Summary of discussion points on OICA draft, 3rd EVS meeting
EVS-04-05e
Clause
Items
Summary of discussion at the 3rd EVS meeting
[not fully discussed comments in red]
General
issue
SOC for REESS testing
Currently proposed by OICA at 50% SOC, Japan made a
counterproposal to perform tests at 95% SOC
(Reference document - EVS-03-16e.doc). Japan made a
presentation summarizing the SOC applied in battery
tests in various standards which indicated that 80-100%
SOC is commonplace. China and US agreed that 50%
SOC is not sufficient. OICA will reconsider this proposal.
Japan indicated their presentation would be made
available on the IG website(Reference document - EVS03-22e.xls).
3.
Definitions
3.3.
3.31.
Cell
Rupture
Clarification is required for the definition of (fuel)
cell and rupture. OICA will look how terms are
used in document and will modify definitions if
appropriate.
3.9.
Electric power train
Korea Comment [Need for a definition of a traction
motor?]
5.1.1.2.4.
Isolation resistance
5.1.1.2.4.
1.
Electric power train consisting
of separate Direct Current or
Alternating Current buses.
UL comment [How is the use of a wiring harness
proof of meeting the criteria in a) below? How is it
determined that the protections are robust enough
to last over the vehicle service life as noted in item
b) below? How are motor housings electronic
converter cases or connections determined to
Page1 of 8
Comments from OICA
Summary of discussion points on OICA draft, 3rd EVS meeting
EVS-04-05e
meet this criteria?]
UL comment [How is it determined whether or not
isolation resistance requirements can be
maintained over time? This statement seems a bit
ambiguous. There should always be two levels of
protection from electric shock and they should be
still functional after testing.]
5.1.1.2.4.
2.
Electric power train consisting
of combined DC- and ACbuses
Korea Comment [Note: FMVSS 305 requires the
isolation monitoring system in the case there the
lower level of isolation resistance is used.]
5.2.2.
Protection against electric
shock
UL comment [Does this mean that Isolation
Resistance does not need to be met if there are
multiple parts of the high voltage bus exposed? I
think that the statement needs to be re-worded to
clarify the intent.]
UL comment [The requirements in 5.2.2.1 currently
limit the voltage within 1 minute to the values
noted in 5.2.2.1. Is there a peak limit value of
voltage prior to the 60 seconds?]
5.2.2.2.
Low electrical energy
The US questions the value cited for minimum energy
causing a safety concern (i.e. 0.2 J). The IG chairman
agreed with OICA to organize a teleconference to
address this topic specifically. All member of the IG are
welcome to participate.
5.2.2.3.
Physical protection
The US requested OICA to quantify the likelihood of
occurrence of the direct contact scenarios described by
NHTSA. OICA will provide more data for this.
5.2.2.4.2.
Electrical power train consisting
UL comment [There should be no evidence of fire or
explosion without consideration of time frame. What
Page2 of 8
Summary of discussion points on OICA draft, 3rd EVS meeting
EVS-04-05e
of combined DC- and AC buses
about safety of first responders?]
Korea comment [Note – comment about measurement
of isolation loss in RESS – diagrams in the test section
may not cover this adequately]
5.2.3.3.
Fire hazard
UL comment [There is no requirement for RESS
exposure to water such as what may occur is located
towards the bottom of a vehicle and driven through
flooded viaducts. Why hasn’t this been considered, as
there is evidence of field problems due to flooding of
EVs in the US? Recommend including the immersion
test or something similar from SAE J2464. It may be
good to consider partial flooding as a potential field
incident that could occur to an RESS located in a vehicle
in a location that may be subject to flooding exposure
such as underbody locations.]
7.1.5.
Test conditions and test
procedure regarding post-crash
7.1.5.2.6.
Electrolyte leakage
7.2.2.
Vibration test
7.2.2.1.
Purpose
US comment [Very much agree – but that is not called
out in 7.2.2.3]
7.2.2.2.
Installation
-wording “REESS”
US comment [Explain – cells and connectors are not
representative nor acceptable in these tests – only
exception believed appropriate is where the RESS were
divided into more than one unit on the vehicle and in
that case both/all units would be tested]
Korea comment [note – what is an appropriate coating?
– specification needed? Gas sampling to detect
electrolyte vapor? Difficult to measure on vehicle. Treat
gas emissions in the environmental restrictions on
hazardous substances? How is leakage measured?]
Page3 of 8
Summary of discussion points on OICA draft, 3rd EVS meeting
7.2.2.2.
- wording “Test device”
7.2.2.3.2.2. Test procedures
EVS-04-05e
US comment [Call out stiffness requirements in
engineering terms – ratios and ranges.]
The vibration test procedure from UN 38.3 is used by
OICA however different values for the vibration profile
are used to make it representative of battery real-life
application. The US requested more information on
how representative this profile is of application in a
vehicle and also why a test duration of 3 hours is
chosen. OICA will provide data on this.
US comment [Regarding an observation period of 1h, 10
days or more, latent failures are issue]
US comment [Regarding the test environment, device
must be tested for normal functionality via cycle
testing]
7.2.3.
Thermal shock and cycling test
7.2.3.1.
