SAE_Published

ABSTRACTOne of the deliverables for the GM/DOE sponsoredEcoCAR2 competition involved the design and validation ofan energy storage system (ESS) that could withstand 20g ofacceleration in the longitudinal direction, 20g of accelerationin the lateral direction, and 8g of acceleration in the verticaldirection with a minimum safety factor of 2, in the event of acrash. Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology (RHIT) electedto base their energy storage system off of A123 batterymodules (7×15s2p) and components. The design included athermal analysis for various drive cycles and a mechanicalanalysis of the enclosure built to support and protect thebattery modules. The thermal analysis investigated passivecooling versus active cooling and, after identifying activecooling as the best strategy, an appropriately sized coolingloop was developed. The mechanical analysis involved theuse of Siemens NX7.5 to develop CAD models for the ESSenclosure components. These enclosure components includedthe battery base plate (interface that allows for modulemounting), the battery casing (surrounds the modules) andthe battery top plate (results in a completely containedsystem). The mechanical analysis of the ESS also requiredthe use of NASTRAN to perform finite element analysis(FEA) on the module-to-base plate mounting and the pack-to-vehicle mounting. The pack-to-vehicle mounting wasachieved by mounting the ESS to a subframe that will bewelded into the vehicle.

INTRODUCTIONUtilizing data, technical support, and physical componentsfrom A123 Systems, a Lithium-Ion Energy Storage System(ESS) was developed. This paper looks at the components ofthe design of a Lithium Ion Energy Storage System including,thermal management, safety considerations and verificationthrough finite element analysis.

THERMAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGNTo begin investigation of the thermal aspects of the proposedA123 7 × 15s × 2p battery pack, it was first necessary toobtain the thermal capacity of the pack. Utilizingmanufacturer provided data for temperature rise with respectto maximum continuous discharge, a first principles approachwas used to estimate the thermal capacity as a function oftemperature [1]. An average thermal capacity of 102,000 J/°Cwas used while the extreme values will be investigated via asensitivity analysis [2].

Given a thermal capacity estimate and assuming an insulatedmodel, the amount of heat the battery pack can retain for aspecified temperature change was estimated by integratingEquation 1. Thus,

Equation 1

The maximum recommended battery temperature is 50°Cwith de-rating occurring between 50 °C - 60 °C [2]. At 60°C,the battery control system shuts down the battery pack.Assuming the battery starts at a room temperature (R.T.) of21 °C (70 °F) and soaks in the sunshine for a substantialamount of time, a temperature differential of 24 °C can bereached. This temperature differential yields a maximum heatenergy retention value of 2,450 kJ. It is important to note thatthe competition “room temperature” value can vary widelyfrom as low as 15 °C (assuming the vehicle soaks outside,overnight, at the Milford Proving Grounds (MPG)) to as highas 39 °C (should the vehicle get stuck soaking outside duringthe day at the Desert Proving Grounds (DPG)). These rangeswill be discussed further in the sensitivity analysis.

Knowing the amount of heat the battery can retain whilestaying within defined operating limits enabled the team to

Design of a High Voltage Lithium Ion EnergyStorage System

2013-01-0564Published

04/08/2013

Laura Nash, Jonathan Nibert, Zachariah Chambers and Marc HerniterRose-Hulman Institute of Technology

Copyright © 2013 SAE International

doi:10.4271/2013-01-0564

THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT.It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means.

Downloaded from SAE International by Laura Nash, Wednesday, March 27, 2013 01:49:36 AM

http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/2013-01-0564

assess thermal response on a drive cycle. For the ArgonneNational Laboratory (ANL) 4-cycle and 0-60 mph drivecycles the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology (RHIT)proposed vehicle architecture incurred the following batteryheat generation rates and total heat energies [Table 1- DriveCycle Analysis

Table 1. Drive Cycle Analysis

The ANL 4-Cycle data is especially critical to RHIT becauseit can be used to predict performance for the most criticalcompetition event - the Emissions and Energy Consumption(E&EC). The E&EC includes distances (legs) of 20, 40, and100 miles which are designed to showcase both vehiclemodes, charge-depleting and charge sustaining (CD and CSrespectively). With a 4-Cycle charge depleting range of 36.1miles (based on the ANL 4-Cycle), the following heatretentions for the E&EC event are presented in Table 2-E&EC Heat Energies.

