--- title: "Qualification" canonical: "https://anchor.is/the-hysteresis/issue/3/qualification" publication: "The Hysteresis" publisher: "The Hysteresis" language: "en-US" guide: "https://anchor.is/the-hysteresis/llms.txt" permalink: "https://anchor.is/the-hysteresis/issue/3/qualification" issue: 3 section: "qualification" description: "Pack-level requirements, test conditions, and standards by application" authors: ["Ronan Adike"] published: 2026-06-29 updated: 2026-06-27 articles: 18 --- # The Hysteresis > The Hysteresis exists to give a small cross-functional team — strategy, investment, and procurement — a shared weekly instrument for reading the battery supply chain earlier than consensus. Success means the team consistently identifies inflection points in cell pricing, supplier health, and policy enforcement weeks or months before they surface in earnings calls, annual surveys, or trade press. The commercial mechanism is internal-first: the publication proves itself as a decision tool inside the organization, then extends to paid subscribers and a practitioner community as upside. Revenue follows utility — if the team makes better-timed procurement calls and competitive assessments because of what they read here, the publication earned its place. [Read on the website]() ## Issue 3 — Qualification Pack-level requirements, test conditions, and standards by application ### The Standards Map - [eVTOL/eCOTL — Pack-Level Qualification Standards Map]() — By [Ronan Adike]() · Published 2026-06-27 · Format: The Standards Map No single standard governs eVTOL propulsion battery pack qualification. The evidence chain stacks three layers — equipment-level MOPS (DO-311A), installed-ESS safety evidence (EASA MOC-3/MOC-4 SC-VTOL Issue 2), and crash resistance — each with different scope, different jurisdiction, and different consequences for DVP test planning. EASA has stated in published guidance that DO-311A was not written for propulsion-scale batteries. This card maps every parameter class across all three layers, assigns evidence status, and names eight gaps where the DVP must make a program-defined call before test hardware is committed. ### Evidence Status Dashboard Each card below answers one question: does your DVP row trace to a citable, settled standard, or are you working from borrowed frameworks and open voids? The tallies use four evidence-status categories. Settled: a published standard explicitly scopes the requirement. Borrowed: the standard exists but was written for a different application. Gap: no public standard addresses it. Inferred: the parameter comes from engineering analysis, not a governing document. Two applications have at least partial settled coverage. Two have none dedicated. Know which one you're walking into before you read further. - **eVTOL Packs: Most Mature, Still Incomplete** — [Source]() — Published 2026-06-27 Tag: eVTOL Qualification 4 settled · 1 borrowed · 2 gap · 1 inferred. Primary: DO-311A (Dec 2017) plus EASA MOC-4 SC-VTOL Issue 2 (Jul 2025). Highest risk: DO-311A alone does not close propulsion ESS qualification; both FAA and EASA require additional aircraft-level integration evidence beyond the standard's scope. Last verified June 27, 2026. - **Humanoid Robotics: No Settled Pack Standards Exist** — [Source]() — Published 2026-06-27 Tag: Robotics Qualification 0 settled · 5 borrowed · 4 gap · 1 inferred. Primary: none dedicated. Highest risk: citing ISO 13482 or IEC 62619 as pack-level qualification implies settled coverage where none exists for humanoid abuse profiles, thermal runaway propagation, or mission-representative cycling. Last verified June 27, 2026. - **Drone Packs: Partial Coverage, Common Category Errors** — [Source]() — Published 2026-06-27 Tag: Drone Qualification 2 settled · 2 borrowed · 3 gap · 1 inferred. Primary: UL 3030 Ed. 1 (reaffirmed Aug 2024), with IEC 62619 borrowed. Highest risk: treating UN 38.3 transport compliance or Blue UAS platform listing as equivalent to pack-level mission qualification. Neither is. Last verified June 27, 2026. - **UUV Subsea: No Dedicated Public Standard Exists** — [Source]() — Published 2026-06-27 Tag: Subsea Qualification 1 settled · 4 borrowed · 4 gap · 2 inferred. Primary: none dedicated. Highest risk: no public pack-level standard covers pressure housing, underwater failure modes, and mission profile together. Qualification stacks are customer- or class-society-specific, and they vary widely. Last verified June 27, 2026. ### Technical Sources for Program-Defined Criteria - **Lithium-Ion Battery Power Performance Assessment for the Climb Step of an eVTOL Application** — [Source]() — Published 2026-06-27 Oak Ridge/Army Research Lab study applies a 15C/45-second takeoff pulse followed by C/3 cruise discharge. No cell survived beyond ~85–100 cycles. Brackets eVTOL discharge demands at 10–60C from disc loading physics. Tier 3 source. DVP implication? USABC's 5C/30s EV peak-power test is structurally inadequate for eVTOL climb-phase qualification; program-specific pulse protocols are required. Cycle-life anchor? The ~85–100 cycle failure ceiling under representative takeoff pulses sets a Tier 3 baseline for high-C-rate acceptance criteria. - **A Battery Dataset for Electric Vertical Takeoff and Landing Aircraft** — [Source]() — Published 2026-06-27 Carnegie Mellon/Viswanathan group publishes a structured eVTOL cycling dataset with canonical five-phase mission profiles: takeoff, cruise, landing, rest, charge. Climb and landing pulses at ~7C for 1–2 minutes on 230 Wh/kg cells. Parametrically varies charge current, voltage, cruise length, temperature. Tier 3 source. Closest to a standard profile? Five-phase mission structure with independently varied parameters is the best publicly available eVTOL test template. Which C-rate applies? The 7C climb figure here versus Dixit's 15C; DVP selection depends on vehicle disc loading, not a single default. - **Manufacturing of Lithium Battery Toward Deep-Sea Environment** — [Source]() — Published 2026-06-27 Northwestern Polytechnical University review covers pack-level subsea qualification: pressure-tolerant vs. pressure-compensated architectures, hyperbaric protocols (30 MPa at 1 MPa/min ramp, 1-hour hold), thermal rejection in sealed enclosures, sealing failure at 115 MPa. Drawn from Chinese submersible programs. Tier 3 source. What fills the Western standards void? Specific pressure ramp rates, hold durations, and 3D hydrostatic compression test structure with no equivalent in IEC or MIL-STD coverage. Capacity penalty under pressure? At 115 MPa, anode thickness drops from 150 to 115 μm and capacity falls ~21.5% at 1.0C. Acceptance criteria remain program-defined. - **Learning-Based Model Predictive Control for Legged Robots with Battery–Supercapacitor Hybrid Energy Storage System** — [Source]() — Published 2026-06-27 Central South University characterizes legged-robot power demand across three regimes: general, high-power, and high-feedback (regenerative). Battery-only packs cannot meet peak demand in high-power conditions. Hybrid architecture cuts capacity loss by 12.7%. Only peer-reviewed power-pulse characterization found for legged robots. Tier 3 source. Why use this for DVP scenario design? No humanoid robotics battery standard exists. This three-condition taxonomy is the only peer-reviewed framework available. Where does coverage end? Study covers quadruped gaits only. Bipedal balance recovery transients and fall-arrest current spikes remain uncharacterized in published literature. ### Category Error Warning - [Three Documents, Zero Overlap]() — By [Ronan Adike]() · Published 2026-06-27 A UN 38.3 test summary, a Blue UAS listing, and an IEC 62619 certificate each prove something real. None proves what the others prove, and citing one where a DVP row requires another is a scope error that can take months to surface. ### Primary Source Documents - **FAA AC 20-184 — Design, Installation, and Maintenance Guidelines for Aircraft Lithium-Ion and Lithium-Metal Batteries (October 15, 2015)** — [Source]() — Published 2026-06-27 Public full text. Routes packs to DO-311/DO-311A testing by Wh threshold (below/above 50 Wh cell, 100 Wh battery). Predates eVTOL propulsion-class battery configurations entirely; treat as baseline routing logic, not as a standalone eVTOL qualification document. - **EASA MOC-4 SC-VTOL Issue 2 — Means of Compliance with SC-VTOL: Energy Storage and Supply Installation (July 11, 2025)** — [Source]() — Published 2026-06-27 Public full text. Current governing EASA energy-storage MOC for VTOL type certification as of June 2026. Layers aircraft-level safety objectives on top of DO-311A cell/pack testing; DO-311A alone does not close pack-level qualification under this framework. Verify issue status before committing to DVP — EASA MOC documents revise without legacy version archiving. - **EASA MOC SC-VTOL Issue 2 — Crash Resistance and Fuel/Energy Containment Provisions for VTOL Aircraft** — [Source]() — Published 2026-06-27 Public full text. Covers post-crash battery containment, fire resistance, and structural integrity requirements for energy storage installations in VTOL airframes. Separate from MOC-4 energy storage performance provisions; both documents apply concurrently to pack-level qualification under SC-VTOL certification. - **EASA MOC-5 SC-VTOL Issue 1 — Means of Compliance with SC-VTOL: Electrical and Electronic System Safety Assessment (Public Consultation Draft)** — [Source]() — Published 2026-06-27 Public consultation status as of June 27, 2026 — not yet finalized. Addresses system-level safety assessment methodology for VTOL electrical architectures including battery management and protection functions. Do not cite thresholds from this document as settled requirements; content may change materially before final issue. Monitor EASA rulemaking page for closure of comment period and publication of final MOC. - **49 CFR 173.185 — Hazardous Materials: Lithium Cells and Batteries (incorporating UN 38.3 Rev. 8 transport tests)** — [Source]() — Published 2026-06-27 Public full text, continuously updated in eCFR. Establishes transport safety eligibility (altitude simulation, thermal cycling, vibration, shock, short circuit, impact/crush, overcharge, forced discharge per UN 38.3 T.1–T.8). This is a transport baseline, not application-level pack qualification. Passing UN 38.3 is necessary for shipment but insufficient for any end-use certification. - **IEC 62619:2022 Edition 2.0 — Secondary Lithium Cells and Batteries for Use in Industrial Applications: Safety Requirements** — [Source]() — Published 2026-06-27 Paywalled — catalog page provides scope and status metadata only; full clause-level text requires purchase or organizational subscription. Covers industrial packs including stationary storage, marine, material handling, and AGV applications. Do not conflate with IEC 62133-2, which governs portable applications with materially different scope and test severity. Verify edition currency; IEC TC21 maintains this standard. - **MIL-PRF-32565 Rev C Amendment 2 — Performance Specification: Battery, Rechargeable, Lithium-Ion, 6T Format (August 4, 2022)** — [Source]() — Published 2026-06-27 Public full text via DLA Quick Search. Scope is narrow: 24V 6T SLI and auxiliary batteries for military ground vehicles under STANAG 4015 form factor. Covers charge/discharge performance, environmental qualification per MIL-STD-810, vibration, and safety abuse tests. Do not extend to naval, aviation, or dismounted soldier battery applications — those fall under separate specifications. - **ISO 13482:2014 — Robots and Robotic Devices: Safety Requirements for Personal Care Robots / ISO/FDIS 13482 (Edition 2, pending publication)** — [Source]() — Published 2026-06-27 Paywalled — ISO catalog page provides scope, status, and committee metadata only. Neither the 2014 edition nor the pending Edition 2 (FDIS stage as of June 2026) defines battery pack qualification parameters. The standard addresses robot-level safety (stability, force limiting, protective stop) without specifying energy storage test protocols. Any pack qualification framework for humanoid robotics must be assembled from adjacent standards (IEC 62619, IEC 62133-2, or application-specific requirements) with the borrowing made explicit in the DVP. ## Other sections in Issue 3 - [Signal]() - [China]() - [Korea]() - [The Log]() - [Defense]() ## More - [Publication guide]() - [Issue archive]()