Comparative Study of Equivalent Circuit Models Performance in Four Common Lithium-Ion Batteries: LFP, NMC, LMO, NCA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries are an important component of energy storage systems used in various applications such as electric vehicles and portable electronics. There are many chemistries of Li-ion battery, but LFP, NMC, LMO, and NCA are four commonly used types. In order for the battery applications to operate safely and effectively, battery modeling is very important. The equivalent circuit model (ECM) is a battery model often used in the battery management system (BMS) to monitor and control Li-ion batteries. In this study, experiments were performed to investigate the performance of three different ECMs (1RC, 2RC, and 1RC with hysteresis) on four Li-ion battery chemistries (LFP, NMC, LMO, and NCA). The results indicated that all three models are usable for the four types of Li-ion chemistries, with low errors. It was also found that the ECMs tend to perform better in dynamic current profiles compared to non-dynamic ones. Overall, the best-performed model for LFP and NCA was the 1RC with hysteresis ECM, while the most suited model for NMC and LMO was the 1RC ECM. The results from this study showed that different ECMs would be suited for different Li-ion battery chemistries, which should be an important factor to be considered in real-world battery and BMS 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".