Purpose
US comment [It is an environmental stress test used in
evaluating product reliability as well as in
manufacturing to catch early-term, latent defects by
inducing failure through thermal fatigue. As a safety
performance test it should be used to “stress the
system” as done in development, As the OEMs are
performing 40 cycle tests the acceptance criteria should
be no less than 25 cycles – the 5 cycle test called out is
meaningless. The test should be done with the
case/enclosure open or removed and the RESS should
be test cycled for functionality]
7.2.3.3.
Procedures
Following discussions, OICA will provide data supporting
their suggested temperature range i.e. -40 to +60C,
other standards (ISO, SAE) use higher upper
Page4 of 8
Summary of discussion points on OICA draft, 3rd EVS meeting
EVS-04-05e
temperatures. Questions also arose about the rationale
for the number of temperature cycles (only 5), the
upper temperature limit at +60 C instead of +80 C and
the duration of the observation period. NHTSA
research will perform tests starting with 25 cycles – the
results will be shared with the IG as far as available.
US comment [Regarding an observation period of 1h, 24
hour min]
Korea comment [what about presence of smoke? –
what about heat rise? Observation time interval - 1hr?
Longer?]
7.2.4.
Mechanical shock test
7.2.4.3.2.
Test procedure
Korea comment [Table 3 Values for category 1-1
vehicles: May be a challenge to conduct this test for
heavy battery systems – subject to test equipment
capabilities]
7.2.5.
(5.3.4.2.)
Mechanical integrity test
Korea comment [Need to address test procedures to be
acceptable for self-certification environment]
7.2.5.2.
Installation
-wording REESS
US comment [Complete RESS only – this makes no
sense in sub-component]
7.2.5.3.2.
Crush test
US comment [Inadequate. Crush test, along with
mechanical Shock, have been the subject of extensive
debate, and little data. Therefore, this has been the
subject of one of NHTSAs research projects that is
defining this more completely. ]
7.2.6.
Fire resistance test
7.2.6.3.2.
Test procedure
The US considered the test duration (60 + 70 seconds) is
too short to be representative of realistic fire scenario.
OICA commented that the duration represents scenario
Page5 of 8
Summary of discussion points on OICA draft, 3rd EVS meeting
EVS-04-05e
where persons inside a burning vehicle have time to
evacuate. The OICA proposal is based on the
established UN R34 gasoline pool fire. ALLIANCE only
observed bonfire tests where battery underwent a
benign controlled burn. NHTSA is sponsoring research
on battery fire including gas release analysis and will
have the updated information later. Japan commented
that an EV would probably have a similar risk in a fire
compared to diesel ICE however the risk from high
pressure gas (eg in H2 vehicle) is a bigger concern.
Discussion on this issue will continue as research data
becomes available.
Korea comment [For a component based test,
7.2.6.3.2.2. Component based test A or 7.2.6.3.2.3.
Component based test B. can be chosen.]
[7.2.6.3.2.2. Component based test A
a. Install the Tested-Device on the fire resistance test
device by the horizontal to the ground.
b. Install 5 or more temperature sensors in the whole
area of the Tested-Device can be represented with the
height of 25mm±10mm from the bottom of the TestedDevice's external surface by the vertical direction.
c. Heat the entire lower part of battery equally and
directly through fuel combustion.
d. Increase the temperature to 800°C within 30
seconds, cease the heating 2 minutes after reaching
800°C. Complete the test after 2 hours passes.
However, the temperature shall not exceed 1,100oC.
e. Check if there is any explosion on the TestedDevice during the test.
Page6 of 8
Summary of discussion points on OICA draft, 3rd EVS meeting
EVS-04-05e
7.2.6.3.2.3.
Component based test B
The Tested-Device shall be placed on a grating table
positioned above the pan, in an orientation according
to the manufacturer’s design intent.
The grating table shall be constructed by steel rods,
diameter 6-10 mm, with 4-6 cm in between. If needed
the steel rods could be supported by flat steel parts.]
7.2.7.
External short circuit protection
7.2.7.3.
Procedures
7.2.9.
Over-discharge protection test
7.2.9.3.
Procedures
7.2.10.
Over-temperature protection
test
7.2.10.3.
Procedures
Discussion arose concerning the chosen resistance of
the short (i.e. 5mΩ). OICA will include a rationale for
this choice.
OICA propose this test with the over-discharge
protection system installed in order to demonstrate the
functionality of this system. Korea questioned the
suitability of this test (discharge down to 25% nominal
voltage) for super capacitors or flywheels. The IG will
decide what REESS devices will be included in GTR and
OICA will then propose any required modifications for
tests.
The US questioned the rationale for the 1 hour
observation time. OICA enquired as to a
counterproposal but this would not be agreed during
this meeting.
It was questioned why a specific temperature e.g. 60 C
or higher is not suggested in this test. OICA indicated
Page7 of 8
Summary of discussion points on OICA draft, 3rd EVS meeting
EVS-04-05e
that this may be design restrictive but they would
consider specifying a temperature.
Others
Hydrogen emissions
Japan suggested inclusion of this requirement to cover
emissions from aqueous electrolyte (open) type
batteries e.g. lead acid. While not currently
commonplace this type of battery may be used for
traction purposes. OICA will introduce this as part of
the draft.
The EU questioned the need for international
harmonisation efforts if technology will only be applied
in some markets.
Page8 of 8