Cec 500 2018 024

Energy Research and Development Division
FINAL PROJECT REPORT
Energy Research and Development Division

Vehicle-to-Grid Testing
FINAL PROJECT REPORT
and Demonstration
California Energy Commission

Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor
October 2018 | CEC-500-2018-024 i
Month Year | CEC-XXX-XXXX-XXX

PREPARED BY:
Primary Author(s):
Dan Markiewicz
Brian Wechtenhiser
Jennifer Brendlinger
Matthew Campbell
Michael Tims
Jeffrey Yanuck
Concurrent Technologies Corporation

100 CTC Drive
Johnstown, PA 15904
www.ctc.com
Contract Number: 500-12-016
PREPARED FOR:
California Energy Commission
Reynaldo Gonzalez
Contract Manager
Aleecia Gutierrez
Office Manager
ENERGY GENERATION RESEARCH OFFICE
Laurie ten Hope

Deputy Director
ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
Drew Bohan
Executive Director
DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared as the result of work sponsored by the California Energy Commission. It does not necessarily represent
the views of the Energy Commission, its employees, or the State of California. The Energy Commission, the State of California, its
employees, contractors, and subcontractors make no warranty, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the
information in this report; nor does any party represent that the uses of this information will not infringe upon privately owned
rights. This report has not been approved or disapproved by the California Energy Commission, nor has the California Energy
Commission passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the information in this report.
PREFACE
The California Energy Commission entered into an agreement through the Alternative Renewable
Fuel Vehicle Technology (ARFVT) Program with California Institute of Technology to accelerate
developing liquid fuels directly from sunlight through molecular catalysts and membranes.
Assembly Bill 118 (Núñez, Chapter 750, Statutes of 2007), created the ARFVT Program. The
statute, amended by AB 109 (Núñez) Chapter 313, Statutes of 2008), authorizes the California
Energy Commission to develop and deploy alternative and renewable fuels and advanced
transportation technologies to help attain the state’s climate change policies. The Energy
Commission provides financial support for projects that:
• Develop and improve alternative and renewable low-carbon fuels.
• Enhance alternative and renewable fuels for existing and developing engine
technologies.
• Produce alternative and renewable low-carbon fuels in California.
• Decrease, on a full-fuel-cycle basis, the overall impact and carbon footprint of

alternative and renewable fuels and increase sustainability.
• Expand fuel infrastructure, fueling stations, and equipment.
• Improve light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicle technologies.
• Retrofit medium- and heavy-duty on-road and non-road vehicle fleets.
• Expand infrastructure connected with existing fleets, public transit, and

transportation corridors.
• Establish workforce training programs, conduct public education and promotion,

and create technology centers.
To be eligible for funding this project was consistent with the Energy Commission’s ARFVT
Investment Plan, updated annually.
i
ABSTRACT
Widespread adoption of plug-in electric vehicles is critical to achieving California’s low-carbon
transportation goals; however, high vehicle cost remains one of the primary barriers to
increased market penetration. Preliminary analyses of the ability for plug-in electric vehicles to
provide grid resources through development of vehicle-to-grid technologies indicate that the
associated economic benefits could be positive under the right conditions, and potentially
significant enough to offset the higher upfront cost of the vehicles. Additionally, strategic
integration of plug-in electric vehicles can provide grid stabilization opportunities through
aggregated storage and ancillary services strategies.
The U. S. Department of Defense conducted a vehicle-to-grid demonstration at Los Angeles Air

Force Base and explored revenue generating capability of such a fleet by participating in the
frequency regulation market for California Independent System Operator’s ancillary services.
Repurposing electric vehicles battery packs after they have lost their effectiveness for vehicle
primary use has the potential to decrease the total lifetime cost of ownership of plug-in electric
vehicles batteries. These battery packs are typically removed from service with significant
capacity remaining, resulting in a surplus of batteries with significant potential for reuse. By
gaining value from these used batteries in the ancillary services market, the life-cycle costs and
environmental impacts for electric vehicles are reduced. Without a secondary market or
application for these used batteries, concerns for the environmental consequences and battery
replacement cost will grow and hinder electric vehicle market growth.
This project quantifies the effects to battery life and performance for current and future vehicle-
to-grid use of plug-in electric vehicle batteries and associated technology in California. The
information learned through the research can be useful for developing a compensation strategy
for clients willing to offer their assets for use in a vehicle-to-grid application.
Keywords: California Energy Commission, plug-in electric vehicles, vehicle-to-grid, second-life,

batteries, lithium-ion, ancillary services, hybrid electric vehicles
Please use the following citation for this report:
Markiewicz, Daniel, Brian Wechtenhiser, Jennifer Brendlinger, Matthew Campbell, Michael

Tims, Jeffrey Yanuck (Concurrent Technologies Corporation). 2018. Vehicle-to-Grid Testing
and Demonstration Final Report. California Energy Commission. CEC-500-2018-024.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................. i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................... iii

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ vi
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................... vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 1

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1
Project Purpose ................................................................................................................................... 1
Project Approach................................................................................................................................ 1
Project Results .................................................................................................................................... 2
CHAPTER 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 3

Project Background ................................................................................................................................ 3
Problem Statement ................................................................................................................................. 3
Project Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 4
Scope of This Report .............................................................................................................................. 4
CHAPTER 2: LAAFB Field Demonstration Testing and Analysis .................................................. 5

LAAFB Demonstration Vehicles .......................................................................................................... 6
Vehicle Type Summaries .................................................................................................................. 7
Vehicles at Demonstration Start ...................................................................................................... 8
Bi-directional Inverters.................................................................................................................... 10
Factors Leading to Battery Degradation ........................................................................................... 10
Calendar Aging ................................................................................................................................ 10
Cycles ................................................................................................................................................. 11
Use (Total Energy) ........................................................................................................................... 11
Depth of Discharge .......................................................................................................................... 11
Temperature ..................................................................................................................................... 11
Analysis Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 11
Use Cases........................................................................................................................................... 12
Data Sources ..................................................................................................................................... 13
Report Types ..................................................................................................................................... 16
Timeline ............................................................................................................................................. 16
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 17
Report 1 – Use Summary ................................................................................................................ 17
Report 2 – Categorical Maximum DOD Report........................................................................... 23
iii
Report 3 – SOH Capacity Report ................................................................................................... 25
Report 4 – Energy Report ................................................................................................................ 29
Results and Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 30
SOH Testing Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 31
Technical Challenges ....................................................................................................................... 31
CHAPTER 3: Laboratory Research, Testing and Analysis .............................................................. 32

Laboratory Testing Infrastructure ..................................................................................................... 32
Battery Test Articles ......................................................................................................................... 32
Laboratory Testing Facility ............................................................................................................. 33
Test System Controller .................................................................................................................... 34
Test Plan ................................................................................................................................................ 36
Standard Test Cycle ......................................................................................................................... 37
State-of-Health (SOH) Test Cycle .................................................................................................. 41
Nameplate Capacity Comparison Test Cycle .............................................................................. 42
Driving and V2G Cycle Comparison ................................................................................................ 43
Calendar Aging ................................................................................................................................ 44
Cycles ................................................................................................................................................. 44
Use (Total Energy) ........................................................................................................................... 45
Depth of Discharge (DOD) ............................................................................................................. 45
Temperature ..................................................................................................................................... 45
C-Rates ............................................................................................................................................... 46
Float Charge ...................................................................................................................................... 46
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 46
Temperature Comparisons ............................................................................................................. 48
State-of-Health Capacity Measurements ...................................................................................... 51
NCC Capacity Measurements ........................................................................................................ 57
Depth of Discharge .......................................................................................................................... 58
Use (Total Energy) ........................................................................................................................... 62
Technical Issues .................................................................................................................................... 71
CHAPTER 4: Modeling Simulation and Analysis ............................................................................ 74

Simulation Tools Investigated ............................................................................................................ 74
Simulation Tool Selected ..................................................................................................................... 75
Profile Construction ............................................................................................................................. 76
Software Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 78
iv
CHAPTER 5: Second-Life Battery Applications ............................................................................... 84
Potential Applications/Benefits .......................................................................................................... 85
Energy Storage Challenges ................................................................................................................. 86
Factors Impacting Economics for Second-Life Uses ....................................................................... 87
Delaying Recycling Through Repurposing .................................................................................. 87
Availability of PEV Batteries .......................................................................................................... 88
Capacity of Second-Life PEV Batteries ......................................................................................... 89
Battery Performance Data ............................................................................................................... 90
Potential Cost .................................................................................................................................... 90
Liabilities Concerns ......................................................................................................................... 91
Potential Up Side.............................................................................................................................. 92
Second-Life Requirements .................................................................................................................. 92
Energy Storage System .................................................................................................................... 92
Electrical Interconnection on Grid ................................................................................................. 93
Operating Characteristics ............................................................................................................... 93
Technical Requirements .................................................................................................................. 94
Monitoring/Telemetry: .................................................................................................................... 95
Vehicle Battery Pack Types ............................................................................................................ 95
Electrical Interconnection of Second-Life Vehicle Battery Packs .............................................. 95
Mechanical Mounting for the Interconnected Battery Packs ..................................................... 96
Cooling Requirements for the Interconnected Battery Packs .................................................... 96
Software Control System ................................................................................................................ 97
Safety Requirements ........................................................................................................................ 98
Codes and Standards ....................................................................................................................... 99
Preliminary Design Concept for Second-Life Battery Application ............................................... 99
Assumptions ................................................................................................................................... 100
Preliminary Design – Drawing Package ..................................................................................... 100
Determination of Condition Diagnostic Protocol .......................................................................... 101
Protocol Development ................................................................................................................... 102
Underwriters Laboratories Recent Activity ............................................................................... 105
DoC Laboratory Testing................................................................................................................ 106
Results of Battery Module Testing .............................................................................................. 109
Battery Evaluation Methods ......................................................................................................... 121
Grading Methods ........................................................................................................................... 123
Results and Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 126
v
CHAPTER 6: Summary and Conclusions ......................................................................................... 127
LAAFB Field Demonstration ............................................................................................................ 127
Laboratory Research, Testing and Analysis ................................................................................... 127
Modeling Simulation and Analysis ................................................................................................. 128
Second-Life Battery Applications .................................................................................................... 128
Benefits to California ......................................................................................................................... 128
Acronyms, Abbreviations and Symbols ........................................................................................... 130
Appendix A: Battery Related Terminology – Definitions of Terms ...........................................A-1
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: V2G Battery Test Materials Procured 6
Table 2: PEV-V2G Vehicles at LAAFB 7
Table 3: PEV-V2G Vehicle Specifications 7
Table 4: Test Vehicle Information 9
Table 5: Data Categories 13
Table 6: Nissan LEAF Driving Profile for Trips Greater than One Mile 18
Table 7: EVI REEV Driving Profile for Trips Greater than One Mile 19
Table 8: Phoenix LEAF Driving Profile for Trips Greater than One Mile 20
Table 9: VIA Driving Profile for Trips Greater than One Mile 22
Table 10: SOH Test Summary 27
Table 11: Battery Systems Procured 32
Table 12: Test Plan 36
Table 13: Standard Test Cycle Duration and Energy Usage 38
Table 14: Theoretical DOD 45
Table 15: Test File Classification 46
Table 16: Battery Pack Temperatures 50
Table 17: V2G Pack Nameplate Capacity Comparison Test Results 57
Table 18: Control Pack Nameplate Capacity Comparison Test Results 58
Table 19: Summary Information – Observed Depth-of-Discharge 59
Table 20: Summary Information – Observed Energy 63
Table 21: Rate-of-Change Information Summary; Commanded Power 66
Table 22: C-Rate Statistical Summary 70
Table 23: Simulated Energy Cycling 77
Table 24: Control Pack One-Day Profile 78
Table 25: V2G Pack One-Day Profile 78
Table 26: Results Summary 79
Table 27: Single-Day Profile Fidelity 83
vi
Table 28: Sandia National Laboratories Study Results 86
Table 29: Basic Comparison of Tested Packs 110
Table 30: V2G Pack Thermocouple Temperatures and Related Information 112
Table 31: Control Pack Thermocouple Temperatures and Related Information 112
Table 32: Resistance of V2G Pack 114
Table 33: Resistance of Control Pack 115
Table 34: Comparison of Internal Resistance Within Battery Packs 115
Table 35: V2G Pack Cell-Level Information 117
Table 36: Control Pack Cell-Level Information 117
Table 37: Weight Observations 120
Table 38: Evaluation Methods 121
Table 39: Results and Final Score Summary for Single-Score Method 124
Table 40: Example of Relative Categorical Assessment 125
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: LEAF Energy Use Summary 18
Figure 2: LEAF Time Use Summary 18
Figure 3: EVI Energy Use Summary 19
Figure 4: EVI Time Use Summary 19
Figure 5: Phoenix Energy Use Summary 21
Figure 6: Phoenix Time Use Summary 21
Figure 7: VIA Energy Use Summary 22
Figure 8: VIA Time Use Summary 22
Figure 9: Nissan LEAFs Day-by-Day Average Maximum DOD 24
Figure 10: EVIs Day-by-Day Average Maximum DOD 24
Figure 11: Phoenix Day-by-Day Average Maximum DOD 25
Figure 12: VIAs Day-by-Day Average Maximum DOD 25
Figure 13: SOH Test Results for Example Vehicle 28
Figure 14: Fleet Total V2G Energy Use 29
Figure 15: Fleet Total Driving Energy Use 30
Figure 16: CSE Test Bed 33
Figure 17: Test Bay Layout 34
Figure 18: PEV Battery Test Articles 35
Figure 19: Test Bed Design Concept 36
Figure 20: Standard Test Cycle 37
Figure 21: UDDS Driving Cycle 38
Figure 22: Valence Driving Scenario 39
Figure 23: Valence V2G 12-Hour Power Command 41
Figure 24: State-of-Health Test Cycle 42
vii
Figure 25: Nameplate Capacity Comparison Test Cycle 43
Figure 26: Ambient Temperature during Testing 49
Figure 27: Energy Efficiency over Time 49
Figure 28: Mean Pack Temperatures at End of Drive and V2G Cycles 51
Figure 29: Specimen SOH Test Run Details 52
Figure 30: Comparison of Initial and Final SOH Test Runs 53
Figure 31: Raw Pack Energy Capacity 54
Figure 32: Energy Capacity vs. Accumulated Use 55
Figure 33: Discharge Capacity over Time 56
Figure 34: Depth of Discharge Comparison 59
Figure 35: Observed 24-hour DOD for Specific Test Dates 60
Figure 36: DOD at End of Drive (EOD) and V2G Cycles for V2G Pack 61
Figure 37: DOD at End of Drive Cycles for Control Pack 62
Figure 38: Absolute Observed Accumulative Energy for Both Battery Packs 64
Figure 39: Total Energy Effects on Discharge Capacity 65
Figure 40: Impact of Charge/Discharge Cycling on Discharge Capacity 66
Figure 41: ROC Distribution of Commanded Power for Driving Segment 68
Figure 42: ROC Distribution of Commanded Power for V2G Segment 69
Figure 43: Distribution of Observed C-Rates 70
Figure 44: BLAST-S Capacity Fade Curve for V2G Profile (High-Fidelity) 80
Figure 45: Control Pack Profile (low-fidelity) 80
Figure 46: Control Pack Profile (high-fidelity) 81
Figure 47: Temperature Profile Segment Comparison 82
Figure 48: US PEV YTD 2015 Car Sales 88
Figure 49: 125-kW Battery Module Communications 101
Figure 50: DoC Diagnostic Protocol 102
Figure 51: Preliminary Battery Screening 103
Figure 52: Battery, Module or Cell Characterization 104
Figure 53: Battery, Module and Cell Sorting 105
Figure 54: Constant-Current-Discharge Segment 108
Figure 55: Pulse-Discharge Segment 109
Figure 56: Thermocouple Mounting Locations 111
Figure 57: Comparison of Internal Resistance Between V2G and Control Packs 116
Figure 58: Termination Voltage vs. Battery Capacity 118
Figure 59: Termination Voltage vs. Standard Deviation of Minimum Cell Voltages 119
Figure 60: Battery Capacity vs. Standard Deviation of Minimum Cell Voltages 120
Figure 61: Battery Capacity and Weight Relationship 121
viii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
The transportation sector accounts for 42 percent of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in California.
Since 92 percent of all transportation energy comes from petroleum-based fuels according to the
Western States Petroleum Association, California can reduce transportation emissions by
displacing petroleum-based vehicles with zero-emission electric vehicles. This vehicle displacement
will push California closer to achieving its GHG emissions and air quality goals.
The Governor’s Zero Emission Vehicle Action Plan set goals of supporting charging infrastructure
for one million zero-emission vehicles by 2020 and 1.5 million zero-emission vehicles by 2025;
however, the high cost of plug-in electric vehicles remains one of the primary barriers to increased
market penetration. One way to potentially offset these costs is to use plug-in electric vehicle
batteries as energy sources to enable participation in the electricity grid ancillary services market
using a method commonly known as “vehicle-to-grid.”
Project Purpose
The Energy Commission tasked Concurrent Technologies Corporation to conduct analysis and
produce performance data supporting a vehicle-to-grid use of plug-in electric vehicle batteries
and associated technology demonstration in California. A key aspect of this Energy Commission
project was coordination and support of the United States Department of Defense (DoD) Plug-
In Electric Vehicle Program being demonstrated at Los Angeles Air Force Base and managed by
Concurrent Technologies Corporation. The DoD program intended to show improved value for
plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) by demonstrating the benefits of vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology.
With V2G technology, idle vehicles would act as “distributed batteries” for the power grid. Los
Angeles Air Force Base would use the vehicles to co-optimize demand response (discharging
vehicles to serve building load at times of peak demand) and participating in the California
Independent System Operator’s ancillary services markets. Once the V2G portion of the
demonstration was completed, Concurrent Technology Corporation would evaluate the health
of the battery systems and perform testing to determine if batteries are suitable for energy
storage in second-use applications such as support to the grid or localized back-up power.
Project Approach
The Department of Defense Plug-In Electric Vehicle Program was responsible for the electric
vehicle charging infrastructure design and implementation, equipment, and Fleet Management
System required to perform the vehicle demonstration at Los Angeles Air Force Base. Gasoline-
and diesel-fueled fleet vehicles were replaced with plug-in electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles. Under an Energy Commission contract, Concurrent Technologies Corporation
provided battery packs and their installation from Electric Vehicles International LLC, VIA
Motors Incorporated, and Electric Vehicle Add-on Systems for test and demonstration at Los
Angeles Air Force Base. Concurrent Technologies Corporation also provided battery packs from
VIA Motors Incorporated and Valance Technology Incorporated for laboratory testing, research,
and analysis. Under a separate contract, the Energy Commission provided the Nissan LEAFs to
use at the Los Angeles Air Force Base.
1
Project Results
The DoD Plug-In Electric Vehicle Demonstration Program and Energy Commission Vehicle-to-
Grid Program confirmed V2G technology can support the DoD non-tactical fleet operations and
generate revenue from V2G market participation. However, cost parity with conventional
vehicles can only be achieved after V2G equipment is fully commercialized, leading to
improvements in system reliability. This program was successful in advancing bi-directional
technologies and established valuable infrastructure for sustaining and developing further
electric vehicle activities in future years.
Based on the testing performed under this agreement, battery life is reduced when used in V2G
applications, but the extent it is reduced varies greatly depending on the overall use profile of
the battery, as well as other use and environmental factors. Under specific test conditions, a
V2G Pack had a capacity reduction of 25 percent overrated capacity, while a Control Pack had a
capacity reduction of 16 percent. On a simplified total energy basis, the rate of degradation for
both battery packs was nearly identical. However, when accounting for operating temperature
and second-order effects of time, the corrected rate of degradation for the V2G Pack was found
to be approximately 19 percent less than the Control Pack.
Results also show that PEV batteries maintain near 80 percent of battery capacity after their
useful life in vehicle and vehicle to grid applications. This capacity provides an opportunity for
these batteries to be used in a second-life application. This project developed a “determination
of condition” protocol which provides an approach to access battery health based on available
historical data or post testing. This protocol suggests grouping batteries of similar health to
achieve the most potential of remaining battery capacity.
This vehicle-to-grid program did not participate in the California Independent System Operator
ancillary market; however, a follow-on research project is under way and funded by the Energy
Commission’s Electric Program Investment Charge (EPIC) program to further explore battery
storage. The project will add stationary second-life batteries to the existing PEV fleet site to
reduce the overall cost of ownership by maximizing battery lifetime, shifting load to reduce
electricity and demand charges, and providing V2G and V2B service, including those
supporting using onsite solar generation.
Benefits to California
This project supported California’s Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology
Program and Executive Order B-16-2012 zero-emission vehicles goals by generating and
analyzing data to better understand vehicle-to-grid technologies to achieve the state’s climate
change policies. The project benefited significantly from collaboration and coordination with, at
the time, the largest Department of Defense vehicle-to-grid demonstration project to explore
economic value of aggregated plug-in electric vehicle storage and ancillary services to the
California grid. The data in this report is useful for developing a compensation strategy for
stakeholders and clients willing to offer their assets to use in a V2G application and clients
looking to repurpose used electric vehicle batteries. California can use the information from this
report to define long-term PEV strategies, proactively working with PEV and EVSE vendors to
determine their strategies for bi-directional charging over the next decade.
2
CHAPTER 1:
Introduction
Project Background
Transportation fuels and vehicles are critical elements in California’s economy and society with
reports indicated that 96 percent of all transportation energy that Californians consume comes
from petroleum‐based fuels. To reduce the impact to the environment, including reduced
carbon emissions from transportation, the Governor’s Zero Emission Vehicle Action Plan
(following Executive Order B-16-2012) set goals of reaching 1 million zero-emission vehicles by
2020 and 1.5 million zero-emission vehicles by 2025. To meet these goals, significant changes to
the state’s fuel and vehicle profiles are necessary. Widespread adoption of plug-in electric
vehicles (PEVs) is an integral component to achieving California’s low-carbon transportation
goals. However, the high cost of PEVs continues to remain one of the primary barriers to
increased market use. One way to offset these costs is to use electric vehicle batteries as energy
sources for the electrical grid ancillary services (AS) market, commonly known as “vehicle-to-
grid” (V2G).
To gather more data regarding the effect of V2G activities on vehicles, the California Energy
Commission directed Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC) to complement a
demonstration of V2G being conducted by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Plug-In
Electric Vehicle Program. This DoD demonstration used non-tactical fleet vehicles at Los
Angeles Air Force Base (LAAFB), California with goals to:
1. Determine if V2G technology works.

2. Evaluate if V2G supports or interferes with mission operations (learning enhanced by
converting all general purpose non-tactical vehicles (NTV) to electric).
3. Determine if / how PEVs can achieve cost parity.
During this demonstration, gasoline- and diesel-fueled fleet vehicles were replaced with PEVs
and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). In addition, these vehicles were modified to be bi-
directional with the electrical grid when parked at their charging stations. Bi-directional
technology allows the vehicle batteries to be used as energy sources for the AS market and the
resulting revenue to offset electric vehicle costs.
Problem Statement
Preliminary analyses of V2G technologies indicated the associated economic benefits would be
positive, potentially significant enough to offset higher upfront costs of PEVs. However, V2G
technologies and integration have not been demonstrated at a sufficiently large scale to validate
the expected economic benefits and encourage fleet and facility operators to consider deploying
vehicle-to-grid applications. In particular, impacts to the battery performance should be
characterized to validate long-term benefits to the PEV and PHEV owners.
3
Project Objectives
The project objectives were to produce data supporting current and future V2G use of PEV
batteries in California and the associated technology and develop a preliminary design for
applying second-life PEV batteries as a stationary energy storage/resource for California utilities.
CTC was tasked to leverage the DoD V2G demonstration by procuring electric vehicle battery
test materials for use as energy sources during the demonstration. CTC evaluated data collected
from the demonstration to provide an analysis of the performance of the battery test materials
in V2G activities and identify any long-term performance issues.
Scope of This Report

This report documents the tasks performed under Agreement Number 600-012-016. Chapter 2
summarizes the collaboration and data generated during the DoD V2G demonstration activities
on LAAFB. Chapter 3 describes independent laboratory testing of PEV battery system test articles
to evaluate the effects of V2G operations. Chapter 4 describes modeling, simulation and analysis
that could be used to predict battery life in V2G applications. Chapter 5 discusses the potential
for EV batteries repurposing and provides a design concept for a large-scale energy storage
system. Chapter 6 discusses conclusions drawn from the project and provides recommendations
for California to achieve its goals for zero-emission vehicles.
4
CHAPTER 2:
LAAFB Field Demonstration Testing and Analysis
The largest nation-wide PEV V2G demonstration was conducted between 2012 and 2014 by the
U.S. DoD to better understand the effects of V2G activities on vehicle battery packs. This
demonstration was conducted at LAAFB with data collection done May 1, 2016 through April 30,
2017. During this field demonstration, gasoline- and diesel-fueled fleet vehicles were replaced
with PEVs and PHEVs. PEVs are fully electric and run completely from energy stored in the
vehicle’s battery. PHEVs use an internal combustion engine (ICE) and a battery. “Plug-in” refers
to a vehicle’s ability to recharge by plugging into a charging station connected to the electrical
power grid.
Bi-directional charging stations, also referred to Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE),
were developed and installed along with the associated power distribution infrastructure. These
charging stations allow two-way power flow from the vehicle to the grid and from the grid to
the vehicle. The charging stations and vehicle battery systems were modified to be bi-directional
with the electrical grid while meeting all requirements of the local electrical utility, Southern
California Edison. Under the DoD program, PEV battery capacity (energy) was sold to the
California Independent System Operator (California ISO), an independent grid operator that
manages the flow of electricity across 80 percent of California’s power grid. California ISO
forecasts electrical demand in short intervals, accounts for availability and acts as a traffic
controller to match buyers and sellers of electricity. This allowed the vehicle batteries to be used
as energy sources or sinks for the AS market, with the resultant revenue offsetting electric
vehicle and infrastructure costs.
Vehicle use was managed through a fleet management system (FMS), a software application
developed to reserve and dispatch vehicles. The reservation provided information on the
availability of the vehicles to allow the PEV-V2G control software to estimate the available
battery capacity of the vehicles connected to the charging stations. This information was used to
prepare a day-ahead bid for California ISO that defined available battery capacity in 1-hour
increments for a 24-hour day.
When bids were accepted, California ISO provided a real-time demand signal identifying the
specific amount of power and direction required. The system consumed the power to charge the
batteries (regulation down, consuming excess supply) or used the batteries to provide power
back to the grid (regulation up, making up for a supply shortfall). The PEV-V2G control software
received the demand signal and provided commands to each individual charging station for a
specific power setting to achieve the aggregate power requested by California ISO.
CTC monitored and collected data from vehicle battery system test materials used in the field
demonstration. Table 1 details the test materials procured under this program.
5
Table 1: V2G Battery Test Materials Procured
Number of Kilowatt-hour Total kWh
Vehicle systems (kWh) capacity capacity
Manufacturer Battery Chemistry / Vendor procured per battery procured
Electric Vehicles LiFeMgPO4 / Valence
4 53.8 215.2
International LLC
VIA Motors LiFePO4 / A123 Systems 7 21.1 147.7
Electric Vehicle 1LiFePo4 / China Aviation Lithium
Add-On Systems Battery Co., Ltd (CALB) 5 26.9 134.5
(EVAOS)
Source: Concurrent Technologies Corporation
The test materials were integrated into vehicles participating in the DoD demonstration. The
intent was to monitor how each individual vehicle battery was exercised over the course of the
demonstration. Periodic tests were performed to evaluate how the battery’s capacity degraded
over time in response to this use.
The following sections discuss the technical approach of the field demonstration data collection
and analysis effort, including:
• An overview of the vehicles used in the DoD field demonstration and their associated
batteries.
• An examination of factors leading to degradation and the differences that vehicles
experienced during the demonstration as the result of driving and V2G activities.
• The data analysis method used to quantify and characterize vehicle battery usage,
performance and degradation during the field demonstration.
• The analysis conducted on the test data to quantify the time each vehicle spent in
various activities and the results of state-of-health (SOH) testing.
LAAFB Demonstration Vehicles

To demonstrate an all-electric general-purpose fleet, the fleet consisted of EV’s in the following
categories: passenger and cargo vans, medium duty box and stake-bed trucks, pick-ups and
sedans. These systems were manufactured by Electric Vehicles International LLC (EVI), Nissan,
Phoenix Motorcars and VIA Motors (VIA). PEV types and quantities are shown in Table 2, with
vehicle type (PEV or PHEV). As indicated, the Energy Commission procured some of the
vehicle batteries as part of a contribution to the demonstration.
6
Table 2: PEV-V2G Vehicles at LAAFB
Vehicle
Manufacturer Model Quantity Item Procured By Vehicle Description
4 batteries procured under 2 Stake bed truck and 2 box
EVI REEV 4
this contract trucks; PHEV
13 vehicles procured under
Nissan LEAF 13 Sedans; PEV
separate contracts
Phoenix Phoenix
1 Procured by DoD Passenger shuttle; PEV
Motorcars Shuttle
7 batteries procured under
VIA Motors VTRUX 11 Vans; PHEV
this contract (others DoD)
F-Series Ford F-series trucks with
5 energy storage modules
*EVAOS trucks 5 aftermarket modifications;
procured under this contract
modified PHEV
*Technical issues prevented use of these vehicles.
Table 3 shows manufacturer specifications for the PEV fleet vehicles. “Rated Capacity” refers to
the manufacturer’s specified battery capacity.
Table 3: PEV-V2G Vehicle Specifications

Electric Range* Rated Capacity in
Model in miles Cargo/Passenger Capacity kilowatt-hours (kWh)
5,300 pounds (lbs.) payload / 2
REEV 40 (PHEV) 54
seats
LEAF 75 (PEV) 5 seats 24
Phoenix Shuttle 100 (PEV) 12 passengers + driver 102
2,650 lbs. (cargo van) /
VTRUX Van 32 (PHEV) 11 passengers + 1 driver 21
(passenger van)
*For PHEVs, ICE used only when electric range is exceeded. Only the range associated with battery power is
shown in the table.
Vehicle Type Summaries

The following sections provide summaries of each vehicle type used in the field demonstration.
EVI REEV Trucks

