A gas leakage test, a capacity test, a charge retention test, and an electrolyte leakage test were among the tests conducted on a nickel hydrogen battery in a flight environment. The battery design features and its performance in each test are discussed

Miller, L.

English

NASA Technical Reports Server

I 
AIR  FORCE NICKEL-HYDROGEN FLIGHT  EXPERIMENT 
L. Miller 
Eagle Picher 
The  Air  Force  experiment  data  has  been  presented  before,  and because of  the rush in the 
program  which  necessitated us using  existing  nickel-cadmium  battery  technology  and  components, 
I think  the  time  from  inception  of  the  program  to  launch was about 18 months. 
It doesn’t  really incorporate  the  current  technology  that is available today. As  I go over this, I 
will probably pass  over some of these  vugraphs  very  quickly until we get to  the summary  of the  data 
at  the  end. 
What I think is important is to  look  at  it from the  standpoint  that  this was not a  really  good 
design. It had  a lot  of bad points.  But  the  battery forgave any design problems  that  cropped  up. 
The program intent was, of  course, to gain some  actual  flight  experience on nickel hydrogen. 
It is  supposed to be the  first  one  launched,  but I think  the NTS-2 and  the Air Force  launched  just 
about  the same  time. 
The program was under  the  direction of Wright Patterson  Air  Force Base. Eagle Picher was 
the prime  contractor  for  the  first  time I guess in  the  history  of  the business, and  Lockheed Missile 
and  Space Company was the  subcontractor. 
The mission wasn’t of a  long  duration.  It was about 8 months.  It was launched  on  the Air 
Force  low-Earth  orbit  satellite  as  an  experiment in one of the pilots. 
(Figure 6-34) 
I was going to  say the cell on  your  right,  but  now  I am  going to  say the cell on  the  top.  It is 
the  actual  Air  Force cell, and  it  has  a  rather  narrow  cover design. It uses an  Inconel  625 pressure 
vessel. The  little capsule in there is the  module  for  attachment  of  the  strain gauge. 
Internally,  it  features  what is referred to  as the Air Force  pineapple  stack design. However, it 
doesn’t  have the  most  current  technology,  and basically the recirculation  mechanism is in wall-wick 
configuration. 
I  might  mention  the  smaller cell just below  it.  That was the cell manufactured  for  the Navy 
NTS-2 program, that basically features  the COMSAT laboratory design technology. 
Actually the cell we are  manufacturing  now  for  Ford  looks very much  like  that.  The 
difference  is about a  quarter  inch  shorter. 
(Figure 6-35) 
515 
h 
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19800012378 2020-03-21T18:19:25+00:00Z
With respect t o  cell design features - this  just  touches  upon Hughes’ design characteristics. 
Fifty-five  ampere-hour  electrochemically  impregnated  nickel  electrodes.  This was manufactured  on 
the Bell impregnation  line  which was still  in  operation at  that  time,  in  Joplin. 
Teflonated  platinum  catalytic  electrodes  and  the  separator were EPI reconstituted  asbestos. 
The gas spacer - I think that’s  an  error - was actually  switched  over in the final cell designs to a 
Vexar polypropylene material. The cell casing is hydroformed Inconel 625, dual plastic seals. 
(Figure  6-36) 
The cell acceptance testing was pretty much what you see in nickel cad: some four 
1 00-percent  cycles,  charge  retention,  electrolyte  leakage, fuel  cycle  test,  electrolyte leakage. 
(Figure 6-3 7) 
With respect to  the  battery itself - this is view of the  battery - it is upside  down.  Actually, 
this is the way it was mounted  in  the  spacecraft.  It is an  aluminum  cached  configuration.  The  heater 
blanket is attached  on  the  bottom of the  system.  That’s  an  area  that  also  looked  into  space  for 
coolant  control. 
(Figure  6-3 8) 
Here  is the  same  battery  with cells mounted  into it  on the vibration  going  through  qualifica- 
tion.  A  lower  portion  there,  the  copper  colored  component  just  for  protection.  That  didn’t  actually 
fly  in  orbit.  It wasn’t part of the  battery  and did not fly on  the mission. 
The  battery design features  are  shown in the  next vugraph. 
(Figure  6-3 9) 
The  number  of cells was 21.  It  turned  out  the same approximate voltage as  the 22-cell nickel- 
cadmium  battery. 
We monitored  each cell voltage,  one  battery voltage. Current  monitoring  bipolar  electromatic 
sensor.  Again,  the  technology  on  these  components  are  straight  off  the Eagle Picher  nickel-cadmium 
battery. 
