20221213 EMC

I can say due to the actual test results on the EMC side from the BMS, from the battery component level,
from the vehicle side they said that they will do EMC measurements just when we will have more than one component,
a 48 volt component available so we can do measurement with more than one component. So basically they will be checked more than,
yeah, not just, so the focus will not be just the 48 volt battery, so yeah, also the 48 volt DC-DC converter and so on.
But there will be so far no special measurement just with the focus on the 48 volt battery. This was the reply.
Yeah, so then it sounds that we are a fairly early component. On track, let's say. That sounds not too bad anyways.
What's also important to note that we need the test reports for the C2 before we can have a vehicle measurement so our EMC specialists require them.
So maybe if after you tested it and if you can quickly share them with us, then we will be a bit faster, I will say.
But a real C2 layout we will only have next year. I don't know exactly when. So what we are doing now is some pre-measurements with modified C1s,
but of course since we have to do some layout work, yeah, it will not be completely C2.
It's clear, maybe, yeah, good topic that you just addressed, Karina. What the guys also need is current status of all the BCI measurements, yeah.
Basically of all the immunity tests.
Yeah, BCI is okay. This is something we have on our scope anyways.
I think in the end it's for them it's most important that they don't have only a PowerPoint presentation, but a whole report and then it should be fine.
Maybe also with the C1. I'm not sure about it, but maybe so we can ask them again.
Yeah, they need something for the documentation before they start the vehicle measurements.
Exactly.
Okay.
Let's start then.
So Jason, have you checked the topics you can see in my email from last time since two weeks? Are there any additional questions?
About this point, I think it's no problem because the harness, I think it's not reliable and that's the test. We will use new harness to do the test again.
Okay, so all the topics here where I just wrote EVE are clear?
Yes, that's the formal test. Before the formal test, we will confirm with HANA and BMW again with Hamelist.
Okay.
Then I think Mr. Gala, we can switch over to your EMC test plan and start where we were last time after the BCI test setup.
This was clear.
BCI test is okay and I think I remember last week we did the BCI test.
Last week I remember and I do the BCI test again and because the hardware changed, the test results are okay?
We have an older version of that software in the test, so we are repeating it with the current software. This is what I want to do today. So there seems to be something with the software.
So what we did was have a software for emission to include everything, but there were some other topics inside of software. So actually we are repeating, if it works today, completely the BCI test, at least the critical positions.
With the new software, I think it's 715.
You use the new software and verify all the tests?
No, we use it just for the BCI. New software for BCI and of course with the hardware modifications that we plan to do with the CELASIC.
And as a test result, there is no problem?
Yeah, it's un-plausible let's say. There was no conclusive result because of looks like software issues. So this is why we need to get the recent software.
Okay, Wun Han, thank you.
Okay.
Good. Then Mr. Gala, can you please share the EMC time?
Where shall we continue? I think we have browsed already through all the emission tests. I think we should go to immunity or what was the next test? I don't recall exactly.
So what I wrote last time is that we have double checked the BCI test setup. There were no open questions from EV. What is left here in the EMC time plan?
So then it goes to ALSE or BCICL?
Then let's switch over to...
Can you see the test? Yes. Very good.
So is there any question regarding the BCICL? I mean it's anyways an optional test for development. So it's not the mandatory one.
So maybe we need to discuss if it's really necessary to be performed at EV.
If it's nice to have, then we will nicely have it.
Okay, is there any question regarding EV side? I think this test you have not performed in the last run. So the harness nominal is one meter.
Wait a moment.
Clamp position is usually 900 millimeters.
Hey, Mengtao, did we perform BCICL last time? Yes, BCICL did. Then this harness is also one meter, right?
There are two ways to perform BCICL. One is replacement method, and the other is replacement method.
We didn't perform BCICL. We only performed one replacement method.
Last time we only did the replacement method, not the test setup. I think it's no problem and it's clear from the setup.
Okay, good. I think there's also... The bottom node and the very requirement was only test level. What's the meaning?
This node means it does not need to be fulfilled or released. So it's something like a nice to have. This test is very strict. It's very severe to pass it.
Do we need to do the test in the former tester? This is what we need to do the setup in the former tester. How to check the result?
You check the result the same way as the normal BCI, to check the data you receive from the DUT via CAN.
It's the same kind of evaluation as for the standard BCI test. But since usually the pulse energy is higher in this test, it's more difficult to pass.
Okay, I'm glad you're upon it. It's no problem.
Okay, so this is clear.
So maybe one important part is here. There's a power limitation when doing the test, so that even with the feedback you receive by measuring the injected current, you should not increase the power by more than a factor. So this is the power limit.
What exactly? I'm not sure that I understood.
In this test, you inject the current with a big injection clamp and you remeasure it with this clamp. And here you feed back to the power amplifier. So you will exactly inject the current as you would like to.
But you make an empty calibration run without DUT. And usually with DUT you can inject more or you have to have a higher energy in the power amplifier because you have to fill the capacitors and so on.
