High Voltage measures Vb,V1 & V2 dedicated ISO codes and new fine locations

[Miguel A Gallego]

Dear all,

I have been looking into ISO-MME standard and I have not found a specific fine location for the measures done in electric vehicles and specified in several regulations (FMVSS305, ECE R94, ECE R95, etc.). Those regulations define Vb, V1, V2, V1’ and V2’ and this measures are often acquired but in the standard is not specified which fine location should be used so that labs and OEMS can define them in different ways. In my opinion is worthy to decide and specify ISOCODES for these measures.

ISOCODES using the standard without any change could be as follow:

- 10TBAT000000VO0P : Vb Battery voltage between HV+ and HV-
- 10TBAT010000VO0P : V1 Battery voltage between HV- and vehicle electrical chassis
- 10TBAT020000VO0P : V2 Battery voltage between HV+ and vehicle electrical chassis
- 10TBAT010200VO0P : V1’ Battery voltage between HV- and vehicle electrical chassis with R0 inserted between HV- and vehicle electrical chassis
- 10TBAT020200VO0P : V2’ Battery voltage between HV+ and vehicle electrical chassis with R0 inserted between HV+ and vehicle electrical chassis

But I would rather propose use Fine Location 1 and Fine Location 2 and create new dedicated codes FL1(VB, V1 and V2) FL2(R0) and my proposal would be as follow:

- 10TBATVB0000VO0P : Vb Battery voltage between HV+ and HV-
- 10TBATV10000VO0P : V1 Battery voltage between HV- and vehicle electrical chassis
- 10TBATV20000VO0P : V2 Battery voltage between HV+ and vehicle electrical chassis
- 10TBATV1R000VO0P : V1’ Battery voltage between HV- and vehicle electrical chassis with R0 inserted between HV- and vehicle electrical chassis
- 10TBATV2R000VO0P : V2’ Battery voltage between HV+ and vehicle electrical chassis with R0 inserted between HV+ and vehicle electrical chassis

All comments are welcomed!

Miguel A. Gallego

[DiVe]

Dear Mr Gallego,

the requested codes do make sense to me. We should/can request feedback from other labs OEM's to verify that all requested voltages are covered.
Is this coding also reasonable for electrical current?

The "numbered approach" is compatible while the "special codes approach" is much more self descriptive.

In the database the V1, V2 and VB codes are available for FL1:

FL1_V-Codes.png (14.11 KiB) Viewed 10556 times

and also R0 is available for FL2:

FL2_R-Codes.png (38.63 KiB) Viewed 10556 times

May the longnaming is really a long naming in this case and required a shorter version to be handled in the documentation?
I also guess that the '-sign might be problematic for the exchange format. Even though the character is included in the first
128 characters of the ISO/IEC 8859-1.
I am not familiar in detail with the referenced regulations. So please can you explain what the ' character stands for?

A shorter variant for:
"V1’ Battery voltage between HV- and vehicle electrical chassis with R0 inserted between HV- and vehicle electrical chassis"
could may be:
"V1’ Battery voltage HV- against vehicle electrical chassis with R0"

In principle the ISO-Code is a location code rather than a function-based code. Nevertheless, I expect the new coding has the potential to simplify the exchange of this requirement by the regulations.
We have a task force meeting on Thursday this week and will discuss your request further.

Kind regards,
Dirk Vetter

[pfeiffge]

Dear colleagues,
there is no question, this issue is worthy to find defined codes. In practice, there often is only a possibility to measure the three high voltages in the power cable, not directly in the battery, so the Volkswagen group is using POCA (power cable) for the main location. Regarding the regulations there is talked about the battery, this will be the reason for different naming (TBAT = traction battery).
To reduce the number of fine locations we are using PO (positive), NE (negative) and 00 (T+/T-) in the following way:

voltage v1 = 10POCA00NE00VO0? (T- / chassis)
voltage v2 = 10POCA00PO00VO0? (T+ / chassis)
voltage vb = 10POCA000000VO0? (T+/T-)

Are both voltages v1' and v2' needed? VW is using OU (outer) for fine location 2. We don't store these values as a channel. Anyway comments are welcome!

kind regards, Gerd Pfeiffer (PAG)

[DiVe]

Dear colleagues,

some feedback from VW as a table:

2020-06-03 13_05_12-Window.png (11.81 KiB) Viewed 10540 times

with the comment:
" F2 = „OU“ will be used for the voltage provided by the logger to measure the isolation."