The  number of thermistors is 21.  Each cell two  batteries,  two in the  battery.  For pressure 
monitoring, we had strain gauges on every cell. The  heater is redundant;  of  course,  redundant 
controllers.  The  total  battery  weight was 110 pounds. Again this was not  intended  to  optimize  the 
system  with  respect to weight. 
(Figure  6-40) 
516 
I believe  this  is the  acceptance test. Again, it is  very  similar to  what  you  expect o d o   o n  
nickel-cadmium battery dielectric thermistor insulation, current sensor, some capacity cycling, 
dimensional  pressure,  inert  gravity. 
May I have  the  next  slide  which  shows  the  qualifications. 
(Figure 6-4 1 ) 
Again,  this  is  patterned  after  nickel  cadmium.  Acceleration  thermal  random,  sinusoidal, 
mechanical  pyrotechnic,  thermal  vacuum  cycling.  Then,  there is  this  special  thermal  vacuum 
because it turned  out to be a thermal design in the system. We didn’t have a variable window 
looking  out  into  space,  and  there was  real  concern  that  the  battery  would  get too cold  after  it 
was launched  before  we  would  go  into  operation. 
It turned  out  it  was able to endure  this  low-temperature  exposure  without  damage. 
(Figure  6-42) 
This is a  diagram of how the  battery was mounted  on  the  pallet.  Three  major  components 
include  the  battery,  control  assembly,  and  the variable  load  bank. 
The  technology I considered  primitive.  The  battery was controlled  by  a single-level voltage 
geared to bring  the  voltage  cell to 90-percent  state  of  charge  at a pressure of about 500 psig. There 
was no  other  means  of  changing  anything  on  the  battery if it  proved  necessary. 
The  thermal  control designs  were all fixed. We couldn’t  make  any  changes  there  except  with 
the  heaters. We could  turn  those  off  and  on  more  frequently  or as  required. 
(Figure  6-43) 
As I indicated,  the  battery  flew  as  an  experiment, so we were  restricted;  limited in our use of 
the  system based upon  the  power  that was  left  over  after  the  primary  mission was served. So we 
didn’t  get  a  lot of cycles  on  the  battery.  However,  the way i t  was used was for  nickel  cadmium. I t  
created  a  serious  problem  because  we  had  to  go  into  a  number  of  orbits to get  the  battery  back  up 
to charge,  and  that  would  vary  with  each  cycle. 
In  the  nickel  cadmium,  the  power  measurement  people  would have  been  completely  lost  with 
respect  to  where  the  battery was. However,  with  the  pressure  monitoring  devices  on  the  battery, 
they  knew  at all times  the  exact  state  of  charge  of  the  system. 
The  1733,  7-percent  DOD  cycles  were  accumulated  when  the  battery was actually  supplying 
power to the primary mission. The 50-percent DOD cycles that were accumulated were 
accumulated  using  variable  load  bank.  That  was  part  of  the  experiment. Of course,  100-percent 
DOD  cycle was used  when  we  were  using  the  variable  load  bank. 
517 
Four  of  the  loads  that were available, 10, 20, 30, and  40,  could  be used  separately or just 
combined as you see  in the  last  column  there. 
Maximum  discharge rate was 75 ampere-hours  and  the  1.5 C rate. 
Over on  the  last  two  columns,  you  can see how close the  predicted  capacity versus the 
measured capacity package. As you  can see for  the  10  ampere  and  the 20 ampere  rate,  what we pre- 
dicted  and  measured were very close. Once  you  get  into higher  discharge  rates, they  start  to  drift 
apart. 
What is going on  here is that  at these  higher  rates, the  battery is hitting  the  cutoff voltage 
sooner. If you  took  it  on down to a  lower  discharge rate,  that  brought  those  two  predicted  and 
measured pretty  much back together again. 
With respect to  the  thermal cycling  of the  system, as you see, the deltas were for  the 20, 40, 
and  75-ampere hour rates. What might be of  interest  here is what  actually  happened.  There  were 
three  batteries  manufactured,  and  some of those  underwent  testing  on  the  ground.  The  mechanical 
model was tested at  Lockheed. 
Again, although the designs  certainly  are not  optimum,  the way it was used was certainly not 
under  the best of  conditions.  But  the mechanical  model at  Lockheed,  I  understand  now  has  gone 
through  6000  cycles  at  around  60-percent DOD and still seems to  be  performing very well. 
I  understand  the  thermal  model  battery is at Wright Patterson.  I have no  information  on  what 
testing was done  on  that. 
Again, a  point  I  want  to  make is that  although  it is certainly not  elaborate  testing  of  the 
system, we did  get very good  data. We are  satisfied  with the  results  of  the  program. We didn’t 
see any  incipient  problems  with the use of nickel hydrogen in space,  and  it  pretty  much followed 
the  preflight  predictions. Overall I  think we are very satisfied  with this  program. 
