4.7 Article

Online estimation of battery equivalent circuit model parameters and state of charge using decoupled least squares technique

期刊

ENERGY
卷 142, 期 -, 页码 678-688

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2017.10.043

关键词

Equivalent circuit model; Recursive parameter estimation; SOC estimation; Decoupled least squares method

资金

  1. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) [EP/M009394/1]
  2. Innovate UK
  3. EPSRC [EP/M009394/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/M009394/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Battery equivalent circuit models (ECMs) are widely employed in online battery management applications. The model parameters are known to vary according to the operating conditions, such as the battery state of charge (SOC). Therefore, online recursive ECM parameter estimation is one means that may help to improve the modelling accuracy. Because a battery system consists of both fast and slow dynamics, the classical least squares (LS) method, that estimates together all the model parameters, is known to suffer from numerical problems and poor accuracy. The aim of this paper is to overcome this problem by proposing a new decoupled weighted recursive least squares (DWRLS) method, which estimates separately the parameters of the battery fast and slow dynamics. Battery SOC estimation is also achieved based on the parameter estimation results. This circumvents an additional full-order observer for SOC estimation, leading to a reduced complexity. An extensive simulation study is conducted to compare the proposed method against the LS technique. Experimental data are collected using a Li ion cell. Finally, both the simulation and experimental results have demonstrated that the proposed DWRLS approach can improve not only the modelling accuracy but also the SOC estimation performance compared with the LS algorithm. (C) 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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