4.7 Review

A review of state of health and remaining useful life estimation methods for lithium-ion battery in electric vehicles: Challenges and recommendations

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 205, 期 -, 页码 115-133

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.065

关键词

Lithium-ion battery; Electric vehicle; State of health; Remaining useful life; Thermal runway; Aging; Safety and protection; Environmental impact

资金

  1. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia [DIP-2015-012]
  2. Universiti Tenaga Nasional project [RJ010289176/D/1/2018/J41, RJ010289176/D/1/2018/J42, RJ010289176/D/1/2018/J43, RJ010289176/D/1/2018/J44, RJ010289176/D/1/2018/J45, RJ010289176/D/1/2018/J46, RJ010289176/D/1/2018/J47, RJ010289176/D/1/2018/J48, RJ010289176/D/1/2018/J49, RJ010289176/D/1/2018/J50]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Electric vehicles (EVs) have become increasingly popular due to zero carbon emission, reduction of fossil fuel reserve, comfortable and light transport. However, EVs employing lithium-ion battery are facing difficulties in terms of predicting accurate health and remaining useful life states due to various internal and external factors. Currently, very few papers are addressed to summarize the state of health (SOH) and remaining useful life (RUL) estimation approaches. In this regard, the goal of this paper is to comprehensively review the different estimation models to predict SOH, and RUL in a comparative manner. The results identify the classifications, characteristics and evaluation processes with advantages and disadvantages for EV applications. The review also investigates the issues and challenges with possible solutions. Furthermore, the review provides some selective proposals for the further technological development of SOH, and RUL estimation for lithium-ion batteries. All the highlights insight this review will hopefully lead to the increasing efforts towards the development of the advanced SOH and RUL methods for future EV uses. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据