General > General Technical Chat
LiPo Battery on Holding/Float Charge
<< < (5/6) > >>
Siwastaja:

--- Quote from: tooki on July 03, 2021, 03:38:12 pm ---Anyhow, I think that's a rather contrived interpretation, since the datasheet expressly warns not to ever discharge below 2.5V.

--- End quote ---

Yes but if you always follow the standard discharge ending condition there will never be a need for the precharge!

The precharge is a conditioning step for overdischarged, possibly damaged cells. The problem with the Samsung instruction is that it lacks the initial acceptance voltage. I have seen values like 1.0V or 1.5V before.


--- Quote ---What is true is that they do not define what should to be done with a cell that nonetheless has fallen below 2.5V. But there is no ambiguity that <2.5V is NOT an allowed condition. Since -99.9V<2.5V, and 0V<2.5V, they clearly aren't "allowing" charging in that state.

A sensible interpretation of the datasheet is this: precharge current of up to 150mA from 2.5V to 3V, then regular CC charging up to 4.20V, then constant voltage to C/10.

--- End quote ---

... so you think they are implicitly saying (as follows from following other criteria) the initial acceptance voltage is 2.50V. This is an interesting interpretation, and a good one which I would like to agree with. But I'm almost sure they don't mean that (see later on my message about a contradiction); it's nearly the same as not doing precharge at all. If you do use an initial 2.5V threshold for acceptance, this 150mA procedure is much safer and I have nothing against it.


--- Quote ---But your assertions only exist by ignoring the maximum values given elsewhere in the datasheet.
--- End quote ---

Yes but the need for precharging usually arises from ignoring the given values. It's a well-known "rescue tactic" that varies from forbidden, to "dodgy but acceptable with a careful algorithm", to something considered a part of "normal operation".

I like the middle one, of those three opinions about it.

There is one interesting corner case though: very low-current discharge. This is because when a manufacturer comes up with the discharge end voltage, they do that on some certain discharge current, very often C/5. Samsung 29E datasheet, unsurprisingly, forgot to document this vital piece of information* as well |O. Now if you use a significantly lower current than what they did, the ESR * I drop over the cell is lower, you can discharge more capacity out of it before reaching 2.50 under-load voltage, and you end up at lower SoC% (per manufacturer definitions 0% being with the given conditions, this will be a negative percentage!), and lower open-circuit voltage. This will lower the amount of voltage bounce-back after the discharge. While a cell discharged at C/5 until 2.50V bounces back somewhere around 3.3V, one discharged at C/50 until 2.50V is slightly overdischarged and only bounces back to, let's say e.g., 2.90V.

*) Again, I'm sure you can get the actual datasheet from Samsung if you commit to buy ten million cells.

Now if you use the same discharge cutoff value (2.5V) as the acceptance limit to enable charging, there will be no problems. But if you use a higher acceptance limit like 3.0V, there might be: your gadget discharged the cell until end, and now it refuses to charge. This effect could be seen in some laptop batteries of early 2000's; they refused to start charging and you would need to inject a bit of charge into the cells using a lab supply, then it would start. It was a design issue because it was the laptop itself which discharged the cells too far to begin with; OTOH, the cells were fine so maybe it was the charging side which had too high of acceptance limit. Maybe it was a "discharge to 2.5V, require 3.0V" issue with a misestimated bounceback.

The correct way to solve this problem at the root, IMO, is to make the low-voltage cutoff limit dynamic and based on current. This is often done for high discharge applications, but you should think about this for very low current applications as well, for example only discharging down to 3.2V and change that limit temporarily to 2.5V under short load peaks, for example when a radio sends a packet with high power.



--- Quote --- The datasheet says to use 3V as the 0% SOC
--- End quote ---

Certain open-circuit voltage corresponds to certain SoC% and that's defined by the actual cell chemistry and characterized by the manufacturer or the customer due to lack of manufacturer data availability. I have characterized the 29E and OCV for 0% SoC for this cell is roughly around 3.35V to 3.45V, I don't remember exactly. Edit: looked up that 29E discharged to 2.50V with C/10 cutoff bounced back to 3.304V OCV. With C/5 cutoff that would be a tad higher.

