Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Textbook Ebook Lead Acid Batteries For Future Automobiles 1St Edition Edition Jurgen Garche All Chapter PDF
Textbook Ebook Lead Acid Batteries For Future Automobiles 1St Edition Edition Jurgen Garche All Chapter PDF
Jürgen Garche
Eckhard Karden
Patrick T. Moseley
David A.J. Rand
Elsevier
Radarweg 29, PO Box 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, Netherlands
The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom
50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States
This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under
copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).
Notices
Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research
and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods,
professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary.
Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and
knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or
experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be
mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they
have a professional responsibility.
To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors,
or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as
a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation
of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.
ISBN: 978-0-444-63700-0
J. Albers
Johnson Controls Autobatterie GmbH & Co. KGaA, Hannover, Germany
J. Badeda
RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
Jülich Aachen Research Alliance, Jülich, Germany
IRWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
M. Bremmer
Robert Bosch GmbH, Leonberg, Germany
C. Chumchal
Ford-Werke GmbH, Köln, Germany
M. Denlinger
Ford Motor Company, Research & Innovation Centre Dearborn, Dearborn, MI, United States
J.P. Douady
Exide Technologies, Gennevilliers, France
S. Fouache
Exide Technologies, Gennevilliers, France
J. Furukawa
The Furukawa Battery Co., Ltd., Yokohama, Japan
J. Garche
Fuel Cell and Battery Consulting, Ulm, Germany
M. Gelbke
Akkumulatorenfabrik Moll GmbH þ Co. KG, Bad Staffelstein, Germany
T. Hildebrandt
Johnson Controls Autobatterie GmbH & Co. KGaA, Hannover, Germany
M. Huck
RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
Jülich Aachen Research Alliance, Jülich, Germany
J. Kabzinski
RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
Jülich Aachen Research Alliance, Jülich, Germany
E. Karden
Ford Motor Company, Research & Innovation Centre Aachen, Aachen, Germany
A. Kirchev
French Atomic and Alternative Energy Commission (CEA-LITEN), Le Bourget du Lac, France
xix
List of Contributors
J. Kizler
Robert Bosch GmbH, Leonberg, Germany
M. Königsmann
Robert Bosch GmbH, Leonberg, Germany
B. Kronenberg
Robert Bosch GmbH, Leonberg, Germany
M. Kuipers
Forschungszentrum Jülich, Aachen, Germany
D. Kurzweil
Ford-Werke GmbH, Köln, Germany
P. Kurzweil
University of Applied Sciences, Amberg, Germany
M. Kwiecien
RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
Jülich Aachen Research Alliance, Jülich, Germany
L.T. Lam
CSIRO Energy Flagship, Clayton South, VIC, Australia
N. Maleschitz
Exide Technologies
E. Meissner
Johnson Controls Autobatterie GmbH & Co. KGaA, Hannover, Germany
A.H. Mirza
RSR Technologies, Inc., Dallas, TX, United States
C. Mondoloni
PSA PEUGEOT CITROËN, Centre Technique La Garenne-Colombes, La Garenne-Colombes,
France
P.T. Moseley
The Advanced LeadeAcid Battery Consortium, Durham, NC, United States
T.J. Moyer
East Penn Manufacturing Company, Inc., Lyon Station, PA, United States
A. Osada
Battery Association of Japan (BAJ), Tokyo, Japan
S. Peng
Leoch International Technology Ltd, Foothill Ranch, CA, United States
K. Peters
Glen Bank, Worsley, Manchester, United Kingdom
R.D. Prengaman
RSR Technologies, Inc., Dallas, TX, United States
xx
List of Contributors
D.A.J. Rand
CSIRO Energy Flagship, Clayton South, VIC, Australia
M. Ruch
Robert Bosch GmbH, Leonberg, Germany
J.F. Sarrau
Exide Technologies, Gennevilliers, France
D.U. Sauer
RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
Jülich Aachen Research Alliance, Jülich, Germany
IRWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
C. Schmucker
Robert Bosch GmbH, Leonberg, Germany
E. Schoch
Robert Bosch GmbH, Leonberg, Germany
J. Schöttle
Robert Bosch GmbH, Leonberg, Germany
P. Schröer
RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
Jülich Aachen Research Alliance, Jülich, Germany
K. Smith
East Penn Manufacturing Co., Inc., Lyon Station, PA, United States
R. Wagner
Akkumulatorenfabrik MOLL, Bad Staffelstein, Germany
A. Warm
Ford Motor Company, Research & Innovation Centre Aachen, Aachen, Germany
J. Wirth
RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
Jülich Aachen Research Alliance, Jülich, Germany
xxi
About the Editors
Jürgen Garche
Jürgen received his PhD with work in theoret-
ical electrochemistry from the Dresden
University of Technology (DUT) in Germany in
1970 and the Dr. Habil for research in applied
electrochemistry by the same university in
1982.
