Smart Core and Surface Temperature Estimation Techniques for Health-Conscious Lithium-Ion Battery Management Systems: A Model-to-Model Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimation of core temperature is one of the crucial functionalities of the lithium-ion Battery Management System (BMS) towards providing effective thermal management, fault detection and operational safety. It is impractical to measure the core temperature of each cell using physical sensors, while at the same time implementing a complex core temperature estimation strategy in onboard low-cost BMS is also challenging due to high computational cost and the cost of implementation. Typically, a temperature estimation scheme consists of a heat generation model and a heat transfer model. Several researchers have already proposed ranges of thermal models with different levels of accuracy and complexity. Broadly, there are first-order and second-order heat resistor–capacitor-based thermal models of lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) for core and surface temperature estimation. This paper deals with a detailed comparative study between these two models using extensive laboratory test data and simulation study. The aim was to determine whether it is worth investing towards developing a second-order thermal model instead of a first-order model with respect to prediction accuracy considering the modeling complexity and experiments required. Both the thermal models along with the parameter estimation scheme were modeled and simulated in a MATLAB/Simulink environment. Models were validated using laboratory test data of a cylindrical 18,650 LIB cell. Further, a Kalman filter with appropriate process and measurement noise levels was used to estimate the core temperature in terms of measured surface and ambient temperatures. Results from the first-order model and second-order models were analyzed for comparison purposes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".