And during this test, this means with DUT you increase the power rating, the power amplifier, but you should not do it higher than a factor of four.
This is standard for this test. It's in the BMW GS and it's also in this test plan. So when executing in the lab, it's important to notice this sentence.
So the injected power should not be four times higher than the calibrated value, right?
Yes.
Any questions from EV?
I have no questions.
Good. Then we continue to ALSE.
So this setup is quite standard.
Again, we have a short ground.
Sorry, the test we just reviewed was which one? Also ALSE?
No, this was BCICL.
Okay. BCICL closed loop. Okay.
Okay, thanks. Now we jump to the ALSE.
ALSE. Okay.
Basically, this is just normalized for ALSE testing.
Is there any question from EV?
This test is no question. I think it's a normal test.
Yeah, it's normal.
The test levels are also the standard ones from the GS.
This is the Strobline immunity test.
Are there any questions?
I have no question.
Again, take care of the harness length. So it says 200 centimeters, but in fact, it might be a little bit longer to fit the full length below the septum.
Okay, then I continue.
Test level.
Magnetic field.
Also, is there any question?
And if the transient emission.
Any questions here for transient emission?
I have no question. As before test, and the city is weather, the city is failure.
Because I think most testers have no problem.
And was also no problem.
So, clamp 30. Anyways, we don't expect anything at clamp 30.
And this is to measure clamp 40, but we have passed both.
If there's no question, we cross forward.
Okay, good.
Maybe important here is just operate operational modes. What we do with internal switching.
Operational modes during the test. Okay, transient supply.
Immunity versus pulses. Also pretty standard.
Again, we have two setups once for 30, once for 40.
And pulses to be tested.
Any questions here regarding the transient supply on the power lines?
Okay.
Also pretty much standard. And then we come to ESD.
So maybe ESD we need to take a closer look.
Especially it's important always where's air discharge, where's contact discharge. But again, this is also pretty standard depending on the surface of housing or metal.
And which kind of discharge voltage.
Are there any questions here, Jason, regarding the ESD test?
I have no question.
Okay. Yeah. So we do it in this fashion with the test points marked in the picture here.
This is BMS only, Dunder Teller. And different colors, different kind of discharge.
And the complete battery, we might not have the most recent pictures in. Maybe you need to let me check if we have the test points. Yeah, we also have test points.
So, of course, pins and different parts of the housing.
So each of these points needs to receive a discharge, usually 10 plus, 10 minus discharges of each voltage.
So pretty much standard.
Okay. Does it make a difference regarding the, let's say, the area where you need to shoot with the ESD gun or actually doesn't?
Yeah, because it's aluminium housing. You just test different spots on the battery, right?
Yeah, usually you always try to use some special points, for example, where you have the crosses.
So first it's easier to find and then it's the highest electric field because there's a change in the surface.
And if there are then the screws for the handle, for example, this is a typical point where you would hit because it's special.
Otherwise, I would say it would not matter too much if you hit here somewhere exactly at this point or one centimeter beside.
Usually it should not matter.
But you should not leave out too many spots in between.
This is why we have here 10 spots on the side of the housing.
Okay. Then any critical part like an opening or whatever.
Understood. Okay.
Okay. And the ESD direct will be tested in our house.
This is at EV as well. So discharge at the islands.
So the harness also there. It's good to have an original harness.
This is the direct is at the DOT.
So you see this is basically the same positions.
The difference is just the DOT is operating.
That's what I want to say.
And this is the indirect test on the discharge island.
One question for my understanding. The first ESD test, the DOT is not running.
But I suppose that after the test itself, you check the functionality again, right?
Just make sure that everything's fine.
Yes, after the ESD handling test, the complete functionality has to be checked.
Of course.
So this would mean something like a repetition of a UL test or parameter test.
So that all the functions are tested again.
Okay.
And then here again, the device is running.
So you observe if all the parameters stay stable during the test.
Okay.
Okay. And then we are at the end of the test plan.
Okay. So are there from EV any other questions, specific questions?
Is everything clear? Understood?
I think it's all program.
Okay. One kind request to you, please, in case you have any questions or if something is not clear,
just write an email to us and we will try to clarify this.
Okay.
Yeah, I think the first question I think is the hardness.
The hardness.
Yeah, because before the formal test, we need to check with the highlander PMRW again.
And the other, I think we should do is the pro test before the formal test.
Yeah. And the other point, I think it's the test value, especially for the IE and the STRIP lines and the CEs.
And we test in the different number.
And I think the test value has some difference.
Okay.
I think this is a risk from my point of view.
Understood. Yeah. Okay.
Yeah. As I said, regarding the original harness, BMW will try to provide this.
But in the meantime, as I said, please build your own test cable, your own cable harness.
And when BMW will be able to provide the cable harness or the cables, then you can switch them.
Sorry, I have other comparison. Because before the test, we can see the test value, especially the STRIP lines and the ILE test value is close to the standard.
And it's reached the limit.