Table 2. E&EC Heat Energies

It is assumed that each leg of the E&EC will be started with afully charged battery. If not, the heat retention will be lessbecause the CS mode induces less heat than the CD mode.Therefore, the values presented represent a worst-casescenario for heat retention values for the E&EC event.

The 0-60 mph event is very important to RHIT because theoutstanding acceleration specified by the Vehicle TechnicalSpecifications (VTS) arises from the engine and motoroperating in parallel for limited bursts; therefore, having afully charged battery is critical to this event. While CS heatretention values are presented, this event will only be run inCS mode as a last resort. With a heat retention value of 12 kJper run in CD mode, the maximum number of passes beforede-rating occurs, can be predicted.

To look briefly at the sensitivity of the data, Table 3-ESSTemperature Rise is presented below for a range of thermal

capacities and battery initial temperatures (i.e. roomtemperatures):

Table 3. ESS Temperature Rise

From the sensitivity analysis, it is clear that the worst casescenario (lowest thermal capacity, highest ambienttemperature) will put the battery into a de-rating situation, 10km, 4- Cycle schedule, while, the best case scenario (highestthermal capacity, lowest ambient temperature) shows only a6.5 °C temperature rise over the CD 4-Cycle. This suggeststhat the 100 mile E&EC leg could be completed withoutentering a derate condition. The burst of high powerconditions for the 0-60 mph acceleration causes a very smallamount of heat to be generated and a near negligible rise intemperature.

From the results, it appears that passively cooling the ESSwould be acceptable for nearly all competition events andtemperatures excluding the desert hot soak extreme.However, these results assume that the battery pack has beengiven sufficient time to passively cool back to roomtemperature. Realistically, the team could go from fullyheating the battery with the 0-60mph competition to the firstleg of E&EC with only a few hours in between. Therefore, anestimate of passive cooling time was required.

Neglecting radiative effects and assuming natural convection,we have Equation 2:

Equation 2

where the heat transfer coefficient (h) ranges from 1- 20W/(m2 K) for pure natural convection with air [1]. With asurface area of 1.24 square meters the time required to coolthe pack from 45 °C to a variety of ambient roomtemperatures for the three thermal capacities and two heattransfer coefficients are presented below.



Examining the results of, it is clear that passively dissipatingheat from the battery will have a negative impact on theperformance at competition events due to the extreme amountof time required to cool the pack back to ambienttemperature. Additional concerns arise from on-roadconvective heating of the battery due to the high tracktemperatures at the DPG, which can exceed 130 °F. Whileinsulating the battery could mitigate this additional source ofbattery heating, it would essentially eliminate passive heatrejection between events. Thus, some form of active coolingis required.

Following A123 recommendations that air-cooling the packis slightly better than passive cooling, a liquid-to-air heatexchanger will be employed. A preliminary design reviewwith A123 recommended the cooling plates be mounted onthe bottom of the modules and for RHIT to utilize aconductive isolation pad between the plates and modules tomaximize surface contact. To investigate the pad and coolingplate system, a thermal circuit analysis will be performed toestimate the amount of heat that can be dissipated by thesystem. A quasi-steady state first principal analysis will beused to estimate the temperature rise of the liquid.

For the ANL 4-cycle schedule, the previously describedcooling system was modeled in Simulink and loaded with theheat generation data.

After the team selected active liquid cooling for the ESS, acooling loop was developed which uses a water/glycol mix.The ESS cooling loop (Appendix A), consists of the ESS'sinternal cooling plates, a sealed reservoir/overflow tank, adrain point, inline pump, and liquid-air heat exchanger. Thecooling loop will be fully self-contained in the rear of thevehicle, co-located with the ESS.

The ESS cooling system will use a water pump. In order toselect a pump, the pressure drop across the cooling plates andradiator need to be quantified to ensure an appropriatepressure could be attained by the pump. The system wasdesigned for a 2 gallon per minute (GPM) flow rate, at whichthe cooling plates each have a 7 psi drop, and the radiator a 3psi pressure drop. With 7 individual cooling plates in series,the total cold plate drop is ∼49 psi. Adding in the radiator,the overall loop pressure drop is ∼52 psi. See Appendix B.

Liquid Cooling System ModelingIn order to properly size components for the cooling systemand verify it would keep the ESS temperature withinacceptable limits, a model of the previously derived coolingsystem was generated in Simulink. The top-level model, asshown in Appendix C, simulates the connection between theESS's cooling plates and the liquid-air heat exchanger. Theexit fluid temperature value is passed between thecomponents, while the initial ESS and fluid temperatures areinputs along with the ESS heating power and the ambient airtemperature.

