MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404497815 · doi:10.3390/batteries10110404

Coupled Electro-Thermal-Aging Battery Pack Modeling—Part 1: Cell Level

2024· article· en· W4404497815 on OpenAlexafffund
Hadi Pasdarshahri, Émile Veilleux, William Mooney, Luc G. Fréchette, François Grondin, David Rancourt

Bibliographic record

VenueBatteries · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Technologies Research
Canadian institutionsInstitut interdisciplinaire d'innovation technologiqueUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConsortium de Recherche et d’innovation en Aérospatiale au Québec
KeywordsBattery (electricity)Battery packComputer scienceThermalAutomotive engineeringMaterials scienceEnvironmental sciencePower (physics)EngineeringThermodynamicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a modeling approach to capture the coupled effects of electrical–thermal aging in Li-ion batteries at the cell level. The proposed semi-empirical method allows for a relatively high accuracy and low computational cost compared to expensive computer simulations. This is something current models often lack but is essential for system level simulations, relevant for electric vehicle manufacturers. The aging analysis includes both cycling and calendar effects across the lifetime of the cell and reversible and irreversible heat in a lumped-mass model to capture the temperature evolution of the cell in operation. The Thévenin equivalent circuit model with capacitance used to simulate the electrical behavior of the cell was experimentally validated, showing a high correlation with the proposed model during the charging and discharging phases. A maximum error of 3% on the voltage reading was identified during discharge with the complete model. This model was also designed to be used as a stepping stone for a comprehensive model at the module and vehicle levels that can later be used by designers.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.553
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.227 · 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.

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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBatteriesSame topicAdvanced Battery Technologies ResearchFrench-language works237,207