A finite‐state machine‐based control design for thermal and state‐of‐charge balancing of lithium iron phosphate battery using flyback converters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Battery cell balancing plays a vital role in maximizing the performance of the battery system by enhancing battery system capacity and prolonging the battery system life expectancy. Active cell balancing using power converters is a promising approach to maintaining uniform state of charges (SoCs) and temperatures across battery cells. The SoC balancing function in the battery management system (BMS) increases the battery pack capacity, and the temperature balancing function mitigates variations in the aging of battery cells due to unbalanced temperatures. In this work, a finite‐state machine‐based control design is proposed for lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery cells in series to balance SoCs and temperatures using flyback converters. The primary objective of this design is to ensure balanced SoCs by the end of the charging session while mitigating the temperature imbalance during the charging process. To achieve the SoC and temperature balancing functions using the same balancing circuits, a finite‐state machine control design decides on the operating mode, and a balancing strategy balances either temperature or SoC depending on the operating mode. The proposed control design has the advantages of low computational burden, simple implementation compared to the optimization‐based controller found in the literature, and the proposed balancing strategy offers faster balancing speed compared to conventional methods. The effectiveness of the proposed strategy is validated on battery cell RC models in series with unbalanced SoCs and temperatures.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".