3.8 Review

A Critical Review of Online Battery Remaining Useful Lifetime Prediction Methods

Journal

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmech.2021.719718

Keywords

lithium-ion batteries; remaining useful lifetime; machine learning; adaptive filtering; stochastic process methods

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61801407]
  2. China Scholarship Council [201908515099]
  3. Fund of Robot Technology Used for Special Environment Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province [18kftk03]
  4. Natural Science Foundation of Southwest University of Science and Technology [17zx7110, 18zx7145]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article reviews methods for predicting the remaining service life of lithium-ion batteries, including machine learning, adaptive filtering, and random processes. By comparing and evaluating these methods, machine learning shows higher average accuracy and shorter prediction cycles compared to the other two methods.
Lithium-ion batteries play an important role in our daily lives. The prediction of the remaining service life of lithium-ion batteries has become an important issue. This article reviews the methods for predicting the remaining service life of lithium-ion batteries from three aspects: machine learning, adaptive filtering, and random processes. The purpose of this study is to review, classify and compare different methods proposed in the literature to predict the remaining service life of lithium-ion batteries. This article first summarizes and classifies various methods for predicting the remaining service life of lithium-ion batteries that have been proposed in recent years. On this basis, by selecting specific criteria to evaluate and compare the accuracy of different models, find the most suitable method. Finally, summarize the development of various methods. According to the research in this article, the average accuracy of machine learning is 32.02% higher than the average of the other two methods, and the prediction cycle is 9.87% shorter than the average of the other two methods.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available