Looking into the ESS cooling plate model (Appendix C), thethermal circuit as defined in Appendix A is modeled. Themodule thermal capacity that was derived earlier was used inthe model, and the thermal resistances of both the coolingplates and thermal interface pad were taken from themanufacturer's technical specifications [4]. The heatgeneration data was again based upon an A123-suppliedfigure of 97% efficiency combined with the average powerdischarge.

Since the thermal resistance of the cooling plates is a functionof the liquid flow rate, and the radiator's thermal resistance isa function of both liquid and air flow rates, both of theseparameters were swept to aid in identifying optimal operatingpoints. To run the sweep, a worst-case operating scenario wasestablished where the initial battery and fluid temperatureswere 41 °C and the ambient air temperature (the air beingdrawn across the radiator) was 38 °C. These values are basedupon reference material citing the average summer high forYuma, Arizona as 41°C and assume that the vehicle wouldhave equalized to that value, and the ambient air would becabin air, cooled to 3° C below outside temperature by theHVAC system.

This worst-case scenario was then run with a heating valuefrom a 100% State of Charge (SOC) depletion charge-



depleting mode drive cycle, since it will incur the largestpower draw. The resulting final ESS temperature versus airand liquid flow rates is given in Appendix D-1.

Based on these surfaces, an air flow rate of approximately480 cubic feet per minute (CFM) and a liquid flow rate of 8liters per minute (LPM) was selected, as these points werewhere the returns in terms of increased flow rates diminishedgreatly.

With these flow rates specified, an analytic sweep was thenrun to find the impact both the initial ESS/fluid temperatureand the ambient air temperature had on the final ESStemperature. Both temperatures were swept from a lowerbound of 25° C (assumed R. T.) to 41° C (worst-case). Again,the heating value was based upon a 100% SOC depletion CDmode drive cycle. The resulting 3D plot is given in AppendixD-2.

Based on this plot, for a worst-case scenario where both theinitial temperatures and ambient are 41° C, the final ESStemperature is 50.1° C. For the expected case of an initialtemperature of 26° C (near R.T. soak) and 36° C ambient, thefinal temperature is 41° C.

Beyond the analysis of the 100% CD draw-down, thetemperature rise during a subsequent CS operation was alsoanalyzed. Two distinct cases were run; the worst-case whereambient is 41° C and the initial temperatures were the finalvalues from the worst-case in the prior analysis and anassumed case where the ambient was 36° C and the initialtemperatures were the final values from the assumed case inthe prior run. In this way, the analysis would mimic actualvehicle operation where the vehicle would operate in CDmode for a given amount of time, then switch into a CS modefor the remainder of the operating time. The results of the CSmode analysis showed that in the worst-case, the ESStemperature converged to 52° C, and in the assumed case, theESS temperature ended at 47° C.

The analysis results indicate that the cooling system will keepthe ESS below the thermal de-rating zone during all operationfor the assumed case, and will just barely enter de-rating forthe worst-case. Even in the worst-case scenario, the ESStemperature stabilized at a value in the lower end of the de-rating zone, and never rose to the absolute cutoff temperaturelimit.

Additionally, it should be noted that the CD heating valueswere based on a CD run that saw a 100% SOC depletion. The100% to 0% SOC swing of that analysis is worse than theactual operation is expected to be. In practice, upper andlower SOC bounds will be in place which will limit the CDoperation to a narrower SOC band. This in turn will limit theamount of time the vehicle is exposed to the higher CD

heating power, thereby lowering the effective finaltemperature at the end of CD operation.

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS ANDDESIGNAccording to EcoCAR2 regulations, components of the ESSmust be analyzed under specific conditions in order for theESS design to be considered safe to install in the vehicle. Astructurally validated ESS involves a complete analysis of thepack-to-vehicle mounting and a complete analysis of themodule-to-baseplate mounting with a minimum factor ofsafety of 2 for all results.

ESS Mounting (Battery Pack-to-Vehicle)The ESS will be secured to the vehicle by mounting it to asubframe. The design material for the ESS Subframe is1080steel, a material readily available from McMaster-Carr.The 1080 tube steel (3/4 × 3/4 × 1/8 wall thickness) that willbe used to fabricate the ESS subframe is listed as having ayield strength of approximately 350 MPa. This yield strengthwill be used in conjunction with the analysis results todetermine if the design meets the required factor of safety of2. The SIEMENS 7.5 NX model of the ESS subframe ispresented below. The NX NASTRAN analysis uses asimplified beam model to represent the ESS subframe.