Four PHEV trucks were procured from Electric Vehicles International LLC and were prototypes
of EVI’s Range Extended Electric Vehicle (REEV) model. REEV trucks were built on a Ford F-550
chassis using EVI’s custom drive system. They were PHEVs capable of operating in a fully electric
mode, only utilizing the ICE when the vehicle battery was discharged. Two REEVS were stake
bed trucks with lift gates, which provided capacity to haul local cargo loaded by dolly, forklift or
from a dock. The other two were box trucks, which provided base personnel with medium-sized
enclosed cargo movement capabilities. The battery system was installed in the bed of the truck
reducing the available cargo space as compared to the ICE counterpart.
7
Nissan LEAFs
Thirteen Nissan LEAF PEV sedans were utilized during the demonstration. Thirteen LEAFs
were procured by the California Energy Commission under a separately funded program,
however one of these vehicles was involved in an accident and totaled in February 2016. This
totaled vehicle was replaced by a LEAF provided by the DoD demonstration in April 2016. All
of these sedans were 2012 model year and procured as used vehicles in various trim models.
Nissan North America provided a software patch that enabled bi-directional charging. (This
software is now standard on model year 2013 LEAFs and newer.) The LEAFs were used for a
variety of short-range day trip applications by base personnel.
Phoenix Shuttle
One Phoenix shuttle was used during the demonstration. This was an early production run
vehicle built using an El Dorado Aerotech chassis, built on the Ford E350 cutaway cab. The
Phoenix shuttle was outfitted with accessories such as power outlets and overhead luggage
racks. Primary use was as a regular mass transit circular route around the base, picking up and
dropping off personnel. The shuttle typically ran 40 to 50 miles, or approximately six transit
loops, per day. As a secondary application, the shuttle was used to transport dignitaries to and
from the airport on an approximately monthly basis.
VIA VTRUX Vans

Eleven VTRUX vans manufactured by VIA Motors were used during the demonstration.
VTRUX vans were built on the chassis of a Chevrolet Express 2500. They were PHEVs capable
of operating in a fully electric mode, only utilizing the ICE when the vehicle battery was exhausted.
Ten vans were in the passenger configuration, which could accommodate 11 passengers and the
driver, while the remaining van was in the cargo configuration, with its rear space cleared for
cargo transport. Many of the passenger vans were used on a regular mass transit circular route
around the base, picking up and dropping off personnel. These vans were often driven almost
100 miles, or up to 13 transit loops, during the day. The vans were typically not charged mid-
mission, meaning that the vans would transition to running on ICE after exceeding their
electric-only range. The cargo vans and passenger vans were also used in a variety of day trip
applications.
Vehicles at Demonstration Start

The EVI REEV, Phoenix Shuttle and VIA VTRUX vehicles were prototype production runs
manufactured specifically for the PEV-V2G program, with limited pre-demonstration usage.
The Nissan LEAF sedans were commercial vehicles purchased from the used vehicle
aftermarket. Therefore, the Nissan LEAF batteries experienced some capacity loss from rated
specification due to regular driving activities prior to the demonstration. Vehicle use for a one-
year demonstration period was analyzed—May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2017. Table 4 shows
the following information about each vehicle:
8
Table 4: Test Vehicle Information
Demo
Site Arrival Arrival Start Demo End
Type Vehicle ID Date Mileage Mileage Mileage
12B80011 Oct 11, 2013 7,389 10,336 11,934
12B80012 Oct 11, 2013 5,940 9,517 11,772
12B80013 Oct 11, 2013 7,140 10,098 12,631
12B80014 Oct 11, 2013 4,945 7,773 10,518
12B80015 Oct 11, 2013 6,601 10,023 12,379
12B80016 Oct 11, 2013 4,576 6,961 7,534
Nissan LEAF
12B80018 Oct 11, 2013 3,282 5,148 8,322
Sedans
12B80019 Oct 11, 2013 4,011 7,685 10,486
12B80020 Oct 11, 2013 4,226 6,492 7,692
12B80021 Oct 11, 2013 5,790 8,395 9,386
12B80022 Oct 11, 2013 9,069 10,627 11,471
12B80023 Oct 11, 2013 4,326 6,529 10,706
12B80024* April 15,2016 1,716 1,716 1,764
044M580 Sep 30, 2015 <500 1,026 3,784
042M778 Sep 30, 2015 <500 1,581 4,635
14Z10424 Sep 30, 2015 <500 2,565 3,665
14Z10425 Sep 30, 2015 <500 1,855 5,651
14Z10426 Sep 30, 2015 <500 1,010 1,886
VIA VTRUX 14Z10427 Sep 30, 2015 <500 2,058 4,477
14Z10429 Sep 30, 2015 <500 6,265 10,125
14Z10430 Sep 30, 2015 <500 1,313 9,271
14Z10431 Sep 30, 2015 <500 1,633 8,689
14Z10432 Sep 30, 2015 <500 2,322 4,792
14Z10433 Sep 30, 2015 <500 361 777
14B80133 Mar 18, 2015 <500 2,788 2,949
14B80134 Apr 1, 2015 <500 13,476 13,514
EVI REEV
14B80135 May 27, 2015 <500 1,153 1,236
14N80136 June 8, 2015 <500 6,598 6,687
Phoenix Shuttle 14Z10434 Jan 15, 2015 <500 4,818 11,500
*LEAF 12B80024 was a replacement for a wrecked vehicle and experienced no driving for the majority of the
demonstration due to delays obtaining a federal license plate.
The primary purpose of the DoD demonstration was to test the viability of V2G with PEVs.
Consequently, the demonstration personnel did not focus on recording every charge and
discharge from individual vehicle batteries as the V2G system was tested and brought into
service. Limited market participation began as early as October 2015. This means that all
vehicles underwent driving, charging, and discharging activities before the formal beginning of
the V2G test period, and those activities are not included in this analysis. Therefore, vehicle
9
battery degradation from the new as-manufactured rated specification likely occurred during
these activities.
Bi-directional Inverters
V2G operation requires a bi-directional inverter to act as the power interface between the
alternating current (AC) electrical grid and the direct current (DC) battery. One significant
factor in selection of charging stations was the location of the bi-directional inverter. In the case
of DC-connect PEVs, the inverter is located inside the EVSE, and energy flows to and from the
vehicle’s battery pack through a DC power connection to the EVSE. In the case of AC-connect
PEVs, the bi-directional inverter is located on-board the vehicle, with an AC connection to a
simpler charging station. Vehicle types used in this demonstration were connected as follows:
• Phoenix shuttle bus – DC-connect PEV
• EVI REEV – DC-connect PHEV
• VIA vans – AC-connect PHEV and on-board bi-directional inverter
• Nissan LEAF sedans – DC-connect PEV.
As detailed in the Analysis Methodology Section, much of the data collected during the
demonstration came from monitoring power flow through the inverters. For the Phoenix, EVI
trucks and LEAFs, the inverter was located inside the charging station, and inverter data were
correlated to a specific vehicle by tracking which vehicle was connected for each transaction.
For the VIA vans, each van had its own on-board inverter whose data were queried and tracked
through the on-board communications system.
Factors Leading to Battery Degradation

To truly understand potential degradation resulting from V2G participation, it is important to
investigate the factors leading to battery degradation and how they relate to vehicle battery use
during the monitored demonstration period. Degradation of lithium-ion cells depends on
calendar aging and the number of cycles, as well as operational conditions such as use, depth of
discharge (DOD) and temperature. To provide context for data analysis, the following sections
summarize these factors and how each vehicle battery pack may have been impacted by these
factors.
Calendar Aging
The aging process leading to battery degradation, with the exception of battery usage (cycles), is
referred to as calendar aging. Calendar aging prior to the V2G demonstration period is not well
documented for these vehicles. Although the date of manufacture for the Nissan LEAFs can be
approximated from their model year and for the other vehicles based on their delivery date, no
specific information was available from vendors regarding when vehicle battery packs were
assembled or at what temperature they were stored prior to May 1, 2016. For this analysis,
calendar aging during the one-year demonstration could not be isolated from the battery
cycling based on several factors such as previous battery use.
10
Cycles
A battery cycle is commonly understood as the complete discharge of a fully charged battery
with a subsequent recharge. Battery manufacturers provide cycle life projections as the number
of cycles at a given C-rate, a measure of the rate at which a battery is charged/discharged
relative to its maximum amp-hour capacity, DOD and temperature until battery capacity drops
to 80 percent of the rated capacity. This is difficult to correlate with actual usage because most
cycles do not follow this identical pattern, but it does provide a reference. Batteries are usually
operated under partial discharges of varying depth before being completely (or in some cases
only partially) recharged.
Use (Total Energy)

Another factor in battery degradation is usage or total energy. This is the total energy (typically
given in watt-hours) removed from or added to the battery. As a battery is charged and
discharged, electrode materials swell and contract causing the battery components to weaken.
Usage was a factor tracked in detail during the V2G demonstration, and total energy removed
or added to vehicle batteries on a daily basis during specific use cases will be assessed in the
Analysis Methodology Section.
Depth of Discharge
The depth of discharge (DOD) is a measure in percentage of the amount of energy discharged
relative to the current battery capacity. By definition, its value plus the state of charge (SOC)
must total 100 percent. For example, if the SOC is 80 percent, the DOD is 20 percent. Batteries
experience more degradation and shorter life when experiencing higher DOD. In some cases,
reducing DOD from 100 percent to 80 percent can double the cycle life of a battery. The DOD
for each vehicle battery during each use case was tracked on a daily basis during the V2G
demonstration and will be evaluated in the Analysis Methodology Section.
Temperature
Temperature has a strong impact on the degradation of lithium-ion batteries. Most battery
corrosion occurs during charge/discharge cycles. The rate of corrosion increases at higher
temperatures. The best cycle life can be obtained at moderate temperatures. The maximum pack
temperature experienced by each vehicle battery during various use cases was recorded and
will be considered in the Analysis Methodology Section.
Analysis Methodology
Proper quantification and characterization of vehicle battery performance is reliant on a
determination of unique vehicle use instances throughout the evaluation period and a
compilation of vehicle performance data for each of the identified usage instances. This section
describes the analysis conducted on demonstration data gathered between May 1, 2016 and
April 30, 2017. Information about analysis methodology and data sources is provided in the
following sections.
11
Use Cases
Vehicle battery activity fall into six “use cases,” which describe the type of activity engaging the
vehicle battery— driving, V2G, cell balancing, battery health tests, other and unknown. These
use cases were used extensively in the analysis to show the vehicle battery charge/discharge
activity due to regular PEV driving and charging compared to V2G.
Driving
This use case represents time while the vehicle was being driven, as well as any time the vehicle
was active and not connected to a charging station (e.g., idle time). An on-board data collection
system was used to capture this information for all vehicles participating in the demonstration.
While the majority of battery activity during driving was discharge, some charging occurred as
a result of regenerative braking returning energy to the vehicle battery or when the ICE was
engaged on PHEVs.
V2G
This use case represents time when the vehicle was participating in the V2G market. These
events typically took place in hour-long intervals. While market participation treated the entire
PEV fleet as a single energy source, matching individual vehicle data against time of
participation allowed a determination to be made of how much energy was charged and
discharged from each specific vehicle battery.
Cell Balancing
Cell balancing represents an activity conducted periodically to ensure charges between individual
cells of the vehicle battery were kept balanced. Typically, PEVs carry out cell balancing while
connected to EVSEs according to the programming of their battery control systems. However,
during V2G system development, it was determined that cell balancing of the EVI REEVs and
the Phoenix Shuttle could interfere with V2G activity and force the vehicles out of market
participation. Therefore, they were given designated periods of time during which the battery
management systems could conduct cell balancing and were otherwise not allowed to enter cell
balancing mode. This time period is represented by the use case Cell Balancing.
This use case does not apply to Nissan LEAF sedans or the VIA vans. The cell balancing of
LEAFs did not interfere with V2G activities, and LEAFs were therefore allowed to cell balance
freely. LEAF cell balancing can be assumed to be occurring during the “other” use case for
LEAF sedans. VIA did not implement cell balancing before the conclusion of the demonstration,
so no activity was recorded under any use cases.
Battery Health Tests
Battery health tests, also known as state-of-health (SOH) tests, were conducted for vehicle batteries
on a monthly basis, depending on equipment availability. During SOH testing, fully charged
vehicle batteries were discharged to a minimum threshold while measuring the amount of energy
removed from the batteries. This process quantified pack energy capacity and provided a means
of assessing degradation and projecting battery performance. SOH tests made up a small
percentage of total vehicle battery activity, but they are characterized as a separate use case since
SOH charging and discharging would not be required under standard PEV or V2G usage.
12
Grid Connected
This use case represents normal charging and discharging when the PEV was connected to an
EVSE. It included charging the battery after a driving mission, bringing the battery to a specific
level of charge in preparation for market participation, sitting connected to an EVSE with no
charging or discharging occurring, and any charge or discharge activity with an unidentified
purpose.
Unknown – no data
This use case represents time periods for which no data were available. This use case included
times when the PEV was turned off while not connected to an EVSE, with the expectation that
the vehicle battery was not undergoing any activity. In some cases, it may also represent a
failure of the on-board data collection system.
Data Sources
To identify the above categories of vehicle use, the following types of data were collected
throughout the demonstration period between May 1, 2016 and April 30, 2017.
• Driving Data – This information detailed how each vehicle was utilized during driving
activities. Information included trip duration, mileage, driving conditions, and any charge/
discharge of the vehicle battery while the vehicle was moving.
• V2G Market Participation – This information covered V2G market participation for the
fleet as a whole and how each individual vehicle battery was utilized during regulation
up and regulation down activities.
• Stationary Non-V2G – This information included activities while connected to LAAFB
charging stations not related to V2G. This includes normal charging/discharging,
preparation for market participation, cell balancing, battery health tests and miscellaneous
use.
Two data collection devices were used to gather this information—the On-base Electric Vehicle
Infrastructure (OB-EVI) and FleetCarma On-Board Data Collection (OBDC). Table 5 shows the
information derived from these two sources and the data types they provided. These data sources
are discussed in more detail in the following sections.
Table 5: Data Categories
V2G Market Stationary
Source Data Category Driving Participation Non-V2G
Inverter Readings X X
CAISO Dispatch Results X
OB-EVI
Battery Health Test X
Cell Balancing X
Trip Reports X
FleetCarma
Charge Reports X X
OBDC
Real-Time Data X X X
X – Data Available
13
OB-EVI
The transition from conventional vehicles to a PEV fleet required a fundamental change in fleet
management strategies. Primarily, the fleet manager needed to maintain cognizance of the
charge state of each PEV battery, as well as the range capabilities of each PEV at all times to
dispatch vehicles properly. Integrating V2G activities into a PEV fleet created additional layers
of complexity. In a V2G model, the PEV was treated as an energy asset in addition to its
traditional role as a mobility asset. Information regarding the PEV charge state and range
capabilities must be integrated with energy data from the facility and public electrical grid to
optimize the PEV’s energy functions without diminishing its primary mobility requirements.
The OB-EVI software architecture was implemented at LAAFB to manage the PEV fleet, control
inverter activity and bi-directional power flow, and perform the activities required for
participation in CAISO’s ancillary services market. Key OB-EVI modules were the fleet
management system (FMS) and the charge control module (CCM).
• The FMS was designed to support military base transportation scheduling by providing
an automated solution for dispatch personnel to administer reservations and input
requests to drive PEVs on or off the base. The FMS managed vehicle schedules based on
current battery state to ensure a PEV had a sufficient stored energy for driving activities.
• The CCM managed the charging and discharging of individual vehicles, preparing them
for scheduled trips and meeting the CAISO charge/discharge requirements. This module
also tracked which vehicles were plugged into charging stations and the actual SOC for
each vehicle.
Four types of OB-EVI data were gathered and analyzed for this report—inverter data, CAISO
dispatch results, battery health test data and cell balancing data.
Inverter Readings
The OB-EVI monitored and recorded the activity of the bi-directional inverters used to charge
and discharge the demonstration vehicles. By tracking the duration and power of inverter
activity, energy transfers to and from the vehicle battery by the LAAFB charging infrastructure
were recorded. As noted in the LAAFB Demonstration Section, these inverters were located
either on the vehicle itself, in which case all activities of that inverter were automatically
matched to a particular vehicle battery, or on the charging station, in which case, periods of
inverter activity were associated with the connected vehicle.
California ISO Dispatch Results

Dispatch results recorded OB-EVI’s response to CAISO charge/discharge requests during V2G
market participation. These results did not describe the activities of any individual vehicle
battery. Instead, they recorded energy transfer from the virtual battery created by all vehicles
participating in a V2G market during a particular dispatch period. By matching a vehicle’s
inverter activity against these dispatch results, it was possible to determine the participation of
each individual vehicle battery pack in the overall CAISO dispatch.
14
Battery Health Tests
Battery health test data included inverter readings for a given battery during time periods when
the battery was involved in battery health test runs, which were executed monthly (beginning
in October 2016) to assess the performance of each battery pack. Tests were only executed if
both the vehicle and its associated EVSE were operational and communicating with the OB-EVI
system.
Each successful battery health test included the following steps:
• Charge the battery to 100 percent SOC and cell balance if needed
• Discharge the battery to 20 percent SOC
• Charge the battery to 100 percent SOC.
A discharge limit of 20 percent SOC was used, as draining a battery to 0 percent SOC can have
detrimental effects on vehicle batteries. SOC was as reported by the vehicle’s own battery
management system. By monitoring battery energy discharged from 100 percent to 20 percent
SOC (as reported by the vehicle), battery capacity could be determined. Changes in discharged
energy under the same procedure indicated any battery degradation.
Key data collected for vehicles undergoing a SOH test were the inverter readings within each
test run.
Cell Balancing
The server-commanded cell balancing process included the following steps:
• Fully charge the battery to 100 percent SOC

• Conduct cell balancing.
The data collected during server-commanded cell balancing was identical to data described in
“OB-EVI Inverter Readings” Section.
FleetCarma
The PEV-V2G demonstration included the procurement, installation, and operation of
FleetCarma vehicular OBDC for all V2G vehicles, along with the installation of supporting data
transfer and data archival infrastructure to facilitate retrieval of collected vehicle performance
data. The data included battery SOC, battery voltage, battery current, battery temperature,
ambient temperature, fuel usage, average daily distance, total distance, idle time, vehicle speed
and energy use. Each vehicle was equipped with OBDC, also known as a FleetCarma data
logger, to collected vehicle performance data every second during vehicle driving and charging
activities. The data was used to quantify the performance capabilities of PEV-V2G vehicles to
support driving missions and participate in utility ancillary services markets.
Three types of FleetCarma reports were produced for each vehicle—trip reports, charge reports
and real-time data.
• FleetCarma Trip Reports – Identified time periods when each vehicle was being driven
and recorded energy usage during these periods.
15
• FleetCarma Charge Reports – Identified time periods when each vehicle was charging at
an EVSE and recorded energy usage during these periods.
• FleetCarma Real-Time Data Reports – Recorded vehicle performance data once per
second for any vehicle being charged or driven, and included periods of vehicle
inactivity when no charging or driving occurred.
Report Types
Based on these collected data, CTC generated four summary reports for analysis:
• Report 1 – Use Summary Report

• Report 2 – Categorical Maximum DOD Report
• Report 3 – SOH Capacity Report
• Report 4 – Energy Report.
Each report is described and discussed in detail in the data analysis discussion.
Report 1 – Use Summary Report
The Use Summary Report provided a usage profile for each demonstration vehicle over the one-
year demonstration period, showing the percentage of total time the vehicle was in each use
case and the percentage of total energy transferred to and from the vehicle battery for each use
case. For this report, energy transfer is direction neutral (e.g., 1 kWh of charging and 1 kWh of
discharging equal 2 kWh of energy transfer).
Report 2 – Categorical Maximum DOD Report
The Categorical Maximum DOD Report was generated on a per-day time horizon, combining
all instances of each use category into a total for the day. The maximum DOD and data related
to the pack and ambient temperature were calculated for each use case. As DOD and pack
temperature are two significant contributors to battery degradation, these data were analyzed
to determine which use categories consistently placed the greatest stress on the vehicle battery
over time.
Report 3 – SOH Capacity Report
The SOH Capacity Report summarized data collected from SOH testing to reliably and
consistently determine the remaining energy capacity of the vehicle batteries and to quantify
degradation over time. Key data elements included discharge energy and pack temperature
statistics.
Report 4 – Energy Report
The Energy Report was used to summarize total energy transfer statistics for each vehicle for
each day of the demonstration. For each vehicle and day, energy transfer was further
summarized by use category and data source. This report provided fleet-level insights, such as
usage profiles and equipment availability during the demonstration.
Timeline
To generate the reports identified, which facilitated performance analysis of the field demonstration
system, a timeline concept was used to categorize energy use for every second of the one-year
16
V2G field demonstration by use case for every vehicle. The goal was to understand vehicle
usage at all times during the demonstration (i.e., 24/7/365). A complete chronological timeline
was developed for each vehicle and was comprised of multiple event entries. Each event entry
identified details regarding a chronological segment of vehicle use and described the use
category, starting and ending date and time, and the following key data elements from both
data sources (OB-EVI and FleetCarma):
• Charge and discharge energy.

• Pack temperature minimum, maximum and average.
• Ambient temperature minimum, maximum and average.
• SOH test status, discharge energy and associated pack temperature minimum,
maximum and average.
• Maximum DOD and associated pack temperature.
Data Analysis
Report 1 – Use Summary
The Use Summary Report provided a summary of energy and time usage across each use case
for each demonstration vehicle during the one-year demonstration period. Using these data,
graphs were generated summarizing average energy use and average time use for each vehicle
in the V2G demonstration. The following sections provide summaries of these data for each
vehicle type including a driving profile for each vehicle type to help understand the primary
mission and use of the vehicles. These driving statistics are derived from FleetCarma trip
reports and FMS trip data for trips greater than one mile.
The following notes are provided to help understand the data presented in the sections below.
• A key difference in these data sources is the definition of a trip. In the FMS, a trip is
typically defined as a round-trip, encompassing the total time and distance used to drive
to a destination and back to the base. FleetCarma, on the other hand, defines a trip as the
period between when the vehicle is turned on and when it is turned off. Thus, a vehicle
used by base security, which drives from building to building and is turned off while a
security check is performed, may be reported as six or more trips in FleetCarma, but
only one trip in the FMS. One round-trip to an off-base location in the FMS may be
reported as at least two trips in FleetCarma, with additional trips logged if driving
occurred after arrival at the destination. A combination of the two sources is needed to
understand the true vehicle profile.
• To understand ways in which the other and unknown use categories are applied,
consider the previous examples. The time when a vehicle is turned off would be
categorized as unknown use, with no data collected. If, however, a vehicle was plugged
into a uni-directional charging station at an off-base location, energy data would be
collected by the FleetCarma data logger and categorized as other use.
17
Nissan LEAFs
The Nissan LEAF sedans were passenger vehicles available via the vehicle pool and assigned to
individual units. They were used primarily for short, local trips and trips to Fort MacArthur, a
DoD site associated with LAAFB where uni-directional charging stations were available to
charge vehicles, but not included as part of the LAAFB OB-EVI. Table 6 provides driving
statistics for the Nissan LEAFs using FleetCarma and FMS trip data for trips greater than one
mile. Figure 1 summarizes average energy use for the Nissan LEAFs, and Figure 2 summarizes
average time use.
Table 6: Nissan LEAF Driving Profile for Trips Greater than One Mile
13 – Vehicle Pool +
Vehicles Managed
Assigned to Units
Average Trip Distance 8.61 miles
Driving Time Idle Time
Average Trip Duration
16.27 minutes 6.96 minutes
Total Trips 2,619
Count of Trips <= 20 Miles 2,378
Most Frequent Destination > 20 Miles Fort MacArthur
Figure 1: LEAF Energy Use Summary
Figure 2: LEAF Time Use Summary
The following insights can be drawn from these statistics and graphs regarding vehicle use.
1. Cell Balancing – LEAF cell balancing was neither controlled nor monitored by the PEV-
V2G software.
2. Driving – LAAFB primarily used the Nissan LEAFs for short, local trips. A total of 2,619
trips greater than one mile in distance were logged by FleetCarma, but only 1.2 percent
of LEAF use time was attributed to driving. Based on fleet requirements, these vehicles
were not driven very much.
3. V2G – Nearly forty percent of the battery energy was used for V2G which accounted for
16 percent of the time.
18
4. Other – The LEAFs, all-electric vehicles with relatively small battery capacity, spent a
majority of the demonstration charging and preparing for market participation.
5. Unknown – no data – Over 60 percent of the time on average, these vehicles were not
collecting data which most likely represents the time when the vehicle was off at each
trip destination.
EVI REEV Trucks
The EVI REEV trucks were cargo transportation vehicles available through the vehicle pool,
used primarily for short, local trips. Table 7 provides driving statistics for the EVI REEVs using
FleetCarma and FMS trip data for trips greater than one mile. Figure 3 summarizes average
energy use for the EVI REEVs, and Figure 4 summarizes average time use.
Table 7: EVI REEV Driving Profile for Trips Greater than One Mile
Vehicles Managed 4
Average Trip Duration Driving Time Idle Time
Total Trips 65
Count of Trips <= 3 Miles 53
Most Frequent Destination On-Base Use
Figure 3. EVI Energy Use Summary

Figure 4. EVI Time Use Summary
The following insights can be drawn from these statistics and graphs regarding vehicle usage.
1. Cell Balancing – REEV cell balancing was allowed by PEV-V2G software every three
days for a 6-hour period. While this should have yielded approximately 8 percent of
time spent cell balancing, frequent downtime of EVI REEVs and their paired EVSEs
meant this cell balancing was not always conducted and kept average cell balancing
time below 3 percent.
19
2. Driving – technical issues with the EVI REEVs vehicles resulted in significant down time
in some cases for weeks or months at a time. Vehicle 14B80134 was permanently
removed from driving missions due to a power steering issue on October 28, 2016 and
vehicle 14B80136 was similarly removed from service due to a charging fault on
February 28, 2017. Based on these issues, even trucks available for driving missions were
generally restricted to on base and almost never used for long-distance transport.
3. V2G – Nearly forty percent of the energy transferred to or from the battery was used for
V2G while only 12 percent of the time was spent in V2G.
4. Other – EVI REEVs spent a large amount of time on charging stations not engaged in
V2G activity.
5. Unknown – On average, the EVI REEVs spent 44 percent of the total demonstration time
off and in an unknown state with very little time parked during driving missions. The
majority is likely times when vehicles were out of service or were not connected to an
EVSE due to their paired EVSE being out of service.
Phoenix Shuttle
The Phoenix shuttle was a passenger transport vehicle assigned to specific missions by the
vehicle manager. The most frequent mission was a regular mass transit circular route around
the base, picking up and dropping off personnel. Generally, the shuttle would be given a half
shift of six loops in this service, traveling 40 to 50 miles, and then returned to its EVSE for
recharge. Table 8 provides driving statistics for the Phoenix shuttle using FleetCarma and FMS
trip data for trips greater than one mile. Figure 5 summarizes energy use for the Phoenix
shuttle, and Figure 6 summarizes time use. Note that unlike other vehicle models, only a single
Phoenix shuttle operated in the fleet.
Table 8: Phoenix LEAF Driving Profile for Trips Greater than One Mile
Vehicles Managed 1
Average Trip Duration Driving Time Idle Time
Total Trips 641
Count of Trips <= 10 Miles 426
Most Frequent Destination < 10 Miles Intra-Facility Shuttle Loops
20
Figure 5: Phoenix Energy Use Summary
Figure 6: Phoenix Time Use Summary
The following insights can be drawn from these statistics and graphs regarding vehicle use.
1. Cell Balancing – The Phoenix shuttle spent less than 4 percent of its time in cell
balancing, PEV-V2G software would have allowed it more time if required. Regular use
in driving missions and charging on EVSEs likely ensured the vehicle battery pack was
able to achieve cell balancing in a timely manner during allowed periods.
2. Driving – As noted, the Phoenix shuttle was regularly used on intra-facility transit loops,
explaining the high number of trips under 10 miles for a single vehicle.
3. Other – This category represents 64 percent of the shuttle’s time while unknown time is
less than 3 percent, indicating that the shuttle spent almost all its time either in active
use or connected to an EVSE.
4. Unknown – The Phoenix shuttle was reliably available for service and had
comparatively few technical issues, meaning that there was little of the unknown
category due to equipment downtime.
VIA VTRUX Vans
The VIA VTRUX vans consisted of 10 passenger vans and one cargo van (no seats in rear)
available via the vehicle pool. Several of the vans were assigned to a regular mass transit
circular route around the base, picking up and dropping off personnel. Generally, a van on this
transit route would be given a full shift in which it would travel almost 100 miles, or up to 13
transit loops, during a day. Note that many vans were frequently out of service due to technical
issues or not needed for a transit route on any given day. Table 9 provides driving statistics for
the VIA VTRUX vans using FleetCarma and FMS trip data for trips greater than one mile.
Figure 7 summarizes energy use for the VIA vans, and Figure 8 summarizes time use.
21
Table 9: VIA Driving Profile for Trips Greater than One Mile
Vehicles Managed 11 – Vehicle Pool
Driving Time Idle Time
Average Trip Duration
Total Trips 2,935
Count of Trips <= 10 Miles 1,967
Most Frequent Destination < 10 Miles Intra-Facility Shuttle Loops
Figure 7: VIA Energy Use Summary
Figure 8: VIA Time Use Summary
The following insights can be drawn from these statistics and graphs regarding vehicle use:
1. Cell Balancing – VIA van cell balancing was neither controlled nor monitored by the
PEV-V2G software.
2. Driving – On average, these vehicles were not regularly used for driving in comparison
with the Nissan LEAFs. Some vans spent less than 2 percent of their time on driving
activities, while one van (14Z10430) regularly used in the transit loop spent over 13
percent of its time driving. The large variability was further complicated by the amount
of vehicle downtime due to technical issues.
3. Other – Time spent on Other and V2G activities was reduced by the amount of time
several of the vans spent in Unknown activities, primarily due to technical issues. See
Unknown for more details.
4. Unknown – VIA vans spent a large amount of time disconnected from the EVSE and in
the Unknown category even when parked in the EV parking lot. Repeated technical
issues caused VIA vans to go into unrecoverable faults that put them into the unknown
category. An unrecoverable vehicle fault is defined as a situation in which the van’s
control system detects some change in the power quality it is receiving from its EVSE
that triggers an error code. The control system then disconnects the van from the EVSE
to prevent any potential damage. The faults are deemed “unrecoverable” because the
van will not clear the fault and reconnect to the EVSE without manual operator
22
intervention (as opposed to “recoverable” faults where the fault will time out and the
van will reconnect itself with no outside intervention). Even though vans in
unrecoverable faults are physically connected to the EVSE, electrical and data
connection is not active, so they were considered to be in the “Unknown” category.
As with the Driving use category, an average of the Unknown use is not as useful for
VIA vans due to the high variability in performance. Some vans such as 44M580,
042M778 and 14Z10425 were effectively removed from the demonstration by the end of
January 2017 due to immediate unrecoverable faults whenever a charging session was
initiated, making the majority of their time classify as Unknown and making the
percentage of their time spent on unknown much higher than average. Other vans, such
as 14Z10431, were utilized in driving missions and market participation throughout the
demonstration and consequently had a much lower percentage of unknown time than
the average.
Report 2 – Categorical Maximum DOD Report