DISCUSSION 
DUNLOP: What was that  cutoff voltage? 
MILLER:  I  think the  cutoff voltage was around  149. I’d have to  check  that  for  sure. 
DUNLOP:  How  did that limit your discharge capacity? 
MILLER: It  didn’t. That was just the charge cutoff. They fixed one level charge cutoff 
point . 
DUNLOP: When you  showed  a  75-ampere discharge rate,  you  showed  the  capacity  dropping 
down to  34 ampere-hours.  I guess I  didn’t  understand  that  point. 
518 
MILLER: That was just  the  cutoff  on  the voltage  which I think was also  established at  about 
1.1 volts  per cell. That  circuit  undervoltage  production  could  be disabled t o  allow it to go  down. 
I mentioned also the  battery was reversed twice.  Once  intentionally  and  once  in  error  during 
the mission, and we haven’t suffered  any damage. 
519 
GAS LEAKAGE  TEST 
CAPACITY  TEST a C / 2  
Figure 6-34 
CELL  ACCEPTANCE  TESTS 
10-8 C C / S E C  a 250 P S I G  
CHARGi  RETEl T10:I   TEST 39.2 AH A i T E R  48 HOURS 
ELECTROLYTE LCA':9GE TCST NOHE 
CYCLE  TEST 52.9 All a ~ T H  CYCLE 
ELECTROLYTE  LEAKAGE  TEST NO:IE 
ANH-50-9 
CYLI; i 'DRICAL C E L L  DESIGN  FEATURCS 
.. . 
C A P # l C I   T Y  55 AH 
CATHODE 
A N O X  
SEPARAIOR 
GAS  PACER 
CELL CASE 
TERI1I)IAL  SEAL 
ELECTRO( I IC : I ICALLY  IKPRELNAlED 
N I C K E L  L'LECTRODE 
T E F L O N A I F U   P L A l I I : U l 3  
C A l A L Y I I C   E L E C T R O D E  
[PI R E T C I ~ S T I T U T E O   A S R i S T O S  
WOVEN TEFLON 
H Y D R O F O l i X D  INCO'IIL 625 
DUAL-PLASTIC   COI IPRCSSION 
Figure 6-35 
Figure 6-36 Figure 6-37 
5 20 
Figure 6-38 
- N O ,  OF CELLS 
- BA lTERY STRUCTURE 
- VOLTAGE 1'10?1 I l O R S  
- CURRENT 11011 I TOR 
- TELPERATURE KOW 1 TORS 
VI 
N 
N 
- PRESSURE YON 1 TORS 
- HEATERS 
- HEATLR  COYTROLLERS 
- BATTERY  ',/EIGHT 
SAR- 10005 
BATTERY  DESIGN  FEATURES 
BATTIIXY  ACCEPTARCE  TESTS 
V I S U A L  Ii'lSI'ECTIOII 
2 1  bJEIG1iT CllECK 110.0 LBS 
INVESTMENT  CAST1 HG D I E L E C T R I C   T S T  10-29 PiEG0H;IS 8 253 VDC 
A L U M I W U I I   A - 3 5 6 - T 6 1   A L L O Y  
THERNISTOR  TEST D 77'F AND 40'F 
2 1  I N D I V I D U A L   C E L L S  
1 BATTERY 
B 1  POLAR  ELECTROIAGNET IC 
SENSOE ( 2 0  AMPS  CYARGE - 
AMPS DISCHARGE) 
THERMISTORS 
(21 CELLS - 2 BATTERY) 
STRAI id  GAGE - 2 1  CELLS 
INSULATION  RESISTAYCE 
STRAY  VOLTAGE CHECK 
TEST 50 I f G O H X S  9 50 VDC 
LESS  THAN ,C5 VOLTS 
50 CURRENT  SENSOR TEST 9 
1 2 , 5  AMPS CHARGE, ZERO 
AND 25,O AMPS DISCHARGE 
TENPERATLIRE  SENSOR TEST 9 
40 AND 77OF; EXCITATION  VOLTAGE 
24, 28 .5  AND 33 VDC 
CAPACITY  TEST 8 C /2  
REDUNDAUT  PHOTOETCHED 
REDUWANT SOL 1 D STATE 
110 L R  
HEATER  TEST 
DIWENSIONAL CHECK 
PRESSURE SENSOR CALIBRATION CHECK 
C,G,   DETERMINATION 
6E°F -. 50.'0 AH 