He worked from 1970 to 1990 as senior
researcher for batteries and fuel cells at the
DUT. From 1991 to 2004, he was head of the
Electrochemical Energy Storage and Energy
Conversion Division of the Center for Solar
Energy and Hydrogen Research in Ulm,
Germany. After his pension, he founded the
consulting office Fuel Cells and Batteries
(FCBAT) in Ulm, where he is still active.
He was visiting professor at the Shandong
University (China) and Sapienza University of
Rome (Italy), and is currently senior professor at the Ulm University. He has
more than 300 publications and 10 patents, and is co-editor of five books and
two journals.
xxii
About the Editors
Eckhard Karden
Eckhard received his diploma in physics in 1995
and his PhD in electrical engineering in 2001 from
Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule
(RWTH) Aachen University of Technology with
projects on CAE modelling and electrochemical
impedance spectroscopy of leadeacid batte-
ries. Having spent 2.5 years as senior engineer at
Institut für Stromrichtertechnik und Elektrische
Antriebe (ISEA) Institute for Power Electronics
and Electrical Drives of the same university, he
joined Ford Motor Company in the newly
established Research and Innovation Center
(RIC) in Aachen, Germany. He has been focussing
on batteries for low-voltage power supply and
micro- and mild hybrid applications. As a Technical Specialist, he is working
closely with Ford’s global engineering centres and has been involved in the
conceptual work, specifications, and component verification plans for the
enhanced flooded batteries, battery sensors, and charging strategies that went
into Ford’s first generations of microhybrid vehicles. He is an active member of
German, European, and international standardisation working groups for stop/
start and microhybrid batteries.
xxiii
About the Editors
Patrick T. Moseley
Pat was awarded a PhD for crystal structure
analysis in 1968 by the University of Durham,
UK, and a D.Sc. for research publications in
materials science, by the same university, in
1994.
He worked for 23 years at the Harwell Labo-
ratory of the UK Atomic Energy Authority,
where he brought a background of crystal
structure and materials chemistry to the study
of leadeacid and other varieties of battery,
thus supplementing the traditional electro-
chemical emphasis of the subject.
From 1995, he was Manager of Electrochem-
istry at the International Lead Zinc Research Organization in North Carolina
and Program Manager of the Advanced Lead Acid Battery Consortium. In
2005, he also became President of the Consortium. Dr. Moseley was one of
the editors of the Journal of Power Sources for 25 years from 1989 to 2014. In
2008, he was awarded the Gaston Planté medal by the Bulgarian Academy of
Sciences.
xxiv
About the Editors
xxv
Preface
More than 150 years after its introduction by Gaston Planté in 1859, the
leadeacid battery is still the most employed of all rechargeable battery
systems; it accounts for over half of the demand world-wide. Over the years,
the performance of leadeacid technology has progressed steadily to keep
pace with the concomitant increase in user requirements, and has become a
globally standardized commodity product.
The development of the valve-regulated leadeacid (VRLA) battery in the
1970s proved to be a major breakthrough. Eventually, in the 1990s, this radical
new design found its way into demanding automotive applications. The
advances in science and technology that made VRLA batteries a success in
both automotive and industrial applications were reviewed in Valve-Regulated
LeadeAcid Batteries published by Elsevier in 2004, with three of us as
co-editors and contributors. Rather than undertake a revised edition of this
book, we have decided to produce a new work directed towards advances in
automotive leadeacid batteries.
Improved battery designs and materials have recently resulted in enhanced
flooded batteries (EFBs) that almost match performance and durability of
automotive VRLA batteries at substantially lower cost. Both technologies
have allowed entry-level powertrain electrification in large volumes, and thus
significant reductions in CO2 emissions, for both developed and emerging road
transport markets. And innovation goes on, for example, the UltraBattery™
that integrates a supercapacitive function.
Further reduction in emissions remains in focus for the automotive industry,
while a new effort is targeting autonomous driving. The latter will require
entirely new comfort and safety functions to be established. Interestingly,
both technology trends rely on electrification, either of the powertrain or of
chassis systems and vehicle controls, and both will add new technical
requirements to automotive batteries. Together with the challenges imposed
by new vehicle technologies, the automotive leadeacid is now also con-
fronted with competition from other battery chemistries, especially given
the developing maturity of lithium-ion technology for this demanding appli-
cation. In defining the scope for this new publication, we have attempted to
create a balance between the technology of the battery itself and engi-
neering aspects related to vehicle integration.