Kind regards,
Dirk

[Miguel A Gallego]

Dear collegues,

Here is my proposal:

High voltage "standard" measures

Voltages.PNG (15.24 KiB) Viewed 10298 times

I propose the use of a new main location “HVSY” High Voltage System and some changes from the initial codes discussed in last meeting with new fine locations. POCA and TBAT cand still be used but I think would be interesting allow HVSY main location for those projects where the measure place is not relevant (as can change depending on the test or the tools available, etc.) and we may allow a generic main location for the whole system voltages.

Fine location 3 is used with new fine locations “CH” for chassis, “NE” for Negative and “R0” for the Resistance R0. I think the showed way is much more descriptive, general and is not leading to confusion. As can be seen, Vb is also defined where is measured in fine locations 2 and 3.

Once this basic measures are defined, we would also need to define the measures before the main relay or measures upstream. Those ones are always done in the traction battery TBAT and I propose the codes in the table below:

Voltages upstream

upstream.PNG (9.94 KiB) Viewed 10298 times

In these codes fine location 1 is using existing code “IN” to clearly define the measure is done inside the battery pack. This is useful to differentiate Voltages and currents upstream and also when acelerometers are used will be useful to know whether the sensor is installed inside or outside the battery pack.

The last proposal will cover the isolation resistance codes. For those codes, main location will be always HVSY and I propose the creation of new physical dimensions “IR” Isolation resistance with units (Ohm/Volt) and “TV” Test voltage with unit volts which is the voltage used to measure the isolation resistance by using a Megohmmeter. The next table is suggested:

Isolation resistance measured with megohmmeter

isolation resistance.PNG (31.33 KiB) Viewed 10298 times

As you can observe in the table we cover all the possible situations. IP and OP are fine location 1 existing codes and are used to define whether the measure is done straight or inverted (usually both are done). “IR” will be the result of divide RE/TV. On the other hand, isolation resistance is not always measured using a megohmmeter and sometimes is the result of calculation using VB, V1, V2, V1’ and V2’ so that in this situations codes for isolation resistance would be:

Isolation resistance calculated

isolation resistance 2.PNG (6.15 KiB) Viewed 10298 times

All comments are welcomed!

Best regards

Miguel Ángel

[DiVe]

Dear Miguel,

thank you for the new and complete(!?) proposal for the HV coding:

In the database I reviewed that:

• "CH" is available on FL3 and has no similarities ("R0" we verified earlier)

• I guess the new proposed Physical Dimension "TV" should be coded as "VO", as it is still the same Physical Dimension. As this is used in combination with HVSY IP/OP we might think here on another coding approach on FL1? But the proposed codes would still be unique with "VO".
  The meaning of IP/OP is intended for "OoP-Testing" vs. "In Position" testing (Dummy position to restraint system) and might be applicable here but has a different meaning.

• For the proposed Physical Dimension (IR = Isolation Resistance) there is not interference with the coding of existing PD's, but I will await the discussion in the task force. Unit vise it is: 1/Ampere, so reciprocal current?

• “HVSY”, High Voltage System, Hochvoltsystem: is available as ML and has no similarities

Questions:

• Would a more general term like "ground" (might be GD as FL3 code) make sense instead of chassis?

• For the integration in the documentation it might be helpful to have an overview on the HV coding based on a
  separate table (or scheme) that we provide with the figures in RED C?

• An alternative to "HVSY" could be "HVBM" that I have seen in use at a customer. It stands for "High Voltage Battery Module". Nevertheless your proposal looks more general.

I hope we get more feedback on the meeting tomorrow (16.9.2020) from the experts in the companies on your proposal.

Kind regards,
Dirk

[derpmann]

Information of BMW:
There is no need to create a new physical dimension for the isolation resistance.
Use RE (resistance).