Figure 1. ESS subframe Bolt Pattern

Loading ConditionsThe EcoCAR2 regulations call for components to be designedto withstand a 20g longitudinal, 20g lateral, and 8g verticalset of loading conditions unless otherwise specified. In orderto perform the finite element analysis (FEA) using NX 7.5NASTRAN, equivalent forces needed to be calculated. Forthe analysis, the battery pack mass was found by taking the7×15s2p total mass of 137.2 kg [2] and adding in the mass ofthe enclosure, which was estimated to be 49.81 kg. Thisrendered an overall pack mass of 187.01 kg. This mass was



then used in Equation 3, along with a value of 9.8 m/s2 forgravity, to find the translational forces imparted by eachmodule for the 20g and 8g cases, using respective values of20 and 8 for the value of C.

Equation 3

20g Longitudinal CaseIn order to account for the 20g longitudinal applied force(Fpack) being applied at the center of the battery pack weneed to find the equivalent longitudinal forces that the 12 boltholes of the subframe will experience (Fpack,eq).

Setting up an equivalent system and rearranging, we obtainEquation 4.

Equation 4

Using Equation 3 we can calculate the value of Fpack.

Using the mass of the pack from above as 187 kg,acceleration due to gravity as 9.8 m/s2 and C as 20 we obtainFpack. Plugging this into Equation 4, we obtain Fpack,eq.

A summary of the calculated longitudinal forces is given inTable 4- Pack Mounting Longitudinal Forces.

Figure 2. NX NASTRAN Longitudinal Loading

Additionally, since Fpack acts at the center of gravity (CG) ofthe battery pack and not in line with the bolt holes in thesubframe, a moment is induced by Fpack which must beaccounted for by vertical equivalent forces at each of the boltholes.

Figure 3. ESS Longitudinal Loading

Figure 4. Longitudinal loading distances and equivalentforces

Using Figure 3- ESS Longitudinal Loading and Figure 4-Longitudinal loading distances and equivalent forces, anequivalent system was set-up as given in Equation 5.

Equation 5

We can solve for Fm,eq knowing: h = 132mm, l = 273mm, x1= 58mm, x2 = 174mm, and Fpack = 36,652 N. Therefore, theequivalent force due to the induced moment at each bolt holeis 2,395 N. This force is applied to each bolt hole in theappropriate vertical up/down direction as shown in Figure 5 -NX NASTRAN Moment Induced Equivalent Forces.

Table 4. Pack Mounting Longitudinal Forces



Figure 5. NX NASTRAN Moment Induced EquivalentForces

20g Lateral CaseThe lateral case was approached in the same manner as thelongitudinal case where an equivalent system was set up todetermine the lateral force at each bolt hole.

Setting up an equivalent system and rearranging, we obtainEquation 6.

Equation 6

Using Equation 3 we can calculate the value of Fpack

Given the values are the same as the longitudinal case weobtain Fpack = 3,054 N.

Figure 6. NX NASTRAN Lateral Loading

Additionally, since Fpack acts at the CG of the battery packand not in line with the bolt holes in the subframe, a momentis induced by Fpack and must be accounted for by verticalequivalent forces at each of the bolt holes.

Figure 7. ESS Lateral Loading FBD

Figure 8. Lateral loading distances and equivalent forces

Using Figure 7 - ESS Lateral Loading FBD and Figure 8-Lateral loading distances and equivalent forces, an equivalentsystem was set-up as given as shown in Equation 7.

Equation 7

We can solve for Fm,eq knowing: h = 132mm, w = 423mm, a= 105mm, b = 174mm, and Fpack = 36,652 N. Therefore, theequivalent force due to the induced moment at each bolt holeis 1,205 N. This force is applied to each bolt hole in theappropriate vertical up/down direction as shown in Figure 9 -NX NASTRAN Moment Induced Forces.

Figure 9. NX NASTRAN Moment Induced Forces

Loading and ConstraintsSince the geometry of the ESS Subframe is based on a fullyenclosed rectangle, the entire outer perimeter was constrainedto account for the fact that when the part is integrated into the



vehicle, all sides will be welded to the existing vehiclestructure.

20g Longitudinal CaseA total of 24 forces were applied to the ESS Subframe for thelongitudinal case. Twelve of these forces were applied in thelongitudinal direction (Fpack,eq) and twelve were applied inthe vertical direction(Fm,eq) to account for the momentinduced by Fpack being applied at the center of the batterypack.

