OHM CAMPUS CHALLENGE 2024

TEAM: OJCM (IIT KGP)

Members:
1. Suryadeep Mandal
2. Harsh Singh
3. Shubham Kumar
 Agenda

Market Survey 01
Target Specifications 02
Power and Battery Capacity Estimation 03
Traction Motor Selection 05
Battery Selection 06
Powertrain Simulations 09
Brake Mechanism 11
Charging Mechanism 12
Control and Communication 14
Cooling Solutions 16
High Level Integration 17
Market Survey

01
Target Specifications for the EV

20𝑐𝑚

35𝑐𝑚

50𝑐𝑚

100𝑐𝑚

70𝑐𝑚

𝐅𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐀𝐫𝐞𝐚 𝐄𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞

π 0.2 2
+ 0.35 × 0.5 + 1 × 0.7
4
≈ 0.91m2

02
 Power and Battery Capacity
First Order Estimation - I

Free Body Diagram & Dynamics Case I : During Acceleration

❑ 𝜃 = 0°, 𝑎 = 2.78𝑚/𝑠 2 , 𝑣 ≈ 25𝑘𝑚/ℎ𝑟 (at maximum acceleration)
❑ Kerb + Half Payload / Single Rider : 𝑚 = 100 + 70 = 170𝑘𝑔
❑ 𝑭𝒅𝒓𝒊𝒗𝒆 = 𝑚𝑎 + 𝐹𝑅𝑅 + 𝐹𝑅𝐺 + 𝐹𝑅𝐴
𝑎
= 472.6 + 33.32 + 0 + 20.57 = 𝟓𝟐𝟔. 𝟒𝟗 𝑵
𝐹𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑒 ❑ 𝑷𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒓 ≈ 𝐹𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑣 = 𝟑. 𝟔𝟔𝒌𝑾

Case II : During Climbing

❑ 𝜃 = 10°, 𝑎 = 0𝑚/𝑠 2 , 𝑣 ≈ 25𝑘𝑚/ℎ𝑟
❑ 𝐹𝑅𝐺 = 𝑚𝑔𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝜃
1 ❑ Kerb + Full Payload / Double Rider : 𝑚 = 100 + 140 = 240𝑘𝑔
❑ 𝐹𝑅𝐴 = 2 𝜌𝐴𝑓 𝐶𝑑 𝑣 2
❑ 𝑭𝒅𝒓𝒊𝒗𝒆 = 𝑚𝑎 + 𝐹𝑅𝑅 + 𝐹𝑅𝐺 + 𝐹𝑅𝐴
❑ 𝐹𝑅𝑅 = 𝜇𝑚𝑔𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝜃
= 0 + 46.32 + 408.42 + 20.57 = 𝟒𝟕𝟓. 𝟑𝟏 𝑵
❑ 𝑚𝑎 = 𝐹𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑒 − 𝐹𝑅𝐴 − 𝐹𝑅𝐺 − 𝐹𝑅𝑅
❑ 𝑷𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒓 ≈ 𝐹𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑣 = 𝟑. 𝟑𝒌𝑾

03
 Power and Battery Capacity
First Order Estimation - II
Case III : Maximum Speed, Full Payload Battery Capacity using Average Power Estimate
❑ 𝜃 = 0°, 𝑎 = 0𝑚/𝑠 2 , 𝑣 ≈ 70𝑘𝑚/ℎ𝑟 ❑ 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 = 100 𝑘𝑚
❑ Kerb + Full Payload / Double Rider : 𝑚 = 100 + 140 = 240𝑘𝑔 ❑ 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝐸𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 ∶ 1.13𝑘𝑊
❑ 𝑭𝒅𝒓𝒊𝒗𝒆 = 𝑚𝑎 + 𝐹𝑅𝑅 + 𝐹𝑅𝐺 + 𝐹𝑅𝐴 ❑ 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 ∶ 85% *
= 0 + 47.04 + 0 + 161.28 = 𝟐𝟎𝟖. 𝟑𝟐 𝑵 ❑ 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑 ∶ 45 𝑘𝑚/ℎ𝑟
❑ 𝑷𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒓 ≈ 𝐹𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑣 = 𝟒. 𝟎𝟓𝒌𝑾 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 100
⇒𝑡= = = 2.2 ℎ𝑟
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑 45
❑ 𝑩𝒂𝒕𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒚 𝑪𝒂𝒑𝒂𝒄𝒊𝒕𝒚 = 𝐴𝑣𝑔. 𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝐸𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑘𝑊 × 𝑡 ℎ𝑟 ÷ 𝜂
Case IV : Average Speed (45 kmph), Full Payload = 𝟑. 𝟑𝒌𝑾𝒉
2
❑ 𝜃 = 0°, 𝑎 = 0𝑚/𝑠 , 𝑣 ≈ 45𝑘𝑚/ℎ𝑟
❑ Kerb + Full Payload / Double Rider : 𝑚 = 100 + 140 = 240𝑘𝑔 Power Estimates: Conclusion
❑ 𝑭𝒅𝒓𝒊𝒗𝒆 = 𝑚𝑎 + 𝐹𝑅𝑅 + 𝐹𝑅𝐺 + 𝐹𝑅𝐴 • Peak Power Estimate: 4.05 kW
• Average Power Estimate: 1.13 kW
= 0 + 47.04 + 0 + 54.98 = 𝟏𝟎𝟐. 𝟎𝟐 𝑵
❑ 𝑷𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒓 ≈ 𝐹𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑣 = 𝟏. 𝟏𝟑𝒌𝑾
Battery Estimates: Conclusion
• Battery Capacity Estimate: 3.3 kWh
*(𝜂𝑚𝑡𝑟 × 𝜂𝑝𝑡 = 0.9 × 0.95 ≈ 0.85)

