4.5 Article

Variable-Order Equivalent Circuit Modeling and State of Charge Estimation of Lithium-Ion Battery Based on Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy

期刊

ENERGIES
卷 14, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/en14030769

关键词

lithium-ion battery; electrochemical impedance spectroscopy; equivalent circuit model; state of charge; Bayesian information criterion

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61873180]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper investigates the use of electrochemical impedance spectroscopy theory to guide and improve the equivalent circuit model, proposing a high accuracy and adaptability SOC online estimation method.
In the battery management system, it is important to accurately and efficiently estimate the state of charge (SOC) of lithium-ion batteries, which generally requires the establishment of a equivalent circuit model of the battery, whose accuracy and rationality play an important role in accurately estimating the state of lithium-ion batteries. The traditional single order equivalent circuit models do not take into account the changes of impedance spectrum under the action of multiple factors, nor do they take into account the balance of practicality and complexity of the model, resulting the low accuracy and poor practicability. In this paper, the theory of electrochemical impedance spectroscopy is used to guide and improve the equivalent circuit model. Based on the analysis of the variation of the high and intermediate frequency range of the impedance spectrum with the state of charge and temperature of the battery, a variable order equivalent model (VOEM) is proposed by Arrhenius equation and Bayesian information criterion (BIC), and the state equation and observation equation of VOEM are improved by autoregressive (AR) equations. Combined with the unscented Kalman filter (UKF), a SOC online estimation method is proposed, named VOEM-AR-UKF. The experimental results show that the proposed method has high accuracy and good adaptability.

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

4.5
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