A remaining useful life prediction approach for
lithium-ion batteries using Kalman filter and an
improved particle filter
Baohua MO, Jingsong YU, Diyin TANG, Hao LIU
School of Automation Science and Electrical Engineering
Beihang University
Beijing, China
yujs@buaa.edu.cn
Abstract—The gradual decreasing capacity of lithium-ion
batteries can serve as a health indicator to represent the
degradation of lithium-ion battery, and through prediction of
battery capacity, the remaining useful life (RUL) of battery can
be estimated. Quite a few effective methods have been developed
for predicting the state-of-charge (SOC) and state-of-health
(SOH) of lithium-ion batteries, and particle filtering (PF) is one
of them. In this paper, a novel PF-based method for RUL
estimation of lithium-ion batteries is developed combining
Kalman filter and particle swarm optimization (PSO). First, the
standard PF is combined with Kalman filter to increase the
accuracy of estimation, and then a particle swarm optimization
algorithm is integrated to slow down the particle degradation due
to particle resampling. The battery dataset provided by NASA is
used to verify the proposed approach. RUL prediction results
compared with standard PF and particle swarm optimization-
based PF demonstrates the higher accuracy of our proposed
method.
Keywords-lithium-ion battery, remaining useful life, capacity
prediction, Kalman filter, improved particle filter.
I. INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, lithium-ion batteries are more and more
commonly used in portable electronics and hybrid electric
vehicles [1]. A good understanding of battery health status and
an accurate prediction of its remaining useful life (RUL) is of
great importance to avoid system break down and reduce
economic losses [2].
Researchers have developed many distinguished methods to
predict the state-of-charge (SOC) and state-of-health (SOH) of
lithium-ion batteries, and some of them are based on particle
filtering (PF), which can solve the uncertainty problem for
nonlinear non-Gaussian systems. For example, Saha et al.[3]
combine the PF with RVM to predict the RUL of lithium-ion
battery, and Qiang et al. [4] uses an unscented PF technique to
predict the RUL of lithiun-ion battery.
However, there are still some problems for the above PF-
based methods in RUL prediction. Firstly, when the
observation noise is relatively high, the accuracy of state
estimation by PF will be very much discounted. Secondly, PF
may confront with the problem of weight degradation which if
solved by resampling method can result unavoidable particle
978-1-5090-0382-2/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
Jingsong YU
Collaborative Center of Advanced Aero-Engine
Beihang University
Beijing, China
yujs@buaa.edu.cn
impoverishment [5]. Improvements to particle degeneracy will
surely contribute to the increase of estimation accuracy.
To solve above two problems, this paper proposes a novel
PF-based method combining Kalman filter (KF) and particle
swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm to predict the RUL of
lithium-ion batteries. This proposed approach, on the one hand,
optimizes the PF estimation of the state variables by a Kalman
filter, and on the other hand, uses a PSO algorithm to avoid the
lack of diversity of the particles. Compared to the standard PF
method and the PSO-based PF(PSOPF) method, the proposed
method provides significant performance improvement to
prediction accuracy for dynamic nonlinear system represented
by linear state equations and nonlinear observation equations.
II. THE PROPOSED METHOD
A. Standard Particle Filtering
In statistics, a particle filter is known as a sequential Monte
Carlo method that combines Bayesian learning techniques with
importance sampling [6]. The system state is represented as a
probability density function that is approximated by a set of
particles that represent sampled values from an unknown state
space.
The PF method assumes that the state equations can be
modeled as a first order Markov process with the outputs being
conditionally independent. This model can be written as:
X n = f ( X n −1 ) + u n
(1)
Yn = h( Xn ) + v n
where X is the state vector, Y is the measurement vector, u
is the progress noise, and v is the measurement noise, n is the
time index.
Sequential importance resampling (SIR) is a widely used
PF algorithm to avoid the degeneracy problem. The filtering
distribution denoted as p ( X n | Y0:n ) is approximated by a set
i i
of N weighted particles {( wn , X n ) : i = 1, ... N } . The importance
i
weights wn are approximations to the relative posterior
probabilities of the particles such that
 N where Pn|n−1 is the priori covariance matrix, K n is the Kalman
³ f ( X n ) p( X n | Y0:n )dX n ≈ ¦ wni f ( Xin ) (2)
Gain, Pn|n is the updated covariance matrix.
i =1

N
Secondly, the standard PF has a problem of particle
¦w
i =1
i
n =1 (3)
degeneracy due to the resampling method [7]. After some
iterations, the weights of particles accumulate on a small
fraction of particles. To overcome the impoverishment of PF,
The weight update is given by the PF method is improved based on a Particle Swarm
Optimization (PSO) algorithm [8].
p (Yn | X n ) p ( X n | X n −1 )
wni = wni −1 (4) Unlike independent particles in standard PF algorithms, the
π ( X n | X0:n −1, Y1:n ) particles in this improved PF can cooperate with each other and
evolve according to the cognitive effect and social effect. The
where the importance distribution π ( X n | X0:n −1, Y1:n ) is particles can move in the state space and tend to cluster in
optimal regions. In each iteration, each particle i is updated by
approximated as p ( X n | X n −1 ) . two “best” values, one is its own optimal solution, denoted by
pbesti , another is the optimal value obtained by all particles,
B. Improved Particle Filtering combined with KF and PSO
The general idea of our approach is described as follows. denoted by gbesti . Thus, the moving speed Vni and the
We can define a degradation model for lithium-ion batteries by position Xin of any particle i is updated by
the following state space equations:

