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