20221102 SMO1 HW

Yeah maybe one topic Tema simulations this topic we have on the agenda .

I think that the smallest also crossover to MD

because on our side it also site mainly mechanical designers responsible to for demo simulation. I don't know how we can proceed there. Okay, but the required participation, I don't know. I don't see Marco from your side and also excel is not, I think not I talked with Michael last week and yeah to check the current status to this point or to understand this kind of status. I think I can reflect it and then okay. So we defined further actions we can then yeah.
Request.
The participation or something like that. Okay. So do you want to share something or you want to later? Send an email? I don't know. Um, in case we start with this point, so I can share one slide.
Okay. My thing because this point is 117. Yeah. Or here's the 10 unposable temperature last time there was a request regarding thermal simulation because expectation from BMW, is that the most simulation should reflect, you know, real measurements. So be quite close. Let's say, yeah. But this bit difficult to match the simulation. What kind of thought is that we exchange thermal model. So we provided from Ellisite, a full detailing about our BMS parts. So copper parts on power PCB. The conduct is a thermal conduction and so on.
And then if each side implemented, it in the full battery model. And yeah, done this simulation. So we didn't done this simulation on our side, only we done this, but there is yeah physical room which should be. I will say you're not clarified with.
It should be clear and some inside I wanted to provide.
And from me from ice point of view, it's not clear how the simulation was done with this more or less important physical parameters. So then I try to share my this is one speaker, of course regarding this simulation but have you had the time to check again? The topics I have raised already last week or yeah two weeks ago.
The topic was.
Yeah, you mean directly with CV. So from my point of view regarding this topic. 117 here, there are two main topics. So first of all, is based on the actual thermal measurements is the inconsistencies between the measured NTC values and the ones measured by the temperature sensors. Yeah. Where I already sent to via email, the fact that we've seen some some offset of maximum 17 degrees or some items. Yeah. 17. And of course, the second topic is general, speaking, the match between the terminal simulation, the actual demo measurements. So my hope was that for this week you have some updates on the actual problem.
Yeah, and yet to bring the transparency inside, not so easy. But I try to clarify this. I will say the background to this, what we can can do on our side to check the demo behavior, only for BMS. And that is our simulation for BMS makeing for circle breaker.
Very good to our camera model making for the circuit back. Very good.
You know, but for the shunt not because on chant there is very complex behavior in on the on the back level. So because we connect the shunt directly to the cell stack and the wire cabling outside.
Therefore, we see there complete different behavior, but all resides, what we checked in internal for BMS are, yeah, our close to our design, firstly and not for full battery. And on the battery level, we see complete in the measurement, we see different values and different terminal behavior because of big thermal capacitance and different complexity of cooling at the end mr. Frank the topic in my mind, it's quite clear. Yeah, we want to have a really stable thermal behavior, so this means that none of the, let's say they maximum data sheet temperatures. One should be should be overrided. Yeah.
And of course you need to have this buffer within the actual maximum data, parameter the data should parameter and the maximum temperature of the circuit breaker muscles and of course of the chant. Yeah. And this must be given within the battery. Yeah. If you present us a result just based on the on the BMS or at BMS level that won't be enough because at the end we you delivered or together with EV you deliver to BMW a complete battery and this must work as a one. Yeah it's it's clear in in the battery on the battery level, we got better results because the thermal capacitance. It's bigger.
Yeah. And on BMS level, we have less terminal capacitance.
Therefore, our BMS results are more weather.
Maybe this hint can explain as a demand. Capacitance is very important to to cool down the PMS. Including yeah, the parking because it's aluminum metal is clear and it's, we can very good transport the heat over the cooling then. But nevertheless Mr. Frank, let's stick to the actual problem. Do we have an explanation from the regarding the temperature offset between the actual mosset circuit breaker temperature and the the NTC temperature whatever?
Yes, because these in DC temperature, we measure our, only the PCB temperature and not the demo behavior of a transistor. Okay. Now okay, I'm just, we have to estimate in with, with the measure values. Also the temperature inside transistors. Yeah, and check the very for our thresholds.
