Performance Analysis of Empirical Open-Circuit Voltage Modeling in Lithium-Ion Batteries—Part 3: Experimental Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is the third part of a series of papers about empirical approaches to open circuit voltage (OCV) modeling of lithium-ion batteries. The first part of the series proposed models to quantify various sources of uncertainties in the OCV models; the second part of the series presented systematic data collection approaches to compute the uncertainties in the OCV to state of charge (SOC) models. This paper uses data collected from 28 OCV characterization experiments, performed according to the data collection plan presented in the second part, to compute and analyze three OCV uncertainty metrics: cell-to-cell variations, C-Rate error, and curve fitting error. The computed metrics showed that a lower C-Rate resulted in smaller errors in the OCV-SOC model and vice versa. The results reported in this paper establish a relationship between the C-Rate and the uncertainty of the OCV-SOC model. Further, it was observed that the magnitude of cell-to-cell variations varied with the battery SOC and that it was not significantly affected by the C-Rate at which the experimental data was collected. The analysis in this paper also found that widely used polynomial modeling approaches for OCV-SOC curve modeling, incur significant errors. The approaches and results presented in this paper can be useful to battery researchers for quantifying the tradeoff between the time taken to complete the OCV characterization test and the corresponding uncertainty in the OCV-SOC modeling. Further, quantified uncertainty model parameters can accurately characterize the uncertainty in various BMS functionalities, such as SOC and state of health estimation. The insights presented in this paper can be useful to collect more accurate data for training machine learning models in SOC estimation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".