This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

BQ40Z60EVM-578: How to improve LiFePO4 Chem ID Match?

Part Number: BQ40Z60EVM-578
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: BQSTUDIO, GPCRA0, GPCCHEM

I am using the BQ40Z60EVM-579 eval kit with a 4Series-2Parallel LiFePO4 battery pack, each individual cell is rated at 3.2V, 3200mAh. There is no manufacturer branding.

I have been unsuccessful in getting the “Update Status = 0x04” to increment after several cycles. From my understanding, this is preventing the system from Updating “QMax”, the “Ra Tables” and “Cell Balancing Time”.

From other forum posts I believe the cause is a poor “Chem ID” match for this battery pack. (Currently set to closest match: ID 0400 with 10.39% deviation and a number of warnings)

An external battery analyser was used to log "time,V,I,Temp" values for an individual cell bank, consisting of 2 parallel cells.

To limit the number of iterations to get a better Cell ID match, I would appreciate some assistance with the following questions: (Any other comments are also welcomed and I may well be barking up the wrong tree.)

1. How does logging against parallel cells affect Chem ID calculation? I have not noticed any settings to compensate for parallel cells when submitting logs to the “Gauging Parameter Calculator”. (Currently the parallel cells are spot-welded together, but I can separate them if need be.)

2. How important is the stability/accuracy of the Temperature measurement in the logs for Chem ID calculation? Due to the long period required for logging a cycle, this process typically stretches over a 24h period with day/night ambient temperatures having up to a 20degC variance impact on the logged temperature. Should this be compensated for? (Though I guess this is only used for temperature to impedance lookup tables and not for cycle temperature profiling.)

3. What “Chem ID deviation percentage” is typically acceptable for a workable Chem ID match?

4. How important is it to log the maximum swing of the cell voltage for Chem ID matching?

I am considering using BQStudio with the BQ40Z60EVM-579 eval kit for future Chem ID logging attempts. It seems to have more stable readings than the external analyser we use, which seems to have about 1mV of noise on readings. The eval kit is currently setup with some safety margins and especially charge termination is based on some interpretations made by the gas gauge, which causes the battery to not always terminate charging at the extremes. (This could be fixed with some settings changes if need be.)

5. Is it okay if rest periods in the logs for Chem ID matching stretch beyond the setting of the “REST” register or the recommended 2h and 5h rest periods? Currently the process is driven manually and logs can overrun these state changes, especially when run over night. Or can these over runs in the logs be safely redacted? 

6. Is there any benefit in submitting logs with multiple charge-discharge cycles to the “Gauging Parameter Calculator” or is one discharge cycle good enough?

 

Thank you

  • Hi Jaco,

    We will review your post and get back to you. Please review the following document. The parallel cell increases capacity by the number of cells in parallel and shouldn't impact the chem ID matching. It would be best to not use parallel cell for finding the chem ID match, if possible. Typically you want a match < 3%.

    www.ti.com/.../slva725
  • Thank you Damian

    Can I assume that any match greater than 3% will not allow QMax, etc. to update?

    Regards
  • Hi Jaco,

    You shouldn't assume that, but it becomes more unlikely to get the appropriate update as chem ID match DOD error % increases.

  • I am considering sending cells for Chem ID analysis to TI.
    Would someone be so kind to assist me with the process for submitting cells please.

    Kind regards
    Jaco
  • Hi Jaco,
    Have you used our online tool to determine if you have a close match for your cells?

    www.ti.com/.../gpcchem
    thanks
    Onyx
  • Hi Onyx
    To be honest, I have not tried again recently. Previously I tried a number of times and could not get a deviation of under ~10%. The closest matched ID, 414, also did not give me any joy, as I was unsuccessful in getting the “Update Status = 0x04” to increment after 3 or 4 cycles. I also tried a few shots in the dark, by using Chem IDs that looked to be similar in spec to the cells we are using, but without success.

    That being said, our supplier has recently changed the cells they supply to what seems to be better quality cells, they were also willing to give me some loose cells, so I am prepping to try again.

    My request for info on submitting cells, is just to find out what the process is and perhaps submit some cells in parallel in case I spend another couple of month testing without success. Cycling these packs is time consuming stuff and I reckoned attacking from a few angles to be wise.

    Kind regards
    Jaco
  • Hi Jaco,
    Yeah getting learning to be successful on these LFP cells can be quite challenging sometimes and that is why we tend to recommend using the GPCRa0 tool to obtain the qmax and resistance for your cells so as to save you the stress of having to repeat the tests over and over again. If you We current time for obtaining a chem id for a cell sent to us is about 2months hence my directing you to use gpcchem to indetify a close match and avoid delays. I will take this conversation offline for directions on sending in the cells for chem id generation.
    thanks
    Onyx