4G'F -. 51 ,7  AH 
PF.IMARY  HEATER 3H - 41OF 
BhCK-UP  HEATE9 ON - 36OF 
BACK-UP  HEATER OFF - 38.6Oi 
PCII IARY  HEATEX OFF - 44.3OF 
INSTRUMEYTATION 8 HEATER  BUS POblER CONSUMPTION  CHECK 
Figure 6-39 Figure 6-40 
BATTERY Q U A L I F I C A T I O ~ I   T E S T S  
ACCEPTANCE TESTS 
ACCELERATIOH TEST 
THERIML SHOCK 
RANOON V I B R A T I O N  
S I N U S O I D A L   V I B P A T I 0 : I  
R C H A N I C A L  SHOCK 
PYROTECHNIC S H O U  
T H E W W V A C  PERFORtlANCE TEST 
T H E K U L - V A L   C Y C L E   T E S l  
SPECIAL  THEMAL-VAC  TESTS 
15 G FOR 5 HIXUTES ( 3  AXES) 
-2O'F T O  +115'F 
12 G R f l  FOR 5 ! I I I IUTES (3 AXES) 
0.1  HZ 
7.5 G FOR 25 t l l : IUlES (3 AXES) 
30 G ;  112 S I N E  VAVE; 11 HS 
2600 G P E h K  ACCELERATIO!I; 200 - 
10-4 112 
TORR a 32'. 59' AtlQ 86'F 
WRGf mwz 
25.5 A I P S  
50.0 N I P S  
5.0 ARPS 50.0 A'lPS 
25.0 M P S  
5.0 N I P S  
10-4 TORR a ~O'F 
30.0 N I P  CHARGE FOR 55 ~ I I N i l T E S  
42.8 AMP DISCHARGE FOR 35 MINUTES 
32 SIRULATED  OR91TS.  50% DO0 
I I I S I R U I I E N T A T I O N  POHER D I S S I P A T I O N  
HEATER  CALIBRATIOB 
SPEC1 FI C HEAT REASUREflENT 
CllARGE EFFIC IENCY  VS.  
TEMPERATURE 
STATE-OF-CHARGE 
CHARGE CURREllT 
SIMULATED 90 MINUTE ORBIT CYCLES 
Figure 6-4 1 
: I  
i 
FOSR T i l E W . ? L  
COYTROL S X F A C L  (.43Fr2) 
V A R l A W  LOAD BANK- BLACK ANODIZED OUTtR SURFACE 
MULTI-INSULATION BLAXKX 
( j 0 L A Y Z R S l  W I T C  SILICC'F: 
CXTd OUTER LAYER 
FIBCZGLASS ISOLATOR IBERGLASS ISOLATORS 
Figure 6-42 
523 
7; Dm (l ,Z31-WLES.>_-Lb_Bm: 
TYPICAL  DISCHAiiGE VOLTASE CYCLE - 3 0 . 4  V TO 2 9 , O  V 
TYPICAL DISCHARGE TEYPERATURE CYCLE - 4Z0F TO 46OF 
TYPICAL DISCHARGE PRESSURE CYCLE - 495 PSIG TO $70 PSIG 
5UdDCYCLE-€Y&ES>&RBIE: 
’1-YPICRL DISCHARGE VOLTASE CYCLE - 30,6 V TO 2 7 , 4  V 
TYPICAL DISCHARGE TEXPERATURE  CYCLE - 42OF TO 48OF 
TYPICAL DISCHARGE PRESSUXE CYCLE - 495 PSIG TO 270 P S I S  
1002 DOD CYCl E (6 CYCLES): 
PREDICTED 
DISCHARGE Pl ID-PO I PIT CAPAC I TY ME  AS URED 
DISCHARtiE VOI TAGF (PRFSS) 
“_ WKlTY 
10 A 26,4 V 4 7 , 7  4 Y R  4 7 . 8  .4H2 
20 A 26,2 V 44,Z AHR 4 4 , 5  A U R  
40 A 25,O V 43,3 AH2 4 2 , 5  AHR 
75 I 4  23,O V 4 0 B 9  AHR 34,9 AHR 
1 0 -  0 7 3@D CYCLE, THEif lA4 GRAD1 ENTS : 
20 A  DISCHARGE RATE - INSIDE  CELL (MAX) 
OUTS I OE BATTERY (FIAX) 
GRAD I ENT 
4 0  A  DISCHARGE RATE - I A S  I DE CELL (MAX) 
OUTSIDE  BATTERY (MAX) 
GRAD I ENT 
75 A DISCHARGE RATE - INSIDE CELL ( m x )  
OUTSIDE  BATTERY (FIAX) 
GRAD I EYT 
71 8 3OF ” 
4 I O°F 
81  5 O F  
ZlOF 
8 I 4OF 
85,6OF 
._75,2oF 
10, O°F 
FIG, 8 - SPACE EXPER1ME;JT DATA SUMI””1ARY 
Figure 6-43 
5 24 


Air Force nickel-hydrogen flight experiment

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NASA Technical Reports Server