[Klaas]

Postponed until either creator or some other specialist is available.

[Miguel A Gallego]

Dear all,

The proposed figures to ilustrate the High Voltage vehicle ISO codes would be the showed next. First of all, in order to have an overall sight of what an Electric Vehicle is, I propose the next diagram:

Vehicle HV diagram.PNG (105.81 KiB) Viewed 7739 times

To have more detailed explanation about Vb, V1 and V2 (upstream and downstream) measures, I would use the diagram showed below where the "Traction system" box would represent and summarize all the High voltage components showed before (except the traction battery):

Vb_V1_V2.PNG (91.04 KiB) Viewed 7739 times

V1' and V2' special measures, where a known resistor R0 is used in order to calculate the isolation resistance, are showed in diagrams below:

V1p.PNG (69.92 KiB) Viewed 7739 times

V2p.PNG (69.4 KiB) Viewed 7739 times

I will be happy to hear any feedback and change whatever is needed but I think the attached info is a good point to start building things.

Best regards

Miguel Ángel Gallego

[Miguel A Gallego]

Dear all again,

Regarding the isolation resistance ISOCODE I would like to remark that regulations as ECE R.094, etc. are defining that:

Ri Omh_Volt.PNG (22.45 KiB) Viewed 7739 times

ANNEX 11. ECE R.94 point 5 (pag. 61)

So that, Ri(ohms) would perfectly match RE but the result of dividing Ri/Working voltage is a value with different units (Ohm/Volt) and that is the reason why, I was proposing the new physical dimension "IR". So that, I still think a new physical dimension is needed and useful but if finally we would decide not to include it, we had to decide how to manage this parameter.

I will attend next meeting so we can discuss about it

Best regards

MIguel Ángel Gallego

[DiVe]

Dear colleagues,

after the discussion in the todays meeting I have now prepared an entry for a new (derived) physical dimension:
Electrical Isolation
to code the required result value as (constant) channel:

2021-09-20 18_23_54-Access - mme_code _ Datenbank- D__Daten_03_Projekte_10_ISO_02_DB_##Work_01_Versi.png (13.59 KiB) Viewed 7701 times

(database 1.6.3 proposal 1)

Kind regards,
Dirk

[Miguel A Gallego]

Dear all,

After the last meeting, I am writing what should be something very close to the final version of this proposal.

The list with the ISOCODES that should be used would be:

measures.png (42.58 KiB) Viewed 7690 times

The figures illustrating the ISOCODES given before are the showed below:

1. Giving an overall view of what an electric vehicle is, would be:

Vehicle HV diagram.PNG (105.81 KiB) Viewed 7690 times

2. The main measures would be:

Vb_V1_V2.PNG (140.7 KiB) Viewed 7690 times

3. The diagram showing V1' & V2' measures, used to calculate isolation resistance when main relays are closed (voltage in the HV bus) would be:

V1P.PNG (131.59 KiB) Viewed 7690 times

V2P.PNG (130.87 KiB) Viewed 7690 times

4. The diagrams illustrating ISOCODES used when the isolation resistance is measured with a Megohmmeter (main relays open and absence of voltage in the HV bus) would be:

Ri+ REGULAR with Megohmeter.PNG (152.31 KiB) Viewed 7690 times

Ri+ INVERTED with Megohmeter.PNG (154.07 KiB) Viewed 7690 times

Ri- REGULAR with Megohmeter.PNG (153.01 KiB) Viewed 7690 times

Ri- INVERTED with Megohmeter.PNG (160.88 KiB) Viewed 7690 times

5. The Electrical Isolation (IE) expressed in (Ohm/Volt) is the result of dividing the Isolation resistance (Ohm) by the High Voltage System working voltage (V)

Thanks and best regards

Miguel A. Gallego

[mneirotti]

Dear All,

Did those codes become official or are there other official codes regarding HV battery channels?

Thank you,
Matteo Neirotti

[Miguel A Gallego]

Dear Matteo,

The proposal was accepted and new figures are being created to make it official. Should be available soon.

Best regards

Miguel Ángel

[DiVe]

Dear All,

please find the related figures for review and discussion at the board:
viewforum.php?f=159