We are grateful to have as authors not only leading battery technologists and
scientists but also experienced experts from the automotive industry. In
particular, we have enjoyed our mutual learning experience while editing the
xxvii
Preface
chapters, and acknowledge the dedication of, and fruitful discussions with,
all authors. We have elected to have our names listed in alphabetical order
and are indebted to the whole Elsevier team for their assistance, specifically
that provided by Christine McElvenny, Kostas Marinakis, and Vijayaraj Purush.
Jürgen Garche
Eckhard Karden
Patrick T. Moseley
David A.J. Rand
xxviii
Abbreviations
xxix
Abbreviations
xxx
Abbreviations
xxxi
Abbreviations
xxxii
1
Development trends for
future automobiles and their
demand on the battery
E. Karden
Ford Motor Company, Research & Innovation Centre Aachen, Aachen, Germany
batteries) but could not find a commercially viable alternative to what are
now called conventional powertrains.
For the first time in automobile history, leadeacid technology had survived a
paradigm shift as an enabler for new powertrain and comfort functions. Radical
downsizing from a traction battery to the starting-lighting-ignition (SLI) bat-
tery had minimized its weight burden. Other electrochemical storage systems,
though superior in specific energy, could not compete in terms of robust
operation, simple controls and, usually, cost. Higher engine crank torque re-
quirements and additional electric functions like fuel ignition, steering and
braking assistance and heated seats are still handled by fundamentally the same
power-supply system, with system voltage doubled to 12 V in the 1960s and
alternators generating with higher efficiency than the early DC machines. Like
alternators and starters, SLI batteries have evolved into a widely standardized
commodity component. Technological progress has still taken place with
polyethylene separators, polypropylene containers, antimony-free grid alloys
and absorptive glass-mat (AGM) separators, to list only a few. Where necessary,
innovations were applied to keep pace with growing automotive durability and
reliability demands. A similarly important and frequently overlooked driver for
leadeacid innovation has been cost reduction and has resulted in many process
optimization of which continuous plate-making is probably the most recent
advancement in the technology.
A century later, with annual global production exceeding 67-million cars and
22-million commercial vehicles, societal demand for limiting petrol con-
sumption and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions has become a major driver for
automotive development. New electric motor technologies and power
electronics, as well as parallel and power-split hybrid powertrain configura-
tions have reduced the economic and performance shortfalls of battery-
electric and hybrid-electric powertrains. Nickelemetal-hydride (NiMH) and
more recently lithium-ion battery technologies have arrived in volume pro-
duction for hybrid and electric vehicles.
In parallel, a multitude of comfort and safety functions are being electrified,
not only but also targeting autonomous driving. Such new electric functions
demand new levels of peak power, voltage quality and charge throughput. In
addition, reliability and safety concepts of the power-supply system as a
whole have to be engineered for such applications, with significant impact
on storage system requirements.
For the leadeacid battery, and the battery and lead industry behind it, both
growing requirements and maturing competitive technologies present
considerable challenges. Will leadeacid be able to defend its leading position
as ‘the’ storage device in the 12-V electrical system that is still present in
hybrid and electric cars? Will it even have an opportunity to creep into the
next higher level of powertrain electrification as a cost-attractive 48-V
4
LeadeAcid Batteries for Future Automobiles
battery? When normalized to battery size, the cell duty cycles of 48-V mild-
hybrid and >200-V full-hybrid batteries are very similar. Would not this
feature open a new field for competition against lithium-ion in the estab-
lished hybrid traction battery business?
The foreseeable future (which is typically 5 to 10 years in automotive busi-
ness) will see various concepts of powertrain electrification, as well as of
high-performance power-supply systems, competing in the marketplace.
Many of them will be introduced in premium segments first, for example,
lithium-ion batteries will replace leadeacid SLI batteries in luxury sport cars,
whereas it is still uncertain which concepts will grow substantially into or
even take over the majority of mainstream automobile production, even in
emerging markets with the fastest growth rates but the highest cost sensi-
tivity. Two things are certain, however, namely: (1) interest in electro-
chemical storage technologies for automobiles will remain high, and (2)
leadeacid will continue to be benchmarked against alternative technologies
for very diverse application scenarios. Fig. 1.1 shows one of the few market
projections published recently, in this case by a battery supplier.