But we tested in the different number. It's many times it has the difference.
Because the test number, I think it's well has a risk.
Yes. Number. Mr. Galli, did you understand?
No. Sorry. I don't know what you mean with test number. Do you mean the DB exceedence or the level of emission?
We can see in the STRIP line, for example, with the STRIP line tester, and the tester value is close to the limit.
And it's very close to the limit.
And we tested in the other lab and the other lab, it has some difference.
Because maybe the test value is about 20 dBs. And the ILE test value is 22 dBs.
If we have a difference between the test runs of just two or three dBs, I think this is still pretty normal.
But what we have to avoid is to have higher deviation, especially if it might be caused by different setup.
Yes. I'm sorry. But from the before test, and the C1, and the STRIP lines, and the C current, and the tester value is close to the limit.
Because it's decreased to the 2 dBs. It's decreased the limit. For example, the limit is 20 dBs, and the tester value is 18 dBs.
And the EV type tester, maybe it's 22 dBs, I think. But it has a problem. Because the HANA tester is passed.
Because it's decreased to the 2 dBs. But the EV tester, maybe it's decreased to the 2 dBs. But it's failed.
But I think this is a risk. I think I got you. But maybe let it translate a bit.
So the issue is if we have passed the test at Hellas Height, maybe with 1 dB margin.
Yes. There's just a 2 dB difference. But EV has 2 dB higher emission in this limit line.
And then, of course, this test turns to fail. So the question is how we will deal in that case, especially if it's just a narrow fail.
I think we can discuss about it. I would say in the first step, let's have the test results.
And afterwards, of course, we can discuss about the tolerances which we might have.
Yes, I think we should have enough tolerance.
Because I'm guessing that not all the devices are exactly the same in your test setup.
I don't know the...
About the setup, maybe we need to check again and again. But maybe we need to do a pretest before the formal test.
A pretest sounds good. And then check the results. If they are more or less the same as the results from Hellas side, then this should be OK, right?
Jason, do you mean a pretest before you start with the PV EMC test?
I'm not sure because you can see that before the test, EV does the same test between the Hellas.
And you can see that the test venue has some difference.
And maybe the EV test venue is higher than the Hellas test. It also has a difference.
As I said, I think we can discuss about it when we see the first results.
Yes, that's right. But just Jason, so you want to do a pretest before you start in May with the EMC test in the PV?
Or do you want... When do you want to have a pretest?
And also with which sample? Because we have to discuss also with Yuri.
I'm not sure because I need to talk with the PEC level. And you can see if the C2 sample is past the BMW EMC standard, maybe we should use C2 to do the same test.
Yeah, I think it's also planned with C2 in the PV.
Maybe we need to do the PUTTLE. And it's a high-risk test because the stripper lines and the CE current.
Maybe we do the PUTTLE. It's not enough for the whole test. We only do three or three PUTTLEs.
We think it's high risk to avoid this setup and this problem.
I think it's... Maybe we need to do the...
In the next title.
I agree, it might make sense if you can do some pretesting of the critical tests. Yes, like also BCI and CPSL, for example.
I will also take this with me and discuss this with our test manager for the DV and PV. Then we can include in the test plan some pretests for the BCI and stripper line tests, something like that.
But yeah, the test we can discuss also. What test do we want to perform as a pretest? But I will take this with me and discuss it also with our PV guy.
On the last slide, we are planning as well all the EMC tests with the C2.
The current schedule points to start in March. Let's see if that schedule will be kept. But this is the current status as I know it.
Okay, yeah, we plan on the EVE side, the EMC tests up from the end of May. So maybe we can do then the first test on the EVE side after you tested it in March. So maybe around the end of April. And we have still a bit of time between starting the EMC sequence.
Maybe we can do that together because HALA is at a high risk.
And the stripper line at BCI and the EVE side, we can do the pretest together with HALA. And if HALA finishes all the tests, then if the pretest is no problem, and EVE can do the formal test and the pet level, I think it's no problem.
Because if HALA finishes all the tests, I think it's low enough time to do the pretest.
Yeah, agreed. Let's see what order we can do for the testing. But of course, the target is to start with a high risk test first.
So anyways, we will have a lot of meetings in March and we can line then what status we have achieved and what tests might be useful at the EVE side to start.
Sounds good.
Okay.
Now the EMC test is no problem. And for C1 sample, all the latest test results are no problem.
Because before the hardware meeting, before Christmas, we showed the phrase as hardware. Because I think this is the end of the stage and all the EMC test is passed.
So far, yes, but we still have some topics to test. I would like to start now also for another test run today.
Yes, so far, yes, all the changes, of course, we want to put into the C2, we pretest it.
Okay, is there anything else to discuss in this meeting? Otherwise, I would like to try to go to the next test.
Okay, sounds good. Then thank you a lot. Have a nice day. And yeah, I have already seen the meeting minutes. Have a nice day and hear from you. Okay, bye bye.
Okay, bye bye.
Thank you. Bye.
Thank you.