-H., Speakman, S. A. and Chiang, Y.-
M. (2009), Aliovalent Substitutions in Olivine Lithium Iron NEDC - New European Drive Cycle
Phosphate and Impact on Structure and Properties. Adv. Funct. NREL - National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Mater., 19: 1060-1070. NVH - Noise, Vibration, and Harshness
22. Zheng J.S., Chen X., Masrur A., Garg V.K., and Solitis A., OCV - Open-Circuit Voltage
“Optimal Power Management and Distribution in Automotive
P/E - Power-to-Energy ratio
Systems”, Handbook of Automotive Power Electronics and
Motor Drives, edited by Emadi A., 2005, CRC Taylor and P4 - Through-road parallel hybrid
Francis, Ft. Lauderdale, FL. PHEV - Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle
23. Newman P., Luard N., Jarvis S., et al., “Electrical Supercharging SOC - State of Charge
for Future Diesel Powertrain Applications”, in Proc. 11th Int’l. UDDS - Urban Dynamometer Drive Cycle
Conf. on Turbochargers and Turbocharging, p.207-217, May
13-14, 2014, London.

The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has successfully completed SAE’s peer review process under the supervision of the session organizer. The process
requires a minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or
otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE International.

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE International. The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper.

ISSN 0148-7191

http://papers.sae.org/2017-01-1197