The Categorical Maximum DOD Report was generated on a per-day basis regardless of use
category. The maximum DOD and data related to the pack and ambient temperature were
identified for each use case. As DOD and pack temperature are two significant contributors to
battery degradation, the data was investigated to determine which use categories consistently
placed the greatest stress on the vehicle battery over time.
The following four sections describe the average maximum DOD for each vehicle type over the
demonstration period. These data were of interest to obtain an understanding of the DOD for
each use case.
Nissan LEAFs
Figure 9 shows the average DOD for each of the pertinent use categories. For the LEAFs, the
“Other” category had the largest DOD at 90 percent, followed sequentially by SOH test, driving
and V2G. From the DOD perspective, V2G use profile was the least aggressive.
23
Figure 9: Nissan LEAFs Day-by-Day Average Maximum DOD
EVI REEV Trucks

Figure 10 depicts the average DOD for the EVIs during the demonstration. For this vehicle V2G
represents the largest DOD closely followed sequentially by SOH test, other and driving.
Figure 10: EVIs Day-by-Day Average Maximum DOD
Phoenix Shuttle
Figure 11 shows Phoenix Shuttle driving use case had the largest DOD followed by the other
use case. Both the SOH test and V2G had the lowest DOD at 80 percent. For this vehicle, the
driving case was the most aggressive.
24
Figure 11: Phoenix Day-by-Day Average Maximum DOD
VIA VTRUX Vans

Figure 12 shows the VIA VTRUX vans experience the largest DOD during the driving use case
followed by V2G activities. The other category and SOH test were the least aggressive for these
vehicles.
Figure 12: VIAs Day-by-Day Average Maximum DOD
Report 3 – SOH Capacity Report

The SOH Capacity Report provides data captured from SOH testing, which was planned to be
performed on an approximately monthly basis on each vehicle once the testing capability was
25
developed and available. The purpose of the SOH test was to reliably and consistently
determine the present energy capacity of the vehicle batteries and subsequently use these
capacity measurements to quantify vehicle battery degradation over time. Each SOH test staged
the vehicle batteries to a fully charged and balanced state to achieve a consistent reference
point. A controlled discharge rate was conducted until a minimum pack SOC was reached.
SOH testing was dependent on software developed under the DoD demonstration. The
discharge limit was dependent on the BMS SOC algorithm, which was set at 20 percent SOC.
This limit was selected to ensure the non-linear portion of the battery voltage curve was not
reached during testing. Therefore, consistencies were dependent on the BMS. Due to constraints
during the DoD development process that delayed development of the required software, SOH
tests could only be conducted from October 2016 onward.
Table 10 presents the results of the first and last SOH test events for all fleet vehicles and
resultant calculated capacity degradation. Usable capacity is defined by the vendor and is
limited by the BMS. The LEAFs had a usable capacity of 21.3 kWh or 89 percent of rated battery
capacity, but the other vehicles had a usable capacity 80 percent of rated battery capacity
(usable capacity being 81.6 kWh for the Phoenix, 43.2 for EVIs and 16.8 for the VIAs).
Technical issues resulted in several instances where vehicles were unable to complete any SOH
tests and other instances where vehicles completed only a single SOH test.
Figure 13 presents additional SOH test result details for an example vehicle, LEAF 12B80016.
The measured battery pack capacity for each of the six SOH test events is described in both kWh
and percentage of the manufacturer specified usable pack capacity. Additionally, the energy
executed on this vehicle battery pack during the period between consecutive SOH test events is
summarized and itemized for pertinent vehicle use categories. These tests indicate a trend that
the battery capacity is degrading over time. The durations between the SOH tests show a small
quantity of driving and SOH energy transfer in or out of the battery. The V2G and other
categories saw a majority of the energy transfer. In a few cases, batteries show an apparent
increase in capacity over time. This is likely due to the results not being corrected for
temperature, which is known to have an impact on apparent capacity.
26
Table 10: SOH Test Summary
First Test Last Test
Type Vehicle Date Measured Cap (kWh) % of Usable Cap Date Measured Cap (kWh) % of Usable Cap % of Usable Capacity Degradation
12B80011 10/29/16 12.0 70.6 03/25/17 11.6 68.1 2.4
12B80012 10/15/16 13.0 76.1 04/15/17 11.8 69.0 7.1
12B80013 11/02/16 12.8 75.2 03/25/17 11.4 66.7 8.5
12B80014 10/01/16 12.6 74.0 04/22/17 11.9 69.7 4.2
12B80015 10/22/16 12.2 71.8 04/01/17 11.5 67.4 4.3
Nissan 12B80016 10/15/16 13.3 78.0 04/29/17 11.8 69.3 8.7
LEAF 12B80018 11/05/16 12.7 74.5 04/29/17 12.3 72.2 2.2
Sedans 12B80019 10/29/16 12.4 72.9 04/29/17 11.3 66.4 6.5
12B80020 10/01/16 11.8 69.3 04/22/17 11.0 64.5 4.8
12B80021 10/01/16 11.9 69.8 04/08/17 11.3 66.3 3.4
12B80022 10/15/16 11.1 65.3 04/29/17 10.4 61.3 4.0
12B80023 10/15/16 14.1 83.0 04/08/17 13.4 78.7 4.2
12B80024 10/15/16 13.0 76.3 02/18/17 13.0 76.5 -0.2
14Z10424 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
14Z10425 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
14Z10426 01/07/17 16.4 97.8 -- -- -- --
14Z10427 03/11/17 16.2 96.4 -- -- -- --
14Z10429 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
VIA
14Z10430 12/17/16 16.0 95.2 04/29/17 17.8 106.0 -10.9
VTRUX
14Z10431 12/17/16 16.1 96.8 04/22/17 0.5 96.9 -0.1
14Z10432 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
14Z10433 12/24/16 11.4 68.0 -- -- -- --
042M778 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
044M580 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
14B80133 03/25/17 38.8 89.8 04/29/17 40.3 93.4 -3.6

14B80134 03/11/17 41.1 95.1 04/15/17 42.4 98.1 -3.0
EVI REEV
14B80135 03/11/17 40.4 93.5 04/15/17 30.0 69.5 24.0
14B80136 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Phoenix
14Z10434 11/26/16 79.3 97.1 12/31/16 79.1 96.9 0.3
Shuttle
**Note: The result of 106.0% for the last SOH test of VIA 14Z10430 was likely due to an anomalous vehicle SOC calibration instance or related to changes
in battery temperature between the tests, which are known to have an impact on the capacity.
27
Figure 13: SOH Test Results for Example Vehicle
28
Report 4 – Energy Report
The Energy Report provides information regarding total energy transfer for each use category
per vehicle for each data source throughout the assessment period. These data permitted
assessment of energy transfer for each use category over various time periods. An example of
this is the categorized energy use that occurred between consecutive SOH test events, as
previously discussed for Figure 13.
Two other applications of these data are found in Figure 14, which shows the fleet V2G energy
use during the entire evaluation period, and Figure 15, which shows the fleet driving energy
use. Figure 14 provides a summary of the V2G energy for each vehicle during the one-year
demonstration. On average each of the LEAFs provided 4 percent of the V2G energy, the VIA
vehicles had a broader range from less than a half of a percent to more than 3 percent, the EVIs
was disparate from 1.5 percent to more than 4 percent and the Phoenix provided the most at
fifteen percent.
Figure 14: Fleet Total V2G Energy Use
29
Figure 15 depicts driving energy per vehicle over the demonstration period. The Phoenix
vehicle had the highest driving energy followed by several of the VIA vehicles followed by the
LEAFs and EVIs. This aligns to the mission and use of the vehicles during the demonstration
testing.
Figure 15: Fleet Total Driving Energy Use
Results and Discussion

The U.S. DoD PEV-V2G demonstration program was the largest of its time, bi-directional non-
tactical electric vehicle fleet in the world. These V2G capable PEVs and associated hardware
meet rigorous military, industry, and utility standards, preparing the base to participate in the
energy ancillary services market. Significant strides have been accomplished in advancing the
technology, equipment, and collaborations necessary to achieve AS with aggregated PEV
energy storage. The DoD program has successfully advanced bi-directional power systems
technology readiness levels, developed power system infrastructure improving installation
30
energy resiliency and assurance, and readied the base for revenue stream generation through
energy ancillary services market participation. In addition, it has quantified V2G
vehicle/equipment technology capabilities and identified successful performers.
The California Energy Commission participated in several aspects of this DoD program
including providing technology, equipment, data collection and analysis. The data and analysis
provide insights on vehicle usage and down time as well as opportunities to increase V2G
activities.
The level of AS market participation during this demonstration was low in comparison to a
fully implemented, wide-scale V2G program. In such a program, vehicles would need to be
available for participation in the V2G storage market at any time outside of typical vehicle
driving hours, which would be greater than 12 hours per day on weekdays and possibly 24
hours a day during weekends. In such an environment, the total energy cycling resulting from
V2G would undoubtedly be higher than that observed during these field demonstration tests.
SOH Testing Conclusions

SOH testing was instituted to measure battery capacity in an effort to quantify battery
degradation. The general trend for most vehicles tested showed a slightly lower energy storage
capacity as a result of battery usage. However, the results were not corrected for temperature
effects, and the SOH tests were only conducted over six-month time frame. This combination of
factors may be the primary cause for an apparent improvement in battery capacity after the
usage defined for several of the vehicles.
Additionally, the SOH testing was limited by vehicle battery management systems, which by
design did not allow vehicle batteries to be fully discharged. Therefore, the SOH tests were not
allowed to reach the non-linear portion of the battery voltage curve found only at extremely low
states of charge, making it difficult to impossible to gauge small amounts of degradation of
these battery packs.
Technical Challenges
The DoD PEV-V2G Demonstration was a technically challenging pilot project that made use of
prototype or limited run PEVs and PHEVs, as well as EVSEs custom-designed for the
demonstration. This resulted in the vehicles being unable to participate in the V2G market or
even on driving missions for long periods of time during the demonstration. Overall, only the
Nissan LEAF sedans and the Phoenix shuttle had the performance stability to be considered
typical for a fully commercialized V2G fleet; however, these vehicles also suffered limited
periods of unavailability. Consequently, large-scale V2G operations will require careful
contingency planning for the assets use across a given timeframe.
31
CHAPTER 3:
Laboratory Research, Testing and Analysis
CTC conducted independent laboratory testing on PEV battery system test articles to evaluate
the effects of V2G operations. To accomplish this goal, two identical battery systems were
procured from two vendors—in each pair, one battery pack (Control Pack) was used as a
baseline for simulated driving missions and the other (V2G Pack) simulated both driving
missions and V2G operations. Driving and V2G activities (frequency regulation) were
simulated in a controlled manner over time to gain a better understanding of potential V2G
impacts on battery life.
The following sections discuss the technical approach of the laboratory testing effort, including:
• An overview of the laboratory testing infrastructure, including the PEV battery test
articles, test facility and test system controller.
• An overview of the test sequences conducted during laboratory testing, including
simulated driving scenarios, simulated V2G activities and discharge cycles used to
quantify battery health.
• An examination of factors leading to degradation and the differences that each battery
pack experienced during laboratory testing as the result of the driving and V2G profiles.
• The analysis conducted on the test data to quantify V2G degradation, in addition to
technical issues that influenced the results.
Laboratory Testing Infrastructure

The following sections detail the battery test articles, laboratory testing facility and test system
controller used to facilitate the laboratory testing effort.
Battery Test Articles

Two types of lithium-ion battery systems were procured as test materials for this effort—1) the
battery system manufactured by VIA Motors (VIA) and used in VIA’s PHEV VTRUX vans
and 2) a set of battery modules from Valence Technologies (Valence) that were assembled into a
scaled version of the battery packs used in PEVs. Table 11 summarizes these test materials,
describing the battery rated capacity and battery chemistry.
Table 11: Battery Systems Procured

Number of
Vendor/ systems KWh capacity per
manufacturer procured battery pack Battery chemistry
VIA 2 21.1 LiFePO4
Valence 2* 24.7 LiFeMgPO4
*Total of 28 battery modules, integrated into two battery packs of 14 modules each.
32
The VIA battery systems were not put into full testing because performance issues prevented
execution of the testing profiles. Since test data for the VIA battery systems could not be
collected, the data and analysis of this chapter is focused on the testing performed on the
Valence battery packs.
Laboratory Testing Facility

CTC conducted testing at the Center for Sustainable Energy (CSE) Second Life Battery Research
test bed, located in the University of California San Diego (UCSD) Hopkins parking garage.
This facility, connected to UCSD’s microgrid and co-located with a 300-kW photovoltaic array,
was capable of simultaneously testing up to four full-size PEV battery packs for a total of 120
kW peak power. Independent control, monitoring and data acquisition were integrated with the
existing facility.
The testing facility included two AeroVironment ABC-150 bi-directional grid-tied power
inverters, used for power transformation and flow control between the electric grid and the
electric vehicle battery packs. Each ABC-150 inverter was capable of two independent channels,
each of which could be used to charge or discharge a battery. As delivered by the manufacturer,
each ABC-150 inverter was capable of providing a total charge or discharge capability of
125 kW; however, as implemented at CSE, each ABC-150 inverter was limited to a total
discharge capability of 60 kW. This allowed for a maximum charge or discharge capability of
120 kW for both ABC-150 inverters combined.
The CSE test bed is pictured in Figure 16, and the test bay layout is shown in Figure 17.
Figure 16: CSE Test Bed
33
Figure 17: Test Bay Layout
Figure 18 shows the test articles in the UCSD test bay. A Valence battery is pictured on
the left, and a VIA battery is on the right.
Test System Controller

Efficient and effective execution of the planned laboratory testing required an automated
control and monitoring system to manage unattended operations of the test system. CTC
implemented a test system controller platform to satisfy this requirement. Core capabilities of
the test system controller included:
• Autonomous execution of power flow profiles on the laboratory PEV battery systems.
• Monitoring of and communication with each battery system’s battery management
system (BMS).
• Power transformation and flow control between the electric grid and each battery
system.
• Data acquisition and logging of resultant performance measurements.
• Report generation.
• Remote system management, monitoring and data retrieval.
34
Figure 18: PEV Battery Test Articles
The design concept for the laboratory test bed is shown in Figure 19. The test system controller
communicated with the two AeroVironment ABC-150 power processing systems and the four
subject battery systems to control power flow and monitor operating conditions. Each ABC-150
power processing system served as a controllable bi-directional AC/DC converter and
facilitated power transfer between the DC battery systems and the AC electrical grid
interconnect. This enabled charging and discharging of the battery systems. The test system
controller also controlled DC contactors to manage connectivity between the battery systems
and the ABC-150 power processing systems.
35
Figure 19: Test Bed Design Concept
Test Plan
Table 12 summarizes the planned tests. Each battery pack underwent several hundred tests,
including standard test cycles, state-of-health (SOH) tests and nameplate capacity comparison
(NCC) tests. These tests are further discussed in the following sections.
Table 12: Test Plan
Control Pack V2G Pack

Standard Test Cycle 12 hours – Driving Scenario
(Daily, 24 hours)* 12 hours – Charge / Float 12 hours – V2G Scenario
State-of-Health 6 hours – Discharge
Test Cycle 6 hours – Charge
(Monthly, 24 hours) 12 hours – Cell Balance
9 hours – Charge / Float Charge
Nameplate Capacity
6 hours – Discharge
Comparison Test Cycle
9 hours – Idle / Charge / Cell Balance / Float Charge
* The intent was to run the standard test cycle on a daily basis, however as noted in the Technical Issues
section of the Data Analysis, this was not always possible.
36
Standard Test Cycle
The standard test cycle was 24 hours in duration and subjected both battery packs to simulated
driving missions in the first 12 hours and subjected the V2G Pack to simulated V2G operations
in the next 12 hours while the Control Pack completed its charge cycle and then remained a
float charge. This standard test cycle was an aggressive test profile developed to achieve
accelerated degradation while adhering to manufacturer battery specifications (e.g., peak and
maximum continuous discharge limits). Figure 20 shows a graphical representation of the
standard test cycle, including driving and V2G operations.
Figure 20: Standard Test Cycle
Table 13 provides details on each drive and V2G segment. The total duration for driving is 4.68
hours while the V2G segment is 9.25 hours. This does not include the time allotted for charging
after each of these segments. Additionally, the energy in and out values in Table 3 are only
based on the segment and does not include the energy to charge the battery after the respective
segment. It is worthy to note some details about these two cycles. The driving segments require
a total of approximately 57 kWh of energy to pass through (i.e., sum of energy out and
energy in) the battery in 4.68 hours while the V2G segment requires approximately 66 kWh of
energy to pass through the battery in 9.25 hours. The ratios of total energy (in plus out) to cycle
time are 12.08 and 7.14 kWh/h for the driving and V2G segments, respectfully. In addition, the
V2G segment is referred to as energy neutral, i.e., the energy out is approximately equal to the
energy in.
37
Table 13: Standard Test Cycle Duration and Energy Usage
Drive Cycle Drive Cycle Drive Cycle Driving V2G

Parameter 1 2 3 (Total) Cycle
Duration (Hours) 1.56 1.56 1.56 4.68 9.25
Energy – Out (kWh) 18.63 18.63 18.63 55.89 36.06
Energy – In (kWh) 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.66 30.03
Energy and time to charge the battery after each drive cycle and V2G cycle is not included in this table. The
energy in values for the driving cycles result from simulated regenerative braking.
Driving Scenario
The driving scenario executed the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) using the test
system controller and the ABC-150 bi-directional grid-tied power inverters. Depicted in Figure
21, the UDDS sequence simulates an urban route of 7.45 miles (12.0 km) with frequent stops;
this driving schedule requires 22.8 minutes to complete. The maximum speed is 56.7 mph (91.2
kph) and the average speed is 19.6 mph (31.5 kph).1
Figure 21: UDDS Driving Cycle2
1 http://dieselnet.com/standards/cycles/ftp72.php
2 http://www.epa.gov/oms/standards/light-duty/udds.htm
38
The laboratory driving scenario test is pictured in Figure 22. The UDDS profile was slightly
modified (clipped) to adhere to battery manufacturer threshold specifications and repeated four
times to fulfill one drive cycle. Each drive cycle, which included four consecutive modified
UDDS profiles, simulated an urban route of 29.8 miles. Therefore, each daily standard test cycle
simulated an urban route of 89.4 miles within 4.56 hours, not including charge time. The 12-
hour driving scenario consisted of the following steps:
1. Assume each battery pack is charged to the maximum state-of-charge (SOC) threshold
(100 percent SOC) and cell balanced
2. Drive Cycle 1
a. Execute the modified UDDS sequence 4 times
b. Fully charge the pack and perform cell balancing
3. Drive Cycle 2
a. Repeat steps 2a and 2b
4. Drive Cycle 3
a. Repeat step 2a
b. Charge the pack to 55 percent SOC and remain idle until the end of the first 12-
hour period in preparation for the second 12-hour period.
Figure 22: Valence Driving Scenario
39
V2G Scenario
The LAAFB PEV-V2G demonstration participated in the CAISO frequency regulation AS
market where the batteries were used to correct short-term changes in the 60-hertz electric grid
alternating current (AC) frequency. The CAISO AS frequency regulation automated generation
control (AGC) signal indicated the power levels at 4-second intervals needed to satisfy the PEV-
V2G system AS award received in response to a day-ahead bid.
The laboratory testing V2G scenario simulated a V2G participation period where the vehicle
was stationary, connected to a charging station and participating as a V2G resource. The source
of the AGC signal used in laboratory testing was a duty cycle established by the CSE and
KnGrid and used in testing as detailed in the report “Short Term Duty Cycle Test Report,
Regulation Energy Management (REM) Duty Cycle, Battery Pack: A123 #2, Channel 3.” This
duty cycle was based on a 7-day CAISO AGC signal from July 1 to July 7, 2010.
The V2G scenario executed on the V2G Pack is pictured in Figure 23. The 12-hour V2G scenario
for the V2G Pack consisted of the following steps.
1. Assume each battery pack is charged to 55 percent SOC in preparation for V2G
participation.
2. Execute dynamic charging and discharging at the command of the AGC signal for 9.25
hours.
3. Fully charge the pack and perform cell balancing.
In the same 12-hour time period, the 12-hour scenario for the Control Pack consisted of the
following steps.
1. Fully charge the pack and perform cell balancing.
2. Float charge the pack to complete the 12-hour period.
It should be noted that the power command is 12 kW; however, the BMS controlled actual
power to the battery pack based on its SOC.
40
Figure 23: Valence V2G 12-Hour Power Command
State-of-Health (SOH) Test Cycle

Battery performance traits were scientifically assessed to quantify potential performance
degradation resulting from adding daily V2G duty cycles to the normal daily PEV driving duty
cycles. This assessment was accomplished through the execution of a monthly SOH test cycle
that permitted collection of battery SOH data during the laboratory-testing period. This cycle
primarily discharged each battery to a minimum threshold while measuring the amount of
energy removed from the batteries. This process quantified pack energy capacity.
The SOH test cycle is pictured in Figure 24. The 24-hour cycle consisted of the following steps
for each battery.
1. Prior to the test, each battery pack is charged to the maximum SOC threshold (100
percent SOC) and cell balanced.
2. Discharge from the maximum threshold at the manufacturer’s recommended rate to the
discharge termination state as identified by battery manufacturer cell characteristics,
while measuring the amount of energy removed from the battery.
41
3. Charge from the minimum threshold at the manufacturer’s recommended charge rate to
the maximum voltage as identified by battery manufacturer cell characteristics.
4. Make full charger power available to the battery pack to permit cell balancing.
This process quantified battery capacity and provided a means of assessing degradation and
projecting battery performance. Comparing energy removed from each battery allowed
degradation to be characterized over time throughout the test period. While the SOH test cycle
was intended to be executed monthly, it was occasionally executed more frequently for
improved data collection (e.g., once per week versus once per month).
Figure 24: State-of-Health Test Cycle
Nameplate Capacity Comparison Test Cycle

Pictured in Figure 25, the NCC test has a 24-hour test cycle that allowed measurement of pack
energy capacity directly comparable to the manufacturer “nameplate” (rated) capacity (24,724
watt-hours [Wh] or 138 amp-hours [Ah]). The battery capacity was calculated based on 14
battery modules rated at 1,766 Wh each. Each battery pack was fully charged and balanced
followed by a float charge for up to nine hours. Each pack was discharged to a low pack voltage
limit of 140 volts or 0 percent SOC. The energy discharge capacity was measured and compared
42
to the nameplate specification based on a 1/5 C rate per Valence specification. The pack was
then recharged, and this energy was used to calculate battery energy efficiency.
Figure 25: Nameplate Capacity Comparison Test Cycle
Driving and V2G Cycle Comparison

To truly understand potential degradation resulting from V2G participation, one must
investigate and understand the factors leading to battery degradation and the aggressiveness of
each respective profile. Based on the approved test plan, both packs performed identical drive
cycles simultaneously; the V2G Pack also completed the V2G cycle. Several differences in pack
operation ultimately led to additional capacity fade (reduction) within the V2G Pack. This
section discusses the factors that led to degradation and differences that each Valence battery
pack experienced during this testing as the result of the driving and V2G profiles. As mentioned
earlier, the VIA battery systems were not put into full testing because performance issues
prevented execution of the testing profiles.
Battery degradation results in capacity loss and power fade due to chemical and mechanical
degradation mechanisms.
43
• Chemical degradation is manifested in several factors, including 1) the loss of the ability
to recycle lithium resulting from lithium-consuming solid electrolyte interphase (SEI)
layer growth and side reactions, 2) increased interfacial resistance due to the catalytic
growth of the SEI layer on the graphite anode and 3) increased electrolyte resistance.
• Mechanical degradation is caused by battery stresses and strains in the electrodes, which
increases with battery calendar aging and aggressive battery usage.
The degradation of lithium-ion cells depends on the number of cycles completed as well as the
operational conditions consisting of temperature, charge/discharge rate, DOD and average SOC.
The following sections summarize factors that contribute to degradation and how each battery
pack was impacted by these factors.
Calendar Aging
The aging processes leading to battery degradation with the exception of battery usage (cycles)
is referred to as calendar aging. The two primary driving parameters are temperature and time.
The predominant mechanism of calendar aging is the evolution of passivation layers at the
electrode–electrolyte interfaces. The formation, growth or reconstruction of passivation layers
consume the recyclability of lithium as a result of electrolyte decomposition.3
Both battery packs were procured at the same time and therefore are assumed to have the same
calendar aging effect due to time. The battery manufacturer indicated the expected capacity
fade is one to two percent per year. However, the temperatures of the two test packs were not
consistent due to the increased power demands required of the V2G cycle. This will be further
discussed in the data analysis section.
Cycles
A battery cycle is commonly understood as the complete discharge of a fully charged battery
with a subsequent recharge. Battery manufacturers provide cycle life projections as the number
of cycles at a given C-Rate (C), DOD and temperature until battery capacity drops to 80 percent
of the name plate capacity. This is difficult to correlate with actual usage because most cycles do
not follow this identical pattern and the ambient temperature during operation of
transportation batteries is rarely constant. Batteries are usually operated under partial
discharges of varying depth before complete recharging. Since the amount of degradation is
heavily dependent upon the DOD, and due to the irregular DOD and ambient temperatures
actual batteries experience, the battery manufacturers’ life cycle predictions are best used to
judge relative life among various battery options.
During the laboratory testing, battery packs experienced the same number of driving cycles at
nearly 1,500 cycles, while the V2G Pack experienced an additional 464 V2G cycles.
3Keil, Peter, Simon F. Schuster, Jorn Wilhelm, Julian Travi, Andreas Hauser, Ralph C. Karl and Andreas
Jossen, “Calendar Aging of Lithium-Ion Batteries,” Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 163, pp.
A1872–A1880, July 2016.
44
Use (Total Energy)
Another factor in battery degradation is usage or total energy. This is the total energy (in watt-
hours) passing through (i.e., removed or added) to the battery. As a battery is charged and
discharged, electrode materials swell and contract. This repetitive cycling weakens the electrode
structure, reducing its adhesion to the current collector.
This degradation factor is obvious for the V2G Pack with an absolute total energy value of 59
percent more than the Control Pack. This additional use was primarily due to the V2G profile
and will be further discussed in the data analysis discussion.
Depth of Discharge (DOD)

The DOD is a measure in percentage of the amount of energy removed from a battery relative to
its current full-charge capacity. By definition, its value plus the SOC must total 100 percent. For
example, if the SOC is 80 percent, the DOD is 20 percent. Batteries experience more degradation
and shorter life when experiencing higher DOD. In some cases, reducing DOD from 100 percent
to 80 percent can double the cycle life of a battery.4
As shown in Table 14, the standard test profile was developed to achieve a discharge of 74
percent of the battery nameplate capacity during each drive cycle with the understanding that,
as the battery packs degraded, the actual DOD would increase. Similarly, the V2G profile was
developed to achieve a discharge of 71 percent of the battery nameplate capacity.
Table 14: Theoretical DOD

V2G Pack Control Pack
Theoretical based on test profile Maximum DOD (%) Maximum DOD (%)
Drive Cycle 1 74 74
Drive Cycle 2 74 74
Drive Cycle 3 74 74
V2G Cycle 71 N/A
The DOD for the V2G Pack was on average lower than the Control Pack. This was primarily
due to the additional usage seen by the V2G Pack and the deeper usage of battery capacity to
achieve the standard profile.
Temperature
Temperature has a strong impact on the degradation of lithium-ion batteries. Most battery
corrosion occurs during charge/discharge cycles. This corrosion increases at higher
temperatures. The best cycle life can be obtained at moderate temperatures, because low
temperatures decrease cycle life due to intensified lithium plating, and high temperatures
reduce battery life due to Arrhenius-driven aging reactions.
Based on the continual use of the V2G Pack, it exhibited a higher temperature than the Control
Pack.
4 https://www.valence.com/why-valence/long-lifecycle/
45
C-Rates
Battery charge and discharge current is expressed as a C-Rate to normalize against battery
capacity typically listed in amp-hours. However, the current used as the basis for C-Rate often
varies among battery models. A C-Rate is a measure of the rate at which a battery is
charged/discharged relative to its rated amp-hour capacity. A 1C rate means that the discharge
current will discharge the entire battery capacity in 1 hour. For a battery with a capacity of 100
amp-hours, this equates to a discharge current of 100 amps. A 5C rate for this battery would be
500 amps, and a C/2 rate would be 50 amps. The higher the C-Rate, the more the internal cells
will corrode due to self-heating. The rate of corrosion will accelerate as the internal resistance of
the battery increases due to aging (the higher resistance creates internal heat in the cell).
The data analysis discussion provides greater detail on the C-Rates required to meet the power
demand for both the driving and V2G scenarios. Because the profiles were commanded as a
power level, the C-Rates were not directly controlled. This would have been limited by the BMS
to a maximum level based on the SOC of the battery pack. As discussed in the Data Analysis
Section, the C-Rates required during the drive cycle were more aggressive than the V2G cycle.
Float Charge
Float charge refers to a constant-voltage, low-current charge that counteracts the battery’s self-
discharge effects. This constant voltage is maintained after the battery is fully charged to ensure
the battery remains fully charged. Following manufacturers’ recommendations for charging
should not yield a significant degradation; however, there have been several studies suggesting
maintaining SOC above 20 percent and below 85 increases battery life.
By the nature of the test plan, the Control Pack spent 40 percent of the calendar time on a float
charge or 100 percent SOC in comparison to the V2G Pack, which experienced 15 percent of
calendar time on a float charge. Attempts to quantify this effect were not fruitful as the impact
of float time could not be mathematically separated from calendar time.
Data Analysis
The following sections detail the analysis conducted on Valence test data to quantify V2G
degradation. Test data were first collected in February 2015after the development and testing of
the control, monitoring and data acquisition system. The first SOH test was completed on
April 27, 2015 with the first complete standard completed on April 28, 2015. Each of the 778 data
files generated over the test period was classified into the groups identified in Table 15.
Table 15: Test File Classification
Profile Type Description