Each of the 12 bolt holes in the subframe experiencelongitudinal forces of 3,054 N and vertical forces of 2,395 N.The subframe was constrained and loaded accordingly and arepresentation of the applied forces for the longitudinal caseare given in Figure 10- ESS Subframe 20g LongitudinalLoading.

Figure 10. ESS Subframe 20g Longitudinal Loading

20g Lateral CaseA total of 24 forces were applied to the lateral loading casefor the ESS subframe. Each of the 12 bolt holes experience alateral force (Fm,eq) of 3,054N and a vertical force (Fm,eq) of1,205 N. The subframe was once again constrained andloaded accordingly and a representation of the applied forcesfor the lateral case are shown below.

Figure 11. ESS Subframe 20g Lateral Loading

8g Vertical CaseIn the vertical case the only force to be applied to each of the12 bolt holes is Fpack/12. This is once again calculated usingEquation 3. In this case there is no induced moment becausethere is no perpendicular distance.

Figure 12. ESS Subframe 8g Vertical Loading

FEA Results and Discussion of ResultsAll three cases (20g-longitudinal, 20g-lateral, and 8g vertical)were analyzed in NASTRAN according to the loadingconditions discussed earlier. A summary of maximum stressand maximum deflection for each case is presented below.

Table 5. Summary NX NASTRAN results

As shown above, the highest elemental stress was seen in the20g-longitudinal case at 141 MPa. Given the yield strength ofthe chosen material (350 MPa), a stress of 141 MPa meets therequired factor of safety of 2. The maximum deflection of1.41 mm was also seen in the 20g longitudinal case. Thisamount of deflection is well within the acceptable range ofvalues. NASTRAN results are shown below.



ESS Mounting (Battery Module-to-Enclosure Base Plate)In addition to performing analysis at the pack-level, FEA wasalso performed on the locations where the battery modulesbolt to the enclosure base plate. The purpose of this analysiswas to verify that the module's mounting would not fail in theevent of the 20g and 8g loads the pack would be subjected toin the pack-to-vehicle mounting analysis.

Loading ConditionsAs previously stated, the EcoCAR2 regulations call forcomponents to be tested under a 20g longitudinal, 20g lateral,and 8g vertical set of conditions unless otherwise specified.In order to perform the FEA, equivalent forces needed to becalculated. For the analysis, the module masses were foundby taking the supplied total mass of 101 kg for the 7×15s2pconfiguration and dividing by seven to yield a per-modulemass of 14.42 kg. This mass was then used in Equation 8along with a value of 9.8 for g to find the translational forcesimparted by each module for the 20g and 8g cases, usingrespective values of 20 and 8 for C.

Equation 8

Since each module is secured with 4 bolts, it was assumedthat the force was distributed evenly amongst them, and so aper- bolt force was calculated as Fmodule/4. A summary ofthe calculated forces is given below in Table 6- ModuleMounting Translational Forces.

Table 6. Module Mounting Translational Forces

To illustrate the loading of the baseplate due to the module, afree-body diagram of the module-baseplate (profile view)loading is shown in Figure 13- Module Mounting Free-BodyDiagram



Figure 13. Module Mounting Free-Body Diagram

The CG was assumed as the geometric center of the module,and Fmodule acts at that point. Since the module isconstrained where it bolts to the baseplate at B1 and B2, amoment Mmodule is induced. The magnitude of Mmodule isgiven by Equation 9, where ‘h’ is the distance from themounting point to the module CG.

Equation 9Since the actual loading of the baseplate will occur at the boltmounting locations, Mmodule must be accounted for in theloading. This is done by inducing a moment, Mload as shownin Figure 14- Module Mounting Induced Moment.

Figure 14. Module Mounting Induced Moment

The moment will be induced by placing forces at the boltmounting locations. The magnitude of Mload based on theseforces is given by Equation 10

Equation 10Since Mload must equal Mmodule, rearranging and solvingfor Fload gives Equation 11.

Equation 11

Since from the side view, B1 and B2 both account for 2 boltseach, a per-bolt force is found by dividing Fload by 2. Thesame approach may be used to find the induced momentforces for a side-loading of the module by substituting thevalue of L for the width instead. A summary of the moment-inducing forces is given in Table 7- Module MountingMoment Forces. From the provided module drawings the CGheight, h, is taken to be 121.52 mm, the center-to-centerlengthwise bolt spacing, L, is 259.11 mm, and the center-to-center widthwise bolt spacing, W, is 164.81mm.