I guess you are referring to this: "Cell voltage in SOC 0% of Pack should be Min. 3.0V."

My interpretation is that after discharge is stopped i.e. load is removed , each cell in the pack should always read at least 3.0V. Which is a very sensible requirement. It doesn't mean 0% SoC is at 3.0V.

But that aside, don't you see the contradiction to what you said? If this condition is satisfied, there never is need for the precharge, as normal charging can commence already at 3.0V according to the very same datasheet! This IMHO confirms my interpretation that the precharging as described is a rescue procedure when other datasheet conditions have been already violated (in this case voltage < 3.0V). So if they assume this 3.0V is already violated (it's not a recommendation, it says "Requirement"), what makes you think the 2.50V limit is not violated, too?

That's also why I don't like the fact this rescue protocol is so poorly documented and simplified, but it needs to be seen as providing some absolute maximums, i.e., never exceed 150mA below 3.0V. In my opinion, more limitations (initial voltage, time before giving up) are needed but these might be available in the full documentation.


--- Quote ---The datasheet also specifies maximum discharge currents for <3V and <2.5V, which is presumably to limit the chances of a cell going below 2.5V to begin with.

--- End quote ---

No, you got this backwards. To prevent cell from going below 2.5V (OCV, no-load voltage, or <0% SoC), you need a MINIMUM not maximum discharge current rating! You need enough current going, generating high enough voltage drop over I*ESR, to ensure ending up above 0% SoC given 2.50V cutoff voltage.

Samsung does not specify this parameter or any data helping with determining this value in this datasheet; I'm almost sure I have seen other similar-looking Samsung datasheets where the current used to obtain discharge cutoff voltage is specified. But in this case, own testing is needed. Choosing discharge cutoff at 3.0V is obviously the easiest and safest choice and Will Just Work and satisfy all conditions given in the datasheet. It just greatly limits the available capacity in high discharge current applications.

I guess you refer to this:

"Shut Down Mode : Under 10uA / Under 3.0V.
Under 1uA / Under 2.5V."

This refers to their opinion about what is a good quiescent current taken from the cell by the BMS in "shut down mode", not maximum discharge currents when you are discharging to loads on purpose. Here the idea is to ensure the cell is not overdischarged over some (unspecified) calendar time due to the BMS leakage. My suggestion for a BMS designer is to always calculate this yourself leaving the necessary paper trail on the reasoning.
SiliconWizard:

--- Quote from: Siwastaja on July 03, 2021, 04:55:36 pm ---
--- Quote from: tooki on July 03, 2021, 03:38:12 pm ---Anyhow, I think that's a rather contrived interpretation, since the datasheet expressly warns not to ever discharge below 2.5V.

--- End quote ---

Yes but if you always follow the standard discharge ending condition there will never be a need for the precharge!

--- End quote ---

Except that the battery could get into this condition just by self-discharge. You may object that a battery that got into overdischarged condition by self-discharge only has a good chance of being ruined anyway.

But a slightly too low cut-off threshold + self-discharge could get you there relatively fast. To avoid this, you need to set a cut-off voltage with a comfortable margin. And then you're going to lose a bit of capacity. Sure that's a reasonable trade-off to make, but in some applications, engineers like to milk the last drop out of batteries.

In any case, all those points are not fully trivial. Only reading datasheets and hoping to get things completely right with LiPo batteries is not a really good idea. Their handling still requires proper knowledge and proper care. Product recalls for risk of fire are not at all uncommon, showing that mistakes are routinely being made.
Siwastaja:

--- Quote from: SiliconWizard on July 03, 2021, 05:06:45 pm ---Except that the battery could get into this condition just by self-discharge. You may object that a battery that got into overdischarged condition by self-discharge only has a good chance of being ruined anyway.
--- End quote ---

... and I will do just that. Especially because according to my tests, self-discharge of good cells becomes completely negligible (something that can't be measured at all using conventional lab measures after 1.5 years of wait, even at elevated temperatures) already below 50% SoC.