What we provided by a table from system side, including this gaps? Yeah, currently sure we checked this behavior from sample to sample because it's we changing something in between the samples. And to be have to ensure that we always cover the diverse case. Yeah, scenario. That's okay. So okay. So this means that the offset of I think it was 17 or 18 cavan or so was included or yeah. But take again into consideration within the thermal model.
Yes. Yes.
So it can you present us the thermal model to basically check this the estimation of internal temperature?
I mean exactly, because the thermal model we have so far, does not really show this yeah, yes, yeah, I talked with the system with Julia. Especially, she's not joined here. We have a plan. How we the thermal model is, it's a bit complex because we we have to ensure to in the future. So we're tracking that in DC, temperature and whole terminal behavior, and a predict the temperature for the future for the 70 seconds, I think we have informed or cannon forms of vehicles that we will disconnect on this higher, current load, or something like that.
So the thermal model is very complex and it's currently also not implemented software but it is planned for the future that I can. And yeah, explain only. So I cannot show you the thermal model but we have two stages of I will say, turmeric one, yes, stage we implemented by a table and the cooling request. What you seen in the, in the explanation and different model, what is to be verified also on terminal behavior on the park level. And that is in work. It's still in work and I cannot present here. Okay, my kind of guest. Could you please put once again all this information on some slides and present them to us next week or maybe in two weeks since next week? I'm not. I'm not in the office, I'm in holiday.
Yes, we can.
My I think you've already understood hopefully that the message and basically, the deviations we've seen from our side, based, on the measurements you have done. Yeah. Or together with EV, you have done yet and we've seen this inconsistency since and what I need from my side, what I really want to to ensure is the fact that we don't exceed any critical data sheet temperatures. Yeah. If they give if everything's fine and it's included in the in the terminal model that this offset what we've seen, I have no doubts.
Then yeah, then the topic is clear for me.
But so far.
It's not so you need more details on this. Exactly. Because as I said, I can really share the slides. I have presented to you last week here and the terminal model. What is implemented as of now? Yeah does not really show that you have included this 18 Kelvin temperature difference here.
Exactly.
18 kilometer, was it another thought?
So I get this task and so yeah, I will work with the system again, please do this. Exactly. And let's us let us clarify the topic if everything's clear and we don't exceed any critical temperatures, then it's it's a done for me.
Yeah.
Okay. All right. Thanks, smart calling organizational. So next next week in the meeting will take place as usual from BMW size only I'll be there and malathi will join.
So greeners also not there and so sorry, not be there how there to repeat just said, I will not be available next week. Karina, it's out for the next three weeks but I will be in two weeks back in the office. So, yeah, but let's the meeting next play next week. We'll take place if you have some updates would be great.
If not as I said for the for the CB temperature issue would be great if you have an updating in in two weeks yeah should have plenty of time to clarify the topic.
And in two weeks, I will also be back in the office. Any organizational points are from hello, Ivy side.
Now.
Next week or in general, okay? It seems not their current. The comment was already there, so it makes sense again.
And the next point, AMC, does we had to here?
We had to meeting last week to discuss regarding CP, simulation, and to discuss about the next steps.
So if I can give a shot update, we have no standard software released, and we are not modifying this software or the EMC samples. Sold the plan for the EMC test will be next week, then there will be. Let's see if it's finished before Thursday, so he's our next week.
Going two weeks.
There will be a big update with new test results. Okay, sounds good. So this means Mr. Gally, were able to to get the software colleagues on board to work on the frequency? Yes. Okay. So yes. Yes, yes. We still have to, to try out the software this week the last times. The software then was working and I expect nothing less this time.
So expect next week we'll have an operations software was good. I don't put it. We have another topic for this C1 emcee sample delivery or is it covered with this? I think we have just one. Let me check you just jump directly to the topic here. You mean for testing that outside, right? Exactly. Nevertheless, the question here. Everything so far working to have to do this. You want simple but in your house, have you started what?
I know is what I know is that we checked this samples and sample testing of, which should go to BMW, but not the MC, sampler, what?
We hope what you request last week.
