Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1. ELECTRIC VEHICLES
There is growing interest in electric vehicle (EV) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicle
(PHEV) technologies because of their reduced fuel usage and greenhouse emissions plug-in
hybrid electric vehicles have the advantage of long driving range since fuel provides a secondary
resource. Government of India and the Society of Automotive Engineers has taken many
initiatives with IEEE, SAE, IWC but EVs have yet to gain wide acceptance. Three important
barriers include the high cost and cycle life of batteries, complications of chargers, and the lack of
charging infrastructure, another drawback is that battery chargers will produce deleterious
harmonic effects on the electric utility distribution systems Most EV charging can take place at
home although chargers with an active rectifier front end can mitigate this impact.
1.2 CHALLENGES
Electricity
Production
Domestic Battery Supply
Incentives
Infrastructure
1.3 TRENDS
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE SURVEY
2.1 INTRODUCTION
home energy management arises from multiple sources of randomness, i.e., PEV mobility,
customer power demand, and renewable power generation.
To promote user demand response through optimizing the utilization of wind power
generation, the coordinated wind PEV dispatch problem was also studied in a stochastic
framework capturing the uncertainties of wind power generation and statistical PEV driving
patterns.
However, all the foregoing articles focus on the microgrid energy management problem
using stochastic optimization, given one and only one random factor: either electric price or PEV
mobility, either renewable energy generation or home load. The interactions among various
random variables were constantly overlooked. A probability distribution model combining
household power consumption, EV home-charging and PV power production was developed
using a convolution approach to merge three separate existing probability distribution models.
CHAPTER 3
PRESENT SCENARIO
3.1 CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
The commercial success of the electric vehicle will require the development of a charging
infrastructure that is accessible, easy to use, and relatively inexpensive. There should be a good
charging infrastructure and its technology if electric vehicles are to compete with gasoline-fueled
cars.
It would take 50 hours to fully charge a 70 kWh Tesla Model S from a normal wall outlet,
and almost 11-hours with a 220-volt, 6.6 kW line. Tesla has developed a home charging system
that can triple the electric output of a 220 volt line,34 bringing recharging time down to under
four hours, but total installed costs of the charging equipment can reach $4,000-$6,000 depending
on the buyer’s specific requirements.35 If these newer BEVs are being driven long distances
between charges, home charging technology will have to improve dramatically or commercial
fast-charging stations will have to be widely deployed if electric vehicles are to compete with
gasoline-fueled cars.
Level 1, providing 1.4 kW of power in the U.S., is simply a conventional wall socket, and
requires no additional circuitry, aside from the adapters required to connect the EV to the socket.
In theory, Level 1 charging can be used anywhere, although in practice it takes place primarily at
the EV owners’ homes.
Level 2 charging operates on the same upgraded 220-volt outlets, required by washing machines
and clothes driers, and can easily be installed. More modern houses typically have these outlets,
while older houses may require electrical upgrades. Depending on the home’s electrical
infrastructure, this can involve upgraded circuitry, wiring extensions to reach the charging
location, or, even in rare cases, an upgraded transformer. Level 2 charging can also be provided at
workplace locations, other business locations (hotels, gas stations, private parking lots), and
public locations (on-street parking space, garages, streets, public parking lots—wherever cars are
likely to be stationary for hours at a time). Level 2 charging starts at a power rating of 6.6 kW,
increasing to 19.2 kW depending on the level of current that the supporting circuitry can sustain.
Most home Level 2 charging, and almost all commercial Level 2 charging, is limited to 6.6 kW
because (a) the onboard inverter on most existing EVs cannot handle significantly more than this
level3 and boosting the current typically requires the installation of more expensive higher-
capacity circuitry.
Because direct current charging bypasses an EV’s onboard inverter to charge the battery
directly, it can deliver much higher levels of electrical power. This type of charger is commonly
referred to as a Direct Current Fast Charger (DCFC) and is typically used only in commercial
locations. While studies demonstrate that consistently high DCFC usage can accelerate
deterioration in battery capacity over time, capacity degradation for the vast majority of users is
more closely associated to overall usage than charging patterns.40 “Estimated Direct Current Fast
Charger utilization rates,” an NREL study concludes, “do not appear frequent enough to
significantly impact battery life,” suggesting that the thermal management systems of the battery
itself are a more important determinant.41 Self-reported survey data from Tesla drivers suggests
that even for the most frequent users of fast charging, battery capacity is highly unlikely to fall
below 90% of its original rating even after 150,000 miles of usage. For the purposes of this paper,
DCFC charging is classified as Level 3 charging is used to refer to a power delivery of 50 kW;
Most third-party DCFC chargers are Level 3, operating at about 50kW. Tesla’s proprietary
network of Superchargers, with a typical power output of 120 kW, is designed to serve Tesla
vehicles exclusively and corresponds most closely to Level 4. Level 5 ultra-fast DCFC, which
requires heavy duty insulation equipment, has not yet been deployed on a commercial basis, and
no mass-produced EVs can currently handle this level of power. EVSE operator Charge Point
announced a 400kW charging platform in January 201743 and a consortium of OEMs (Porsche,
Ford, Daimler and Volkswagen Group) is involved in a joint venture aiming to install a 350kW
network across Europe.44
The table presents each charger type, its nominal power rating (in kW), the time taken to replenish
the expected average daily usage of 13.65 kWh described above, the time taken to replenish 100
miles of charge (i.e. 37 kWh, just under half of a 75 kWh battery), and the miles of range added
per minute of charging. Charging time is assumed to depend entirely of the power rating of the
charger, although in practice, technical limitations on the battery, electrical supply, and inverter
capacity (for AC charging) can add time to the process. It is assumed that the rate of charging is
linear (i.e. does not slow down significantly over the course of the session). This is a reasonable
simplifying assumption, since the rate of charging does not diminish significantly until the battery
reaches approximately 90% of capacity, and most public charging sessions are used to partially
recharge batteries rather than fully recharge them. Users of EVGo’s Level 3 network in
California, for instance, average just 5-12 kWh per session (or enough to drive an additional 15-
36 miles).The reference battery size of 75 kWh reflects a reasonable expectation of average
battery size of BEVs over the next five years—larger than the current Chevrolet Bolt (60kW) and
smaller than the top-end Tesla Models S and X (90-100 kWh). Refueling a gasoline car is so
quick and easy, that almost any other option is ess convenient. Journeys over 300 miles will
require at least one charging stop. Adding just 100 miles of range with a Level 4 charger—the
fastest charging option currently in service—would take at least fifteen minutes. Refueling
completely (about 300 miles) would take about 45 minutes. Further, the flow of vehicles through
gasoline stations is much greater, owing to the rapidity of refueling. In areas with charging station
congestion or stations where customers typically leave their car to charge while they do
something else (shopping, for example), there may be an additional delay waiting for a space to
open up, extending the wait for a 100 mile recharge to 30 minutes or more.
