MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2737992136 · doi:10.1002/er.3837

Cycling degradation testing and analysis of a LiFePO<sub>4</sub> battery at actual conditions

2017· article· en· W2737992136 on OpenAlexaffabout
Satyam Panchal, J. McGrory, Jinzhen Kong, R. Fraser, Michael Fowler, İbrahim Dinçer, Martin Agelin‐Chaab

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Energy Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Technologies Research
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDriving cycleBattery (electricity)FadeExtrapolationAutomotive engineeringAccelerationPower (physics)Charge cycleLithium-ion batteryDegradation (telecommunications)Electric vehicleLithium (medication)CyclingSimulationVoltageEngineeringElectrical engineeringComputer scienceAutomotive batteryPhysicsMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a degradation testing of a lithium-ion battery developed using real world drive cycles obtained from an electric vehicle (EV). For this, a data logger was installed in the EV, and real world drive cycle data were collected. The EV battery system consists of 3 lithium-ion battery packs with a total of 20 battery modules in series. Each module contains 6 series by 49 parallel lithium-ion cells. The vehicle was driven in the province of Ontario, Canada, and several drive cycles were recorded over a 3-month period. However, only 4 drive cycles with statistical analysis are reported in this paper. The reported drive cycles consist of different modes: acceleration, constant speed, and deceleration in both highway and city driving at −6°C, 2°C, 10°C, and 23°C ambient temperatures with all accessories on. Additionally, individual cell characterization was conducted using a C/25 (0.8A) charge-discharge cycle and hybrid pulse power characterization (HPPC). The Thevenin battery model was constructed in MATLAB along with an empirical degradation model and validated in terms of voltage and SOC for all drive cycles reported. The presented model closely estimated the profiles observed in the experimental data. Data collected from the drive cycles showed that a 4.6% capacity fade occurred over the 3 months of driving. The empirical degradation model was fitted to these data, and an extrapolation estimated that 20% capacity fade would occur after 900 daily drive cycles.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations164
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Energy ResearchSame topicAdvanced Battery Technologies ResearchFrench-language works237,207