So this example will be pre-checked also in the external app and then it will be provided to BMW sounds good. But this means mr. Mr. Frank that you have to see one sample, you just need to. I don't really work. The degree get resistance there, and so far, everything's working. According to the plan. Yes, the sample is in-house. And this has been already tested in the heart, the lab. And now, we need to flash. The, I would like to flash this stable software and not not an experimental software for MC. I would like to put just the stable software on the sample if you agree, and then, yeah, of course, we need to completely test it. That's, that's clear.
Yeah, you for the actual shipment, we should have today. The MC results at component level. Yeah, afterwards. When we are going in the vehicle MC vehicle measurements, then we can make a really good comparison between the axials component, measurements and vehicle results.
Yeah, you can't discipline them.
Sounds good.
So did understand greatly.
The delivery date will be provided after the testing take place, right? Yeah. I guess so. I was finding the so we are now in clean the week 44, if you say maybe at until end of this week, beginning of next week, you should have the software.
I'm assuming that maybe end of calendar week, 46, you should have to see one sample.
Ready.
So basically to in two and a half weeks, yeah, then it should be ready. And yeah, I will discuss the details with the lab, the end of this week and next week maybe we can confirm this but clinic week, 46 sounds realistic to me.
Okay.
Sounds good. All right.
Thanks.
Oh sorry to hear anything else on this one.
Doesn't look like that's a bit for myself regarding the MC simulation. I think our colleague Wolfram has all the details, if not well from McDonald's. The missionating now? No, not yet. I'm I'm in on work.
Okay, sounds good.
Okay, then the next point.
See on release documents.
So had an update is required on the internal tolerance calculation.
Um, we working on but I can show the form of this table, maybe it's interesting for just a moment, please.
So, we plan to provide the needed information by this table because we have here direct requirements to this kind of measurements.
Here, sales voltages at first and temperature, measurement.
And the main current. Yeah. And then for B plus Clint 40 and the difference voltage measurement and here we summarized the needed accuracy and resolution. And here we have redundant current measurement because we need higher voltage, higher current measurement as 1,000 amp. For example, for yeah, over current detection. So and so this is the easier be specification.
That's why you need redundant measurement or due to the due to the actual requirement itself.
You due to the split of the requirement so big because in the beginning we had here, higher range and we reduced this range because our TIXLAC don't match the full range. And we have for the over current detection. We have redundant can't measurement or not only red not to understand redundant to z to that here to the main.
Current redundant means we have additional two parts.
So we measure the current three times because I'll see this connection for safe energy supply. We cannot discussing just only by one fort. We need then here redundant forward to disconnect this circuit breaker, therefore, we have here extended range and the threshold is on, 1,250 amps. And therefore, we also not stated up to now, here was not really clear what we have to put in here, but that is the form of table.
What we want to provide sure. We have to fill in this things. Currently we recheck with software, the configuration of physics. It's not so visible for me.
But from hardware point of view, we have there values.
But once I will say, the combined will use cannot provide today, but I think we can in second weeks. We can.
Yeah, fulfill.
This sounds good.
I'm quite happy that you're working on this.
Just a second. You said I think two weeks ago, you said that when the nomination between BMW and let's say, EVE and and for took place, you mentioned that you had some some deviations to the actual requirements from BMW, could we replace, here's the some deviations or restrictions, which we defined. So here you see, is that we have to Kelvin in this range for example and through Kevin outside and something like that. So we implemented here, the required resolution, which matching also our restrictions. What we what we aligned in this, okay?
So basically here in the required accuracy is basically your, your state is basically what you have offered. Yes. Okay. Understood.
So we have done one for many common percent 48.
Just a second, okay? Because now I was just double checking. We are here. We had or we still have basically in the component to requirements, for the, for the current have around 0.1% from the measurement, value is the requirement in. You have offered here 1% for. As you can see, we need to check our sections with. We also aligned with BMW in the past, I think. So, what would be would be great if you can double check this. I'm also working in parallel on this topic and to check what was the latest agreement basically?
Yeah, on the requirements, in the deviations. But if you already have it, just put it in here in the table. Then we have a clear overview.
Yeah. What has been required by BMW? What has been offered by four via and then we can double check everything. Yeah. Maybe I can at here just in the presentation some some screenshots from the from our comments or something like that. So this year it's the matching from the restrictions to the requirements.