04
Traction Motor Selection

❑ BLDC v/s Brushed DC

✓ Better Efficiency, Power Density
✓ Higher Reliability & Lower Maintenance

❑ BLDC v/s Induction Motor

✓ Higher efficiency
✓ Higher starting torque

❑ BLDC v/s PMSM

✓ Simpler in Design & Construction
✓ Lower cost, Easier manufacturing
✓ Torque ripple can be minimized using
better control strategies

Traction Motor: Conclusion

• Traction Motor Selection: BLDC Motor

05
Battery Selection : Detailed Comparison

06
Battery Selection : Conclusion

• Lithium Iron Phosphate(LFP) battery has 4-5 times

longer lifespan.
• The specific energy and energy density values of Li-ion
exceeds those of LFP although a small margin
• LFP is non-toxic, thermally and structurally very stable,
doesn’t overheat or catch fire. Suitable for lower
temperatures.

Battery Selection: Conclusion

• Battery Chemistry Selected: LFP

07
 Voltage Level Selection
❑ 24 V :
o Higher power losses due higher currents
o Will need thicker wires to reduce losses, increased cost
o Motor windings will have to be thicker, back emf limited

❑ 60 V : Battery Capacity Calculations:

o Classified as High Voltage ❑ 𝐵𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝐸𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 3.3 𝑘𝑊ℎ
o Lower power losses but chance of safety hazard ❑ 𝐿𝐹𝑃 𝐶𝑒𝑙𝑙 𝑁𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 = 3.2 𝑉
o Added costs of safety interconnects, BMS due more cells in series ❑ 𝐵𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑁𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 = 48 𝑉
❑ 𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑆𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑠 = 48/3.2 = 15𝑠
❑ 48 V : ❑ 𝐵𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 3300/48~ 70 𝐴ℎ
o Safer to handle than 60V, easier to comply with standards
o Lesser power losses compared to 24V

Battery Selection: Conclusion

•Powertrain Voltage Level : 48 V

•Battery : 3.3kWh (48V, 70Ah, 15s)

08
 Powertrain Simulations in Simulink - I

• Simulink Model to study real world driving scenarios and its impact on our design decisions
• WLTC Class 1 Drive Cycle used for simulation
• A PI controller based driver model is used
• BLDC Motor and LFP Battery Data obtained from current literature
• A simple vehicle longitudinal model is used – can be improved further

09
 Powertrain Simulations in Simulink - II

• Distance covered = 3.5 Km

• Change in SoC = 5.6%
• Average Motor Power = 1.16kW
• Average Battery Current = 26.9A
• Average Efficiency = 83.1%

Speed, Motor Power, Battery SoC variations for the WLTC Drive Cycle

10
 Brake Mechanism
Desired Features of braking system: ❑ Hydraulic v/s Electronic v/s Drum
✓ Higher Braking Power in Hydraulic systems, less
Sufficiently quick braking action weather dependent
Highly reliable and failure-proof mechanism ✓ Better heat dissipation in hydraulic systems, hence
more reliable
Maintenance requirements should be minimum

❑ Hydraulic v/s Regenerative

✓ Hydraulic braking has better stopping power/braking
torque
✓ Additional components for regenerative braking
schemes – increased costs, complexity
✓ Regenerative braking not reliable at lower speeds
Brake Selection: Conclusion ✓ Regenerative braking is not a feasible standalone
solution – need to be supported by Hydraulic
• Braking System: Hydraulic Disc Braking

11
Charging Systems

Charging System: Conclusion

• On-Board Charger
• Fast Charger NOT required

12
Charging System: Removable Battery?

Charging System: Conclusion

• Non-removable Batteries
• On-Board Charger
• Fast Charger NOT required

13
 Control and Communication: VCU & TCU

LOW LATENCY,
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE & RESPONSIVENESS REQUIRED MINIMALISTIC FEATURES,
EASY INTEGRATION

LESS FEATURES ⇒ LESS FAILURE POINTS

SPACE EFFICIENCY, REDUCED TESTING
INSTALLATION EFFICIENCY

COST EFFECTIVE FOR BOTH

SOFTWARE INTEGRATION, MANUFACTURING & DEPLOYMENT
MAINTENANCE & SERVICEABILITY

LOW POWER DEMAND

INCREASED FUNCTIONALITY,
CAN BE EASILY POWERED THROUGH AUXILIARY BATTERY
DIFFICULT DIAGNOSIS & FIX

14
 Control and Communication:
Dashboard Display

• Analog Display is the most cost-effective, robust, need less power

and has the best visibility in bright sunlight as compared to LCD
displays.

• High resolution displays already have higher energy demand but

also require an additional processor. Other features can be
enabled using a smart interconnection with user’s smartphone.

Control and Communication: Conclusion

• Low power low throughput TCU
• Integrated VCU over a standalone one
• Analog Display

15
 Cooling Solutions
Heat can affect the Traction Control System (TCS) and make it less efficient
 Poor performance of electronics @ high temperatures
 Motor efficiency reduces, increase in copper losses and magnetic field reduces

Optimal Trade-off
❑ High Temp. capable electronics
❑ Reduce the power of cooling system
❑ Divert the cooling focus to more temperature
sensitive components like battery…
❑ Passive cooling for environment exposed
components

Conclusion: Passive Cooling with adaptive Active

Cooling at extreme temperatures

16
High Level Integrated Block Diagram

17
Thank You