MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Accurate Surface Temperature Estimation of Lithium-Ion Batteries Using Feedforward and Recurrent Artificial Neural Networks

2021· article· en· W3192063318 on OpenAlexaff
Mina Naguib, Phillip J. Kollmeyer, Carlos Vidal, Ali Emadi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Technologies Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBattery (electricity)State of chargeArtificial neural networkFeed forwardBattery packComputer scienceRecurrent neural networkFeedforward neural networkTemperature measurementReliability (semiconductor)State of healthControl theory (sociology)Range (aeronautics)Automotive engineeringMaterials scienceEngineeringArtificial intelligenceControl engineeringPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lithium-ion batteries are an essential component in electric vehicles. A robust battery management system (BMS) must be able to estimate the battery states including state of charge (SOC), state of health (SOH), and, ideally, battery temperature as well. The cells in the pack may experience significant temperature differences during operation, and this would typically be monitored by a multitude of temperature sensors. A surface temperature estimation model can be used to reduce the number of sensors necessary for a pack, which has the side benefit of reducing cost and potentially increasing reliability. In this paper, two data-driven models are proposed to estimate the surface temperature of Li-ion batteries. The first model is based on a feed-forward neural network (FNN), while the second model is based on a recurrent neural network (RNN) with long short-term memory (LSTM). These models are trained and tested using cylindrical cell drive cycle data at a range of temperatures. The LSTM model is shown to be capable of estimating temperature with no more than a few degrees Celsius of error, even for challenging low temperature and varying temperature conditions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations33
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Battery Technologies ResearchFrench-language works237,207