Stability Analysis for Li-Ion Battery Model Parameters and State of Charge Estimation by Measurement Uncertainty Consideration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate estimation of model parameters and state of charge (SoC) is crucial for the lithium-ion battery management system (BMS). In this paper, the stability of the model parameters and SoC estimation under measurement uncertainty is evaluated by three different factors: (i) sampling periods of 1/0.5/0.1 s; (ii) current sensor precisions of ±5/±50/±500 mA; and (iii) voltage sensor precisions of ±1/±2.5/±5 mV. Firstly, the numerical model stability analysis and parametric sensitivity analysis for battery model parameters are conducted under sampling frequency of 1–50 Hz. The perturbation analysis is theoretically performed of current/voltage measurement uncertainty on model parameter variation. Secondly, the impact of three different factors on the model parameters and SoC estimation was evaluated with the federal urban driving sequence (FUDS) profile. The bias correction recursive least square (CRLS) and adaptive extended Kalman filter (AEKF) algorithm were adopted to estimate the model parameters and SoC jointly. Finally, the simulation results were compared and some insightful findings were concluded. For the given battery model and parameter estimation algorithm, the sampling period, and current/voltage sampling accuracy presented a non-negligible effect on the estimation results of model parameters. This research revealed the influence of the measurement uncertainty on the model parameter estimation, which will provide the guidelines to select a reasonable sampling period and the current/voltage sensor sampling precisions in engineering applications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".