Standard Normal driving + V2G
SOH State-of-health
NCC Nameplate Capacity Comparison
Charge Charge and cell balance
Issue Incomplete tests
46
Battery use data was collected from all of the classified profile types. Throughout the test
period, occasions arose where some tests were halted. A summary of Valence issues is included
in the Technical Issues Section to help explain gaps in data that appear in the analysis. To
minimize any spurious effects associated with extreme data values, which most often were
identified as an issue, an entire test file was eliminated from the full data collection set when
errors were noted or when unusual data values were present. For example, the latter category
included data entries having calculated energy efficiencies greater than 100 percent. In total, 84
standard data entries were eliminated from the detailed statistical analysis; 73 were due to error
conditions and the remainder due to incomplete data. Of the 23 data entries for SOH, one was
eliminated from detailed statistical analysis because of suspicious test results.
The analysis consisted of investigating the combined usage of all activity on a battery pack to
maintain a cumulative record of any parameter. In other cases, such as the standard profile,
data were used to obtain insight from a side-by-side comparison of the V2G and Control Packs.
The SOH data sets were focused on obtaining a measure of battery capacity fade over time. In
the remaining portions of this document, the baseline is referred to as the initial condition of the
perspective pack at the start of testing. However, it is important to note that the standard test
cycle data and SOH data sets represent different parameters. Therefore, baseline values for the
standard test cycle data set do not match those of the SOH data set.
Differences between the V2G Pack and the Control Pack were quantified based upon time or
total energy through the perspective battery pack. These differences were used to quantify the
impact of the V2G cycle on battery degradation, which is simultaneously caused by both
calendar aging and cycle aging. Separation of these calendar aging and cycle aging effects was
attempted using more than one approach; however, the resulting rate effects differed by over 50
percent between these methods. Therefore, none of the separation methods were deemed
worthy of inclusion in this report since one or more significant assumptions in the methods
were likely not valid. Without the ability to mathematically separate the individual effects of
calendar and cycle aging, no statistical assessment could be made to distinguish between the
time-based and total-energy-based parameters.
Two different approaches were used to analyze the data—single and multiple parameter curve
fits.
• Easier to visualize and understand, plots of single factors on measures of battery
performance were produced to quickly gain an understanding of battery pack
performance. These plots were also useful to visually determine when additional factors
impacted measurement variability and to qualitatively assess orthogonality among the
factors and responses. The battery community has clearly demonstrated that battery
performance is dependent upon several variables including battery temperature, rate of
charge/discharge, calendar and cycle aging, and total energy.
• To complement the single-parameter assessments, multi-variable statistical analyses
were completed. The commercial statistical analysis package JMP® from SAS was used
to develop empirical models to define battery performance while accounting for effects
of multiple factors, most notably pack temperature and either time or total energy. In
47
this way, the variability associated with a single-factor analysis could be reduced and
improved comparisons between the two battery packs obtained.
Judgment in these cases was needed to select the final form for any given empirical equation.
The authors balanced several factors when settling on the set of factors to include for any
statistical analysis. The following guidelines were used in determining the final set of factors:
• Choose highly statistical significance factors
o Those factors with large student t values
• Strong overall fit of the empirical model to the data
o As indicated by R2 values close to 1.0
• Simple, yet robust equation
o Minimal number of factors (i.e., independent variables)
o Minimal effects beyond linear relationships
• Similar mathematical form for V2G Pack and Control Pack.
Temperature Comparisons
Since the test data were collected over a period of over 600 days, with day 1 assumed to occur
on April 27, 2015 (first SOH test), the ambient temperature5 varied significantly over time as
noted in Figure 26. Although not shown here, other temperatures showed the same general
shape as ambient temperature. The curve shows a seasonal effect with late summer temperature
peaks and winter temperature lows. This M-shaped curvature6 was often observed in the single-
variable results as undulations around the best-fit line to the data. Figure 27 shows a typical
example of this effect. The energy efficiency of both battery packs increased with temperature;
therefore, temperature effects were included in the multi-factor model of energy efficiency, as
discussed below. When this undulating behavior was observed, the most appropriate
temperature measure was included in the multi-variable analysis. Due to the challenges in
graphically showing the fit of the multi-factor empirical equation to the measurements, simple
statistical results and their interpretation are provided.
5The original daily ambient temperature measurements were rejected since they varied by less than 1.5
°C over the entire test period. Given the location of the test setup (an isolated, interior wall of a parking
garage), use of data from common historical weather databases was deemed inappropriate. The best
measure of daily ambient temperature was the minimum temperature of the Control Pack just before the
start of the first drive cycle when the battery pack was concluding a long state of rest. Therefore, these
values were used for daily ambient temperature. Battery operating temperatures were assumed to be
accurate; generally, mean battery pack temperatures were used for analyses.
6This curve, as for many that follow in other figures, represents the best fit by a 6th order polynomial to
the experimental data. Actual daily values were scattered about this best-fit curve. To enhance the ability
to see differences in data sets for some figures, only the final fitted curves are shown without the
individual data points.
48
Figure 26: Ambient Temperature during Testing
Figure 27: Energy Efficiency over Time
49
As expected, as ambient temperature increased, so did the battery operating temperature; the
battery operating temperatures exceeded that of the ambient. Interestingly, as the ambient
temperature increased, the amount by which the battery temperature exceeded the ambient
temperature decreased. This is attributed to improved energy efficiency at higher operating
temperatures due to reduced internal cell resistance, yielding lower electrical resistance energy
losses and, therefore, a lower net increase in battery pack temperature.
Various temperature values are shown in Table 16. The values use the ambient temperature as a
reference, and the values shown represent the difference in the measured temperature and the
ambient temperature. Presenting the temperatures in this way normalizes seasonal effects. As
expected, the V2G Pack operated at higher temperatures than the Control Pack. Higher
operating temperatures are known to accelerate undesirable chemical reactions within lithium-
ion batteries, which contributes to battery degradation. Therefore, such temperature-related
effects are expected to be more significant in the V2G Pack. The higher operating temperatures
of the V2G Pack also contributed to it having higher energy efficiencies than the Control Pack,
as mentioned above and discussed in greater detail below.
Table 16: Battery Pack Temperatures

Temperature above Temperature Above
Measurement Location/Value Ambient (°C) Ambient (°C)
Mean of maximum values: SOH Profile 10.4 6.9
Maximum at end of discharge: SOH Profile 15.2 9.2
Mean maximum values: Standard Test Profile 19.6 12.7
End of Drive Cycle 1 minimum/maximum 14.7 / 20.6 7.8 / 11.7
One additional factor can be noted regarding the temperatures after each of the drive cycles. In
both battery packs, the temperature is greater after each successive drive cycle. This effect is clearly
seen in Figure 28, which plots battery pack temperatures at the end of each drive or V2G cycle
for both batteries. The gain in temperature between the end of the first two cycles was significantly
lower than the temperature gain between the second and third drive cycle. Presumably, this was
due to the pack temperatures not returning to an equilibrium value between drive cycles; in
other words, the battery packs were still cooling off when the next drive cycle began. Note that
the overall gain in operating temperature from the end of the first drive cycle to the end of the
last drive cycle is 1.6 / 2.6 °C (minimum / maximum values) for the V2G Pack, while the increase
is significantly larger for the Control Pack at 6.7 / 8.5 °C. This suggests the V2G battery pack did
not have sufficient time to cool off between the V2G cycle and the start of the first drive cycle. Thus,
the V2G battery pack remained at a higher operating temperature during the entire test period.
Another observation from Figure 28 is the temperatures at the end of all V2G battery pack drive
50
cycles are greater than the end of the V2G cycle, which suggests that the drive cycle is more
aggressive to the battery packs than the V2G cycle.
Figure 28: Mean Pack Temperatures at End of Drive and V2G Cycles
State-of-Health Capacity Measurements

The primary means of quantifying battery pack capacity fade throughout testing was periodic
execution of the SOH test cycle, as mentioned above.
Figure 29 illustrates the results of the final SOH test run, conducted on December 30, 2016. This
graph shows the additional V2G Pack capacity fade that transpired during the laboratory
testing activity. The V2G Pack voltage and SOC diminish more rapidly during this test run than
the Control Pack. This is a clear indication the V2G Pack has less energy capacity than the
Control Pack.
51
Figure 29: Specimen SOH Test Run Details
Figure 30 further illustrates the measured V2G Pack capacity fade that transpired between the
initial and final SOH test runs. The pack voltage dropped to the 171-volt energy calculation
threshold more rapidly during the final test run on December 30, 2016, at approximately three
hours from the beginning of the test cycle, whereas the same threshold occurred nearly an hour
later during the initial test run on April 27, 2015. The resultant pack capacity measurement for
these two test runs shows a value of 24.5 kWh for the initial test run and a value of 18.4 kWh for
the final test run.
52
Figure 30: Comparison of Initial and Final SOH Test Runs
Figure 31 quantifies the energy capacity degradation for both the Control and V2G Packs from
the first through the last test runs. The trend lines and corresponding formulas show the V2G
Pack experienced a higher rate of energy capacity degradation from a purely chronological
perspective. This is logical given the higher quantity of executed energy transfers (charge and
discharge) the V2G Pack experienced.
53
Figure 31: Raw Pack Energy Capacity
However, when the quantity of energy executed by each pack is considered, the capacity
degradation is further characterized, as shown in Figure 32. This graph shows the relationship
between measured energy capacity and accumulated use. This assessment yields further insight
that indicates the capacity of the Control Pack experienced a higher rate of degradation per
accumulated use as quantified using a best-fit linear trace (purple and green lines) and their
corresponding formulas. As discussed in the Driving and V2G Cycle Comparison Section,
several factors affect battery degradation, and usage is just one of those factors. This could be
attributed to the drive cycle being more demanding or the time the Control Pack was at float
charge.
The trace for each pack demonstrates a downward dip that resulted from much lower pack
temperatures during the February 3, 2016, test run.
54
Figure 32: Energy Capacity vs. Accumulated Use
The accumulated use and capacity fade is reasonable when compared to the battery manufacturer’s
predicted cycle life at various depths of discharge. The predicted energy throughput based on a
C/2 discharge to 90 percent DOD at ambient temperature is approximately 138 megawatt-hours
(total energy). Because this is a much less aggressive cycle compared to the driving / V2G cycles
used in testing for the present study, the total energy for the V2G and Control Packs of 93.1
megawatt-hours and 58.5 megawatt-hours, respectively is considered to be reasonable.
Aging Effects on Discharge Capacity

SOH data were used to establish discharge capacity. Figure 33 shows the single-factor effect of
calendar aging (i.e., time) on discharge capacity. Deviations from a straight line in this figure are
in the opposite direction of the time vs. ambient temperature curve shown in Figure 26,
suggesting that temperature effects are important to discharge capacity. The most appropriate
temperature to consider for this analysis is the mean battery pack temperature, TP. Upon
analyzing the experimental data, both time and mean pack temperature were found to account
for the overwhelming majority of the variability in discharge capacity. The empirical equations
for each battery pack are as follows.
55
V2G Pack: C = 23.1 – 0.0103t + 0.0638TP – 4.13×10−6(t – 350)(t – 350) (1)
R2 = 0.998
Control Pack: C = 23.0 – 0.00736t + 0.0616TP – 2.30×10−6(t – 350)(t – 350) (2)
R2 = 0.997
C = Discharge capacity (kWh)
t = Time (days from April 27, 2015)
TP = Mean pack temperature (°C)
Figure 33: Discharge Capacity over Time
From equations (1) and (2), pack differences can be computed in the time rate of change of
discharge capacity by looking at the coefficients on time, t. Specifically, the aging of the V2G
Pack is 1.40 (= 0.0103/0.00736) times that of the Control Pack. In addition to the increased mean
time rate of change of discharge capacity for the V2G Pack, it also exhibits a larger effect with
respect to the t2 term, meaning that the time rate of change of degradation is also more rapid for
the V2G Pack compared to the Control Pack. In other words, the rate of degradation (represented
by the t2 coefficient) is slightly nonlinear and increases in time. The minor difference between
the coefficients on the pack temperature is likely due to the slightly different mean battery
temperatures observed during the test period.
Vehicle manufacturers commonly refer to the vehicle battery pack end-of-life when the
remaining energy capacity is 70–80 percent of original nameplate. From equations (1) and (2),
one can predict the life of each of the battery packs, assuming the same charge/discharge cycles
are repeated throughout the life of the battery packs. Using equations (1) and (2), the time
56
required to reach 80 percent of original capacity for the V2G Pack is 502 days, while it takes the
Control Pack 620 days7 to reach 80 percent of its original capacity. In both cases, the mean
overall temperatures during SOH evaluations (TP = 25.2 °C for the V2G battery pack and TP =
22.2 °C for the Control Pack) were used for the battery pack temperatures, TP. In addition, the
discharge capacity at t = 0 (which was 24.55 kWh for the V2G Pack and 24.68 for the Control
Pack) was used to represent the nameplate discharge capacity. In other words, the estimated
V2G battery life is reduced by 19 percent over the Control battery pack for the charge cycles
incurred during this test. Note that the V2G cycle used in the testing represented extreme V2G
cycling as did the driving cycles. Therefore, degradation in battery life would likely be less than
that noted here for actual V2G and driving implementation.
NCC Capacity Measurements

During testing, evaluating capacity fade based on the battery nameplate capacity became
important. The manufacturer rates the battery capacity on a 1/5 C discharge at room temperature
(~23 °C). Lower temperatures and/or higher discharge rates will, as with all battery chemistries,
reduce the available capacity. Three NCC tests were performed, with the second and third
occurring on the same day after allowing enough time for the pack temperature to stabilize after
the first of these two measurements. As seen in Table 17, the V2G Pack had a capacity fade of 25
percent of nameplate, while in Table 18, the Control Pack had a capacity fade of 16 percent.
Additionally, the average minimum and maximum temperatures have been captured for each
test. As with the temperatures associated with the standard and SOH test data, the values for
the V2G cycle are higher than those for the Control Pack. However, here the difference is not
due to the extra load requested of the batteries during the NCC testing. It is most likely due to
the increased internal electrical resistance resulting from greater battery degradation in the V2G
Pack compared to the Control Pack. Note that all three of the NCC tests were near or at the end
of the battery testing period when battery degradation would have been at its highest for both
battery packs.
Table 17: V2G Pack Nameplate Capacity Comparison Test Results
V2G Pack
Capacity Average Minimum Average Maximum % of Rated

Test Date (kWh) Temperature (°C) Temperature (°C) Capacity
11/14/2016 19.43 25.8 29.7 78.6%
1/2/2017 18.42 16.1 19.0 74.5%
1/2/2017 18.45 16.8 20.1 74.6%

7Statisticians warn against extrapolating curve fits beyond the range of values studied. For the current
assessment, the range was 0 to 614 days. The authors do not expect significant differences in behavior of
the Control Pack when using equation (2) to extrapolate to 620 days.
57
Table 18: Control Pack Nameplate Capacity Comparison Test Results
Control Pack
Capacity Average Minimum Average Maximum % of Rated

Test Date (kWh) Temperature (°C) Temperature (°C) Capacity
11/14/2016 21.30 23.3 26.2 86.1%
1/2/2017 20.69 14.8 17.5 83.7%
1/2/2017 20.73 15.8 18.5 83.8%

As seen in Table 17, the V2G Pack is 74.6 percent of the specified battery capacity at the end of
the test period. Based on the common standard throughout industry, this battery pack should
be replaced if the driving and V2G cycles were to continue. The Control Pack has shown less
capacity fade with 83.8 percent of rated capacity. It should be noted that this capacity method is
different than the SOH capacity measurement. The NCC test results show the capacity fade for
both battery packs. There is a more than 9 percentage point increase in capacity fade for the
V2G Pack due to several of the degradation factors discussed earlier.
Depth of Discharge
Figure 34 shows a comparison of the DOD for each battery pack as a percentage of total DOD
occurrences during the entire test period. Sixty percent of the V2G Pack DOD occurrences were
greater than 80 percent, while only 32 percent of the Control Pack DOD occurrences were
greater than 80 percent. The mean DOD was 81.5 and 76 percent for the V2G and Control Packs,
respectfully. The standard deviations were 10.9 and 9.3 percentage points. The generally greater
DOD for the V2G Pack is a contributing factor to its greater rate of degradation. When the cyclic
charge/discharge pattern is repeated, increased DOD is associated with a lowered energy
storage capacity, which develops as the battery is used. The increased DOD required to
accomplish a desired battery usage profile degrades the battery at an increasing rate and may
be responsible for the nonlinear rate of degradation represented by the second-order term in
time shown in equations (1) and (2).
58
Figure 34: Depth of Discharge Comparison
The standard test profile was developed to achieve a DOD of 74 percent for each drive cycle
with the understanding that, as the battery packs degraded, the DOD would increase. Similarly,
the V2G profile was developed to achieve a DOD of 71 percent. Table 19 provides a summary of
three test runs from an early, mid and late test event. Note that the DOD was consistent
between the V2G and Control Packs on the early specimen. As the testing continues, one can see
an increase in the DOD during the middle specimen for both packs, suggesting that the capacity
of the battery packs is fading. The late specimen shows a further increase in the DOD for both
battery packs. Furthermore, the difference between the V2G Pack and the Control Pack DOD
continues to increase over time. Additionally, note the higher DOD for Drive Cycle 1 for the
Control Pack. This is most likely an effect of low battery temperature experienced in the Control
Pack during Drive Cycle 1 as discussed in the Temperature Comparisons Section. Figure 35
shows the DOD during a 24-hour period for specific test dates as identified in Table 19. This
graph clearly shows the increased DOD required to achieve the same test profile.
Table 19: Summary Information – Observed Depth-of-Discharge

Observations Maximum DOD (%) Maximum DOD (%)
06/01/2015
(Early specimen) Drive Cycle 1 69 69
Drive Cycle 2 68 68
Drive Cycle 3 69 68
V2G Cycle 73 N/A
02/01/2016
(Middle specimen) Drive Cycle 1 80 76
Drive Cycle 2 79 74
59
Observations Maximum DOD (%) Maximum DOD (%)
Drive Cycle 3 80 74
V2G Cycle 87 N/A
12/15/2016
(Late specimen) Drive Cycle 1 98 91
Drive Cycle 2 98 85
Drive Cycle 3 98 86
V2G Cycle 100 N/A
Figure 35: Observed 24-hour DOD for Specific Test Dates
Degradation in the DOD Domain

Another method used to identify degradation was to account for the accumulated (i.e., total)
DOD during the test period. Total DOD had a very strong linear relationship with total energy.
For both battery packs, the R2 value for these linear relationships was 0.999, indicating that the
two variables have virtually no orthogonality between them. Therefore, conclusions about the
effects of one of the two variables would be essentially identical to the effects of the other.
Consequently, no further comments will be made in this report about the degradation effects of
totalized DOD; instead, evaluations will continue with totalized energy.
As the battery packs continued to be exercised, the DOD increased to accomplish the required
driving and V2G demands. These effects can be clearly seen in Figure 36, which shows the DOD
60
at the end of each drive and V2G cycle for the V2G Pack. Note the DOD at the end of the V2G
cycle is greater than any of the driving cycles. (An exception can be seen at the end of the test
period when nearly 100 percent DOD was reached for all cycles.) However, it must be kept in
mind that the SOC at the start of the V2G cycle was only 55 percent, while the drive cycles
started at 100 percent SOC. This means that the actual delivery of energy is 45 percentage points
less during the V2G cycle based upon the SOC at the end of the V2G cycle. In addition, the
DOD for each of the three drive cycles is nearly identical to the V2G cycle. Pack temperature
effects appear to be statistically significant for the DOD. When included in the multi-variable
statistical analysis, the resulting least squared fit to the data is as follows.
V2G Pack (End Drive Cycle 1): D = 79.8 + 0.0524t − 0.480TP + 0.0000566(t – 323)(t – 323) (3)
R2 = 0.990
R2 = 0.987
R2 = 0.989
V2G Pack (End V2G Cycle): D = 76.9 + 0.0464t − 0.236TP + 0.0000224(t – 324)(t – 324) (6)
R2 = 0.985
D = Depth of discharge (%)
Figure 36: DOD at End of Drive (EOD) and V2G Cycles for V2G Pack
61
Similar DOD data for the Control Pack are plotted in Figure 37. Again, the DOD increases with
battery use, and temperature effects appear to be significant. For the Control Pack, however, the
degradation did not reach the point where the full charge was needed to achieve the drive
cycles. The DOD is lower for each successive drive cycle; the difference between Drive Cycle 1
and Drive Cycle 2 is significantly greater than between Drive Cycle 2 and Drive Cycle 3. This
follows the same trend as the mean battery temperature from cycle to cycle. Therefore, the
apparent improvement in battery performance (as measured by DOD) for Drive Cycles 2 and 3
is attributed to the higher mean battery temperatures during these drive cycles. The resulting
least squared fit to the DOD data for the Control Pack are as follows.
Control Pack (after Drive Cycle 1): D = 73.2 + 0.0332t − 0.233TP + 0.0000460(t – 323)(t – 323) (7)
R2 = 0.980
R2 = 0.984
R2 = 0.985
Figure 37: DOD at End of Drive Cycles for Control Pack
Use (Total Energy)

As introduced earlier, the accumulated usage of a battery pack, and specifically Total energy, is
a factor in capacity fade. Table 20 summarizes the observed energy use of both battery packs
using actual test data for standard test runs on three separate test dates: early, mid and late test
dates. Figure 38 summarizes the accumulative absolute energy usage.
62
The V2G Pack clearly experienced greater total energy than the Control Pack during the course
of laboratory testing. Each standard test run contributed approximately 189 kWh of V2G Pack
usage and 115 kWh of Control Pack usage. The resulting accumulative absolute energy was
93.13 MWh for the V2G Pack and 58.52 MWh for the Control Pack, or 34.61 MWh additional
energy use for the V2G Pack over the course of the testing activity. This was 59 percent more
usage than the Control Pack. However, as discussed in the State-of-Health Capacity
Measurements Section, while this total energy disparity did result in more energy capacity
degradation for the V2G Pack, the degradation rate based on total energy was greater for the
Control Pack. This clearly illustrates other usage traits are at play in defining pack energy
capacity degradation.
Table 20: Summary Information – Observed Energy

06/01/2015 V2G Pack (kWh) Control Pack (kWh)
(Early Energy Energy Total Energy Energy Total
specimen) In Out Energy In Out Energy
Drive Cycle 1 19.89 (18.58) 38.47 19.80 (18.47) 38.27
Drive Cycle 2 19.81 (18.58) 38.39 19.72 (18.47) 38.19
Drive Cycle 3 7.70 (18.58) 26.28 19.84 (18.54) 38.37
All Drive Cycles 47.40 (55.74) 103.14 59.36 (55.48) 114.84
V2G Cycle 50.17 (36.05) 86.22 N/A N/A N/A
Totals 97.57 (91.79) 189.36 59.36 (55.48) 114.84
(Middle Energy Energy Total Energy Energy Total
Drive Cycle 1 19.91 (18.55) 38.46 20.05 (18.44) 38.48
Drive Cycle 2 19.89 (18.54) 38.43 19.91 (18.51) 38.42
Drive Cycle 3 7.71 (18.56) 26.26 20.04 (18.49) 38.53
All Drive Cycles 47.51 (55.65) 103.16 59.99 (55.44) 115.43
V2G Cycle 50.66 (36.05) 86.71 N/A N/A N/A
Totals 98.17 (91.70) 189.87 59.99 (55.44) 115.43
(Late Energy Energy Total Energy Energy Total
Drive Cycle 1 20.02 (18.45) 38.47 20.44 (18.60) 39.04
Drive Cycle 2 19.99 (18.47) 38.45 19.90 (18.34) 38.24
Drive Cycle 3 7.71 (18.46) 26.17 20.50 (18.49) 38.99
All Drive Cycles 47.71 (55.38) 103.09 60.84 (55.43) 116.27
V2G Cycle 49.75 (34.86) 84.61 N/A N/A N/A
Totals 97.46 (90.23) 187.70 60.84 (55.43) 116.27
63
Figure 38: Absolute Observed Accumulative Energy for Both Battery Packs
Degradation in the Number of Cycles and Use Domains

Another basis for comparing the impact of the V2G cycle is to use the total energy passing
through the battery pack. Total energy is defined as the electrical energy passing through the
battery pack regardless of its direction (in or out of the battery pack).
Figure 39 shows the single-factor effect of total energy on discharge capacity measured during
the SOH tests. The rate of change in capacity measured in this reference frame shows the
Control Pack degrading more quickly than the V2G Pack. This is in part due to the compressed
calendar aging associated with the Control Pack. However, the difference is likely also due to
differences in the aggressiveness of the drive cycle versus the V2G cycle. Aggressiveness is
discussed in the Driving and V2G Cycle Comparison Section. As with time-based effects,
temperature effects also appear to be significant. The empirical equations describing this multi-
variable effect are as follows.
V2G Pack: C = 22.4 − 0.0658ET + 0.0746TP (10)

R2 = 0.995
Control Pack: C = 22.6 − 0.0756ET + 0.0698TP (11)
R2 = 0.994
ET = Total energy (MWh)
64
Figure 39: Total Energy Effects on Discharge Capacity
On a total energy basis, the rate of degradation of the Control Pack is 1.15 (= 0.0756/0.0658)
times that of the V2G Pack.
Another method to gauge the impact of cycle count on degradation is to identify discharge
capacity as a function of the number of charge/discharge cycles. Figure 40 was developed by
accumulating partial discharge amounts at the end of each drive and V2G cycle.8 This simple
one-dimensional plot has curvature characteristic of temperature effects. Therefore, a multi-
dimensional curve fit was evaluated using the accumulated cycle count and the mean pack
temperature after the end of discharge during the SOH tests. The corresponding least squared
curve fit for each battery pack is shown in equations (12) and (13). The coefficients on the cycle
count (K) for the V2G Pack is 1.03 (= 0.00380/0.00368) times that of the Control Pack. As with
most of the other degradation measures, including the effects of the pack temperature yields an
improved fit to the experimental data.
V2G Pack: C = 22.3 – 0.00380K + 0.0674TP (12)
R2 = 0.995
8 Cycle counts for the V2G cycle accounted for three distinct drops in state of charge: 1) from ~44,000 sec
to ~49,500 sec, 2) from ~60,000 sec to ~64,000 sec and 3) from ~72,500 sec to ~73,500 sec. State of charge
traces from May 12, 2005 and November 28, 2016 were used to identify the accumulated drop in state of
charge (i.e., the cycle count for the actual V2G cycles) for these three distinct regions. Cycle counts for all
other dates that included a full V2G cycle were then linearly interpolated/extrapolated using the values
from these two dates.
65
Control Pack: C = 22.2 – 0.00368K + 0.0754TP (13)
R2 = 0.993
K = Cycle count
Figure 40: Impact of Charge/Discharge Cycling on Discharge Capacity
Rate of Change
Another trait of the test cycles is the rate at which the commanded battery pack power changes.
Analogous to mechanical systems, higher rates of change (ROC) are theorized to lead to faster
degradation than lower rates of change.
To help assess ROC, all ROC values resulting from commanded test cycle power were compiled
and assembled into histograms for both packs (Figure 41 and Figure 42). This enabled
quantification and visualization of the ROC occurrence and distribution. Statistics were also
compiled to further characterize ROC (Table 21). The data are based on a ten-second running
average of the one-second commanded power.
Table 21: Rate-of-Change Information Summary; Commanded Power
ROC Information Driving Segment V2G Segment

Sample Quantity 5,656 33,323
Maximum Negative ROC -134% -16,593%
Maximum Positive ROC 574% 14,150%
Mean Negative ROC -8.55% -7.95%
Mean Positive ROC 11.23% 5.87%
Mean ROC 1.47% -0.41%
66
ROC Information Driving Segment V2G Segment
Standard Deviation 24% 143%
Mean negative command;
-10,524
entire standard profile; watts
Mean positive command;
9,991
entire standard profile; watts
Command update period, seconds 1
Assessment averaging period, seconds 10
The histogram data indicates the highest percentage of ROC occurrences as follows:
• Driving Segment: 14.87 percent occurrence at 0 percent ROC
• V2G Segment: 51.78 percent occurrence at 0 percent ROC.
The statistical data summary identified key findings.
• Although the V2G segment yields higher maximum ROC values (both positive and negative
extremes), the relative number of these extreme values is minute.
• The Driving segment had higher mean ROC, particularly in the positive (charging)
direction.
• The Driving segment had a higher overall mean ROC.
• The Driving segment had a much smaller standard deviation.
These findings show the Driving segment imposes more pack degradation relative to the ROC
test cycle trait.
67
Figure 41: ROC Distribution of Commanded Power for Driving Segment
68
Figure 42: ROC Distribution of Commanded Power for V2G Segment
C-Rates
This section discusses an assessment of C-Rates focused on observed performance from three
specimens standard test runs. To help assess C-Rates, all C-Rate values resulting from an
executed standard test cycle were compiled and assembled into histograms for both packs as
shown in Figure 43. This enabled quantification and visualization of the C-Rate occurrence and
distribution. Statistics were also compiled to further characterize C-Rate (see Table 22). The
histogram data indicates the highest percentage of C-Rate occurrences as follows:
• Driving Segment: 13.52 percent occurrence at -1.087C
• V2G Segment: 3.84 percent occurrence at +0.479C
The statistical data summary determined that the Driving segment had a substantially larger
overall mean C-Rate than the V2G segment (-0.471C vs. -0.033C) or 14.3 times greater than the
V2G segment. This finding shows the Driving segment imposes more pack degradation relative
to the C-Rate test cycle trait.
69
Figure 43: Distribution of Observed C-Rates
Table 22: C-Rate Statistical Summary