When a Wall Connector plugs into the charge port it provides AC power, to your car. The
onboard charger, which is built in your car, handles this by converting the AC power into DC
energy so that it can be stored in the battery. Although direct current has low losses but alternating
current is cheaper and easy to step up and step down So by upgrading onboard chargers we can
minimize the charging costs
3.5.1 DESCRIPTION
(TTPL) bridgeless power factor correction (PFC) solution for Onboard Charger. The
power stage implements silicon carbide (SiC) MOSFETs driven by a C2000™ microcontroller
(MCU) with SiC-isolated gate drivers. The design implements three-phase interleaving and
operates in continuous conduction mode (CCM) to achieve a 98.60% efficiency at a 240- V input
voltage and 6.6-kW full power. The C2000 controller enables phase shedding and adaptive dead
time control to improve the power factor at light load. The gate driver board (see TIDA-01605)
implements reinforced isolation and can withstand more than 100-V/s common-mode transient
immunity (CMTI). The gate driver board also contains the two-level turnoff circuit, which
protects the MOSFET from voltage overshoot during the short-circuit scenario.
3.5.2 Features
• Half-bridge- and compact isolated gate driver with reinforced isolation and two-level
turnoff protection
• 98.86% peak efficiency, greater than 0.99 power factor and less than 2% total harmonic
distortion (THD)
Figure shows the system block diagram of the TIDA-01604 reference design, which includes the
following elements.
• Power switches G1-G6 are high-frequency SiC MOSFETs, for which there is a 120°
phase shift between each two half bridge legs. G7 and G8 forms a low-frequency (45- to
60-Hz) synchronous rectifier bridge which virtually has no switching loss; a low
conduction loss feature is desirable for these two devices.
• TMS320F280049M C2000 Piccolo controller functions as the controller, which has all
the voltage and current sensor inputs and generates the correct PWM signals for G1-G8.
The controller also reads any fault signal from the gate driver boards and shuts down the
system if a fault occurs. The reset function is used during start-up or when a fault clears.
• TIDA-01605 daughter boards are used to drive SiC switches G1-G8. The driver board is
based on isolated, dual-channel gate driver devices, features reinforced isolation, and
provides more than 100 V/ns CMTI. The driver board provides the two-level turnoff
protection during the short-circuit scenario.
• Hall sensors are used to sense the total input current and current for each channel.
Voltage dividers are used to sense the input line and neutral voltages as well as output DC
bus voltages.
• The SN6501-Q1-based push-pull isolated converter provides +15 V/ –4 V for each gate
driver. The TLV71333-Q1 low-dropout (LDO) linear regulator provides accurate
reference for the sensing circuits connected to the controller.
CHAPTER 3
PROPOSED WORK
There has been much previous work aiming to achieve efficient power transfer to both stationary
(Delphi, HaloIPT, Evantran, WAVE, Waseda WEB) and moving vehicles some dating back over
twenty years. The majority of these studies used the inductive power transfer schemes. However,
it is well documented that there are substantial limitations to an inductive power transfer scheme.
The transfer distances are typically below 20cm.
This has become a substantial issue. For safety reasons, and in order to ensure that the road can
still be used for other kinds of vehicles, the source needs to be buried below the pavement. Thus
the transfer distance in the inductive power transfer scheme is in fact not sufficient. The lateral
tolerance of these schemes is also quite stringent, typically on the order of 10cm. Such a stringent
lateral tolerance may become a limiting factor for power transfer to a moving vehicle. In contrast
to the more conventional inductive power transfer scheme, our approach here is closely associated
with a resonant power transfer scheme. Similar to inductive power transfer scheme, resonant
power transfer occurs through magnetic field coupling. However, in resonant power transfer
scheme, both the source and the receiver sides consist of resonant circuits. Efficient power
transfer occurs when the two circuits have the same resonant frequency, and when the coupling
constant of the two resonances, (which is related to the mutual inductance between the inductors),
dominates over the intrinsic loss rates of the resonators.
Using this scheme, a recent experiment, which was conducted at MIT , has demonstrated highly
efficient power transfer over a distance of approximately 1m. There are also indications that the
resonant power transfer scheme can be far more robust in lateral tolerance compared with the
inductive power transfer scheme. However, the MIT experiments were carried out in free space,
whereas to achieve wireless power transfer to a moving vehicle, more complex electromagnetic
environment has to be taken into account. In particular, the body of the car is typically metallic
that may significantly influence the power transfer characteristics. This scheme with Industry 4.0
will work good.
4.2 CONCLUSIONS
4.3 REFERENCES