Range restored after battery cell replacement - Page 2 - Chevy Bolt EV Forum
User Tag List

 10Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #11 of 13 (permalink) Old 05-05-2019, 02:35 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 350
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 197 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wonderbolt View Post
I can't cite a source, and I could be mistaken, I did a quick google and didn't find a definitive answer, it might be State specific, however I don't think they can use remanufactured components for warranty service. IE if a engine spins a bearing you can't R&R the engine with a "factory refurbished" engine, it must be "New"

So you could replace a module or cell group, if the factory has a process and allows, but not replace the entire battery pack with a refurbished pack. Can anyone confirm or show otherwise?
I have had the entire engine replaced in my 2 year old car, and it was a REBUILT engine. They started with the lower part, put it all together, same problem. Then ordered the 'upper' part. I had a Jeep Grand Cherokee for 40 days as my loaner, I was in NO hurry to get my car back. For those that buy extended warranties, IF you buy a 3rd party warranty that will be as close to a guaranteed rebuilt/remanufactured/out of the junk yard part you could hope for. That's their industry, they are experts at it. I dated an executive who still works for one, called JM&A, they are the 19th largest privately held company in U.S. and were #2 in the warranty business but not sure if they still are. They and Fidelity are experts at recycling automotive parts back into production.
ZoomZoom is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #12 of 13 (permalink) Old 05-05-2019, 03:13 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,149
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 818 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GJETSON View Post
OK. They did replace an entire section, as I thought. Section 4 is the bottom one of two sections stacked under the rear seat. Section 5 sits on top of it, and usually runs warmer, per Torque Pro. Section 4 contains module 4, made up of "cells" 31-40, and module 7, made up of "cells" 59-66.

Making a 3 pouch "cell", a module, or a section of higher capacity would be a complete waste. They are all in series. The entire pack can only deliver the capacity of the weakest cell or cells in series. There is no cost effective way to bypass low cells, or transfer energy from higher to lower cells in a pack. The only solution is very consistent cells. From the data scans I have seen online, the thousands of cells in a Tesla pack are more closely matched than the much larger cells in other manufacturers packs. Seems counter-intuitive, but I suspect the much more automated small cylindrical cell manufacturing systems are easier to control for consistent results.
It's not that the 2170 cells in a Model 3 are intrinsically more reliable than the pouch cells other folks use, I'd argue it's the configuration, and the trade-offs that configuration coices bring.

Regarding configuration:
  • The Tesla Model 3 has 4,416 cells wire in a 96s46p configuration (split across four modules, two with 25 bricks of 46 cells and two with 23 bricks of 46 cells).
  • The Bolt has 288 pouch cells in 96s3p configuration — 96 cell-groups connected in series where each cell-group containing 3 cells wired in parallel, grouped into 10 modules arranged in 5 sections with two modules per section; there are 8 modules that have 10 cells and two that have only 8 cells.

The key thing to note is that both the Bolt and the Model 3 wire together in series 96 groups of cells, in the Bolt they are cell-groups of three cells and in the Model 3 they are in bricks of 46 cells.

There are trade-offs to each arrangement. I'll explore this. (FWIW, the math I'll be using is just basic probability and binomial distributions, so if you know this stuff you can recreate it yourself easily enough, and if you don't, you can just accept that the math works.)

Let's imagine that the our battery cells (both pouch and 2170 cylindrical cells) have a 1 in 1000 chance of being a poor-performing “weak cell”.

If GM sells 10,000 Bolts, the relevant math tells us that, 7497 will have no weak cells at all, 2161 will have one, 310 will have two, 30 will have three, and two will have four. The average number of weak cells per Bolt is 0.288 with a standard deviation of 0.536. In other words, most Bolts have no weak cells, but a significant fraction of Bolts have a few; in the 95th percentile, we see two weak cells, and in the 99th percentile we see one weak cell.

If Tesla sells 10,000 Model 3 vehicles, we find that only 121 will have no weak cells at all, and one vehicle will have 14 weak cells. On average, a typical Model 3 will have 4.416 weak cells with a standard deviation of 2.100; in the 95th percentile, we see 8 weak cells, and in the 99th percentile we see 10 weak cells.

This seems bad for Tesla, but let's imagine that for a cell group (a.k.a. brick) to be bad, more than one third of its cells need to be weak.

For a Bolt, the chance of having a three-cell group where two or more cells are weak is 1 in 333556 (if the odds of a single cell being weak is 1 in 1000). It's that same chance each of the 96 cell groups. If GM sells 10,000 cars, there will actually be three cars sold where this happens.

For a Tesla, the chance of having a 46-cell group where 16 or more cells are weak is 1 in 1037474903308485595872778813499779305. Tesla will need to sell 10 million billion billion billion cars before it sells one with a weak cell group.

Thus wiring up 46 cells in parallel is going to be better for handling weak cells than wiring up three. (Perhaps that's obvious without doing any math!)

Now let's assume there is a 1 in ten million chance that a manufacturing defect will cause a cell to explode.

If Chevrolet makes 10,000 Bolts, they'll use 2,880,000 batteries and most likely no Bolts will explode, although there is still a 25% chance that we will see catastrophic failure.