In all these cases, mutual understanding between battery developers and
automotive engineers will be required. For automotive engineers this means
cascading vehicle targets over system and subsystem levels to battery
component requirements, now frequently in a way that does not implicitly
prejudice technology selection. For leadeacid battery developers it means
conventional ICE
50 - 60 %
micro-hybrid
(12 V lead–acid)
57 %
micro-hybrid 2
38 %
48 V mild-hybrid
full HEV, PHEV, BEV
2014 2017 2020 2025
Figure 1.1
Expected market shares of micro-hybrid and higher electrification levels in Europe, North America and
China combined market volumes. Reprinted from H. Budde-Meiwes, Dynamic Charge Acceptance of LeadeAcid Batteries
for Micro-Hybrid Automotive Applications, Aachen, 2016, as a revised graphical representation of data from C. Rosenkranz,
D. Weber, J. Albers, in: Advanced Automotive Battery Conf., AABC Europe, Mainz, 2016.
5
LeadeAcid Batteries for Future Automobiles
Figure 1.2
V-Model of systems engineering and verification.
6
LeadeAcid Batteries for Future Automobiles
7
LeadeAcid Batteries for Future Automobiles
the innovative technology. The full set of requirements for a given applica-
tion has to be understood early: For example, a new technology may offer
great brake energy recuperation and cycling capability, but if a classical 12-V
application was to be addressed, the new battery would have to cover all
other functions of the existing SLI battery as well. If new materials or pro-
duction processes are involved, new failure mechanisms would have to be
investigated for the very broad range of customer usage conditions,
particularly regarding vibration and ambient temperature.
Another important aspect that may drive decisions in automotive engi-
neering is development risk. At an early stage of the cascaded target-setting
process, fundamental technology choices and even supplier selections have
to be made. For a high-volume programme, risks have to be minimized at this
point while not compromising too much on variable cost. In many cases this
will exclude an innovative solution. Low-volume programmes, particularly in
the premium segment, may be used to introduce new technologies, e.g.,
electrified chassis systems. For supporting systems in such projects, however,
choices will be made either in favour of low risk, and hence robustness of
programme timing, or of variable cost and commonality with other appli-
cations. Accordingly, the situation gave rise to, for example, a few 48-V
systems launched with supercapacitors despite the fact that lithium-ion
batteries were already considered to be superior; yet not mature enough
at the decision point [3].
8
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
individual human being is essentially a process of the formation of
interests in things. Both our formal education, and our informal
intellectual and moral training effected by the influence of social
tradition and mutual intercourse, are processes consisting of an
accumulation of minor modifications which ultimately culminate in the
establishment of more or less unique personal interests in different
aspects of existence. And inasmuch as this process is never
terminated, it is always possible for our previously acquired interests
to undergo such modification as renders them obsolete, and
substitutes novel interests in their places. So far as this is effected,
we rightly say that we are no longer our “old selves.” A new “self” or
centre of unique individual interests has then developed within the
former self.
Usually the process stops short of the point at which all sensible
continuity seems suspended, but that this point can be actually
reached, under exceptional conditions, is shown to superfluity by
such facts as those of “conversion,” to say nothing of the more
pathological phenomena of “multiple personality.” The same
phenomena illustrate the fact that a new individuality, once evolved,
may stand in various relations to the old individual interests it
displaces. It may permanently replace them, or, as in so many cases
of “conversion,” may prove only temporary and pass back again into
the old individuality, or the two may alternate periodically.[159] The one
important point in which all these cases agree is simply the general
one of the production in the course of development of a new
individuality within the first individuality. It may perhaps be suggested
that we have in these features of individual growth a hint as to the
true nature of the process we call the origination of new species by
evolution.[160]
To recapitulate: evolution implies change determined by reference
to an end, and thus constituted into an individual process. Such
“ends” have no meaning, except in so far as the processes of
change are viewed as the progressive attainment of individual
interests, and thus evolution is only possible where there is finite
individuality. This is the philosophical justification for our previous
assertion that evidence of structural evolution, where it can be had,
affords reasonable presumption that what appears to us one thing is
really a true individual of some degree, and not a mere arbitrary
grouping together on our part of states which possess no inner unity.
Further, evolution is a process in which new individuals arise and old
ones disappear. Hence its significance for Metaphysics as excluding
all theories which make Reality consist of a mere plurality of
unchanging finite individuals. It is significant also from another point
of view. Implying, as it so manifestly does, the presence of individual
subjects of experience throughout the physical order, the concept of
Nature as a realm of evolutionary processes is infinitely nearer to the
full truth for Metaphysics than the purely mechanistic view of it as a
mere succession of connected changes.
156. It might be objected that, e.g., death is the end of life in the
sense of being its last stage, without being the attainment of the
interests which compose our inner life. But the illustration will not
bear examination. The processes of change within the organism,
when viewed simply as connected changes, do not cease with
death; in fact, they have no end or last state. To call a man’s death
his end only means that the purposes for which we are interested in
the study of his behaviour get complete fulfilment when we have
followed him from the cradle to the grave. He is “done with” at death,
because we have done with him. Only teleological processes can
have a last stage. Note as a consequence of the significance of the
concept of “ends” for evolution, that whereas the purely mechanistic
interpretation of the processes of Nature logically leads to the
thought of them as a continuous series, the series of successive
organic or social types is essentially discontinuous, a point well
brought out by Professor Royce, The World and the Individual,
Second Series, lects. 5, 7.
157. I need hardly remind the reader of the vast difference
between the view inculcated above and the doctrine of “ends in
nature” as it figures in the old-fashioned “argument from design.” The
old-fashioned teleology assumed (1) that the “subjective interests”
manifested in the evolutionary process are fundamentally human.
We, it held, can recognise what these ends are, and further, they are
for the most part summed up in the “design” of furthering our human
convenience. (2) That these interests exist as the reflective designs
of an anthropomorphic Ruler of Nature. Our doctrine is consistent
with neither assumption. It follows from our whole interpretation of
the physical order, that we do not and cannot know what kind of
subjective interest of finite individuals is realised by any portion of it
beyond that constituted by our own bodies and those of our near
congeners, and therefore are absolutely without any right to fancy
ourselves the culminating end of all evolution. Again, a subjective
interest need not exist in the form of a definitely preconceived
design; most of our own interests exist as unreflective cravings and
impulses. Whether any part of the evolutionary process is due to
deliberate reflective design on the part of superhuman intelligences,
Metaphysics, I take it, has no means of deciding. This would be a
question for solution by the same empirical methods which we
employ in detecting the presence of design in the products of human
art. In any case, reflective design is bound up with the time-process,
and cannot therefore be ascribed to the infinite individual.
158. Compare, e.g., the first of the arguments for immortality in
Plato’s Phædo, p. 70 ff., and the remark in the Republic, with
obvious reference to this argument, that the “number of souls is
always the same” (611A). In Plato the doctrine is pretty certainly of
Orphic provenance. Compare also the cyclic alternation of death and
life in Heracleitus, the (Orphic) cycle of births of Empedocles, that of
the Stoics, and in the modern world, to take only one instance, the
“eternal recurrence” of Nietzsche.
159. The same phenomenon of the formation of a new individuality
within the limits of an already existing one, is illustrated by the
familiar facts of the moral conflict between the “higher” and “lower”
self.
160. Compare Royce, The World and the Individual, Second
Series, p. 305 ff., where a view of this kind is worked out in some
detail. Prof. Royce’s second volume unfortunately came into my
hands too late to enable me to make all the use of it I could have
wished; the same is the case with Mr. Underhill’s essay on “The
Limits of Evolution” in Personal Idealism.
CHAPTER VI
THE LOGICAL CHARACTER OF DESCRIPTIVE
SCIENCE
§ 1. Scientific description may be contrasted with philosophical or teleological
interpretation, but the contrast is not absolute. § 2. The primary end of all
scientific description is intercommunication with a view to active co-operation.
Hence all such description is necessarily restricted to objects capable of being
experienced in the same way by a plurality of individuals. § 3. A second end
of scientific description is the economising of intellectual labour by the
creation of general rules for dealing with typical situations in the environment.
In the course of evolution this object becomes partially independent of the
former. § 4. From the interest in formulating general rules arise the three
fundamental postulates of physical science, the postulates of Uniformity,
Mechanical Law, and Causal Determination. § 5. The mechanical view of
physical Nature determined by these three postulates is systematically carried
out only in the abstract science of Mechanics; hence the logical completion of
the descriptive process would mean the reduction of all descriptive science to
Mechanics. That the chemical, biological, and psychological sciences contain
elements which cannot be reduced to mechanical terms, is due to the fact that
their descriptions are inspired by æsthetic and historical as well as by
primarily “scientific” interests. § 6. The analysis of such leading concepts of
mechanical Physics as the Conservation of Mass and of Energy shows them
to have only relative validity.