V2G
From Observed V2G Pack Early Specimen Driving Segment Segment
Sample Quantity 5,656 33,323
Maximum Negative C-Rate -1.087 -1.039
Maximum Positive C-Rate 0.494 0.491
Mean Negative C-Rate -0.506 -0.342
Mean Positive C-Rate 0.147 0.233
Mean C-Rate -0.471 -0.033
Standard Deviation 0.365 0.364
Mean negative C-Rate; entire standard profile -0.425
Mean positive C-Rate; entire standard profile 0.273
Command update period, seconds 1
Assessment averaging period, seconds 1
C-Rates are expressed as multiplying factor (e.g., -1.087C)
70
Aging Effects on Energy Efficiency
Figure 27 shows the single-factor effect of calendar aging (i.e., time) on energy efficiency. The
energy efficiency of the V2G battery pack is greater than the Control Pack; the mean energy
efficiency for the V2G Pack was 95.8 percent, while the mean energy efficiency for the Control
Pack was 95.2 percent. This is primarily due to the higher operating temperature of the V2G
Pack; however, differences in the performance of the cells that comprise each battery pack may
also have contributed to this difference. The empirical equations for each battery pack are as
follows.
V2G Pack: E = 92.7 – 0.00256t + 0.113TP – 3.88×10−6(t – 323)(t – 323) (14)

R2 = 0.920
Control Pack: E = 92.0 – 0.00110t + 0.122TP – 2.72×10−6(t – 323)(t – 323) (15)
R2 = 0.917
E = Energy efficiency (%)
JMP offsets higher-order terms by the mid-range of the factor among the data entries. This can
be seen in the t2 term, which is offset by 323 days. It is best to keep the equations in this format
when identifying differences between the two battery packs. By doing so, one can more accurately
identify the impact of all factors in the empirical equation by comparing the coefficients on
individual terms.
The coefficient on the time parameter gives an indication of the “average” time ROC of a response
variable. In this case, the time ROC of energy efficiency for the V2G Pack is 2.33 (= 0.00256/0.00110)
times that of the Control Pack. Although the mean V2G Pack energy efficiency is greater than
the Control Pack, given sufficient additional cycling during laboratory testing, the instantaneous
energy efficiency of the Control Pack will eventually surpass the V2G Pack as a result of this
difference. This effect can be seen in Figure 27 where the energy efficiency curves draw closer
together as time progresses. The larger coefficient on the Control Pack temperature term suggests
that the energy efficiency of this battery pack is more sensitive to swings in temperature. The
larger coefficient on the t2 term for the V2G Pack indicates the time ROC of degradation in
energy efficiency is approximately 43 percent greater for the V2G Pack than the Control Pack.
Thus, not only is the “average” rate of decline of energy efficiency greater for the V2G Pack, but
its decline is also accelerating more quickly than the Control Pack.
Technical Issues
As with most research projects, it is nearly impossible to predict all of the challenges that will
arise through the course of a project. Several technical challenges resulted in testing gaps
throughout the testing period where limited to no testing was performed. The following bullets
document the technical issues encountered during the testing.
• The VIA battery systems were not put into full testing because performance issues
prevented execution of the testing profiles. Prior to installation at UCSD, one of the
battery packs had a failed balance board module. This pack was sent to VIA for repair.
71
Upon installation at UCSD, the other pack experienced an issue that eventually required
it to be sent back to VIA and replaced. The replacement pack also had issues with the
BMS SOC calibration. This troubleshooting required a significant level of effort to
identify and attempt to resolve, but was ultimately unsuccessful.
• During testing at UCSD, communications disruptions occurred between the control

system and the ABC-150 system. It was determined to be due to a conflict with a
communication driver that enabled communications with the ABC-150 system. A
manual work-around process was implemented to restart the software twice a week at
the end of a test cycle to free the available memory and allow testing to continue
uninterrupted. This resulted in partial test runs, which were accounted for during the
analysis of the data.
• Several issues were noted from the end of July through October 2016 where the ABC-150
system would switch to local control mode in the middle of a test, halting the test. When
this occurred, the battery pack had to be charged and balanced prior to restarting the
test profile. A root cause for this occurrence could not be identified. In addition, during a
maintenance event in September 2016, the negative leads to the battery packs were
swapped. Although these negative lead connections are a common ground, this issue
caused the ABC-150 system to enter a parallel mode at the start of a test until the
batteries received a positive current command. To allow testing to continue as
scheduled, the test profiles were modified to add a positive current command in
second #1, which ensured they would execute. This did not affect the data validity, but
did result in partial test files and the need to update the profile. After the root cause was
identified, the negative leads were swapped back.
In summary, the intent to quantify degradation effects of V2G was successfully completed for
the Valence battery systems. Despite the technical issues, these battery packs showed the
degradation that was intended from this task.

Both driving and V2G activities (frequency regulation) were simulated in a controlled manner
over time to gain a better understanding of potential V2G impacts on battery life. The standard
test cycle was purposely more aggressive than expected PEV and V2G use to achieve significant
battery degradation within the project period of performance.
Battery degradation factors were considered to obtain an understanding of the impact caused
by each portion of the standard test cycle on each battery pack. The simulated drive cycle was
more severe than the simulated V2G cycle based on the C-Rates of the cycle profiles and the rate
of change of the power levels; however, total cycles, usage, DOD and temperature were more
detrimental to the V2G Pack.
In the time domain, the capacity fade rate of the V2G Pack was greater than that of the Control
Pack due to the added cycling represented by the V2G cycle and the V2G Packs higher mean
operating temperature. However, in the total energy domain, the Control Pack had a higher rate
of capacity fade.
72
Least-squared curve fits to the experimental data appeared to provide a good tool for predicting
battery capacity fade for the 24-hour use cycles applied to each of the battery packs. For most of
the battery performance measures investigated, a linear least-squared curve fit using battery
temperature, time, and in some cases the second-order term of time, yielded relatively simple
empirical equations to describe nearly all of the experimental variance observed. Coefficients on
the time variable were useful to quantify the rate of degradation for the two battery packs.
While the statistical analysis provided good, and generally comprehensive, results, the values
defined in this evaluation can only be properly used for similar battery usage as that
represented by the drive and V2G cycles applied in this work. In a real-life scenario, variations
in the total energy of a V2G cycle versus vehicle driving profiles are likely to yield different
battery life reductions. In addition, other controllable factors such as temperature or float charge
can also have an impact on battery degradation. Allowing a battery to cool between cycles and
minimizing float charging have the potential to reduce the rate of battery degradation. To
further quantify these effects, additional testing would be required.
For the conditions imposed in this assessment, over the course of the entire test period of over
600 days, the V2G Pack had capacity fade of 25 percent over nameplate, while the Control Pack
had a capacity fade of 16 percent. Over the course of testing, total energy for the V2G Pack was
93.1 MWh, while 58.5 MWh passed through the Control Pack. An additional 34.6 MWh passed
through the V2G Pack. Based on the testing of this project, the V2G Pack, experienced a 59
percent increase in total energy over the Control Pack. On a simplified total energy basis, the
rate of degradation for both battery packs was nearly identical. However, when accounting for
both operating temperature and second-order effects of time, the corrected rate of degradation
was found to be less by approximately 19 percent for the V2G Pack relative to the Control Pack.
Variations in the total energy represented by the V2G cycle versus that represented by other
vehicle driving profiles are likely to yield different battery life reductions. Other controlling
factors being comparable, the ratio of total V2G energy to that required for driving is likely to be
a significant factor in determining actual battery life reduction for any potential V2G client.
Daily V2G operations do not cause significant degradation to PEV batteries beyond that
experienced during drive cycles like those simulated in the project.
73
CHAPTER 4:
Modeling Simulation and Analysis
CTC used physical experimental data and numerical simulation results to quantify battery
degradation based on different use scenarios. This effort focused on a comparison of simulated
battery degradation, as modeled by software, and the measured degradation of battery packs
based on laboratory testing performed from February 2015 through December 2016 at the CSE
test facility, located in the UCSD Hopkins Parking Structure. The intent was to use available
battery degradation modeling software to both compare V2G battery degradation test results
with software-predicted outcomes and identify software that could accurately model V2G
battery degradation and predict degradation based on specified usage profiles.
The following sections discuss the technical approach of the modeling simulation and analysis
effort, including the software investigated and selected and profile construction in the selected
software.
Simulation Tools Investigated

Three numerical simulation tools were investigated for use in battery life degradation modeling—
the Second Life Battery Assessment software by Det Norske Veritas--Germanischer Lloyd
(DNV-GL), second-life battery modeling by WMG Innovative Solutions of the University of
Warrick and the Battery Lifetime Analysis and Simulation Tool (BLAST) by the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).
DNV-GL developed a software tool called Battery-XT that offered a platform to compare
different battery technologies and evaluate their expected lifetimes relative to user-defined
applications. The software considered a large number of interrelated factors including
temperature, sizing, use profile, control system, as well as the chemistry and specific battery
performance characteristics from participating manufacturers. It provided an economic
assessment with payback periods for different second-use scenarios, recycling, or other forms of
reclaimable destruction of battery packs. Battery-XT had all the capabilities for detailed battery
degradation modeling; however, this software was only available as a service; it was not
available for third-party purchase. Compared to other options considered, subcontracting to
DNV-GL was cost prohibitive and beyond the scope of this agreement.
WMG Innovative Solutions (WMG) of the University of Warrick, performed advanced research
on battery chemistry, simulation, battery characterization and re-use/recycling. Discussions at
the 2016 Battery Show Exhibition & Conference in Novi, Michigan included second-life battery
modeling software developed by WMG. However, much like DNV-GL, they offered a service
and not third-party purchase or use of their simulation software. Discussions with other
vendors at the battery conference also yielded the same result; most battery degradation
modeling was performed as a service due to the complexity of the associated software.
NREL’s suite of public-domain BLAST software paired NREL’s high-fidelity battery

degradation model with a battery electrical and thermal performance model, application-
74
specific electrical and thermal performance models of the larger system, application-specific
system use data and historic climate data from cities across the United States. The software
therefore had the potential to provide highly realistic long-term predictions of battery
response and thereby enable quantitative comparisons of varied battery use strategies. The
BLAST software suite included the following battery simulation models and tools:
• Behind-the-Meter Model – Employed simplified battery performance models for
computational efficiency and an algorithm to create economically optimized energy
storage solutions based on user-defined demand profiles.
• Battery Ownership Model – Determined electric vehicle costs by comparing the

degradation rates and charging profiles of different batteries and factors in incentive
programs to guide the user in constructing an ideal energy storage solution.
• BLAST-Vehicle (BLAST-V) – Focused on degradation of batteries in electric vehicle

driving applications. A limitation of BLAST-V was the inability to load a user-defined
custom profile, which was essential because of the custom V2G profile that would
follow the daily driving profile in the current project.
• BLAST-Stationary (BLAST-S) Lite – Focused on simulating stationary battery pack

degradation and allowed user-defined custom profiles and selection of geographical
location for realistic temperature profiles to factor in environmental impacts on battery
life. This software model was based on the lithium nickel cobalt aluminum (NCA) oxide
(LiNiCoAlO2) chemistry and was not available for other battery chemistries. (The
chemistries used in the laboratory testing efforts were lithium iron phosphate and
lithium iron magnesium phosphate.) All BLAST models were based on a MATLAB
battery life model of a LiNiCoAlO2 battery cell.
Simulation Tool Selected

The selected tool was BLAST-S Lite because it was the only tool investigated that allowed a
user-defined input profile, a feature crucial to CTC’s analysis. BLAST-S Lite had 100 climate-
location profiles available for modeling environmental temperature effects on battery health
over time. The software predicted a variety of useful output figures such as an annual battery
temperature plot, a 10-year cell-resistance growth curve and a 10-year capacity-fade curve. In
addition, BLAST-S Lite allowed a 365-day user-defined power profile to be loaded so the user
could capture seasonal variances in the analysis. With the 365-day power profile, the battery
degradation over one year could be computed and the results forecasted for 10 years.
CTC understood at the outset of the simulation effort that the BLAST-S Lite was limited to the
more common LiNiCoAlO2 battery chemistry and intended for evaluating storage in stationary
applications. CTC initiated the simulation effort using the existing BLAST-S chemistry with the
assumption that the results would be useful in meeting project objectives. Again, updating the
model with the correct battery chemistry was beyond the scope of this agreement.
75
Profile Construction
Running a non-standard power profile for battery degradation analysis required the generation
of a comma-separated values (CSV) file according to a specific format to instruct the program.
The CSV file could only have two columns of data: Column A defined the time steps and
Column B defined the average power over the specified time step. Time steps did not have to be
uniform in size; however, an exact 24-hour time span was required for each day (represented by
a whole number of one), and any specific time needed to be represented by its decimal equivalent
of a day (for example, 12:00 noon would be 0.5, while 3 a.m. would be 0.125). BLAST-S Lite
expected a one-year-long profile composed of 365 days. The time column needed to begin at
zero and end on 365. It was also important to scale the input power profile to the battery
capacity expected by the program (BLAST-S Lite was modeled around a 22-kWh energy storage
capacity) so the simulated battery and physically tested battery were discharged to the same
SOC.
Another restriction while building power profiles was the inherent row quantity limitation for
data entry within Microsoft Excel®. Assuming a consistent power profile in Excel, each day was
restricted to 2,872 rows (data points), which could limit the fidelity of the profiles. However,
because of the number of data points associated with the V2G profile (50,222), CTC generated
profiles with millions of rows of data (exceeding Excel’s inherent limitation of 1,048,576 rows)
using a custom-written program to achieve the fidelity of the actual profile.
To meet BLAST-S Lite data input requirements, CTC averaged some portions of the power
profiles exercised on batteries during laboratory testing. Two 24-hour power profiles were
developed in Excel to imitate the physical testing performed on the two battery packs.
• The Control Pack profile consisted of three consecutive drive/charge cycles in series
followed by a rest period at 100 percent SOC.
• The V2G Pack profile consisted of drive/charge cycles identical to the Control Pack
profile, followed by a V2G cycle that was initiated when the SOC reached 50 percent
during the third charge segment (after the third drive discharge). Fifty percent SOC
enabled the battery to perform frequency regulation up or down (e.g., allowing the
battery pack to be immediately discharged or charged).
The discharge duration of each drive cycle was 1.6 hours, followed by a charge cycle lasting 2.6
hours. The charge cycle consisted of an initial constant current charge (approximately 70
amperes (amps) per manufacturer’s recommendation) until reaching the battery pack’s voltage
limits, then immediately transitioned to a constant-voltage charge until the battery reached 100
percent SOC. The majority of the constant-voltage charge was used to balance the battery cells.
After completion of the 2.6-hour charge cycle, the profile began another drive cycle discharge
and charge sequence. A total of three drive cycles per day defined the control conditions.
Table 23 shows the simulated amount of energy discharged in each profile and the energy used
to recharge the battery either as a regenerative charge or recharge. The control profile portion of
Table 23 shows the energy discharged, regenerated and recharged at the conclusion of the three
76
drive cycles. The V2G profile shows the energy associated with the three drive cycles and V2G
cycle, followed by the final charge. Due to the power lost to inefficiencies during the recharging
process, the magnitude of the discharge values is less than those of the recharge values. Based
on observations from test data, the recharge inefficiency was approximately 4–6 percent.
Table 23: Simulated Energy Cycling
Control Profile V2G Profile

Battery State 3 Cycles 3 Drive Cycles V2G Portion Final Charge Units
Discharging -49.79 -49.79 -32.12 0 kWh
Regeneration 0.67 0.66 0 0 kWh
Charge 52.71 * 41.14 26.75 17.89 kWh
* V2G event begins at 50 percent SOC, requiring less charge than the control profile.
The V2G portion of the standard test profile began during the charge phase immediately
following the third drive cycle when the SOC reached 50 percent (actual testing had a 2.2-hour
rest). The oscillating charging and discharging of the V2G profile lasted 9.3 hours. This
represented a simulated California Independent System Operator automatic generation control
signal in the frequency response auxiliary market. Adding the V2G cycling after the three drive
cycles resulted in a substantial cycle time increase for a total of 20.6 hours of cycling per day
including all charging to bring the battery SOC back to 100 percent. See Table 24 and Source:
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Table 25 for greater detail on profile structures.
The drive discharge segment contained the instantaneous energy demand (watt-seconds) for a
battery undergoing an urban driving route. The original (high fidelity) drive profile represented
1.56 hours of battery use (5,630 data points) with an average speed of 19.6 miles per hour and a
maximum speed of 56.7 miles per hour. The V2G profile evaluated by the simulation software
contained the instantaneous energy demand (watt-seconds) of a battery experiencing the most
aggressive periods of the Regulation Energy Management (REM) Duty Cycle again scaled to the
limitations of the battery. Using the REM profile, the segments with the maximum signal
frequency, energy transfer and overall duty were selected and merged into a custom V2G
power demand profile containing 33,313 data points defining 9.25 hours of cycling. Notice that
Table 24 also defines the number of data points associated with high- and low-profile fidelity
and the SOC at the end of each profile segment. Source: Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Table 25 contains the same information for the V2G profile with the exception that only low-
fidelity data were considered because it exceeded the limitation of Excel, which is 1,048,576
rows of data.
77
Table 24: Control Pack One-Day Profile
Data Points
High Low Duration End SOC
Profile Segment Fidelity Fidelity (hours) (percent) Notes
Drive Discharge 1 5,630 901 1.56 26 Urban driving profile
Constant Current
1 1 1.36 99 Constant current charging
Charge
Constant Voltage Constant voltage cell
5 2 0.95 100
Charge balancing
Constant Current
Control Charge
Profile Constant Voltage
5 2 0.95 100
Constant voltage cell
Charge balancing
Constant Current
Charge
Constant Voltage Constant voltage cell
5 2 0.95 100
Charge balancing
Rest 1 1 12.37 100 Rest period after cell balancing
16,909 2,712 24 hours
Table 25: V2G Pack One-Day Profile
Duration End SOC

Profile Segment Data Points (hours) (percent) Notes
Drive Discharge 1 5,630 1.56 26 Urban driving profile
Constant Current Charge 1 1.36 99 Constant current charging
Constant Voltage Charge 5 0.95 100 Constant voltage cell balancing
Drive Discharge 2 5,630 1.56 26 Urban driving profile
V2G Constant Voltage Charge 5 0.95 100 Constant voltage cell balancing
Profile Drive Discharge 3 5,630 1.56 26 Urban driving profile
Vehicle to Grid Cycling 33,313 9.25 25 V2G Cycling
Constant Voltage Charge 4 0.23 100 Constant voltage cell balancing
Rest 1 3.39 100 Rest period after cell balancing
50,222 24 hours
Software Analysis
The battery degradation observed in controlled physical testing was significantly greater than
the degradation predicted by BLAST-S Lite. This was likely a result of differences between a
simulating a drive profile versus a stationary application. Table 26 shows the actual and
predicted values for remaining storage capacity of the battery packs and the number of cycles
executed. The storage capacity of the actual batteries was determined by how much energy (in
78
watts-hours) could be discharged from each fully charged battery pack at the beginning and
end of testing.
Table 26: Results Summary

Remaining
Storage Number
Capacity of Drive
Estimate and V2G Calendar
Profile Source (percent) Events Days
Experimental 84 1,497 499
Control
BLAST Low Fidelity† 94 1,500 500
(3 drive cycles)
BLAST High Fidelity† 96 1,500 500
V2G Experimental 75 1,960 490
(3 drive cycles + V2G cycle) BLAST High Fidelity† 96 2,000 500
† Estimate from BLAST capacity fade curve
To summarize the results, BLAST-S Lite degradation predictions were substantially less than
the degradation measured from testing actual batteries. When more fidelity (data) was added to
the model, the estimated capacity fade substantially decreased. This contradicted what one
might expect and is discussed in more detail below.
Figure 44 shows that BLAST-S Lite predicted the battery capacity for the high-fidelity V2G
power profile would fade by approximately 4 percent in 500 days of use. The physical testing
demonstrated 25 percent capacity fade in a similar number of days of use. The large
discrepancies between the physical tests and the simulations for both battery sets indicated
significant issues with the simulation results. While much of the discrepancy was likely due to
dissimilar battery chemistries and simulation basis (driving versus stationary application)
between the physical tests and the simulation, CTC did not rule out other causes for the poor
agreement. It should be noted that NREL BLAST tools are complex and require additional
collaboration that was beyond the scope of this agreement. While capacity fade differences
between the high- and low-fidelity results for the Control Pack could be explained as due to
differences in model refinement, the differences between the Control and V2G Packs were not
easily explained. Due to the extra cycling associated with the V2G cycles, the V2G Pack must
have a higher amount of capacity fade; this was clearly observed in the physical test results.
However, the simulation results showed less capacity fade for the V2G Pack than for the
Control Pack during 500 days of simulated use.
79
Figure 44: BLAST-S Capacity Fade Curve for V2G Profile (High-Fidelity)
After seeing such large discrepancies in BLAST-S Lite predictions of capacity fade, earlier
developmental profiles of lower fidelity (fewer data points) were re-examined. Figure 45 shows
the BLAST-S Lite simulation output of the low-fidelity control profile with three cycles per day
captured in 2,712 rows of data per day. Compare the battery SOC curve at the top of Figure 45
with that of Figure 46; the SOC oscillates between approximately 100 and 20 percent throughout
the duration of the simulation in both profiles but the density of the oscillations in Figure 46 is
greater due to increased fidelity. At 500 days, with three drive cycles per day, the capacity
degradation is approximately 7.0 percent, which is roughly 235 cycles per one percent capacity
fade. For ease of comparison, capacity loss is described as cycles per one percent capacity fade
throughout this section.
Figure 45: Control Pack Profile (low-fidelity)
80
Figure 46 shows the BLAST-S Lite simulation output of the control profile with three drive
cycles per day captured in 16,909 rows of data per day. At 500 days, with three drive cycles per
day, the capacity fade was approximately 4.0 percent, which was roughly 410 cycles per one
percent capacity fade.
Figure 46: Control Pack Profile (high-fidelity)
Comparing the capacity fade of the low-fidelity Control Pack profile simulation (235 cycles per
one percent capacity fade) with that of the high-fidelity profile simulation (410 cycles per one
percent capacity fade), a difference of approximately 54 percent can be seen. In other words,
refining the time step by a factor of 6.2 affected the output by 54 percent. Such large differences
occur in other numerical analysis software applications (such as finite element analysis codes)
when differences in discretization size (time steps, element size or material properties) yield one
of two contrasting situations. On one hand, when the discretization is too coarse, phenomena of
a lower size are not correctly captured. On the other hand, when the discretization is too fine,
numerical errors occur when subtracting nearly equal values or when values of widely different
magnitudes are summed. Both extremes lead to significant, and typically unacceptable, errors.
CTC suspected, but could not confirm, that a discretization effect contributed to the poor
agreement between the low- and high-fidelity Control Pack results.
Figure 47 shows a small segment of the battery and ambient temperature profile for both the
low- and high-fidelity models. The general trends over time in the battery temperature are
similar, but the magnitudes of the predicted temperatures are very different. The low-fidelity
temperature plot is shown on the left and has several maximum temperature peaks (green line)
81
around 40 °C. Contrast that with the temperatures from the high-fidelity temperature plot
shown on the right, whose temperatures peak around 28 °C. Assuming an average ambient
temperature of 18 °C in San Diego, California, where laboratory testing occurred, the predicted
temperature increase in the battery over the ambient temperature (i.e., the difference between
the battery and ambient temperatures) for the low-fidelity results is approximately 22 °C, while
that for the high-fidelity results is approximately 10 °C. This temperature discrepancy likely
accounts for some of the differences in predicted capacity fade as discussed above. This large
difference in battery temperatures is further evidence of a discretization issue, as discussed
above, or other serious issue with the current application of the software.
Figure 47: Temperature Profile Segment Comparison
50-Day Temperature Profile (low fidelity—left / high fidelity—right)


The inability to predict battery degradation that was shown in the laboratory testing is based on
several factors that could be addressed in future work. BLAST-S was design for stationary
battery applications and based on LiNiCoAlO2 battery chemistry. A combination of BLAST-V
and BLAST-S may have predicted the degradation that was seen in the laboratory testing;
however this was beyond the scope of this agreement. The load on an electric vehicle’s battery
fluctuates rapidly from second to second with the potential of full power demand for a few
seconds, then an immediate transition to a brief regenerative charge, then back to full demand,
then a rest. This highly dynamic cycling is common in EV applications, but less likely for a
stationary battery application.
Additionally, large data sets with large power fluctuations experienced by the physical batteries
during laboratory testing may have not been interpreted as expected. Table 27 shows what
appears to be a relationship between profile fidelity (additional load fluctuations) and
predictions of decreasing degradation. This table shows that increased profile fluctuations (via
additional data points) results in reduced battery degradation. Notice that the addition of the
V2G cycles adds 33,313 data points and reduces the degradation by 1.5 percent. One
interpretation of the added V2G data is that the profile is less aggressive than the drive cycle.
An alternative interpretation is that BLAST-S Lite may have been overwhelmed by the quantity
of data provided by the high-fidelity profiles.
82
Table 27: Single-Day Profile Fidelity
1.5-Year Degradation
Cycling Events Fidelity Data Points (percent)
3 Drive Cycles Low 2,712 7
3 Drive Cycles High 16,909 4
3 Drive Cycles + V2G High 50,222 3
The BLAST-S Lite tool has all the input selections necessary to enable the average user to
configure the simulation parameters (location-based climate data, battery cooling and custom
load profile) to their specific needs—all while being available to the public at no cost.
Furthermore, the software is simple enough for an inquisitive user to learn while providing
meaningful results such as battery temperature fluctuation throughout the year and a capacity
fade curve. Although CTC was unable to generate degradation simulation results similar to
those measured during physical testing, BLAST-S Lite has the potential to meet the average
user’s needs to explore battery degradation effects of custom battery use profiles. Current
accuracy of the software remains unknown to CTC as a result of inadequate understanding of
the effects of assumptions made by CTC in its use and CTC’s application of the software. CTC
suggests future users engage with NREL to ensure complete understanding of how to use the
software.
83
CHAPTER 5:
Second-Life Battery Applications
Vehicle batteries become impracticable for efficient electric driving when aging causes a battery
to lose approximately 20 percent of its energy storage capacity. Capacity loss or capacity fading
is a phenomenon observed during use of rechargeable batteries. The “battery lifetime cost” is
the total cost of the battery when distributed over the life cycle of the vehicle. Used batteries can
be reused in applications where the requisite performance parameters—particularly the remaining
energy density (e.g., watt-hours per kilogram)—are not as demanding as in EV applications. An
example of reusing EV batteries is grid-connected applications (i.e., peak-shaving, power
quality or renewable integration).
A peer-reviewed Mineta National Transit Research Consortium report titled “Remanufacturing,

Repurposing, and Recycling of Post-Vehicle-Application Lithium-Ion Batteries”9 suggests three
reasonable second-life uses for expended automotive lithium-ion batteries:
• Remanufacturing for reuse in vehicles by replacing any damaged cells

• Repurposing by reengineering battery for stationary storage application
• Recycling by disassembling each battery cell and extracting the metals, chemicals, and
other byproducts to be sold or re-introduced into the battery manufacturing process.
Post-vehicle applications for lithium-ion batteries will become increasingly important in the
coming years as the batteries supplied with the first modern-day mass-produced electric
vehicles degrade to the point that they are unsuitable for automotive use. The focus of this task
was to enable PEV batteries to be repurposed for large-scale, stationary storage applications for
California utilities.
The following sections discuss the technical approach of the second-life battery application
design effort, which included the following key elements:
• Examined potential applications and benefits of second-life batteries

• Documented key challenges for deploying grid-level energy storage and the critical
factors that impact the economic viability of second-life battery applications such as
reuse and recycling of the used batteries
• Developed a second-life requirements document to guide the packaging of PEV second-
life batteries for use as stationary energy resources
• Prepared a preliminary design concept for second-life battery applications based on the
technical requirements document
• Developed a determination of condition (DoC) diagnostic protocol, evaluated recent
Underwriters Laboratory Inc. (UL) work on a complementary standard, and performed
laboratory module testing to validate the proposed protocol.
9 http://transweb.sjsu.edu/PDFs/research/1137-post-vehicle-Li-Ion-recycling.pdf (June 2014)
84
Potential Applications/Benefits
A significant level of interest has been expressed in repurposing vehicle traction batteries over
the past several years. Applications from residential single-battery packs to large-scale, multi-
pack grid storage applications have been considered and demonstrated. The application of
interest will drive the energy storage power and energy requirements design to match grid-
scale needs. Applications such as time of use management and peak shaving will typically be
driven by more energy-intense requirements than a power-driven need where capacity firming
and frequency regulation are applied.
Sandia National Laboratories performed a study and authored a report entitled “Energy
Storage for the Electricity Grid: Benefits and Market Potential Assessment Guide.”10 Their goal
was to evaluate market areas, their requirements and business potential for utility business
opportunities through use of stationary energy storage applications for economic advantages.
Table 28, as outlined in this report, provides the key results of their study. This table contains
five criteria for the 17 primary benefit types characterized in the Sandia report.
• Discharge duration indicates the amount of time the storage device must discharge at its
rated output before charging is required.
• Capacity indicates the power rating range of a storage system that apply for a given
benefit.
• Benefit details the present worth of the respective benefit type over a 10-year period
considering 2.5 percent inflation and a 10 percent discount rate.
• Potential lists the maximum market potential for the respective benefit type over 10
years in California and the United States.
• Economy reflects the total value of the benefit given the maximum market potential.
This study provides a starting point for bounding the size of an energy storage system using
second-life batteries.
10 5 http://www.sandia.gov/ess/publications/SAND2010-0815.pdf (February 2010)
85
Table 28: Sandia National Laboratories Study Results
Source: Table ES-1 from The Sandia Report - Energy Storage for the Electricity Grid: Benefits & Market Potential Assessment
Guide (Feb. 2010)11
Second-life battery packs have the potential to meet many of the applications (benefit type)
listed above.
Energy Storage Challenges

In a 2013 Grid Energy Storage report12, the Department of Energy (DOE) suggests that not every
type of storage is suitable for every type of application, demonstrating the need for a portfolio
strategy for energy storage technologies. In this same report, the DOE identified four challenges
to the widespread deployment of energy storage; addressing these challenges will be key to
deploying second-life battery solutions. These four challenges include:
11 http://www.sandia.gov/ess/publications/SAND2010-0815.pdf (February 2010)

12Grid Energy Storage, December 2013,
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/09/f18/Grid%20Energy%20Storage%20December%202013.pdf
86
1. Cost competitive energy storage technologies (including manufacturing and grid
integration)
2. Validated reliable and safe operations
3. Equitable regulatory environment
4. Industry acceptance.
Understanding these challenges and addressing them in an energy storage system (ESS) design
in a cost-effective manner will be critical for industry to adopt and deploy second-life battery
systems as a viable grid-level energy storage solution.
Factors Impacting Economics for Second-Life Uses

Lithium-ion batteries used in PEVs must be disposed, recycled, or reused at some point during
the vehicle life. Significant quantities (> 1 GWh) of these batteries are expected to require
disposition starting in 2025, fifteen years after the first commercial PEVs started being sold in
North America in any substantial quantity. Peak shaving is often accomplished by energy
storage technologies and provides a large market where PEV batteries could be repurposed
with a second-life. However, to economically compete with the alternative of newly built
batteries, repurposing costs must be kept to a minimum.
The following sections address several factors that could impact the economics for second-life
use.
Delaying Recycling Through Repurposing

The cost of recycling must be considered in the economics of lithium-ion batteries use in vehicle
power. Few overarching U.S. laws and regulations govern battery recycling. The Mercury-
Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act of 1996 sets forth requirements
regarding the disposal of batteries from PEVs, but its scope is limited and excludes lithium-ion
batteries. Second, the Electric Vehicle Deployment Act of 2010 merely directs the Secretary of
Energy to carry out a study on recycling materials from EV batteries. Because of relatively high
recycling costs and uncertain regulations, there is no clear path to economically recycle lithium-
ion batteries.13
Presently, recycling lithium-ion batteries is not profitable and will likely lead to increased waste
from discarded, used batteries. Consequently, the importance of maximizing the economic and
environmental value before the battery’s primary life ends is critical to successfully repurposing
batteries for second-life applications. To date, no facility exists in the United States for lithium-
ion battery recycling. Only one facility, Retriev Technologies (formerly Toxco) in Ohio, plans to
begin recycling lithium-ion batteries. The plant currently processes lead acid and nickel metal
hydride batteries used in the current generation of hybrid EVs. Pursuant to a $9.5 million grant
from the U.S. DOE, it will soon expand to allow for the processing of more advanced (large-
format) lithium-ion batteries from EVs. The process will involve separating the battery
13 https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/ccelp/Reuse_and_Repower_--_Web_Copy.pdf
87
components and recycling the materials to recover battery-ready materials, including nickel,
cobalt, copper, lithium and other metals from cell and module enclosures.14
Availability of PEV Batteries

Figure 48 shows the PEV car sales in the United States for year to date through May 2015. Per
DMV.com, California leads the US in PEV sales.15 From the data, Tesla Model S had the most
PEV sales followed by the Nissan LEAF and then the Chevy Volt. Consequently, the majority of
batteries available for second-life research and development will come from these vehicles.
Figure 48: US PEV YTD 2015 Car Sales
15 https://www.dmv.com/blog/California-leads-the-country-in-EV-sales-521251
88
In February 2015, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) published a report,
“Identifying and Overcoming Critical Barriers to Widespread Second Use of PEV Batteries”16,
which detailed the feasibility of, and major barriers to, the second-life use of modern lithium-
ion PEV batteries. This report will be hereafter referred to as “NREL/TP-5400-63332 Report.”
The NREL/TP-5400-63332 Report documents a detailed analysis of battery degradation in

automotive service and the economics of battery replacement, concluding there is little
economic incentive or technical requirement to replace a PEV battery prior to the end of the
original vehicle’s service life. Consequently, the standard 15-year service life for vehicles is
assumed to be the duration before a PEV’s battery is available for second-life applications.
However, it is worthy to note the Nissan LEAF and Chevy Volt have an 8-year/100,000-mile
warranty, which includes battery replacement.17
Based on calculations for potential battery-damaging accidents, the NREL/TP-5400-63332

Report estimates 80 to 90 percent of PEV batteries will be in usable condition at the end of a 15-
year service life.
The number of PEV batteries to be disposed, recycled, or become available for second-life usage
can be expected to rise at approximately the same rate as the increase of PEVs (~20 percent per
year), but with a 15-year delay. Therefore, batteries for second-life usage will become widely
available in approximately 2025; 15 years after the Chevrolet Volt and Nissan LEAF began
North American sales. By these estimates, this would provide a market availability of
approximately 45,000 PEV batteries for second-life usage across the entire United States in the
year 2027, with availability rising rapidly in the following years. In the early years, 40 percent of
the available PEV batteries are estimated to be in California due to state electric car subsidies.
Capacity of Second-Life PEV Batteries

The NREL/TP-5400-63332 Report uses data for PEVs sold in California from December 2010 to
June 2014 and calculates the average installed energy capacity to be 22.3 kWh per vehicle. This
average will increase or decrease depending upon which vehicle type, PHEVs or all-electric
vehicles, will come to dominate the market. As PHEVs utilize a gasoline engine, they often use
smaller batteries (typically less than 20 kWh) while PEVs seek to maximize battery capacity to
boost vehicle range and use larger batteries (24–36 kWh).
For its baseline second use repurposing calculations, the NREL/TP-5400-63332 Report assumed
a regional collection case with 600,000 kWh (per year of battery throughput). This corresponds
to approximately 25,000 PEV batteries per year, not far from the assumed battery availability for
the first few years in California.
A 22-kWh battery may have a considerably lower capacity at the end of a 15-year service life.
Numerous factors including driving patterns, climate and whether the battery was used in a
PEV or PHEV, will determine the final capacity at the end of 15 years of use. The assumption is
16 http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/63332.pdf
17 http://driveclean.ca.gov/pev/Dispelling_Myths.php
89
that, at the end of a 15-year vehicle service life, the battery will have approximately 70 percent
of its initial depth of discharge (DOD) remaining when made available for a second use.
The NREL/TP-5400-63332 Report notes a battery that has lost 30 percent of its initial capacity
cannot cycle at greater than a 70 percent DOD. Further, if this battery were cycled at 70 percent
DOD, it would be able to deliver this capacity a very limited amount of times as the battery
continues to age and degrade. These batteries will likely have served 15 years in an automobile
and are unlikely to have been designed to substantially exceed the vehicle’s lifetime. Therefore,
other mechanisms not accounted for in the present battery degradation model (NREL’s Battery
Ownership Model and BLAST-V tool) (e.g., corrosion, failure of cell seals, fatigue of electrical
connections, long-term electrochemical effects not yet witnessed in the underlying data) may
become the primary pack failure mode if the second use lifetime becomes too large. For these
reasons, the NREL/TP-5400-63332 Report limited its assumptions to 50 percent and 60 percent
DOD scenarios and a maximum 10-year second-use battery life. For some scenarios, 10 years
may be too optimistic, and the second-life service may be as little as 3 years.
Battery Performance Data

Battery performance data can spur – or limit – the market. Vehicle developers are not likely to
share battery performance data, making it harder for other entities to predict battery
performance for second-life usage. Participants in a study conducted by Emmett Institute on
Climate Change and the Environment at the University of Los Angeles California School of
Law, Center for Law, Energy & the Environment (CLEE) Berkeley Law, noted a lack of data on
second-life batteries due to uncertainty about how the batteries were performing in their “first
life” role as mobile energy storage devices. Potential customers for second-life batteries,
therefore, lack knowledge about how the batteries performed in the first instance and under
what conditions, as well as how much capacity remains in them. Adding to this uncertainty is
lack of knowledge of how these batteries will respond when used in innovative and sometimes
unanticipated ways.18
Potential Cost
Second-life battery use could be at considerable technical disadvantage compared to utilizing
new batteries custom built for stationary energy applications. New batteries will have a much
higher energy density than second-life batteries, both because of second-life degradation and
because they will be built on 15-year-old technology, without the accompanying improvement
over time in battery efficiency. They will also have a reduced service life compared to new
batteries.
The NREL/TP-5400-63332 Report estimates that new battery packs could cost $250/kWh by 2020
and $150/kWh by 2030. To compete on economic grounds, second-life PEV batteries must be
available at a low enough cost to compensate for their performance disadvantages.
The used-battery buying price paid to the automotive battery owner (the salvage value) remains
an unknown. Potentially this cost could be $0 or a negative number in a “pay to take” situation
90
where the battery owner must dispose of the battery and all methods have associated costs.
However, if the sale of second-life battery energy storage systems is profitable, it is likely that
market forces would drive the salvage value of used vehicle batteries back to a positive value.
What can be calculated is the repurposing cost, which is the cost involved in the processes
between retiring a battery from automotive service and selling it to a secondary market. These
are discussed in detail in the NREL/TP-5400-63332 Report, along with requirements for
minimizing repurposing costs.
It suggests that PEV battery second-life has little ability to reduce the upfront cost of PEVs, but
it can eliminate end-of-service costs for the automotive battery owner and provide low- to zero-
emission peaking services to electric utilities, reducing cost, use of fossil fuels and greenhouse
gas emissions.
Liabilities Concerns
Potential liabilities issues related to second-life use of vehicle batteries include questions related
to responsibilities for safety and disposal. These issues will need to be addressed as these
batteries become available for second-use applications.
When a battery has a defect or is linked to damages to people or property, the owner is
generally liable for some portion, if not all costs for retribution. If a battery malfunctions during
the first-life vehicle application, the manufacturer may be responsible for its performance.
However, when an electric vehicle manufacturer makes a battery and ensures it for use in
typical, foreseeable automotive uses, that manufacturer does not necessarily anticipate that the
vehicle owner will sell or give the used battery to another party for uses in creative ways to
serve the grid or other customer needs. Automotive manufacturers that provide the original
battery may want to discourage or limit secondary uses to avoid liability. Core charges or a
charge to ensure the used battery is returned are a likely approach that could be employed.
Currently, regulations and standards regarding liability for second-life batteries are unclear and
may discourage automakers from allowing their batteries to be used outside of the vehicle,
other than for recycling. Recycling of lead-acid batteries is successful in part due to the
following.
• Disposal is illegal in most states; most states have regulations covering the disposal of
vehicle lead acid batteries.
• Many states require a monetary deposit as an incentive for consumers to return their
batteries.
• Most lead-acid batteries are collected when new ones are purchased. The dealers are
required to accept them and are paid for the collection. In some cases, used batteries can
be returned to the manufacturer for recycling19
The future of automotive lithium-ion battery recycling: Charting a Sustainable Course; Linda Gaines 1
19
Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL 60439, United States.
91
Adapting these regulations/practices for lithium-ion batteries may actually discourage the
second-life use.
Potential Upside
As with any new technology, there are many unknowns and questions regarding the potential
of the technology to achieve a value proposition. In an effort to reduce uncertainty and cost, it is
recommended that continued support be provided to demonstrate second-life battery research
projects. This research provides useful data moving technologies through the development
process. To date, small-scale pilots have been conducted with specific battery technologies, but
multiple batteries grouped to meet an ESS objective have not been tested. Overall EV battery
performance data in vehicle-to-grid applications will assist the Energy Commission in
determining value for individual and integrated systems as well as quantify the potential
impacts to the electric grid.
Based on the NREL/TP-5400-63332 Report, NREL has identified grid-connected combustion

turbine peaker plants as a promising application for second use batteries. Looking at the market
potential, another application of interest would be frequency regulation. This will be a
challenging application for these batteries; however, it has the potential to provide a large
economic benefit to groups deploying energy storage.
As discussed above, the Sandia National Laboratories study entitled “Energy Storage for the
Electricity Grid: Benefits and Market Potential Assessment Guide” evaluated market areas,
requirements and business potential for utility business opportunities through use of stationary
energy storage applications for economic advantages. Second-life battery packs integrated to
meet ESS design requirements have the potential to meet many of the applications (benefit type)
listed in Table 28, such as load following, time of use energy management, demand charge
management and renewables capacity firming.
Second-Life Requirements
The following sections provide the requirements for a second-life battery energy storage
system.
Energy Storage System

An ESS must be a packaged solution that utilizes second-life PEV battery packs configured to
achieve the required design output that aligns to the application requirements. The packaged
solution must be contained in an enclosure(s) that maintains environmental conditions, such as
temperature, within the design limits and appropriate National Electrical Manufacturers
Association (NEMA) ratings as well as the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). The ESS must include the required electrical,
protective and monitoring equipment to safely charge and discharge each second-life vehicle
battery as required to meet the ESS objectives. Safety interlocks must be included as required by
federal, state and local codes.
The ESS output voltage range, frequency and phase requirements must be dictated by the host
site requirement and operate in the utility-interactive mode in accordance with Institute of
92
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 154720 – Standard for Interconnecting Distributed
Resources with Electric Power Systems. The inverters must be certified by an Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL)
to comply with UL174121 tests for multimode inverters with the features described herein. The
ESS must be fully automated for the specified application and compatible with the host site and
meet CAISO interconnect requirements. The ESS must have a human machine interface (HMI)
that clearly provides ESS status and alarms with the ability to view additional details of
individual battery packs.
As required by the host site, the appropriate mechanical foundation and fencing, must be
provided.
The ESS must be an integrated solution with switchgear, transformer, inverters, battery
management system and batteries as required to provide system reliability and safety.
In addition to active power output control, the inverters must have the capability to adjust the
power factor by adjusting the output reactive volt-amperes.
Electrical Interconnection on Grid

Many regulatory requirements must be met within the California ISO to maintain reliability and
accessibility to the California power grid. California ISO provides open and non-discriminatory
access to the bulk of the state’s wholesale transmission grid, which is supported by a
competitive energy market and comprehensive infrastructure planning efforts. For a resource to
be considered as an ancillary service provider, specific criteria and operating characteristics
must be met. The areas of primary focus within this document are specifically related to the
regulation down or regulation up ancillary services category.
Resource bids can and will only be accepted after the scheduling coordinator is in possession of
a current certificate issued by California ISO confirming the resource complies with California
ISO’s technical requirements for providing the ancillary service concerned. Scheduling
coordinators can apply for ancillary services certificates in accordance with the requirements for
considering and processing such applications Service Requirements Protocol (ASRP) of the
California Independent System Operator Corporation Fifth Replacement Electronic Tariff22 and
California ISO’s operating procedures. If at any time California ISO’s technical requirements are
not being met, California ISO may withdraw the certificate for the resource concerned. These
operating characteristics and technical requirements are outlined herein.
Operating Characteristics
Within the California ISO system, a particular set of operating characteristics must be met to
qualify as a resource through California ISO.
20 http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/scc21/1547/1547_index.html
21 http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/scopes/1741.html
22 http://www.caiso.com/Documents/CombinedPDFDocument-FifthReplacementCAISOTariff.pdf
93
1. The rated capacity of the resource must be 500 kilowatt (kW) or greater unless the
resource is participating in an aggregation arrangement approved by California ISO. The
rated capacity of 500 kW must be capable of providing at least 500 kW of regulation
electrical power.
2. The maximum amount of regulation to be offered must be capable of being reached

within a period of 10 minutes.
3. A resource must also be able to increase or decrease real power levels immediately in
response to signals from California ISO’s energy management system (EMS) control.
The intent is for California ISO to maintain sufficient resources that are immediately
responsive to the California ISO’s EMS control to provide sufficient regulation service to
allow California ISO Balancing Authority Area to meet North American Electric
Reliability Corporation and Western Electricity Coordinating Council reliability
standards and any requirements of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by
continuously balancing resources to meet deviations between actual and scheduled
demand and to maintain interchange schedules.
4. The capacity offered as regulation by a resource must be dispatchable on a continuous

basis for at least 60 minutes in a day ahead market (DAM) and at least 30 minutes in the
real time market (RTM).
5. Lastly, the resource should meet or exceed the minimum performance threshold for
responding to California ISO’s EMS control signal. The minimum performance
threshold of 50 percent is applicable for a resource to offer regulation up and regulation
down capacity. Additional details are further outlined within the referenced document.
Technical Requirements
In addition to the operational characteristics, detailed technical system requirements must be
met such as control, monitoring and voice communications.
A control system must meet the minimum performance standards for communications and
control outlined by California ISO and published on their website. The control system provided
within a resource should be administered with a direct, digital, unfiltered control signal. The
resource must be capable of receiving unfiltered control signals generated from the California
ISO EMS through a standard California ISO direct communication and direct control system.
The resource response (in megawatts [MW]) to a control signal must respond immediately,
without manual operator intervention, to control signals and needs to sustain a specific ramp
rate within specified regulation limits, for each minute of control response (MW/minute).
Ancillary service providers for non-generator resources, such as the case for subject second-life
battery applications, may define a ramp rate for operating as generation and/or a ramp rate for
operating as load.
94
Monitoring/Telemetry:
A resource providing regulation must have a standard California ISO direct communication
and direct control system to send signals to the California ISO EMS for California ISO EMS to
dynamically monitor, the following as a minimum requirement:
• Actual real power level (MW)
• Power high limit (MW), low limit (MW) and rate limit values (MW/min) as selected by
the resource operator
• In-service status indication confirming availability of regulation service.

Ancillary service providers for non-generator resources (whether or not the resource uses
regulation energy management) must provide California ISO the following additional telemetry
data:
• Resource ramp rate when operating as generation (MW/min)
• Resource ramp rate when operating as load (MW/min)
• The maximum instantaneous ability to produce or consume energy in MW
• The maximum capability to provide energy as expressed in megawatt hours (MWh)

over a fifteen (15)-minute interval.
For additional detail on requirements regarding a Certificate for Regulation refer to California
ISO Corporation, Fifth Replacement Electronic Tariff July 1, 2013, Appendix K Ancillary Service
Requirements Protocol (ASRP), PART A CERTIFICATION FOR REGULATION.
Vehicle Battery Pack Types

The ESS must be designed to integrate several vehicle battery packs into a working ESS. Battery
packs are composed of modules that are contained in a single unit. Modules are composed of
one or more cells where a single cell is the smallest energy storage component of the pack.
Under the California Energy Commission Contract 600-12-016, CTC procured PEV batteries and
their associated materials for use as test materials for this project. Three varieties of lithium-ion
battery systems were procured as test materials for this effort, corresponding to three types of
PEVs. These systems were manufactured by Electric Vehicles International (EVI), VIA Motors
(VIA) and Electric Vehicle Add-On Systems (EVAOS).
Electrical Interconnection of Second-Life Vehicle Battery Packs

A combination of series and parallel strings were used to obtain the power and energy
requirement of the ESS using available second-life vehicle battery packs (SL-VBPs). The
configuration could range from a dedicated bi-directional inverter for each battery pack, to
some combination of parallel battery packs connected to an inverter. Consideration must be
given to battery pack voltage limits (both charged and discharged states), available energy,
limits of operation and degradation, overall ESS efficiencies, available hardware components
and cost effectiveness.
95
Each battery pack must have a dedicated BMS that must be used to protect the battery pack. It
must consist of a combination of sensors, controller, communication and computation hardware
with software algorithms designed to determine the maximum charge/discharge current and
duration from the estimation of SOC and SOH of the battery pack. If not provided with the
battery pack, it must be added to the battery pack.
Each BMS must include a communication port and protocol that provides key battery
parameters about the battery pack to the overarching software control system.
The intent is not to redesign the battery packs, but to use existing connections for the following:
• BMS data communication

• Method for battery pack case grounding
• Connection method to the high-voltage DC bus
• Connection method for low voltage for any required control signal.
A method to individually perform cell balancing on each battery pack must be included. Cell
balancing must be performed as required by a means which will not degrade the overall
performance of the ESS. The ability to electrically isolate each battery pack must be included to
enable cell balancing and to enable the ability to isolate faulted battery packs.
Mechanical Mounting for the Interconnected Battery Packs

The second-life battery ESS must be installed in a designated area within a building or within a
container express (CONEX) type enclosure that could be mounted outdoors.
The design of the second-life battery ESS must take into account all aspects of the local
environmental factors to ensure personnel and equipment safety. The second-life battery ESS
must meet all applicable international, state, local building codes, fire codes and safety
regulations per the California Building Standards Commission. Occupant safety must be
maintained through the entire design, build and system operations. The mechanical structure
for the SL-VBPs must be designed to prevent failure during local natural phenomenon such as
seismic activity, hurricane, etc. The Seismic Design Code Principles for natural disaster
prevention can be found in the California building code. The battery must be mounted in an
orientation approved by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) with the recommended
clearances, mounting and interconnection taken into account. The batteries and balance of plant
devices must be mounted in a manner where they are easily maintained and replaced.
Cooling Requirements for the Interconnected Battery Packs

The physical environment of the SL-VBP assembly must be an enclosed area with an environmental
control system to properly condition the space. Limits on battery space conditions must be
determined from battery and electrical equipment minimum and maximum design specifications,
which must include both thermal and moisture recommendations. A thermal management
system (TMS) must be included for battery packs and balance of plant components that require
thermal management. The TMS must be designed to protect the battery pack from overheating.
If required, liquid cooling ports must be included.
96
Battery cells are vulnerable to overheating due to charging/discharging and excessive ambient
heat. Battery cooling must be addressed with the battery pack layout and design. Battery
selection governs the final design’s cooling method, with air and liquid cooling common
methods currently use. The cooling system’s overall size and capability must be determined by
the design, demand profiles and the battery manufacturer’s cooling specifications. Testing must
be performed to determine the cooling requirements for the batteries if they are unavailable
elsewhere. Automated methods must be in place to electronically isolate and de-energize
individual batteries in the event of (or to prevent) a thermal runaway.
Some power electronics have susceptible temperatures limits. The physical location and outside
environment of the second-life EES can determine how much heat the environment will
contribute to the temperature of the electronics. The batteries, inverters, converters, controls and
all other electronic devices used in a second-life battery ESS must be rated for maximum and
minimum operational temperatures; the TMS must keep the system safely operating within the
manufacturers’ recommended temperatures.
The cooling requirements for inverters, converters, HMI and other electrical components must
be addressed with the layout and mounting design to provide acceptable operational
temperatures for the electronics. The final design’s cooling method must be adequate to meet
recommended power electronics operating temperatures during all power output scenarios.
The cooling system’s overall size and capability must be determined by the individual
manufacturer’s components, cooling specifications and the integrated design.
Software Control System

The control system must consist of a combination of hardware components, associated software
and network components. The control system must be a supervisory control and data
acquisition (SCADA) system. It must include at a minimum, the master controller, HMI,
programmable logic controller (PLC), metering, data historian, battery management systems
and remote access (monitoring/control). Power/energy monitoring connections to the grid must
be performed utilizing revenue grade metering.
The control system must include the ability for both manual and automatic operation of all
system components in various control modes. The control system must perform the following
high-level functions:
1. Control the charging and discharging of the ESS in an efficient and safe manner while
optimizing the operation and life of the storage components
2. Automatically perform individual cell balancing as required to maintain overall ESS

outputs
3. Monitor and control interoperation of system metering and battery system to optimize
the efficiency and cost to deliver real and reactive power to the critical loads
4. Provide an HMI for local viewing as well as remote monitoring of the system to trend,
export and generate reporting data
97
5. Meet the control system key parameters and provide time relational charted data with
recording rates of no greater than once per minute
6. Provide the user capability to monitor and collect system performance for the following
parameters
• Line voltage root mean square (RMS)

• Phase voltage RMS
• Line current
• Voltage harmonics
• System frequency
• SOC
• Operating status
• Mode of operation
• Site metering data; including real and reactive power flow and direction, voltage
and frequency
7. Ensure the International Organization for Standardization communications are

consistent with current standards such as:
• Modbus transmission control protocol/Internet protocol (TCP/IP)

• International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 61850
• IEC 60870-5-101
• IEC 60870-5-104
• Distributed network protocol (DNP).
Safety Requirements
Personnel and property safety are a major concern for a second-life battery ESS. Proper safety
features must be addressed during the design, installation and maintenance of a second-life
battery ESS throughout the remaining life of the batteries. The second-life battery ESS design
and installation must meet all applicable international, state and local building codes, fire codes
and mandated safety regulations. The required construction permitting for building
construction, fire protection and occupant safety must be obtained.
Depending on the physical location of the second-life battery ESS installation, the following
factors must be considered.
• Seismic protection must be considered during the design to mitigate failure during an
earthquake.
• Liquid-tight secondary containment must be used per Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) regulations.
• The SL-VBP enclosure must have proper lighting to adequately illuminate potential
safety hazards as well as properly light the work area.
• Proper signage must be installed and must be visible alerting personnel of potential
hazards such as high voltage, caustic materials, acids, etc.
98
• Satisfactory ventilation must be provided. The amount of ventilation is dependent on
battery chemistry and layout.
• A smoke detection system must be installed to alert required personnel of an

emergency.
• Fire suppressant devices must be accessible and or automated and capable of providing
adequate fire suppression for the battery chemistry and surrounding environment.
Codes and Standards

Additional specific codes and standards for implementation of the second-life battery stationary
ESS in California not previously identified include (but are not limited to):
• NEC23 (National Electric Code)

• CBC24 (California Building Code)
• CFC25 (California Fire Code)
• UL197326 (Safety standard for stationary batteries used in energy storage applications).
Preliminary Design Concept for Second-Life Battery Application

This preliminary design for second-life battery applications is based on the technical
requirements to package the PEV second-life batteries for use as a stationary energy resource.
This section discusses the preliminary design concept and assumptions that were used to
develop the concept. A majority of the effort was in determining how the batteries could be
configured and grouped to achieve the energy storage system (ESS) objective to support small
utility applications as well as continuing the possibilities with a commercial application behind
the meter. Adequate energy as compared to the power output to support ancillary services
applications was another objective which California ISO requires 500 kW minimum with a 30-
minute charge and discharge time to certify the system. Upon the selection of a host site,
additional details will be used to further develop this concept. This will include site specific
requirements to further define the most lucrative application. A combination of series and
parallel strings is typically used in battery packs to obtain the power and energy requirement
for the vehicle. These SL-VBPs can be configured to meet the needs of an ESS.
A host of energy storage technologies are in various levels of development, all trying to achieve
DOE’s price point objectives and technical performance criteria. Many organizations are looking
at their technologies with the goal of reducing the life cycle cost. It is a modular and scalable
approach that could leverage many battery chemistries in an effective manner. This concept
provides a flexible design that accommodates a variety of SL-VBPs and is not dependent on the
23 http://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/document-information-pages?mode=code&code=70
24 http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/Current2013Codes.aspx
25 http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/Current2013Codes.aspx
26 http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/outscope/outscope.asp?fn=1973.html
99
chemistry. Considerations were given to battery pack voltage limits charged and discharged
states), available energy, limits of operation and degradation, overall ESS efficiencies, available
hardware components and cost effectiveness.
Assumptions
The preliminary design concept is based on several assumptions.
1. The grid-level energy storage system is sized at 1 MW, 500 kWh and configured with
four each 250-kW subsets.
2. Each 250-kW subset consists of two each 125-kW battery modules.
3. Battery parameters are based on battery packs currently being tested under Agreement
Number: 600-12-016, Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) Testing and Demonstration with
Department of Defense (DoD). These battery packs consist of 348 prismatic lithium cells
with three parallel series each containing strings of 116 cells.
4. Batteries and components require cooling. The batteries are water cooled, while the
power electronics require a conditioned area in the container or be placed outside the
container. (The intent is to reduce the parasitic losses as much as possible and thus
operate with minimal cooling.)
5. Each battery pack has usable energy storage at or below 80 percent rated capacity.
6. Second-life battery pack energy is assumed to be 13.8 kWh.
7. The maximum C-Rate is less than a 2C rate (1.8C is recommended).
8. The ESS is assembled in the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
containers.
Preliminary Design – Drawing Package

Figure 49 shows the communications within one of the 125-kW battery modules, which consists
of six battery packs, each with a dedicated BMS. These battery modules are configured in
parallel and will feed a single inverter. Each 125-kW battery module will have a dedicated
battery controller that will coordinate the interactions of the battery packs through
communications with the dedicated BMS and coordinate interactions with the inverter. The
battery controller will control a charger that will be used to provide cell balancing of each
battery pack in the module. The battery controller will communicate with a master controller.
The master controller will provide the interaction to the grid and each of the eight battery
controllers for this 1-MW ESS concept. The master controller will have a human machine
interface that will provide the user with status of the ESS, battery pack status, system output
parameters, alarm indications and operating modes. CAISO communication will also be
accomplished through the master controller.
100
Figure 49: 125-kW Battery Module Communications
Battery Pack
1-1
BMS
Battery Pack
1-2
BMS
Inverter
Battery Pack
1-3
BMS
Master Controller / SCADA
Battery Pack
1-4
BMS
Human Machine
Battery Pack
Interface
1-5 Battery Controller
BMS
Battery Pack
Battery Cell Balancing
1-6
Charger
BMS
Determination of Condition Diagnostic Protocol

EV batteries are typically replaced when they reach 70–80 percent of their rated capacity.
Although the batteries are not optimal for vehicle applications, they still have the potential to be
repurposed in other applications. When new, the energy storage capacity of a typical EV battery
pack is 22–32 kWh. To use these batteries in the ancillary services market, one would need more
than 39 packs for a 1MW-size second-life energy storage system when accounting for a 20
percent loss of rated capacity due to customary battery degradation. Allowing for development
and integration flexibility of these systems, a universal determination of condition (DoC)
diagnostic protocol is needed to optimally integrate dissimilar battery systems. Understanding
the value of used vehicle batteries will help drive aftermarket applications. This effort to
develop a universal DoC diagnostic protocol will support the value of potential aftermarket
applications of vehicle batteries.
The objective of this task was to develop a universal DoC diagnostic protocol and recommend
standard test methods for predicting optimal second-life applications of used EV batteries. This
included investigating different test methods and battery attributes and defining the potential
performance benefits of testing prior to integration into a large-scale energy storage system.
Testing and evaluating included quantifying the benefit of testing at the cell level, module level
or pack level to configure a large second-life energy storage system. Battery performance was
only one aspect to consider when implementing repurposed batteries. Safety, regulatory
requirements and liability concerns were also addressed.
101
Protocol Development
CTC developed and presented a draft DoC diagnostic protocol on November 22, 2016; a final
update was provided to the California Energy Commission during the Critical Project Review
on December 13, 2016. As illustrated in Figure 50, the protocol was based on three phases
identified as 1) Preliminary Battery Evaluation, 2) Battery Characterization and 3) Grouping.
The arrow passing through the phases is focused on a safe and cost-effective approach to
evaluate batteries having potential for a cost benefit. This protocol does not address the
recycling at the end of its second-life use in the large-scale storage farm application. Recycling
continues to be an important area in need of attention following first vehicle use or second-life
use in stationary applications.
Figure 50: DoC Diagnostic Protocol
Preliminary Battery Evaluation