I think that this visible on the doors level, I think currently checking double check, as you can see,
Okay. Okay. Yeah, please do this and we can align afterwards. Okay, but I think so far in our first glitch, looks good. Keep up with it.
And maybe I don't think two or three week, two or three weeks we can fully clarify the topic. Yes.
I don't. All right, thanks for the update.
The next point measurement.
Crazy.
Horizontal values, the stable, what we discussed was for this point, okay? About this one. This was something else. Yeah. I think we it's the same thing. We said to, we need to combine this to topics. Remember? Okay. Then I'll see you. Okay? From the release documents and place it here in the actual topic.
Yeah, don't get the next point. Designed to be a checkup for each sample. You're unfortunately one. Yes, I will. I didn't update this design video document, but I can do this this week and provide you certain status for recheck. Thank you documents and they can do this.
It's open. I'll write it down by Monday. Yeah, after Friday. And come up here, I didn't provide it up to now. It's also of course, of internal tests and so on, but internal tests, especially carrying account capabilities on a business test. Yeah, very good. So we passed the verification on our site for short circuit, high current profiles and also load them so and therefore press no. Yeah, no things.
Which from point are really open.
And yes, I can provide this to comment.
It's almost possible about the you. Mmm, good question. I know that, internal checks, whatever on system side. I know that we forwarded the report from UAL to system but the current status is not visible for me. So when you mean to the system, you mean to show. Yes. Okay, so reduces the median information inside and provided BMW. I I know that the past you will tests and it's just only to prepare the results facility for you. Okay, it's all to do so nothing more. I will take it with me and request it on system side.
Please do this thinking from here.
Have technical product description of BMS. Yes, I'm status.
I know that you've got the description and sure we explained or our wish is to extract the information, completely from doors from system, level somehow, maybe related to information and then to provide a similar form what we've got from you, but it's also probably in work on system level. But I will also. Yeah, request it on missus you understand, it's good, I think regarding this topic you will receive this week. If not maybe next week another update from our side. Okay. Because we had last week on internal alignment about this topic. Yeah, again and it was told to me by Ian, Corba that did a there is already, we have some kind of a templates, especially for the for the 48 volt batteries.
Yeah. And he said that he wants to double check internally and maybe if he finds some I don't know differences or some other informations to the template which I have already provided to them. He will rule. Yeah. Send it again to you. Okay. Can a problem with the line once again.
Yeah, now I will forward the synth. Also, with my request on some system that we will get there and update from update, subsided, sounds good. I think we are through pocket with the topics, right? Yeah, I have a question to Mr. Gala, Mr. Gullah regarding MC tests, you know, to have also an overview or regarding to the let's say the yeah. Immunity tests like EST.
And so on.
What is the status here? Yeah, last test, possible, 0 plus 0%. Do we have final for T sub? ESD, and so on BCI test? We have. Yeah, the report is on Panama. Okay. So everything's passed. Yeah. Immunity test is 0. Plus everything fast this working within the DV. Okay, sounds good. Based on the changes we have done now for the for the emissions. Do you think we might have there some side effects or don't really expect? Because at the end you I'm guessing we haven't done any changes on the interface or on the input side of the, of the signals. Yeah, exactly. They were no changes. So I do not really expect that I need change. But yeah. You as you know, you never know. But yeah. No changes to the relevant interfaces. Okay.
Okay that no I was thinking the last week again regarding immunity tests on the AMC side, just wanted to double escore or ask once again, what's the status, okay?
So everything passed with the C0 plus. Okay, baby.
Just to clarify, I need to backtrack. We had one issue but we have solved. This issue in one of the revision samples for during BCI testing. So it might be that for the original physio plus there is a red point but then we have solved that as a hard parameter which is implemented and we have confirmed this within the schizoplasms so might be that's one test in the main test report fail and then there's a data test report where this pass I would need to make check it sometime ago. Yeah please double check this can give us a also a verbal confirmation that everything's okay. I just want to really make sure that all the tests.
Yeah.
Also, the immunity tests are passed at the end. Yeah, next meeting. I can reopen the, the management overview because they are, you can see everything. He also, we have a page for the immunity test. Now that it's, it's a good overview, check? Yes. Just still need to do. Get used to the reporting type into finding on the documents here. Sorry for maybe asking sometimes for a second or third time the, after the same things.