If Tesla makes 10,000 Model 3 vehicles, they'll use 44,160,000 batteries, and about four of those Teslas will explode.

In general, this means that to have the same chance of exploding as a Bolt, Tesla has to make its 2170 cells so they are more than fifteen times less prone to catastrophic failure than pouch cells. I suspect they can't do this.

So, overall in the space of trade-offs, a Bolt owner is more likely to have to bring their car into the repair shop to get a module swapped out due to weak cells, and a Tesla owner is more likely to have their car suddenly catch fire.

It also shows that the reliability of cells needs to be really high. We want a really low chance of catastrophic failure (even better than 1 in ten million, especially for Teslas), and the less chance of a weak cell, the better (especially for Bolts, less so for Teslas).
Vertiformed is online now  
post #13 of 13 (permalink) Old 05-06-2019, 03:33 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Upstate, NY
Posts: 546
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 254 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertiformed View Post
It's not that the 2170 cells in a Model 3 are intrinsically more reliable than the pouch cells other folks use, I'd argue it's the configuration, and the trade-offs that configuration coices bring.

Regarding configuration:
  • The Tesla Model 3 has 4,416 cells wire in a 96s46p configuration (split across four modules, two with 25 bricks of 46 cells and two with 23 bricks of 46 cells).
  • The Bolt has 288 pouch cells in 96s3p configuration — 96 cell-groups connected in series where each cell-group containing 3 cells wired in parallel, grouped into 10 modules arranged in 5 sections with two modules per section; there are 8 modules that have 10 cells and two that have only 8 cells.

The key thing to note is that both the Bolt and the Model 3 wire together in series 96 groups of cells, in the Bolt they are cell-groups of three cells and in the Model 3 they are in bricks of 46 cells.

There are trade-offs to each arrangement. I'll explore this. (FWIW, the math I'll be using is just basic probability and binomial distributions, so if you know this stuff you can recreate it yourself easily enough, and if you don't, you can just accept that the math works.)

Let's imagine that the our battery cells (both pouch and 2170 cylindrical cells) have a 1 in 1000 chance of being a poor-performing “weak cell”.

If GM sells 10,000 Bolts, the relevant math tells us that, 7497 will have no weak cells at all, 2161 will have one, 310 will have two, 30 will have three, and two will have four. The average number of weak cells per Bolt is 0.288 with a standard deviation of 0.536. In other words, most Bolts have no weak cells, but a significant fraction of Bolts have a few; in the 95th percentile, we see two weak cells, and in the 99th percentile we see one weak cell.

If Tesla sells 10,000 Model 3 vehicles, we find that only 121 will have no weak cells at all, and one vehicle will have 14 weak cells. On average, a typical Model 3 will have 4.416 weak cells with a standard deviation of 2.100; in the 95th percentile, we see 8 weak cells, and in the 99th percentile we see 10 weak cells.

This seems bad for Tesla, but let's imagine that for a cell group (a.k.a. brick) to be bad, more than one third of its cells need to be weak.

For a Bolt, the chance of having a three-cell group where two or more cells are weak is 1 in 333556 (if the odds of a single cell being weak is 1 in 1000). It's that same chance each of the 96 cell groups. If GM sells 10,000 cars, there will actually be three cars sold where this happens.

For a Tesla, the chance of having a 46-cell group where 16 or more cells are weak is 1 in 1037474903308485595872778813499779305. Tesla will need to sell 10 million billion billion billion cars before it sells one with a weak cell group.

Thus wiring up 46 cells in parallel is going to be better for handling weak cells than wiring up three. (Perhaps that's obvious without doing any math!)

Now let's assume there is a 1 in ten million chance that a manufacturing defect will cause a cell to explode.

If Chevrolet makes 10,000 Bolts, they'll use 2,880,000 batteries and most likely no Bolts will explode, although there is still a 25% chance that we will see catastrophic failure.

If Tesla makes 10,000 Model 3 vehicles, they'll use 44,160,000 batteries, and about four of those Teslas will explode.

In general, this means that to have the same chance of exploding as a Bolt, Tesla has to make its 2170 cells so they are more than fifteen times less prone to catastrophic failure than pouch cells. I suspect they can't do this.

So, overall in the space of trade-offs, a Bolt owner is more likely to have to bring their car into the repair shop to get a module swapped out due to weak cells, and a Tesla owner is more likely to have their car suddenly catch fire.

It also shows that the reliability of cells needs to be really high. We want a really low chance of catastrophic failure (even better than 1 in ten million, especially for Teslas), and the less chance of a weak cell, the better (especially for Bolts, less so for Teslas).
Very nice summary of observations regarding pack design and engineering trades. Digging slightly deeper when looking at reliability and initial quality we look at DPMO (Defects Per Million Opportunities). Thinking about the modules and full packs, how about the connections to each cell, the welds, measurement connections, safety circuits, Battery Management System, etc.

Seemingly there are more opportunities for poor connections in the Tesla packs, but for the same reasons a couple of bad connections would reduce capacity 2/46 of that module.

Any thoughts on how this impacts other aspects of pack design, cost, initial quality, and reliability?

Last edited by wonderbolt; 05-06-2019 at 03:36 PM.
wonderbolt is online now  
Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome