Battery Parameter Analysis through Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy at Different State of Charge Levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a systematic approach to extract electrical equivalent circuit model (ECM) parameters of the Li-ion battery (LIB) based on electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS). Particularly, the proposed approach is suitable to practical applications where the measurement noise can be significant, resulting in a low signal-to-noise ratio. Given the EIS measurements, the proposed approach can be used to obtain the ECM parameters of a battery. Then, a time domain approach is employed to validate the accuracy of estimated ECM parameters. In order to investigate whether the ECM parameters vary as the battery’s state of charge (SOC) changes, the EIS experiment was repeated at nine different SOCs. The experimental results show that the proposed approach is consistent in estimating the ECM parameters. It is found that the battery parameters, such as internal resistance, capacitance and inductance, remain the same for practical SOC ranges starting from 20% until 90%. The ECM parameters saw a significant change at low SOC levels. Furthermore, the experimental data show that the resistive components estimated in the frequency domain are very close to the internal resistance estimated in the time domain. The proposed approach was applied to eight different battery cells consisting of two different manufacturers and produced consistent results.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".