So I will think, I think, in the next time, it's okay and all the topics. Yeah, I'd always takes some time to get into the project. Sounds good.
Okay. All right. That was the love questions from speaking. If you have one remaining topic, we might also discuss a little bit. It's not very critical. I think it's hidden in, or given in identify 104. That's diffuse.
Use 3,100 that's the fuse in the ground line of the scale. I wanna fuse. Okay, please, that's one topic. We need also to clarify. Not sure if we cannot do it today. The fuse is in the ground line in the moment. That's a 12 or 6, SMT component, and we need to change. Now to what I see here, it's in discussion to replace it with zero almost resistance instead of the fuse. Then we need to discuss is it peaceable or is it okay to have a 12 or 6, 0, ohm chamber, there it's a question of power loss of conflow. If not, if we need other component, we need a layout change.
We are not planning in the, in the moment. So we need to discuss soon wanted to get a confirmation. What we have can do here. Yes.
Summarized here we've find the last status.
And is it checked on women BMW side?
Yeah, I can can tell you that, I just wanted to check again with axle, we have discussed this internally so our proposal to you was that you keep the you keep the actual fuse, kill 31 fuse, at least the first two years after SOP. Then you can we can change the zero over resistance. Yeah. Because the the thing is that we are guessing that in the first two, one or two years. After the SOP, we might have some, some software flash processes which need to be done. And basically, by by having the fuse there, we won't have any issues. Yeah. And in a long term, maybe we won't have any other updates here.
Software updates.
I mean, so now my question back to is have a check this, it's suitable.
Yeah, to keep the the fuse, the first two years after they left the SOP. If we need to discuss those I think we also have Christopher, why do we want to change it now? It's, it's a impact of costs for hello and a moment. So, and it's it diffuses not cheap. Huh? So that's the reason why we didn't discuss this.
I take this with with me, we discussed and that's it in the moment from our side, I would say make and ask you to also check something. Let's assume that we will change the fuse with the zero resistor how big is the the wrist that we have a high current and then we have a I know we are really hot resistance here.
Zero resistance.
There during a typical flash process because I think this is the only use case we want. We are going to have them. I think that in the card itself if the if we are mounting instead of use a serial number the it's not connected. Now there's highest human very low risk that something happens now exactly. So basically normally as you said, yeah, when they be a mess will be. When the battery is mounted in the vehicle, we won't have any current flowing through those. Your own resistor. We're just talking about the flashing process where this resistor? Yeah, the question is what we might discuss, then is it possible maybe to place the fuse not into the? It's a, it's a constant as I mentioned. Huh?
So, when we are placing now zero instead of the fuse, huh on? Hello side, we are fine.
It's also possible to place, maybe a few in the flash equipment, the that's maybe cheap of the dental place on each PCB.
The fuse was not really sure if I only understood this. So, you are saying that from hella side, you don't see any risk by placing a zero of resistance instead of the fuse for the flashing process. Is that correct? Oh, no, no, the flashing process. If something is going wrong oh you make a shot now. Yeah, just a moment. We have on this fuse we have more or less two critical points in and also startup current. So the question is, can the zero ohm resistor handle this, kind of things we checked for in charge and zero ohm is not really suitable for.
And in case we provide, the special piles, proof zero homes and it's also not really. Yes, YouTube before. That's the thing is, and therefore, we requested the, this point last time. What is the flash equipment specified for which currents, or which current can flash equipment provide?
Exactly. Do we have to the limit of the resistance when it comes to the image current?
How big can this your own resistors with stand? I'll because the current they have today. Oh, okay. Provided by alarm. Thanks. Yes. It's test alarm. No, it's not. Sorry. Don't you need to to evacuate the building?
It's triggered. Yeah, I have to if it's exist.
Sorry.
Okay, so would be great if you can double check and tell us what is the the inner current value?
And I will double check here internally.
Our flash equipment, maybe are we are able to check how big is the risk?
We have a high in rush current, what's the typical current consumption and so on?
Okay. Okay, I think we need to leave the have to leave the building. Yeah. Okay alarmia. I think we're already through with all the toppings, so thank you. Thank you a lot.
Okay, right.