Other Parts Discussed in Thread: BQ34Z100
Tool/software:
Hi Team,
I'm currently working on a project using the bq34z100 along with the CBAK 26650FS4 battery cell.
To identify the appropriate CHEM ID, I followed the TI document "Simple Guide to Chemical ID Selection Tool (GPC) - SLVA725A". I performed the required test at room temperature: after fully charging the cell, I recorded a 5-hour relax → 1/10C discharge → 5-hour relax cycle, as specified. I then generated the log file and config.txt, and uploaded the zip file to the GPC tool:
https://www.ti.com/powercalculator/docs/gpc/gpcUpload.tsp
The resulting report identified CHEM ID 485 as the best match, with a maximum deviation of 13.48%. However, CHEM ID 485 corresponds to a 250mAh cell, while the CBAK 26650FS4 is rated at 4000mAh. Based on the discharge data and my own calculations, the actual capacity is indeed over 4000mAh.
Could you please help clarify whether this result might be incorrect, or if there may have been an issue with the test procedure? I've attached the .gg file, the uploaded zip file, and the GPC report for your review.
While analyzing the log file, I noticed that the cell voltage dropped during the relax period. I’m wondering if this could be due to the 7mA quiescent current from the circuit board. Could this have affected the results?
Additionally, is TI planning to officially characterize the CBAK 26650FS4 cell in the near future?
Thank you in advance for your support!
Best regards,
Joy
CHEM ID log file.zipCHEM ID log file-report.zip5S1P CBAK 26650FS4 CHEM ID CFG .gg.csv
