Team: Shock Therapy
description
Transcript of Team: Shock Therapy
TEAM: SHOCK THERAPY
Members: Tim Blake, Travis McMillen, David Bankhead
Advisors Jim Klein – NAVY
sponsor/contact Dr. Herb Hess –
Faculty Advisor
Background Why is this project
important to the NAVY? Goal of Bayview:
Create quieter NAVY vehicles
Done by using batteries to run their vehicle
One ship uses hundreds of batteries Example: LSV-2
Cutthroat Batteries need to
be replaced every 4 years
NAVY wants to improve battery performance
Project Definition NAVY
Compare pulse charging and CCCV (Constant Current Constant Voltage)
Determine if indicators exist that a battery can/can’t be rejuvenated
University of Idaho Essentially – Design the Design project!
End Goal of the NAVY Extend the life of their batteries Find the most viable charging solution
Constant Current Constant Voltage
Two step charging system Battery is initially
charged with a constant current until the terminal voltage reaches a threshold (between 13.5 & 14.7 V)
Constant voltage is then applied until current tails off to a trickle limit Indicates charge is
finished
Advantages: Easily understood Widely
implemented Problems
Inefficient Slow Battery degrades
with many cycles
Pulse charging Applies relatively large currents at periodic
intervals with defined pulse width Advantages:
Avoids gassing the battery Increases charge acceptance and efficiency Can be used to provide a float charge Provides significant reductions in charging time and
an increase of cycle life. Recovers the capacity of exhausted or cycled cells
Disadvantages Results not proven (just claims)
We hope to prove the claims of pulse charging
Comparing Pulse and CCCV
Figure 1: Relative Charging Rates
Project Needs Batteries – Given Rejuvenators – Given
What we’ve done so far Preliminary setup
Developed test setup for discharging Developed recharging method using CCCV or
pulse charging Find a way to measure impedance of the
battery (To be done in the future)
What we’ve done so far 1st discharge test (USED & Previously
rejuvenated)Voltage (V)
Current (A)
0 min 11.8 11.715 min 11.71 11.730 min 11.51 11.945 min 11.43 11.960 min 11.22 11.875 min 11.09 1190 min 11 11105 min 10.87 11.1120 min 10.59 10.7135 min 9.84 9.9140 min 9.15 9.1145 min 7.85 7.9
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 1606
7
8
9
10
11
12
Voltage level
Voltage levelAxis Title
What we’ve done so far 2nd discharge test (UNUSED SPARE)
Time (min)
Voltage (V) Current (A)
0 11.44 11.515 11.37 11.430 11.25 11.245 11.13 11.160 10.97 11.175 10.82 10.890 10.6 10.7
100 10.5 10.6
0 20 40 60 80 100 1206
8
10
12
Voltage & Current vs. Time
Voltage
What we’ve done so far 1st Rejuvenation test (UNUSED SPARE)
VoltageTemperature
11.7 73.3 11:5711.83 73.612:15 PM11.87 73.812:30 PM
11.9 73.812:45 PM11.92 74 1:00 PM11.93 73.9 1:15 PM11.96 74.1 1:45 PM11.98 74.2 2:15 PM12.01 74.2 2:45 PM12.03 74.4 3:15 PM12.06 74.2 3:45 PM12.08 74.2 4:15 PM 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
11.511.611.711.811.9
1212.112.2
Voltage level
Voltage level
Battery discharging Need to measure
Starting voltage Ending voltage after
discharge Will have a normal
and a deep discharge
Voltage of Battery after sitting
Battery temperature Current Internal Resistance
Voltage
2V ~ 1.6 V
> 1.4 V
12 V ~ 10.5 V
>= 9.0 V
Discharge setup
Figure 2: Battery discharge setup (for 12 V and 2 V)
Battery Rejuvenation Measure:
Starting voltage Ending voltage
Immediately after & 24 hours later
Temperature during process
Current behavior Internal Resistance
Start V End V
Max Temp.
I (A)
2 V Vary w/ battery
? Pulse or
CCCV
12 V Vary w/ battery
12.84 or >
113°F
Pulse or
CCCV
Figure 3: Battery Charging setup (for 12 V)
Rejuvenator Setup
Figure 4: Battery Charging Setup (for 2 V)
Characteristics of a good rejuvenator
Decreases time it takes to charge Increases battery life Decreases internal resistance Increases battery capacity
Measuring the internal resistance
Figure 4: Diagram to measure internal resistance
+
VT
-
What does all this have to do with the project?
Data obtained from tests will allow us to observe behavior of batteries and how the rejuvenators interact with them.
Using this, we identify rejuvenator characteristics that lead to desired specs identifying a good rejuvenator.
Procedure would allow NAVY to continue their research to characterize pulse rejuvenator and would allow them to find the best rejuvenator for whatever task is at hand for them.
Forming the procedure from data
Data would then be used to form a null hypothesis Ex: Charger B is better than Charger A for Task
X Procedure would be based off of
verification or falsification of the null hypothesis
Deliverables Detailed process or algorithm the NAVY
can follow to charge/rejuvenate their batteries
Viable Designs Procedure for testing battery rejuvenators Software algorithm that will output
characteristics of battery rejuvenator
Procedure for testing battery rejuvenators
Would be able to identify rejuvenator compatibility with batteries
How to accomplish this: Develop a specific test setup People utilize a procedure determined by our
analysis of batteries/rejuvenators Procedure would result from statistical
analysis of our data Results in determination of compatibility of
rejuvenator with batteries
Develop a procedure for testing the rejuvenators
Pros NAVY can continue research Can determine best type of rejuvenator
Cons Could be labor intensive May not have enough chargers to get
conclusive results Not a “set it and forget it” procedure
Software algorithm Would involve creating a program
monitoring the interaction of rejuvenators and batteries Also would automate rejuvenator testing
process Outputs data necessary to make decision
with little manpower involved Based on the procedure for testing the
rejuvenators Plan to accomplish this through LABVIEW
Software algorithm Pros
Completely automated since run by microprocessor
Could be faster than other options in obtaining results
Cons Compatibility issues
With certain kinds of batteries May be more expensive Could be time intensive
Possible difficulties Charging 2 V with 12 V battery
rejuvenator Possibly test both ways to see if it makes a
difference Will 3 rejuvenators of different types give
concrete results? Testing time Inconclusive results
Have many resources at our disposal to help interpret
Budget BreakdownBudget Total
# of People Rate Sub TotalLunch 4 $10.00 $40.00 Dinner 4 $20.00 $80.00
# of Miles (round trip) Rate
Driving 230 0.445 $102.35
Total: $222.35 Total x 2: $444.70
Parts $500 Miscellaneous $55.30
Total: $555.30
Grand Total: $1,000.00
2010Testing
Formulate data from testing into procedure
MayAprilFebJanDecNov March
7 Months
Finalizeproject
TIMELINE
Verify procedure works
Order/acquireParts
QUESTIONS