please visit us at www.cicenergigune.com. Capacitance fading vs. dV/dt. 2x Nichicon. JJC0E107MELC. Ioxus. RHE2R3227SR. Taiyo Yuden. LIC1840R3R8107.
Comparison of different commercially available technologies for high power single pulse applications Ander
1,2 González ,
2 Mysyk , Eider
Roman 1 Jon A. Barrena
2 Goikolea ,
1. Department of informatics and electronics , Mondragon Unibertsitatea, Spain. 2. CIC Energigune, Spain Power our future, 2-4 April 2014, Vitoria-Gasteiz
Background Comparison of behavior of different supercapacitor technologies is presented, focused on single pulse tests. The different technologies comprise lithium-ion capacitors, hybrid cells, and electric double-layer capacitors. The cells were selected to store close values of usable energy, which is typical requirement in application design. Tests include single power pulse from rated voltage to minimum operating voltage, cyclic voltammetries, and constant current charges and discharges. Even if it’s far from tested powers, a diesel car engine starting application will require approximately a 120W/cell with cells of these characteristics. The reached powers in tests are cell phone like power requirements, which usually require less capacitance.
Devices under study 160
Ioxus Taiyo Yuden RHE2R3227SR LIC1840R3R8107 Hybrid LIC 131.08 133.33 220 100 17 Comparison 10.179 25 17 6.80 34.05
Power capability @ =95%
Deliverable energy @ 4W [p.u.] 0.88
12
EDLC Hybrid LIC
140 Energy [mW.h]
Type Usable E [mW·h] Rated C [F] Volume [cm3] Mass [g] Cost [€]
2x Nichicon JJC0E107MELC EDLC 130.21 200 67.348 66 26.28
Delivered energy vs.vs. power Deliverable energy Power
120
Power device
100
Energy device 80 60 40 0
0.15 Cost [€-1]
Energy [p.u.] 1.1
Cell phones
5
10 Power [W]
15
20
Capacitance fading vs. dV/dt EDLC Capacitance retention vs. scan rate 250 1 mV s-1
EDLC Hybrid LIC 0.059
5 mV s-1 10 mV s-1
150
20 mV s-1
100 C [F]
0.098 -3 Volume [cm ]
200
-1
Mass [g ]
50 0 -50
Constant current tests Constant current discharging @ 1A
Constant current discharging @ 2A
1.6
1.2
0.8 0.6
1.6
1.8
2 2.2 Ewe [V] HYB187 Capacitance retention vs. scan rate
2.4
2.6
2.8
1 mV s-1
1
200
5 mV s-1 10 mV s-1
150
20 mV s-1
100
0.8 0.6
0.4
1.4
250
C [F]
1
-200
EDLC 101.40mW.h Hybrid 85.39mW.h LIC 100.17mW.h
1.4
Ewe [p.u.]
Ewe [p.u.]
1.2
-150
1.6
EDLC 108.69mW.h Hybrid 100.72mW.h LIC 116.71mW.h
1.4
-100
50 0 -50
0.4
-100
50
100
150
200
0.2 0
250
t [s] Constant current discharging @ 3A
100
150
-150
t [s] Constant current discharging @ 4A
1.6
-200 0.8
1
1.2
EDLC 98.63mW.h Hybrid 75.47mW.h LIC 86.62mW.h
1 0.8
1.2
0.8
5 mV s-1 10 mV s-1
0
-100
0.2 0
0.2 0
t [s]
2.6
50
1
0.4 100
2.4
20 mV s-1
0.4 80
2.2
100
-50
60
2
1 mV s-1
0.6
40
1.8
150
0.6
20
1.6
LIC3 Capacitance retention vs. scan rate
EDLC 93.90mW.h Hybrid 68.27mW.h LIC 75.00mW.h
1.4
Ewe [p.u.]
1.2
1.4
Ewe [V]
1.6
1.4
Ewe [p.u.]
50
C [F]
0.2 0
20
40 t [s]
60
80
-150
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2 Ewe [V]
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
CONCLUSIONS The only advantages of hybrid vs. EDLC are volume mass and cost, and respect to LIC just the cost. Even if LIC has much higher ESR, since it has also increased voltage window the current is less and energy losses are reasonable. The cells offering less fading in deliverable energy with increasing power are, as expected, EDLCs, but at not so high powers, the LICs show the best performance in terms of delivered energy compared to theoretical and current requirements. As it was also expected, EDLC keeps its capacitance more constant over the whole voltage window, which lead to an easier electrical modeling of the cell. Even at lowest test power (0.5W) the energy cost is still less in EDLC compared to LIC. EDLC gives 4.399mWh €-1 vs. 4.164mWh €-1 in LIC. Both EDLC and LIC are worse than Hybrid cells in that term for the whole range of powers tested. LIC and hybrid cells are better for a fast recharge, slow discharge application due to steep loss in delivered energy with increased power.
If you are interested in CIC Energigune’s project please visit us at www.cicenergigune.com