The Preliminary Battery Evaluation phase, shown in Figure 51, is designed to obtain an
understanding of how and where each battery pack was used in its initial application. This
phase includes obtaining battery specifications from the OEM; these specifications are critical to
evaluating the battery’s condition/health at the time of receipt for second-life applications. This
includes a visual inspection for cracks, swelling or obvious damage to the component being
evaluated. OEM data provides a baseline for comparison to the second-life battery’s initially
measured performance. By evaluating the battery’s current performance against its
performance when new, a current SOH can be evaluated, and its remaining useful life can be
estimated.
Battery manufacturer specifications are used to identify parameters such as rated capacity,
voltage and temperature limits, internal resistance and pack configurations. Additionally,
historical data from a BMS would be documented and could include parameters such as total
usage, SOC, mean DOD, SOH, specific cell information and environment conditions. The key is
102
to leverage as much of the historical data as possible to provide insight on the battery’s fitness
for second-life use. Historical information such as the geographical location,
storage/maintenance conditions, application of the battery and data tracking performance
during its first application, can provide insight into its condition and support conclusions
drawn from physical testing. Based on this evaluation, the next phase could be focused on a
specific issue of concern for the battery pack or require additional testing of the battery pack,
modules or cells.
Figure 51: Preliminary Battery Screening
Battery Characterization
The Battery Characterization phase, shown in Figure 52, focuses on testing each battery. Testing
can be accomplished at the pack, module or cell level. Disassembly and testing the battery pack
at the module and cell level provides more comprehensive data on the health of a given battery
pack than does pack testing, but also requires additional effort. A good rule of thumb is to test
at the lowest practical component level.
When cells and modules are connected, the assembly is only as good as the weakest individual
component. Therefore, to avoid wasted capacity, one should strive to group batteries of similar
characteristics.
103
Figure 52: Battery, Module or Cell Characterization
Whether testing at the pack, module or cell level, the data are focused on understanding battery
health with the ultimate goal of combining closely matched batteries (modules or cells) to be
put into a second application. The primary characteristics of battery condition are remaining
capacity, efficiency and internal resistance; cell voltages and operating temperatures are of
secondary importance. These characteristics are generally interdependent, for example, an
increase in internal resistance causes a reduction in battery efficiency and the ability to deliver
power. If available, a BMS could be used to obtain additional data, such as maximum
cell/module temperature and cell voltage. These data can provide insights into discrepancies
between cells and the general stability of the battery by comparing cell voltages. Cell voltages of
a similar magnitude among all battery cells indicate a well-balanced battery, while large
discrepancies indicate poor balancing or specifically one or more deficient cells within the
battery. Batteries having minimal differences among all of its cells will provide longer-lasting,
safer and more reliable performance.
Grouping
The last phase of the DoC protocol is the ranking or grouping of batteries, modules or cells as
shown in Figure 53. The intent is to group batteries, modules or cells that have a similar use
history and present state of health. The methodology defines four unique categories with the
first three containing usable batteries while the last category is for batteries needing to be
directly recycled / reclaimed as opposed to being used for second-life applications.
104
The four recommended categories focus on key performance/characterization parameters
including energy storage capacity, battery modules and cell temperatures, internal resistance
and key voltages (when comparing modules and packs). Each category contains batteries,
modules or cells meeting a minimum threshold. Additional subdivision could then be made to
group batteries, modules or cells of similar performance levels before introducing them into
their second-life application. At this point, battery packs could be assembled for specific
applications to achieve the maximum benefit.
Figure 53: Battery, Module and Cell Sorting
An example where grouping is necessary is the construction of supplementary power storage

and regulation banks. Currently, there are several research and demonstration projects
investigating the use of second-life batteries in different configurations and applications that
include microgrids, peak demand, renewable ramping, frequency response and others. A
majority of these projects operate at a total capacity of 100 kWh, which would require five or
more sets of second-life EV batteries. For grid-level storage, units having megawatts/megawatt-
hours of output/storage are required; such applications require a minimum of 55 vehicle-sized
battery packs to provide the required grid-level power and energy storage.
Underwriters Laboratories Recent Activity

The Underwriters Laboratories Incorporated (UL) recently initiated the development of
ANSI/CAN/UL 1974, The Standard for Evaluation for Repurposing Batteries. As the name
implies, this standard covers the sorting and grading process of battery packs, modules and
cells originally configured and used for other purposes and intended for repurpose use
105
applications.27 The draft standard is in preliminary review as of the date of this report. There are
similarities between the standard and what is presented in this DoC protocol report, with the
UL standard including factors beyond those discussed above. The UL standard adds greater
specificity to the process of sorting, inspecting and grading battery packs, modules and cells.
UL relies on the battery OEM to establish grading criteria for assessing cells and modules. It
also suggests a six-sigma rating system to establish grades based on ranges of sigma values with
the baseline or standard being the OEM battery parameter. UL recommends additional testing
to support battery health determination. The testing performed by CTC in this task provides
additional detail on the development and justification for evaluation of the parameters
suggested by the draft UL report. Neither exhaustive documentation nor complex examination
instructions were required in the CTC approach to battery assessment. While the UL report
refers the battery evaluation back to the OEM, the CTC methodology approached evaluation
from a third-party perspective and provided basic recommendations, as well as two methods
for grading batteries based on the OEM’s battery specification.
After reviewing the draft standard and developing the DoC protocol, it is clear that an industry
grading standard must be set by a governing body to accelerate and standardize the use of
recycled EV battery packs. Once finalized, UL 1974 is expected to be the standard for all
manufacturers to follow when repurposing batteries which incorporates the testing performed
by CTC.
DoC Laboratory Testing

The DoC laboratory testing leveraged testing assets used in the UCSD laboratory testing effort
(detailed in CHAPTER 3:
Laboratory Research, Testing and Analysis). In this case, a thorough history existed for each
battery. A total of 28 Valence U27-12XP batteries modules were evaluated; they were previously
exercised as two battery packs each having 14 modules in series. Based on the laboratory
testing, the condition of these battery packs was well known. The energy storage capacity was
known, and there were no faulted modules. The V2G Pack was exercised with a vehicle drive
profile followed by a V2G profile, and the Control Pack was exercised with only the vehicle
drive profile.
Test Equipment, Software and Interconnections
The following test equipment and materials were used to perform module testing:
• NH Research 9200 battery charge/discharge test system
• Valence U-BMS-XP-LV Model 1 SLP U27 battery management system
• MEASURpoint DT8874 data acquisition unit
• Omega type K thermocouples.
27 http://www.shopulstandards.com/productdetail.aspx?ProductID=UL1974_1_B_20170602
106
The battery module and associated BMS was configured and wired to the NH Research 9200
battery charge/discharge test system (9200). The 9200 has three independent test channels that
allow for independent testing of three modules at a time. NH Research’s Enerchron test
management software provided the capability for complex, dynamic test sequences and was
used to collect and archive data measurements. Additional data acquisition (DAQ) was
performed with an integrated device (MEASURpoint DT8874) that integrates with the
Enerchron test management software. Each DAQ device channel consists of its own high-
resolution 24-bit architecture, individual channel measurement range and full isolation from all
other channels. Additionally, temperature measurement channels are independently
programmable for any thermocouple type (B, E, J, K, N, R, S and/or T) allowing flexibility in the
selection and use of thermocouples.
The test setup included four thermocouples mounted on the module case along with a
thermocouple for monitoring ambient air temperature. Additionally, outputs from the BMS
were monitored for voltage limits and charge completed status.
Execution of Test Protocol
Data of interest were captured by monitoring the battery modules during execution of two
tests: 1) constant-current discharge to a low-voltage cut off (per the manufacturer’s
specification) and 2) high-current discharge pulses at several states of charge. Three identical
test cycles were performed; however, due to time constraints, sufficient time was not allotted to
allow the battery temperature to return to ambient temperature before repeating the tests. The
outputs for each group of three tests were averaged to determine the representative value for
the battery.
Figure 54 illustrates the three constant-current-discharge cycle tests conducted to evaluate the
battery capacity. The test control program began by fully charging a battery and balancing cells
in accordance with the manufactures’ procedures. The charge started at a constant current
charge of 70 amps until the battery voltage reached 14.6 volts, at which point the charge
transitioned to a constant-voltage profile until either the BMS signaled charge complete or the
constant voltage segment duration of 1.0 hour was exceeded. This was followed by a 30-minute
rest period.
The battery was discharged at 70 amps until the battery module voltage reached 10.5 volts or
one of the cells was less than 2.3 volts, as monitored by the BMS. Discharge concluded with a
30-second wait period. At this point, charging initiated at the same charge profile defined
previously. After the charge completed, a rest period of 30 minutes was performed. This
sequence of charge, rest, discharge and rest was repeated two more times for a total of three
constant-current capacity tests over approximately a 12-hour period.
107
Figure 54: Constant-Current-Discharge Segment
Figure 55 illustrates three high-current pulse tests that followed the capacity tests. Each test
contained four 20-second durations, 150-amp pulses at states-of-charge of 100, 90, 80 and 70
percent. The voltage drop across this period of time was used to calculate the battery’s internal
resistance at multiple states of charge. Starting with the battery module fully charged, the
battery module experienced the first 20-second, 150-amp pulse at 100 percent SOC followed by
a one-minute rest. A constant current discharge of 70 amps was then executed until the battery
module SOC dropped to 90 percent. A rest period of one minute was executed, followed by a
20-second, 150-amp pulse. This sequence continued for the 80 and 70 percent SOCs. The battery
was then fully charged based on the same charge profile as described previously and the high-
current test was repeated two more times. This sequence of testing was completed within an 8-
hour period.
108
Figure 55: Pulse-Discharge Segment
Results of Battery Module Testing

Capacity, efficiency and internal resistance are important battery characteristics to examine
when attempting to determine the condition of batteries for a second application. Capacity is
the battery’s fully-charged available energy in ampere-hours (Ah) and is proportional to the
maximum amount of energy that can be extracted from the battery. Efficiency is the ratio of the
energy discharged from the battery to the energy required to charge the battery. Internal
resistance, most simply, is the difference between a battery’s resting (i.e., open circuit) voltage
and voltage under load. Internal resistance is caused by parasitic reactions in the electrolyte and
on the electrodes and limits the power the battery can produce. Temperature was measured at
four battery locations; these measurements were made to potentially determine a location of
battery breakdown and provide other insights to aid in determining battery condition. Battery
module voltage, current, power, energy, capacity and temperatures were collected at 2.0 hertz
during testing.
A summary of the capacity, remaining life and efficiency for the V2G Pack (drive + V2G
profiles) and Control Pack (drive profile only) after completing laboratory testing can be found
in Table 29. It provides the mean of three capacity measurements and the associated standard
109
deviation as the temperature/capacity increased. The mean standard deviation of batteries from
the Control Pack were overall higher (0.38 Ah versus 0.29 Ah) than the V2G Pack and so was
the mean capacity of batteries from the Control Pack (116.4 Ah versus 106.6 Ah). This difference
in battery capacity increase between each test and the overall higher mean battery capacity for
the Control Pack was attributed to temperature having a greater positive affect on the Control
Pack versus the V2G Pack.
Table 29: Basic Comparison of Tested Packs

Mean Std Tested Mean Mean Std Tested Mean
Capacity Dev Capacity Efficiency Capacity Dev Capacity Efficiency
Battery (Ah) (Ah) (%) (%) Battery (Ah) (Ah) (%) (%)
A7 112.8 0.26 81.7 93.1 B8 118.6 0.38 85.9 93.5
A8 112.3 0.20 81.4 93.0 B7 118.3 0.39 85.7 93.5
A14 111.7 0.35 80.9 93.0 B12 117.4 0.34 85.1 93.4
A1 110.9 0.28 80.4 92.7 B10 117.0 0.45 84.8 93.2
A9 110.3 0.15 79.9 92.8 B14 117.0 0.45 84.8 93.3
A10 109.5 0.41 79.4 92.0 B9 116.5 0.31 84.4 93.4
A11 106.1 0.25 76.9 92.8 B11 116.4 0.38 84.3 93.4
A13 106.0 0.40 76.8 92.4 B2 116.3 0.40 84.3 93.3
A6 105.6 0.27 76.5 92.4 B1 116.1 0.36 84.2 93.3
A12 104.1 0.42 75.4 91.6 B6 116.1 0.34 84.1 93.4
A2 102.3 0.22 74.1 92.5 B5 115.9 0.41 84.0 93.4
A3 101.3 0.25 73.4 92.5 B4 115.2 0.37 83.5 93.2
A4 100.5 0.33 72.8 92.1 B3 115.0 0.33 83.4 93.3
A5 99.0 0.28 71.8 92.1 B13 114.1 0.40 82.7 93.2
Summary of Modules from V2G Pack Summary of Modules from Control Pack
Mean 106.6 0.29 77.2 92.5 Mean 116.4 0.38 84.4 93.3
Span 13.7 0.27 10.0 1.5 Span 4.5 0.14 3.3 0.3
Std Dev 4.5 — 3.3 0.42 Std Dev 1.2 -- 0.9 0.10
Table 29 summarizes two basic indicators of battery condition—capacity and efficiency. The
mean battery capacity from the V2G Pack is 106.6 Ah, which was 8.4 percent (~10 Ah) less than
the Control Pack; the manufacturer’s specified capacity for these batteries was 138 Ah. Values
for the Control Pack were more consistent than those for the V2G Pack. The standard deviation
for the V2G Pack capacity was 4.5 Ah, while the Control Pack had a much lower standard
deviation of 1.2 Ah. The energy throughput on the V2G Pack was greater, resulting in more
overall battery degradation, which was likely also causing greater variability in battery
performance than that of the Control Pack. Knowing the V2G Pack experienced both driving
and V2G test cycles while the Control Pack only underwent driving cycles supports the use of
historical knowledge (application specifically) as verification of a battery’s condition as
determined by testing.
The mean efficiencies of both battery packs were comparable (less than one percent difference).
Therefore, efficiency for the batteries used during laboratory testing did not appear to be a
significant indicator of battery condition for these batteries.
110
Temperatures were recorded throughout the charge and discharge tests with four surface-
mount thermocouples (TC0 through TC3) placed symmetrically on the battery sides (mid-
height) at the locations shown in green in Figure 56; a fifth thermocouple probe was used to
measure ambient temperature in the climate-controlled test bay. Temperature was recorded
continuously by the DAQ. To simplify data for comparison, the minimum, maximum and mean
temperature values for each thermocouple during each cycle were calculated and normalized
by subtracting the mean ambient temperature during the same period.
Figure 56: Thermocouple Mounting Locations
Table 30 and Table 31 show the mean battery temperatures (adjusted for ambient temperature
changes) recorded by thermocouples TC0 through TC3. V2G Pack battery module temperatures
were overall slightly higher than the Control Pack; this was expected based on the reduced
battery capacity and higher internal resistance values found in the V2G Pack. However, when
sorting the batteries by internal resistance, there appeared to be no significant relationship
between temperature and internal resistance based on external battery temperatures.
Furthermore, capacity did not appear to correlate with battery temperature. Color formatting
was used for temperature values in these tables to highlight trends and abnormalities in the
temperature measurements. Red cells indicate higher temperatures, and blue cells indicate
lower temperatures.
111
Table 30: V2G Pack Thermocouple Temperatures and Related Information
Temperature* from Given Thermocouple
(°C) Mean Battery Capacity Internal
Module TC0 TC1 TC2 TC3 Temp.* (°C) (Ah) Resistance (mΩ)
A12 11.5 4.0 9.4 10.0 8.7 104.1 5.08
A10 8.8 3.6 8.3 7.3 7.0 109.5 4.78
A5 6.8 6.5 9.6 9.3 8.1 99.0 4.28
A3 6.6 6.3 9.3 9.2 7.8 101.3 4.23
A4 5.2 4.6 9.6 8.8 7.1 100.5 4.23
A11 5.4 4.8 9.9 9.2 7.3 106.1 4.18
A6 5.0 4.9 8.3 8.1 6.6 105.6 4.18
A2 6.3 5.9 10.4 10.2 8.2 102.3 4.17
A13 4.8 4.4 10.8 9.6 7.4 106.0 4.13
A9 7.2 6.8 9.8 10.6 8.6 110.3 4.11
A1 6.2 4.5 10.2 9.8 7.7 110.9 4.05
A8 7.3 6.6 11.6 10.1 8.9 112.3 4.03
A7 5.6 5.5 10.6 9.7 7.8 112.8 3.94
A14 6.6 5.9 9.1 7.8 7.4 111.7 3.81
Mean 6.7 5.3 9.8 9.3 7.8 106.6 4.23
* Stated temperature represents the amount above ambient temperature.
Table 31: Control Pack Thermocouple Temperatures and Related Information

Temperature* from Given Thermocouple Mean Internal
(°C) Battery Capacity Resistance
Module TC0 TC1 TC2 TC3 Temp.* (°C) (Ah) (mΩ)
B13 7.0 5.6 8.6 9.6 7.7 114.1 3.90
B10 8.5 5.2 8.2 8.4 7.6 117.0 3.87
B4 5.5 4.5 7.5 8.0 6.4 115.2 3.81
B12 6.7 6.4 10.0 7.8 7.7 117.4 3.81
B11 4.6 3.9 9.4 8.6 6.6 116.4 3.77
B6 6.9 6.6 9.3 9.7 8.1 116.1 3.75
B5 5.3 3.8 9.2 8.9 6.8 115.9 3.75
B3 6.3 5.2 8.6 7.6 6.9 115.0 3.74
B2 4.8 3.7 9.5 8.0 6.5 116.3 3.74
B9 6.4 5.9 8.6 7.9 7.2 116.5 3.73
B1 6.9 4.8 7.1 7.5 6.6 116.1 3.70
B8 4.6 4.0 9.3 7.6 6.4 118.6 3.66
B14 5.5 3.8 8.3 8.0 6.4 117.0 3.58
B7 7.3 5.5 7.9 8.1 7.2 118.3 3.53
Mean 6.2 4.9 8.7 8.3 7.0 116.4 3.74
*Stated temperature represents the amount above ambient temperature.
112
The most notable observation from the surface-mounted thermocouple data (see Table 30 and
Table 31) was that in most cases, the back side (thermocouples TC2 and TC3) of the battery had
higher temperatures than the front side of the battery (thermocouples TC0 and TC1). The
battery module was designed such that the Printed Circuit Board Assembly (PCBA) was
mounted between the terminals so the entire block of cells was positioned about an inch or so
back from the front and directly against the back of the battery case; therefore, the backside of
the batteries is closer to the source of heat, which would keep this side of the batteries hotter
than the front side. Therefore, the difference in measured temperatures is reasonable.
Considering the limited insight provided by the thermocouple measurements and the time
required to mount, collect and process the data, use of thermocouples is not recommended as a
primary method to determine battery condition, assuming there is over-temperature protection
from a BMS.
One notable observation can be found in Table 30 with battery modules A10 and A12 (the
batteries in the V2G Pack with the highest mean internal resistance). Thermocouples TC1 and
TC2 on each of these two batteries, measured lower temperatures on average than other
batteries from the V2G Pack at these locations. However, for battery A12 (highest resistance),
the thermocouple TC0 temperature was abnormally higher than all other V2G Pack batteries.
This suggests that the battery A12 cell closest to the TC0 measurement area was failing badly
and could have been the major contributor to the battery’s high internal resistance.
Internal resistance is a key parameter in determining the performance of a battery. As a battery

degrades, its internal resistance increases reducing the battery’s ability to deliver power on
demand. Battery failure can occur when the internal resistance increases to the point where the
battery cannot supply a useful amount of power to an external load. The internal resistance of a
battery can be calculated from data captured during a current step test.
A pulse current discharge was incorporated into the test profile to provide a means to calculate
the internal resistance of each battery. During this portion of the test profile, the battery was
subjected to a discharge pulse of 150 amps for 20 seconds. The pulse was executed in the test
profile at 100, 90, 80 and 70 percent state of charge with a one-minute rest between each
discharge pulse. This set of four pulses was then repeated three times. For the high-current-
discharge portion of testing, the capture rate of the DAQ system was increased to 10 hertz to
achieve the required data resolution for analysis and calculations.
Internal resistance was determined using a current step method, specifically the Verband der
Automobilindustrie, Frankfurt am Main, Germany (VDA) method. With this method, the
battery voltage and current are recorded as a pulse discharge is executed. The voltage readings
of importance are before the pulse (U1), immediately following the start of the pulse (U2), the
middle of the pulse (U3) and the end of the pulse (U4). The change in voltage divided by the
current yield the internal resistance at each point during the discharge pulse (Ri). The equations
are as follows.
𝑈1 − 𝑈2
𝑅𝑖𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒,2𝑠 =
𝐼𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒
113
𝑈1 − 𝑈3
𝑈1 − 𝑈4
The step method used was based on the aforementioned VDA approach with the only changes
being the discharge pulse duration, causing U3 and U4 to be shifted one second and two seconds
to the right (forward in time), respectively, to coincide with the midpoint and end of the
discharge pulse profile, and the current discharge rate to match battery specifications. A
summary of the internal resistance for the battery packs is available in Table 32 and Table 33 for
the V2G and Control Packs, respectively. These tables show the mean resistance of all the
battery modules in each pack at each SOC, the mean battery resistance through all ranges of
testing, as well as the standard deviation of the mean battery resistance for each battery. The
mean resistance for the V2G Pack was 12 percent higher than the Control Pack. However, the
standard deviations show that the mean resistance in the V2G Pack was three times that found
in the Control Pack. In all modules from both packs, the internal resistance at 100 percent SOC
was much higher than anticipated, approximately double the resistance recorded at 90, 80 and
70 percent SOC. An explanation for this trend was not identified.
Table 32: Resistance of V2G Pack
Resistance at State of Charge (mΩ)

Battery 100% 90% 80% 70% Battery Mean (mΩ)
A12 8.29 4.00 3.98 4.03 5.08
A10 7.91 3.70 3.71 3.78 4.78
A5 6.70 3.38 3.45 3.58 4.28
A3 6.85 3.33 3.35 3.42 4.23
A4 6.66 3.37 3.41 3.48 4.23
A11 6.83 3.26 3.27 3.35 4.18
A6 6.77 3.28 3.30 3.36 4.18
A2 6.79 3.21 3.31 3.38 4.17
A13 6.61 3.22 3.29 3.39 4.13
A9 6.71 3.21 3.22 3.29 4.11
A1 6.62 3.18 3.18 3.20 4.05
A8 6.54 3.15 3.17 3.28 4.03
A7 6.49 3.05 3.09 3.14 3.94
A14 6.20 3.00 2.99 3.05 3.81
Mean 6.85 3.31 3.34 3.41 4.23
Std. Dev. 0.537 0.250 0.244 0.246 0.314
114
Table 33: Resistance of Control Pack
Resistance at State of Charge (mΩ)

Battery 100% 90% 80% 70% Battery Mean (mΩ)
B13 6.41 3.04 3.07 3.08 3.90
B10 6.45 2.99 2.99 3.06 3.87
B4 6.27 2.97 2.95 3.05 3.81
B12 6.34 2.94 2.94 3.01 3.81
B11 6.24 2.93 2.94 2.96 3.77
B6 6.26 2.90 2.89 2.97 3.75
B5 6.18 2.93 2.93 2.96 3.75
B3 6.17 2.92 2.93 2.95 3.74
B2 6.15 2.91 2.90 2.98 3.74
B9 6.18 2.89 2.89 2.97 3.73
B1 6.06 2.89 2.88 2.97 3.70
B8 6.06 2.83 2.83 2.91 3.66
B14 5.50 2.91 2.91 3.00 3.58
B7 5.53 2.83 2.85 2.90 3.53
Mean 6.13 2.92 2.92 2.98 3.74
Std. Dev. 0.275 0.054 0.057 0.051 0.098
Table 34 shows the mean resistance across all 14 battery modules from each pack using the
VDA approach at each SOC. Both batteries showed a higher internal resistance at 100 percent
SOC than at 90, 80 and 70 percent state of charge, where the resistance was nearly equivalent.
The difference between the mean internal resistances of both packs remained fairly consistent,
with the V2G Pack always having a higher internal resistance.
Table 34: Comparison of Internal Resistance Within Battery Packs
Mean Resistance (mΩ)

100% 90% 80% 70% Battery Pack
SOC SOC SOC SOC Mean
V2G Pack 6.85 3.31 3.34 3.41 4.23
Control Pack 6.13 2.92 2.92 2.98 3.74
Difference between
11.2% 12.5% 13.3% 13.3% 12.3%
V2G and Control Packs
Figure 57 shows the distribution of internal resistance in each battery pack. The values are
organized from lowest to highest internal resistance (Pareto fashion) to provide a graphical
representation of trends in pack variability and magnitude. V2G Pack battery modules had
greater internal resistance than Control Pack batteries in nearly all cases. Two battery modules
(A10 and A12) from the V2G Pack modules exhibited noticeably more internal resistance than
the other modules.
115
Figure 57: Comparison of Internal Resistance Between V2G and Control Packs
BMS data captured during testing consisted of the maximum cell temperature and the
individual cell voltages at each measurement interval. From these data, information such as the
minimum cell voltage, standard deviation of the minimum cell voltages, mean minimum cell
voltages, termination voltage and maximum cell temperatures were determined. Table 35 and
Table 36 show a summary of this information.
A noteworthy observation is the termination voltage for all battery modules. The test was
expected to terminate at 10.5 volts. The V2G Pack had termination voltages ranging from 10.49
to 10.97 volts, while the Control Pack had termination voltages from 10.51 to 10.58 volts. These
differences in termination voltage are attributed to the variability in SOH at the cellular level.
Another factor to consider when interpreting these results is the BMS sampling rate of 0.5 hertz.
A possible consequence of this low default sampling rate is that some of the termination
voltages shown may represent values that occurred up to 2.0 seconds before the actual
termination event, which is where the lowest battery voltages would occur during the test.
116
Table 35: V2G Pack Cell-Level Information
Std. Dev. of
Min. Cell Min. Cell Termination Capacity Maximum Cell
Battery Voltage (V) Voltage (V) Voltage (V) (Ah) Temperature (°C)
A7 2.37 0.18 10.72 112.8 43.6
A8 2.50 0.10 10.51 112.3 44.1
A14 2.50 0.12 10.52 111.7 45.4
A1 2.47 0.14 10.49 110.9 44.7
A9 2.51 0.08 10.52 110.3 44.4
A10 2.23 0.26 10.51 109.5 † 22.6
A11 2.37 0.20 10.80 106.1 46.5
A13 2.42 0.17 10.50 106.0 45.4
A6 2.37 0.20 10.78 105.6 44.4
A12 2.25 0.26 10.50 104.1 † 22.4
A2 2.36 0.23 10.61 102.3 45.4
A3 2.35 0.24 10.97 101.3 44.6
A4 2.36 0.25 10.88 100.5 43.9
A5 2.36 0.25 10.94 99.0 43.9
Mean 2.39 0.19 10.66 106.6 44.7
Std. Dev. 0.08 — 0.17 4.53 0.81
† Issue with data collection, values remained constant for this metric throughout testing.
Yellow cells were excluded from mean and standard deviation calculations.
Table 36: Control Pack Cell-Level Information

Std. Dev. of
Min. Cell Min. Cell Termination Capacity Maximum Cell
Battery Voltage (V) Voltage (V) Voltage (V) (Ah) Temperature (°C)
B1 2.45 0.14 10.51 118.6 43.8
B2 2.40 0.15 10.52 118.3 43.5
B3 2.49 0.13 10.52 117.4 43.8
B4 2.37 0.18 10.58 117.0 44.0
B5 2.39 0.17 10.51 117.0 43.0
B6 2.44 0.12 10.52 116.5 44.0
B7 2.49 0.08 10.52 116.4 43.6
B8 2.57 0.07 10.52 116.3 43.3
B9 2.54 0.06 10.51 116.1 43.2
B10 2.50 0.11 10.53 116.1 † 21.5
B11 2.45 0.13 10.52 115.9 43.3
B12 2.51 0.10 10.53 115.2 44.1
B13 2.38 0.17 10.51 115.0 44.0
B14 2.50 0.09 10.52 114.1 42.8
Mean 2.46 0.12 10.52 116.4 43.6
Std. Dev. 0.06 — 0.02 1.18 0.40
† Issue with data collection, value remained constant for this metric throughout testing.
Yellow cell was excluded from mean and standard deviation calculations.
117
The measured cell temperatures for batteries A10, A12 and B10 remained constant throughout
testing (approximately ambient). This likely indicated damaged internal thermocouples, which
may have provided faulty data to the BMS resulting in uncertain response by the BMS as it
attempted to regulate the battery. These same three batteries exhibited abnormal temperature
patterns relative to the other batteries tested as noted in Table 35 and Table 36.
Summing the minimum cell voltages at the conclusion of discharge testing revealed the battery
voltage at shutoff. Figure 58 shows a weak correlation between the shutoff voltage and the
battery capacity, suggesting that as battery capacity decreased, the voltage shutoff limit
increased.
Figure 58: Termination Voltage vs. Battery Capacity
Recognizing that the test protocol calls for discharge termination when either the battery
voltage reaches 10.5 volts or a cell reaches 2.3 volts, it appears that as capacity diminishes,
battery termination voltage increases because cells are reaching critically low voltages before
the battery voltage reaches its shutoff condition. This points to the value of measuring cell-level
battery performance as part of the categorization and selection process for second-life batteries.
The minimum cell voltages shown in Table 35 and Table 36 are not very revealing since no
trends were observed in the data. However, the standard deviation of minimum cell voltages
among all four cells of the battery does appear to show some discriminating factors for potential
use in categorizing batteries. Generally, as the standard deviation among minimum cell voltages
increased, the termination voltage increased and battery capacity decreased. This relationship
between standard deviation and termination voltage can be viewed in Figure 59.
118
Figure 59: Termination Voltage vs. Standard Deviation of Minimum Cell Voltages
Figure 60 shows the relationship between energy storage capacity and the standard deviation
across the minimum cell voltages recorded during testing. As the standard deviation in
minimum voltage across each cell within the battery increased, battery capacity decreased. As
one would expect, the standard deviation across minimum cell voltages is a valuable indicator
of battery condition. This observation supports the hypothesis noted earlier—as cells become
more degraded, the standard deviation across the cell voltages within the pack increases until
one of the cells reaches a critically low voltage that concludes testing, leaving potential energy
in the less degraded cells.
119
Figure 60: Battery Capacity vs. Standard Deviation of Minimum Cell Voltages