Loading and ConstraintsEach of the module mounting areas were loaded with both thetranslational and moment-inducing forces from the previoussection. Figure 2.38 shows an example of the loading for the20g longitudinal case. For the lateral case, the Fbolt forceswere applied along the y-axis, and the moment-inducingforces were also relocated so as to induce the moment in theproper direction. In the case of the 8g vertical test, the Fboltforces were applied in the Z-axis, and no moment-inducingforces were applied.

Figure 15. Longitudinal Loading

Example Module LoadingThe actual loading for the 20g longitudinal case is givenbelow in Figure 16. The aforementioned forces are shown inred, with the constrained geometry in blue. The constrainedportions were the 12 M10 bolt holes used for the packmounting bolt, and the 26 M5 bolt holes that are used tomount the baseplate to the case.

Table 7. Module Mounting Moment Forces



Figure 16. ESS Baseplate NASTRAN LongitudinalLoading

20g Longitudinal Loading

ResultsThe results from the FEA runs show a maximum stressoccurring in the 20g longitudinal case, with a peak stress of114.10 MPa. The highest stresses for the 20g lateral and 8gvertical cases were 90.13 and 30.76, respectively. The stressgradient overlaid onto the model for the 20g longitudinal caseis shown below in Figure 17- NX NASTRAN LongitudinalResults

Figure 17. NX NASTRAN Longitudinal Results

The resulting maximum stresses and their related factors ofsafety are summarized in Table 8- Stress Summary. Theintended build material for the baseplate is quenched andtempered 1080 steel, which has a yield strength of 350 MPa.

Overall, the summary shows that the lowest factor of safetyfor the module-to-baseplate mounting using 4130 steel is8.58, and for 1018 steel is 2.49. This shows that the baseplateexceeds the minimum factor of safety of 2 as required byEcoCAR2 regulations with both the intended 4130 steel, andthe alternative 1018 steel.

Table 8. Stress Summary

CONCLUSIONIn conclusion, ‘Design of a High Voltage Lithium Ion EnergyStorage System’ demonstrated that the Energy StorageSystem Rose-Hulman will implement into their modified2013 Chevy Malibu will need to be actively liquid cooled inorder to meet competition requirements. Once collected datarevealed the need for active liquid cooling of the ESS, anappropriate liquid cooling system was selected. Additionally,this paper presented loading conditions, constraints, andresults for NASTRAN run FEA simulations which verifiedthat both the ESS subframe (welded into the vehicle) and theESS pack (securely bolted to subframe) could withstand therequired 20g longitudinal, 20g lateral, and 8g vertical loads.

REFERENCES1. Cengel, Yunus. Heat Transfer: A Practical Approach.New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1998.

2. Rutkowski, Brian, “Battery Sub-System DesignSpecification: Interface Control Document,” A123SYSTEMS, 2011.

3. SAE International Surface Vehicle RecommendedPractice, “Recommended Practice for Packaging of ElectricVehicle Battery Modules,” SAE Standard J1797, Reaf. June2008.

4. AAVID THERMALLOY http://www.aavid.com/product-group/liquidcoldplates

CONTACT INFORMATIONLaura C. NashRose-Hulman Institute of [email protected]

Jonathan W. NibertRose-Hulman Institute of [email protected]

Marc Herniter, Ph.D.Rose-Hulman Institute of [email protected]

Zachariah Chambers, Ph.D.Rose-Hulman Institute of [email protected]



http://www.aavid.com/product-group/liquidcoldplates

http://www.aavid.com/product-group/liquidcoldplates

mailto:[email protected]




ACKNOWLEDGMENTSGeneral Motors, Argonne National Laboratories, and the USDepartment of Energy



APPENDIX A - COOLING LOOP

APPENDIX B - COOLING PLATE DATa

APPENDIX



APPENDIX C - SIMULINK MODELS



APPENDIX D

Figure 1. ESS Cooling System Flow Rate Sweeps



Figure 2. ESS Cooling System Ambient and Initial Temperature Sweeps

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

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

ISSN 0148-7191

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and notnecessarily those of SAE. The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper.

SAE Customer Service:Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)Fax: 724-776-0790Email: [email protected] Web Address: http://www.sae.orgPrinted in USA



SAE_Published

Documents

Transcript of SAE_Published