4.5 Article

Satellite Lithium-Ion Battery Remaining Cycle Life Prediction with Novel Indirect Health Indicator Extraction

期刊

ENERGIES
卷 6, 期 8, 页码 3654-3668

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/en6083654

关键词

satellite; lithium-ion battery; remaining useful life estimation; health indicator; echo state networks; ensemble learning

资金

  1. Twelfth Government Advanced Research Fund [51317040302]
  2. Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China [20112302120027]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [HIT.NSRIF.2014017]
  4. China Scholarship Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Prognostics and remaining useful life (RUL) estimation for lithium-ion batteries play an important role in intelligent battery management systems (BMS). The capacity is often used as the fade indicator for estimating the remaining cycle life of a lithium-ion battery. For spacecraft requiring high reliability and long lifetime, in-orbit RUL estimation and reliability verification on ground should be carefully addressed. However, it is quite challenging to monitor and estimate the capacity of a lithium-ion battery on-line in satellite applications. In this work, a novel health indicator (HI) is extracted from the operating parameters of a lithium-ion battery to quantify battery degradation. Moreover, the Grey Correlation Analysis (GCA) is utilized to evaluate the similarities between the extracted HI and the battery's capacity. The result illustrates the effectiveness of using this new HI for fading indication. Furthermore, we propose an optimized ensemble monotonic echo state networks (En_ MONESN) algorithm, in which the monotonic constraint is introduced to improve the adaptivity of degradation trend estimation, and ensemble learning is integrated to achieve high stability and precision of RUL prediction. Experiments with actual testing data show the efficiency of our proposed method in RUL estimation and degradation modeling for the satellite lithium-ion battery application.

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