I do accept there can be some corner conditions where some amount of conservative "precharging" is a good idea. A slightly bad cell could get years of extra lifetime out of it while not significantly worsening the safety of the system. Or you could get a few % more battery capacity by being able to run closer to the 0%, reducing your margins. Which is important when energy density is critical for the application. If you can safely discharge to 1% and let the precharge handle accidental -1% and still do that safely, why not do that instead of always leaving 5% of margin just in case. (To be clear, I suggest you do add margins unless you absolutely must maximize the energy density, and in that latter case I also recommend paying for a better voltage reference and charge to 4.25V which is allowed in most datasheets.)


--- Quote ---In any case, all those points are not fully trivial. Only reading datasheets and hoping to get things completely right with LiPo batteries is not a really good idea. Their handling still requires proper knowledge and proper care.

--- End quote ---

I think with some Google-able Samsung datasheets - which BTW often say "confidential" and show the name of the customer who leaked it - you need to really be a lithium ion battery expert to understand what they are actually saying. Despite being quite well-read and real-life experienced on this subject, I often wish I knew more or had better connections inside the industry. I do know someone closely involved in cell manufacturing and design of cell chemistries but I feel awkward calling him every time I have some small question. Luckily I know someone else who can act as a proxy and has the necessary social courage to distract the Guru.
SiliconWizard:

--- Quote from: Siwastaja on July 03, 2021, 05:13:05 pm ---you need to really be a lithium ion battery expert to understand what they are actually saying. Despite being quite well-read and real-life experienced on this subject, I often wish I knew more or had better connections inside the industry. I do know someone closely involved in cell manufacturing and design of cell chemistries but I feel awkward calling him every time I have some small question. Luckily I know someone else who can act as a proxy and has the necessary social courage to distract the Guru.

--- End quote ---

Absolutely right.
tooki:

--- Quote from: Siwastaja on July 03, 2021, 04:55:36 pm ---
--- Quote from: tooki on July 03, 2021, 03:38:12 pm ---Anyhow, I think that's a rather contrived interpretation, since the datasheet expressly warns not to ever discharge below 2.5V.

--- End quote ---


Yes but if you always follow the standard discharge ending condition there will never be a need for the precharge!

The precharge is a conditioning step for overdischarged, possibly damaged cells. The problem with the Samsung instruction is that it lacks the initial acceptance voltage. I have seen values like 1.0V or 1.5V before.


--- Quote ---What is true is that they do not define what should to be done with a cell that nonetheless has fallen below 2.5V. But there is no ambiguity that <2.5V is NOT an allowed condition. Since -99.9V<2.5V, and 0V<2.5V, they clearly aren't "allowing" charging in that state.

A sensible interpretation of the datasheet is this: precharge current of up to 150mA from 2.5V to 3V, then regular CC charging up to 4.20V, then constant voltage to C/10.

--- End quote ---


... so you think they are implicitly saying (as follows from following other criteria) the initial acceptance voltage is 2.50V. This is an interesting interpretation, and a good one which I would like to agree with. But I'm almost sure they don't mean that (see later on my message about a contradiction); it's nearly the same as not doing precharge at all. If you do use an initial 2.5V threshold for acceptance, this 150mA procedure is much safer and I have nothing against it.


--- Quote ---But your assertions only exist by ignoring the maximum values given elsewhere in the datasheet.
--- End quote ---


Yes but the need for precharging usually arises from ignoring the given values. It's a well-known "rescue tactic" that varies from forbidden, to "dodgy but acceptable with a careful algorithm", to something considered a part of "normal operation".




