4.8 Article

Remaining useful life assessment of lithium-ion batteries in implantable medical devices

Journal

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
Volume 375, Issue -, Pages 118-130

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2017.11.056

Keywords

Capacity; Health monitoring; Prognostics; Remaining useful life; Lithium-ion battery

Funding

  1. US National Science Foundation (NSF) [CNS-1566579, ECCS-1611333]
  2. Directorate For Engineering
  3. Div Of Electrical, Commun & Cyber Sys [1611333] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper presents a prognostic study on lithium-ion batteries in implantable medical devices, in which a hybrid data-driven/model-based method is employed for remaining useful life assessment. The method is developed on and evaluated against data from two sets of lithium-ion prismatic cells used in implantable applications exhibiting distinct fade performance: 1) eight cells from Medtronic, PLC whose rates of capacity fade appear to be stable and gradually decrease over a 10-year test duration; and 2) eight cells from Manufacturer X whose rates appear to be greater and show sharp increase after some period over a 1.8-year test duration. The hybrid method enables online prediction of remaining useful life for predictive maintenance/control. It consists of two modules: 1) a sparse Bayesian learning module (data-driven) for inferring capacity from charge-related features; and 2) a recursive Bayesian filtering module (model-based) for updating empirical capacity fade models and predicting remaining useful life. A generic particle filter is adopted to implement recursive Bayesian filtering for the cells from the first set, whose capacity fade behavior can be represented by a single fade model; a multiple model particle filter with fixed-lag smoothing is proposed for the cells from the second data set, whose capacity fade behavior switches between multiple fade models.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available