Table 37 contains the weights of the batteries measured after testing, calculated capacities and ratios of battery capacity to weight.
Using these data, a correlation was sought between weight and capacity. However, no meaningful correlation between remaining
battery capacity and weight was identified. Source: Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Figure 61 illustrates no discernable relationship between decreasing battery weight and

diminishing capacity.
Table 37: Weight Observations
Capacity/ Capacity/W
Weight Capacity Weight Weight Capacity eight
Battery (lbs.) (Ah) (Ah/lb.) Battery (lbs.) (Ah) (Ah/lb.)
A7 42.905 112.8 2.628 B8 42.916 118.6 2.763
A8 43.075 112.3 2.607 B7 42.907 118.3 2.758
A14 42.896 111.7 2.604 B12 43.063 117.4 2.727
A1 43.061 110.9 2.576 B10 43.018 117.0 2.719
A9 43.055 110.3 2.561 B14 42.943 117.0 2.724
A10 42.968 109.5 2.550 B9 42.899 116.5 2.715
A11 42.925 106.1 2.471 B11 42.898 116.4 2.712
A13 42.959 106.0 2.467 B2 42.924 116.3 2.710
A6 42.934 105.6 2.460 B1 42.889 116.1 2.708
A12 42.929 104.1 2.425 B6 42.917 116.1 2.706
A2 42.931 102.3 2.382 B5 42.901 115.9 2.701
A3 42.865 101.3 2.363 B4 42.912 115.2 2.684
A4 42.892 100.5 2.343 B3 42.922 115.0 2.680
A5 42.904 99.0 2.308 B13 42.972 114.1 2.654
120
Figure 61: Battery Capacity and Weight Relationship
Battery Evaluation Methods

A variety of measurements were made to determine the condition of used batteries for
classifying/rating them for the most appropriate second-life application. Some test methods
were time consuming in setup or data processing while other approaches were fast and
revealing. Table 38 provides an overview of the tests conducted and their relative difficulty and
usefulness. It also suggests various combinations of tests (i.e., methods) to determine battery
condition based on resources available such as time, equipment and technical capability.
Table 38: Evaluation Methods

Method Method Method
Test Value Difficulty
1 2 3
Energy Storage Capacity High Low ✓ ✓ ✓
Battery Termination Voltage High Low ✓ ✓ ✓
Variability of Minimum Cell
High Moderate ✓ ✓
Voltages
Internal Resistance Moderate Extensive ✓
Efficiency Moderate Low ✓ ✓ ✓
Temperatures Minimal High
Weight Minimal Low
Based on our testing of a limited sample set, energy storage capacity is the leading indicator for
battery health and internal resistance, efficiency and minimum cell voltage variability (i.e.,
standard deviation) also tend to be general indicators of condition. All three of these factors
121
correlate with energy storage capacity, but as capacity is reduced, the correlation with
minimum cell voltage variability becomes intermittent until capacity decreases substantially
before the correlation resumes (see Standard Deviation of Minimum Cell Voltage column in
Table 39). Higher cell-voltage variability is an indicator of a weak cell or poor cell balancing,
which triggers early termination of energy delivery, thereby limiting the battery’s measured
capacity. This trend is most noticeable at extremes—batteries with low capacity have high
variability, and batteries with high capacity have very low variability. Also, a relationship
between cell-voltage variability and battery test termination voltage was observed, meaning
batteries with low cell-voltage variability achieved a lower battery termination voltage whereas
batteries with higher cell-voltage variability had higher termination voltages.
Test method 1 shown in Table 38 defines determination of battery condition by capacity,

termination voltage and efficiency because all are very telling of battery health and can be
determined by processing data from one source—the battery charge/discharge test. Efficiency is
easily calculated when gathering the information necessary to calculate the battery’s capacity.
Capacity is a major indicator of battery degradation and can produce a coarse evaluation of the
overall battery health by itself when compared to the rated capacity. Efficiency tends to follow
capacity, decreasing as capacity decreases. Termination voltage is the lowest battery voltage
recorded during testing. Termination voltages greater than 0.1 volt above the manufacturer-
specified shutoff voltage of 10.5 volts (i.e., 10.6 volts and higher) may indicate abnormal
degradation of one or more cells within the battery module, suggesting some degree of cell-
level damage due to a critically low cell voltage causing a termination in testing. All three of
these battery condition parameters can be obtained from the data generated by one complete
test protocol execution.
Test method 2 is nearly the same as test method 1 with the addition of data retrieval from the
BMS. The BMS provides voltages for the individual cells, allowing cellular voltage information
to be parsed for insight into cell-level degradation by calculating the standard deviation of the
minimum cell voltages throughout testing. Because the BMS is required for testing in all
situations, no additional equipment is needed, only additional steps to save and process the
BMS data. Test method 2 is recommended because it adds greater fidelity and understanding to
battery health at the cellular level.
Test method 3 adds determination of the battery’s internal resistance to the metrics discussed in
the previous test methods. Internal resistance was held as the final addition to testing because it
is much more time consuming to calculate. CTC wrote a Visual Basic for Applications program
to collect the many pieces of information required for the final resistance calculations. Anyone
interested in calculating the internal resistance for more than a few batteries would need to
develop a semi-automated approach to make this calculation tractable.
External battery temperature tended to be a weak indicator of battery condition at best, with
several instances where batteries with higher internal resistance had lower mean temperatures
than batteries with lower internal resistance. Due to inconsistencies in trends and the significant
level of effort required to acquire this information, external module case temperature is not
recommended as a battery condition indicator.
122
Grading Methods
Understanding the ultimate goal was to group like batteries, two approaches were developed—
a single all-encompassing score and a categorical assessment. These two approaches allow
customers to purchase general purpose, and potentially lower quality batteries for less-
demanding needs (i.e., backup power to a home) or specific higher quality batteries meeting
specific, more-demanding requirements (i.e., reuse to help manage the grid).
Grading Method 1: Single Representative Score
This grading method determines a single relative score that incorporates measurable battery
characteristics to provide insight into overall battery health by combining both general
performance and cellular-level information. Equation 16 details the approach to computing a
single comprehensive score with greater weight being given to the most critical parameters.
Higher scores indicate healthier batteries.
Equation 16: Single Score
𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑁𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑆ℎ𝑢𝑡𝑜𝑓𝑓 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒

𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 = ( )( ) (𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦)
𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑇𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒
Table 39 reviews the most significant battery condition parameters and the final score for each
battery generated by Equation 16. The color formatting in Table 39 highlights trends and
abnormalities in values. Green indicates the most desirable performance, while red cells
indicate lower performance.
Notice that scores between the two battery packs are distinguishable when sorted by score.
Ideally, a battery’s first-life application and use profile is known and considered during its
evaluation, so the score obtained from Equation 16 provides results that correlate with expected
battery characteristics. Because a battery’s usability is driven by termination voltage, the
manufacturer-specified shutoff voltage appears in the numerator so, when a battery reaches
termination voltage prematurely due to a low-cell voltage alarm, the battery score is penalized.
By examining the measured battery parameters and their relative scores calculated by
Equation 16, the battery testers may judiciously choose classes or score ranges for battery
classification based on their target market or application.
123
Table 39: Results and Final Score Summary for Single-Score Method
Mean Std. Dev. of Mean Internal

Capacity Min. Cell Termination Efficiency Resistance Final
Battery (Ah) Voltage (V) Voltage (V) (%) (mΩ) Score
B7 118.32 0.08 10.52 93.5 3.53 31.3
B14 116.96 0.09 10.52 93.3 3.58 30.4
B8 118.60 0.07 10.52 93.5 3.66 30.3
B1 116.13 0.14 10.51 93.3 3.70 29.2
B9 116.45 0.06 10.51 93.4 3.73 29.1
B2 116.32 0.15 10.52 93.3 3.74 29.0
B6 116.12 0.12 10.52 93.4 3.75 28.8
B5 115.87 0.17 10.51 93.4 3.75 28.8
B11 116.36 0.13 10.52 93.4 3.77 28.8
B12 117.42 0.10 10.53 93.4 3.81 28.7
B3 115.04 0.13 10.52 93.3 3.74 28.6
B10 116.98 0.11 10.53 93.2 3.87 28.1
B4 115.17 0.18 10.58 93.2 3.81 28.0
B13 114.06 0.17 10.51 93.2 3.90 27.2
A14 111.70 0.12 10.52 93.0 3.81 27.2
A7 112.77 0.18 10.72 93.1 3.94 26.1
A8 112.30 0.10 10.51 93.0 4.03 25.9
A1 110.92 0.14 10.49 92.7 4.05 25.4
A9 110.26 0.08 10.52 92.8 4.11 24.8
A13 105.98 0.17 10.50 92.4 4.13 23.7
A11 106.09 0.20 10.80 92.8 4.18 22.9
A6 105.63 0.20 10.78 92.4 4.18 22.8
A2 102.27 0.23 10.61 92.5 4.17 22.5
A3 101.28 0.24 10.97 92.5 4.23 21.2
A4 100.51 0.25 10.88 92.1 4.23 21.1
A10 109.55 0.26 10.51 92.0 4.78 21.1
A5 99.02 0.25 10.94 92.1 4.28 20.5
A12 104.10 0.26 10.50 91.6 5.08 18.8
Grading Method 2: Categorical Assessment

This grading method allows for greater fidelity in battery classification. This approach allows
the battery evaluator to most accurately group batteries and affords customers the ability to
select batteries for their unique application where one or several categories of battery health are
of lower importance and therefore allow for a greater range of battery health measures. In the
example of a homeowner purchasing batteries for peak load shaving or backup power, batteries
with higher capacities, but low efficiencies and/or high internal resistances may be acceptable
because the homeowner could charge batteries during non-peak hours when electricity costs are
lower.
For example, battery A12 in Table 39 has a relatively high capacity, very low efficiency and high
internal resistance. Using the arbitrary categorical rating system identified in Table 40, this battery
would be classified as ADADD, placing it in the recycle class (relative to grid application
124
requirements) despite its relatively high capacity and low termination voltage. However, this
battery could potentially serve a second-life application for a homeowner as described above.
Table 40 shows the recorded values for each battery health category measured and found to be of
use in determination of battery health. Each category was ordered from highest performance to
lowest performance. Using manufacturer-specified values where possible to set a standard for
comparison, arbitrary ranges for each parameter were developed to define performance for the
measured group of batteries. Ultimately, unique ranges for each battery type may be defined by
battery type and market requirements. Table 40 serves as an example of one such set of rating
scales.
Table 40: Example of Relative Categorical Assessment
Mean Std. Dev. of Mean Internal

Termination
Capacity Min. Cell Efficiency Resistance
Voltage (V)
(Ah) Voltage (V) (%) (mΩ)
118.60 0.06 10.49 93.5 3.53
118.32 0.07 10.50 93.5 3.58
117.42 0.08 10.50 93.4 3.66
116.98 0.08 10.51 93.4 3.70
116.96 0.09 10.51 93.4 3.73
116.45 0.10 10.51 93.4 3.74
116.36 0.10 10.51 93.4 3.74
116.32 0.11 10.51 93.3 3.75
116.13 0.12 10.51 93.3 3.75
116.12 0.12 10.52 93.3 3.77
115.87 0.13 10.52 93.3 3.81
115.17 0.13 10.52 93.2 3.81
115.04 0.14 10.52 93.2 3.81
114.06 0.14 10.52 93.2 3.87
112.77 0.15 10.52 93.1 3.90
112.30 0.17 10.52 93.0 3.94
111.70 0.17 10.52 93.0 4.03
110.92 0.17 10.52 92.8 4.05
110.26 0.18 10.53 92.8 4.11
109.55 0.18 10.53 92.7 4.13
106.09 0.20 10.58 92.5 4.17
105.98 0.20 10.61 92.5 4.18
105.63 0.23 10.72 92.4 4.18
104.10 0.24 10.78 92.4 4.23
102.27 0.25 10.80 92.1 4.23
101.28 0.25 10.88 92.1 4.28
100.51 0.26 10.94 92.0 4.78
99.02 0.26 10.97 91.6 5.08
Rating Specification 138 10.5 5 Max
A Very Good 110 0.10 10.55 94 3.75
B Acceptable 104 0.15 10.65 93 4.00
C Poor 97 0.20 10.75 92 4.50
D Recycle 90 0.25 10.85 91 4.75
125
As part of this task, options were explored for defining second-life applications for used vehicle
traction batteries. Several options from remanufacturing, repurposing and recycling were
discussed. Potential applications and benefits were identified and documented. Several
challenges were identified including cost competitive energy storage technologies, validated
reliable and safe operations, equitable regulatory environment and industry acceptance.
A requirements document for the design of an energy storage system using second-life batteries
was drafted. The grid electrical interconnection, operating characteristics and technical
requirements were defined.
A preliminary design concept for second-life battery applications based on these technical
requirements was generated. The objective of this design was to integrate groups of different
battery chemistries and sizes whose total capacity yielded a 1-MW system to meet requirements
for AS.
A DoC diagnostic best practices and protocol was developed. This included a three-phase
approach: 1) Preliminary Battery Evaluation, 2) Battery Characterization and 3) Grading.
Testing was performed on battery modules from an earlier laboratory testing task. Module
capacity test results were consistent with what was expected based on the test data from the
packs. These battery modules were used in a nearly equivalent manner based on the controlled
testing (same drive profile) that was performed during laboratory assessments on the V2G and
Control Packs. However, it can be expected that with the thousands of different batteries
currently in EV use today from different manufacturers, and different use scenarios, there will
be a broader range of battery conditions found for any future large-scale battery reuse effort.
With broader condition distributions will come a greater need to group similar battery modules
and cells to optimize reuse.
Repurposing used EV batteries for new applications is in its infancy. Testing and grouping
these batteries for optimum reuse is only one step in the process. Implementation of any
comprehensive reuse program must ensure repurposed batteries are safe to use and provide
economical value to all affected parties. Therefore, the supply chain from first use through any
secondary use to final recycling must be managed to ensure a safe and economical market,
ultimately lowering the overall EV total ownership cost.
In closing, UL has seen the need for a standard to evaluate these batteries for second use and is
developing a Standard for Evaluation for Repurposing Batteries, ANSI/CAN/UL 1974. This
preliminary standard addresses construction, examination, performance, packing and
shipment, markings and instructions focused on the process for repurposing batteries. The
testing and data can provide insight to battery manufacturers as they review and become
compliant with the UL standard.
126
CHAPTER 6:
Summary and Conclusions
LAAFB Field Demonstration
Based on the DoD demonstration, V2G technology and implementation is in its infancy and lags
behind PEV technology. V2G market participation has been most successful when considered as
part of the original design of commercial EVs, as with the LEAF sedan manufactured by Nissan.
The primary EV design feature that can benefit the V2G market is the use of bi-directional
charging stations. A majority of the equipment and components required for this V2G
demonstration were prototypes, which is expected to progress through the product development
process and be improved based on lessons learn.
The demonstration at LAAFB showed two primary use scenarios for PEVs relative to participation
in V2G market opportunities. Some vehicles, such as the Nissan LEAFs, were utilized primarily
for low-mileage day trips, where the vehicle was typically driven to a single location and parked
for most of the day; this is similar to commuter usage by the general population. Other vehicles
such as the VIA vans and the Phoenix shuttle were continuously used for stop-and-start transit
applications. Commuter usage driving missions resulted in a low rate of battery degradation.
Use of such commuter vehicles in V2G activities, while reducing the potential life of the batteries,
will, in many cases, not alter the vehicle’s useful life, as the vehicle will need to be replaced
before the batteries need to be changed. Battery degradation specific to any usage (driving,
V2G, SOH) could not be quantified using data from the field demonstration (based on previous
use, usage variation among vehicles and the relatively short duration of the test period).
Based on the data from the LAAFB demonstration, all vehicles experienced a large amount of
idle time where V2G participation may be practical. If properly managed, a mixture of EVs,
some dedicated for short-duration, commuter-like trips and some for nearly continuous use,
will be practical for many commercial fleets. Use of those assets required for short-duration,
commuter-like trips may be most amenable for use in V2G operation. Managing the use of these
vehicles relative to the demands of a V2G market is critical to the smooth operation of both the
grid and the vehicle fleet.
Laboratory Research, Testing and Analysis

The laboratory testing simulated a very aggressive driving profile on two identical battery packs
with one of those packs (V2G Pack) also simulated V2G market participation profile. These
were notably more aggressive than actual observations made during the field demonstration at
LAAFB where “Unknown” (vehicle disconnected from EVSE and turned off) makes up a high
percentage of vehicle time even for heavily utilized vehicles such as the Phoenix shuttle.
Under these aggressive conditions, the V2G Pack had capacity reduction of 25 percent overrated
capacity, while the Control Pack had a capacity reduction of just 16 percent. On a simplified
total energy basis, the rate of degradation for both battery packs was nearly identical. However,
when accounting for operating temperature and second-order effects of time, the corrected rate
127
of degradation was found to be less by approximately 19 percent for the V2G Pack relative to
the Control Pack. Therefore, the authors conclude that daily V2G operations do not cause any
greater degradation to PEV batteries (on a total energy basis) beyond that experienced during
drive cycles like those simulated in the laboratory setting.
Modeling Simulation and Analysis

CTC determined the BLAST-S Lite tool has all the input selections necessary to explore battery
degradation effects of custom battery use profiles. However, the software was designed for
stationary applications using NCA batteries and correlating simulation results for driving and
V2G will require engagement from NREL to confirm understanding of the fundamental basis of
this software. Further development by NREL for this application should focus on expanding the
battery chemistries available within the software and the profile size handling capability.
Combining BLAST-V and BLAST-S could provide the simulation results expected. The battery
use profiles that CTC created during laboratory testing can be used to test future iterations of
NREL software. Use of established battery models, rather than experimental or newly developed
battery models, is recommended for future battery studies.
Second-Life Battery Applications

Given the large increase in the number of EVs starting in approximately 2010 and given the
planned life of 15 years for the PEV batteries, California still has some time to plan and
implement strategies for beneficial reuse of EV batteries. Without a plan and the associated
government policies in place before 2025, many reuse opportunities will be lost.
CTC investigated and drafted requirements for the design of an energy storage system using
second-life batteries. A preliminary design concept for second-life battery applications based
on technical requirements assembled under this agreement. This design concept proposed
methods to integrate groups of different battery chemistries and sizes totaling a 1-MW system
to meet requirements for AS.
A determination of condition protocol was developed with an associated scoring system that
combines measured capacity, internal resistance, recorded termination voltage and battery
efficiency appears to offer a simple and inexpensive method to judge the overall health of used
batteries. This scoring system is useful for selecting groups of used batteries of similar health.
However, the requirements of the intended application may require alternative scoring
methods using the most appropriate subset of these measurements to ensure the maximum
number of batteries are effectively used in second-use applications.
Benefits to California
This project supported California’s Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology
Program and Executive Order B-16-2012 zero-emission vehicles goals by generating and
analyzing data to better understand vehicle-to-grid technologies to achieve the state’s climate
change policies. This project benefited significantly from collaboration and coordination with
the largest Department of Defense vehicle-to-grid demonstration project to explore economic
value of aggregated plug-in electric vehicle storage and ancillary services to the California grid.
128
Through the execution of this project, battery degradation due to vehicle-to-grid applications
and potential for repurposing these batteries in second-life applications were investigated. The
data presented in this report are useful for developing a compensation strategy for clients
willing to offer their assets for use in a vehicle-to-grid application and clients looking to
repurpose used electric vehicle batteries.
Specific benefits to California included:
• Developed a detailed understanding of the following aspects of V2G:
o The use patterns of a real-world V2G fleet, the current state of V2G technologies and
the factors that influenced participation in CAISO’s frequency regulation ancillary
services market
o The battery degradation associated with V2G activities, as compared to other usage
and environmental factors
o The current state of V2G modeling simulation and analysis tools and their ability to
predict degradation based on specified usage profiles.
• Facilitated the repurposing of electric vehicle batteries that are no longer suitable for
transportation purposes (70 to 80 percent capacity remaining) in second-life applications
as a stationary energy storage resources for California utilities through the following
activities:
o Prepared a preliminary design concept for the packaging electric vehicle batteries for
second-life large-scale, stationary storage applications
o Developed a determination of condition diagnostic protocol for evaluating a vehicle
battery’s suitability for second-life applications.
• Supported California Vehicle-Grid Integration Roadmap Track 3, “Support Enabling

Technology Development” through research, development and demonstration:
o Procured vehicle batteries in support of the DoD V2G demonstration at LAAFB and
funded data collection and analysis activities undertaken for the demonstration
o Tested performance of vehicle-grid integration enabling technologies
o Ensured results are published for public consumption
o Identified additional research gaps for further study.
This project provided an improved picture of a large-scale V2G implementation. No catastrophic

impact to vehicle batteries was identified based on V2G testing performed under this effort.
California can utilize the information from this report to define long-term PEV strategies,
proactively working with PEV and EVSE vendors to determine their strategies for bi-directional
charging over the next decade. As a proof-of-concept, this project demonstrates that barriers to
large-scale V2G implementation are technical and short term. The next steps will largely be
dependent on convincing original equipment manufacturers to continue to evolve these products
in support of California’s growing PEV fleet and growing ancillary services market.
129
Acronyms, Abbreviations and Symbols
# Number
% Percent
~ Approximately
< Less than
<= Less than or Equal to
> Greater than
°C Degrees Celsius
°F Degrees Fahrenheit
A Ampere
AC Alternating Current
AGC Automated Generation Control
Ah Amp-Hour
amp Ampere
ANSI American National Standards Institute
ARFVTP Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program
AS Ancillary Services
ASRP Ancillary Service Requirements Protocol
BLAST Battery Lifetime Analysis and Simulation Tool
BLAST-S Battery Lifetime Analysis and Simulation Tool-Stationary
BLAST-V Battery Lifetime Analysis and Simulation Tool-Vehicle
BMS Battery Management System
C Discharge Capacity (kWh)
California ISO California Independent System Operator
CBC California Building Code
CCM Charge Control Module
CFC California Fire Code
CLEE Center for Law, Energy & the Environment
CONEX Container Express
CSE Center for Sustainable Energy
CSV Comma-Separated Values
CTC Concurrent Technologies Corporation
D Depth of Discharge (%)
DAM Day Ahead Market
DAQ Data Acquisition
DC Direct Current
DNP Distributed Network Protocol
DNV-GL Det Norske Veritas--Germanischer Lloyd
DoC Determination of Condition
DoD Department of Defense
DOD Depth of Discharge
DOE Department of Energy
E Energy Efficiency (%)
130
EDR Electrochemical Dynamic Response
EIS Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy
EMS Energy Management System
EOD End of Drive
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESS Energy Storage System
ET Total Energy (MWh)
EV Electric Vehicle
EVAOS Electric Vehicle Add-On Systems
EVI Electric Vehicles International LLC
EVSE Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment
FMS Fleet Management System
GWh Gigawatt-Hours
HMI Human Machine Interface
I Current
ICE Internal Combustion Engine
IEC International Electrotechnical Commission
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ISO International Organization for Standardization
K Cycle Count
km Kilometer
kph Kilometers per Hour
kW Kilowatt
kWh Kilowatt-Hour
LAAFB Los Angeles Air Force Base
lb. Pound
LiFeMgPO4 Lithium Iron Magnesium Phosphate
LiFePO4 Lithium Iron Phosphate
LiNiCoAlO2 Lithium Nickel Cobalt Aluminum Oxide
mi Mile
mpg Miles per Gallon
mph Miles per Hour
MW Megawatt
MWh Megawatt-Hour
mΩ Milliohms
N/A Not Applicable
NCA Nickel Cobalt Aluminum
NCC Nameplate Capacity Comparison
NEC National Electric Code
NEMA National Electrical Manufacturers Association
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory
NRTL Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory
OBDC On-Board Data Collection
131
OB-EVI On-Base Electric Vehicle Infrastructure
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PCBA Printed Circuit Board Assembly
PEV Plug-in Electric Vehicle
PHEV Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle
PLC Programmable Logic Controller
pm Post Meridian
PPS Princeton Power Systems
R2 Statistical measure of how close the data are to the fitted regression equation
RDT&E Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
REEV Range Extended Electric Vehicle
REM Regulation Energy Management
Ri Internal Resistance
RMS Root Mean Square
ROC Rate of Change
RTM Real Time Market
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
sec Seconds
SEI Solid Electrolyte Interphase
SL-VBP Second-Life Vehicle Battery Packs
SOC State-of-Charge
SOH State of Health
t Time (days from April 27, 2015)
TCP/IP Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol
TMS Thermal Management System
TP Mean Pack Temperature (°C)
U Voltage during Internal Resistance Testing
U.S. United States
UCSD University of California San Diego
UDDS Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule
UL Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
USB Universal Serial Bus
V Volt
V2G Vehicle-to-Grid
VDA Verband der Automobilindustrie
VDC Volts Direct Current
VIA VIA Motors
vs. Versus
W Watt
Wh Watt-Hour
WMG WMG Innovative Solutions
132
Appendix A:
Battery Related Terminology – Definitions of Terms
Several technical terms are used throughout this document to describe the battery test materials
procured under this effort. They are defined as follows.
Battery Management System (BMS): This is the system that manages the battery by monitoring
its state of charge, controlling charge or discharge rates, and balancing the load on the battery
evenly between individual cells. BMS units are typically proprietary technology that is custom-
built and programmed for PEV batteries by the vehicle vendor. For some of the batteries, the
BMS is included as part of the procured battery material, and in other cases it is part of the
vehicle and not included as part of the battery.
Capacity: A measure of the charge stored by the battery, measured in this document in
kilowatt-hours (kWh). A battery’s capacity degrades over time as it is charged and discharged.
Cells: The smallest energy-containing unit of a battery. Multiple cells are connected in each
battery to achieve the desired performance parameters.
Cycle: In this document, a “cycle” without qualifier refers to “deep cycles” in which a cell is
discharged to less than half of its total energy, then recharged to full capacity. There are also
“shallow cycles” in which the battery is discharged by only a small amount before being
recharged.
Depth of Discharge (DOD): The percentage of the battery’s total energy which is discharged.
Depth discharge is used to distinguish deep and shallow cycles.
Second-Life: Some PEV vendors recommend replacement of vehicle batteries during the
vehicle’s working life. This is done when the battery capacity drops and the battery stores less
energy, reducing the vehicle’s range. Even when the vehicle range has dropped low enough to
mandate replacement, these batteries will typically have many kWh of capacity remaining. By
transitioning the battery to become a stationary energy storage system rather than
scrapping/recycling it, some of the original cost of the battery can be recovered. This is the
“second life” of the battery.
Thermal Management System (TMS): Temperatures outside a battery’s recommended

operating range can affect performance and battery life. Thermal management systems are used
to control the battery temperature. For some of the batteries, the thermal management system is
included as part of the procured battery material. In other cases, it is part of the vehicle and not
included as part of the battery.
Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G): Using a modified charging system and control software, energy flow
between a PEV battery and the electrical grid can be bi-directional. This allows the grid to
discharge from the battery during moments of high demand and charge the battery during
periods when demand is lower than the power produced within the grid. By selling this
capacity to utilities, V2G can ameliorate the cost of PEVs.
A-1

Cec 500 2018 024

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cec 500 2018 024

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cec 500 2018 024

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Energy Research and Development Division

FINAL PROJECT REPORT

Energy Research and Development Division

California Energy Commission

October 2018 | CEC-500-2018-024 i

Month Year | CEC-XXX-XXXX-XXX

Concurrent Technologies Corporation

Contract Number: 500-12-016

Laurie ten Hope

• Develop and improve alternative and renewable low-carbon fuels.

• Produce alternative and renewable low-carbon fuels in California.

• Decrease, on a full-fuel-cycle basis, the overall impact and carbon footprint of

• Expand fuel infrastructure, fueling stations, and equipment.

• Improve light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicle technologies.

• Retrofit medium- and heavy-duty on-road and non-road vehicle fleets.

• Expand infrastructure connected with existing fleets, public transit, and

• Establish workforce training programs, conduct public education and promotion,

The U. S. Department of Defense conducted a vehicle-to-grid demonstration at Los Angeles Air

Keywords: California Energy Commission, plug-in electric vehicles, vehicle-to-grid, second-life,

Please use the following citation for this report:

Markiewicz, Daniel, Brian Wechtenhiser, Jennifer Brendlinger, Matthew Campbell, Michael

TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................... iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 1

CHAPTER 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 3

CHAPTER 2: LAAFB Field Demonstration Testing and Analysis .................................................. 5

CHAPTER 3: Laboratory Research, Testing and Analysis .............................................................. 32

CHAPTER 4: Modeling Simulation and Analysis ............................................................................ 74

Acronyms, Abbreviations and Symbols ........................................................................................... 130

Appendix A: Battery Related Terminology – Definitions of Terms ...........................................A-1

1. Determine if V2G technology works.

Scope of This Report

Source: Concurrent Technologies Corporation

LAAFB Demonstration Vehicles

Table 3: PEV-V2G Vehicle Specifications

Vehicle Type Summaries

EVI REEV Trucks

VIA VTRUX Vans

Vehicles at Demonstration Start

• Phoenix shuttle bus – DC-connect PEV

• EVI REEV – DC-connect PHEV

• VIA vans – AC-connect PHEV and on-board bi-directional inverter

• Nissan LEAF sedans – DC-connect PEV.

Factors Leading to Battery Degradation

Use (Total Energy)

California ISO Dispatch Results

Each successful battery health test included the following steps:

• Fully charge the battery to 100 percent SOC

• Report 1 – Use Summary Report

• Charge and discharge energy.

Source: Concurrent Technologies Corporation

Figure 3. EVI Energy Use Summary

Source: Concurrent Technologies Corporation

Source: Concurrent Technologies Corporation

Source: Concurrent Technologies Corporation

Report 2 – Categorical Maximum DOD Report

Source: Concurrent Technologies Corporation

EVI REEV Trucks

Figure 10: EVIs Day-by-Day Average Maximum DOD

Source: Concurrent Technologies Corporation