--- Quote --- The datasheet says to use 3V as the 0% SOC
--- End quote ---


Certain open-circuit voltage corresponds to certain SoC% and that's defined by the actual cell chemistry and characterized by the manufacturer or the customer due to lack of manufacturer data availability. I have characterized the 29E and OCV for 0% SoC for this cell is roughly around 3.35V to 3.45V, I don't remember exactly. Edit: looked up that 29E discharged to 2.50V with C/10 cutoff bounced back to 3.304V OCV. With C/5 cutoff that would be a tad higher.

I guess you are referring to this: "Cell voltage in SOC 0% of Pack should be Min. 3.0V."

My interpretation is that after discharge is stopped i.e. load is removed , each cell in the pack should always read at least 3.0V. Which is a very sensible requirement. It doesn't mean 0% SoC is at 3.0V.

But that aside, don't you see the contradiction to what you said? If this condition is satisfied, there never is need for the precharge, as normal charging can commence already at 3.0V according to the very same datasheet! This IMHO confirms my interpretation that the precharging as described is a rescue procedure when other datasheet conditions have been already violated (in this case voltage < 3.0V). So if they assume this 3.0V is already violated (it's not a recommendation, it says "Requirement"), what makes you think the 2.50V limit is not violated, too?

That's also why I don't like the fact this rescue protocol is so poorly documented and simplified, but it needs to be seen as providing some absolute maximums, i.e., never exceed 150mA below 3.0V. In my opinion, more limitations (initial voltage, time before giving up) are needed but these might be available in the full documentation.


--- Quote ---The datasheet also specifies maximum discharge currents for <3V and <2.5V, which is presumably to limit the chances of a cell going below 2.5V to begin with.

--- End quote ---


No, you got this backwards. To prevent cell from going below 2.5V (OCV, no-load voltage, or <0% SoC), you need a MINIMUM not maximum discharge current rating! You need enough current going, generating high enough voltage drop over I*ESR, to ensure ending up above 0% SoC given 2.50V cutoff voltage.

Samsung does not specify this parameter or any data helping with determining this value in this datasheet; I'm almost sure I have seen other similar-looking Samsung datasheets where the current used to obtain discharge cutoff voltage is specified. But in this case, own testing is needed. Choosing discharge cutoff at 3.0V is obviously the easiest and safest choice and Will Just Work and satisfy all conditions given in the datasheet. It just greatly limits the available capacity in high discharge current applications.

I guess you refer to this:

"Shut Down Mode : Under 10uA / Under 3.0V.
Under 1uA / Under 2.5V."

This refers to their opinion about what is a good quiescent current taken from the cell by the BMS in "shut down mode", not maximum discharge currents when you are discharging to loads on purpose. Here the idea is to ensure the cell is not overdischarged over some (unspecified) calendar time due to the BMS leakage. My suggestion for a BMS designer is to always calculate this yourself leaving the necessary paper trail on the reasoning.

--- End quote ---
I don't know why you're being so adversarial.  :-// Could Samsung have been clearer in their datasheet? Absolutely. But I rather dislike how you repeatedly insinuate that I've been deficient in my interpretations of it ("Yes but", "Yes but" ...). My initial comment to you was simply disputing your claim that having the same precharge and termination current is "way, way beyond what any manufacturer recommends", since this datasheet puts them not that far apart from each other, disproving that claim. That was all. I am not a battery expert, obviously, but constantly expanding the scope of discussion and bogging it down with minutiae, while actually ignoring the few points I have made, is not exactly priming me to be receptive to what you have to say.

There is no "contradiction" in what I said, nor did I get anything "backwards". You literally quoted the two sections here that explain what I'm saying: I interpret their datasheet as saying "design for 0% SOC to be at 3V" and "make sure your doodad doesn't draw more than X µA current, even when turned off, so that you don't deep-discharge the cells, since they must not go below 2.5V".

I know what you're talking about regarding minimum discharge current vs end voltage, but that wasn't what we were talking about. The point was that this is how a cell might end up deep-discharged despite adhering to the 0% SOC ≘ 3V requirement. There's no contradiction because ending up below 3V does not necessitate violating the specs.
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod