High-power electric vehicle (EV) charging adds complexity well before power reaches the battery. A vehicle that must handle Combined Charging System (CCS) and Megawatt Charging System (MCS) inputs may need a separate charge controller for each inlet. Those controllers must then coordinate with vehicle-level supervisory control and with the safety monitoring and diagnostics that span several domains.
Each added controller brings more wiring, more software integration, and more interfaces that must behave correctly during normal operation and fault conditions.
High-power EV charging is becoming more dependent on coordinated control between the charger and vehicle.
New Eagle’s OpenECU NX3 is designed to address that control problem by consolidating charging and vehicle supervisory control into a single electronic control unit (ECU). The platform combines CCS and MCS charging control with vehicle-level functions, using the company’s Raptor software development environment for model-based and C-code workflows.
For vehicle integrators, the engineering case is not simply fewer boxes. It’s fewer interfaces to coordinate when charging power, communication timing, and fault handling have to work together.
Fewer controllers, fewer interfaces
“The New Eagle OpenECU NX3 is designed to solve the need to have multiple EVCCs on a single vehicle in order to support MCS and CCS charging,” shares Andrew Peterson, head of controller product delivery R&D at New Eagle. “Currently, each inlet on a vehicle needs to have its own EVCC purely due to the controls and communication.”
An electric vehicle communication controller (EVCC) manages communication between the vehicle and charging equipment. In a vehicle with separate CCS and MCS inlets, that can lead to one EVCC per inlet. The NX3 instead allows one controller to manage the two inlet types, which can simplify the electrical architecture and reduce wiring harness cost and component price.
The consolidation becomes more significant when charging control and supervisory control are brought into the same ECU. Rather than coordinating separate controllers for each charging inlet and for vehicle-level functions, the NX3 gives vehicle assemblers a single control platform and software environment.
“Instead of having three controllers, the NX3 offers vehicle assemblers the ability to use one controller with a single, cohesive New Eagle Raptor software development suite,” Peterson explains.
The OpenECU NX3 consolidates CCS and MCS charging control with vehicle supervisory functions in a single electronic control unit for high-power EV applications.
Troubleshooting is rarely simple when several controllers spanning separate domains need to operate as one system. A consolidated controller can reduce the number of communication paths that engineers must validate, especially when those domains need synchronized diagnostics and fault handling.
“By reducing the system architecture complexity, the NX3 synchronizes messaging and diagnostics across multiple domains without the vehicle integrator having to manage multiple interfaces,” he adds.
Two charging protocols, one platform
Charging architectures also have to manage different physical layers. CCS uses power line communication (PLC), while MCS uses 10base-T1 ethernet. Handling the two protocols on one platform requires separate circuitry, which adds board area and complicates connector layout and packaging.
“The key challenge is accommodating both physical layers as CCS operates on a PLC physical layer while MCS operates with 10base-T1 ethernet,” says Peterson. “These require two unique physical layers and associated circuitry expanding the board footprint.”
Current sensing adds another challenge. CCS current levels are increasing, with Peterson pointing to future values up to 800 A, while MCS can reach up to 3,000 A. A control platform that works across the two charging types must coordinate current sensing and safety logic over very different operating ranges.
High-power charging also raises the importance of fault response. On the vehicle side, charging typically involves the inlet and its EVCC working with a vehicle control unit (VCU) or supervisory powertrain controller and with the battery management system (BMS). Some architectures add a power distribution controller to supplement or replace the BMS. Communication between these modules is often handled through CAN or CAN-FD, while charging communication relies on PLC for CCS and ethernet for MCS.
The NX3 changes that coordination by moving communication and processing into one controller for functions that would otherwise pass messages between separate modules.
“Our NX3 platform enables improved communication times in the event of a fault or real-time response by replacing CAN communication between the VCU/supervisory controller, CCS EVCC, and MCS EVCC with a single controller where communication and processing take place directly,” Peterson says.
That timing can become critical during MCS operation. At 3,000 A, fault-tolerant response windows matter because the system must identify and react to unsafe conditions quickly. Peterson notes that the NX3 can improve the Fault Tolerance Time Interval, which defines the time available for a system to respond after a fault occurs.
Consolidation can also simplify how safety and security are implemented. Low-voltage monitoring functions can be housed in the NX3, while high-voltage monitoring can remain isolated in another controller, such as the battery management system. That can reduce the need to implement high-voltage isolation in several locations. Fewer interfaces can also simplify the application of secure communication protocols across the vehicle.
The NX3 includes LIN and SENT communication protocols, which can eliminate the need for a gateway or ancillary controller for certain devices, such as an inlet LED module that indicates charging status. It is designed to meet ASIL-D functional safety and ISO 21434 cybersecurity requirements.
The shift toward centralized control
The move toward more centralized control reflects a broader shift in vehicle architecture. Charging is becoming more tightly connected to supervisory control and safety logic, and to the software development process behind them. High-power charging adds another layer because the system must coordinate very high current levels while still maintaining predictable fault behavior.
“The primary trends involve reducing the overall complexity and costs to the vehicle architecture, communication, purchasing and supply chains, and development toolchains,” he says.
For EV manufacturers, the NX3 points to a practical direction in high-power charging integration. Combining CCS and MCS charging control with supervisory functions in one ECU can reduce controller count and simplify diagnostic coordination for charging architectures where timing and safety matter as much as peak power.
For Peterson, the case for consolidation ultimately comes back to safety at power levels the industry is only beginning to manage. “Fault-tolerant times for failures at up to 4.75 MW with Megawatt Charging are critical for safe operation.”
Filed Under: BMS, Charging, Featured Contributions, Tech Spotlight