X n = AX n −1 + u n Vni = w × Vni + C1 × rand1 () × ( pbestni − Xin ) +

(5)
Yn = h( Xn ) + v n C2 × rand 2 () × ( gbestni − Xin ) (9)
i +1 i i
where X is the state vector, Y is the measurement vector, X n = X +V
n n
A is the system state transition matrix, u is the progress
noise, and v is the measurement noise, n is the time index. where rand1 () and rand 2 () are random numbers within
The state equation is linear and the observation equation in interval (0,1), w is an inertia coefficient, C1 and C2 are
nonlinear.
learning factors. In each iteration, we calculate pbestni and
Firstly, we use PF to obtain the least mean-square estimates
MMSE
of state X n . When the observation noise is relatively high, gbestni for each particle, according to which we distribute
the particles cannot accurately describe the distribution of state. particles. After the update of the position of each particle, the
Therefore, we consider the relationship between the optimal weight of each particle is renewed according to the latest
MMSE measurement. Then re-sampling is carried out. Therefore,
state estimates X n and X n can be described by before the update of the weight of each particle, particles tend
to move to the regions where the state is optimal, which can
X nMMSE = X n + e n (6) overcome the impoverishment of PF.
Therefore, the improve PF method combining Kalman filter
where e n represents the error term, which submits the and PSO algorithm is described as follows:
Gaussian distribution with zero mean and covariance matrix
Φ . Therefore, we can establish the equation systems as Procedure: Improved PF combined with Kalman Filter()
follows: Variables:
S [1...N ] : Particle set;
X n = AX n −1 + u n E[1...N ] : Estimation set along time;
(7)
X nMMSE = X n + e n W [1...N ] : Weights;
We can see that the system is linear, so, the optimal t : time;
estimation of the state X n can be calculated using KF: V [1...N ] : Velocity set along iteration;
S pbest [1...N ] : The best particle set along iteration;
Pn|n −1 = APn −1|n −1AT + Q S gbest [1...N ] : The best particle of all particles along
−1
K n = Pn|n −1 (Φ + Pn|n −1 ) iteration;
(8) k : iteration;
Pn|n = (I − K n )Pn|n −1
begin (Particle Filter)
X n = X n −1 + K n ( X nMMSE
−1 − X n −1 ) t = 0;
 Initialize ( S ); Q = ³ Idt (10)
While ( t < T ) do begin
Importance Sample ( S ); Where Q is the battery capacity, I is the current, and t is the
whole discharging time.
Weights Calculation ( S , W [t ] );
Resample ( S , E[t ] ); Numerous models have been proposed for Li-ion batteries,
such as Gaussian process regression (GPR) model, exponential
Estimate ( S , E[t ] ); degradation model, and polynomial model [12]. In this paper,
Optimal Estimate ( S , E[t ] ); (Kalman Filter) we choose the empirical exponential degradation model to fit
the degradation curves:
k = 0; (Particle Swarm Optimization)
Initialize ( S ' = S ); Q = a ⋅ exp(b ⋅ k ) + c ⋅ exp(d ⋅ k ) (11)
While ( k < K ) do begin where a , b , c and d are the model parameters. a and c
Compute Particle Best ( S ' , S pbest [ k ] ); are related to the internal impedance, b and d are related to
Compute Weight Best ( S pbest [ k ] , S gbest [k ] ); the aging rate, k is the cycle number, and Q is the capacity of
the battery. From Fig. 2, fitting the degradation data with the
Compute Velocity ( V [ k ] ); Matlab curve fitting toolbox, it was found that the empirical
Update ( S ' ); model can express the regression process.
k = k +1; To demonstrate the performance of our proposed method,
end batteries 06 and 18 are used as the training data, and battery 05
t = t +1 ; is served as the testing unit. The model parameters of the
end known batteries are calculated by the fitting step, and they are
end shown in Table 1.

III. RUL PREDICTION FOR LITHIUM-ION BATTERIES C. Results and analysis

To demonstrate the advantages of the proposed method, we The state space equations can be written as follows:
apply it to a battery dataset and compare RUL prediction X n = [an ; bn ; cn ; d n ] (12)
results using our proposed method with that using standard PF
and the PSOPF. ua  N (0, σ a )
­an = an −1 + ua
°b = b + u ub  N (0, σ b )
° n n −1 b
A. Lithium-ion battery data set ® (13)
°cn = cn −1 + uc uc  N (0, σ c )
To verify the performance of the proposed method in
°¯d n = d n −1 + ud
apa

predicting the RUL of Li-ion batteries, we use the Li-ion ud  N (0, σ d )

batteries data set from NASA AMES Center [9]. The Li-ion
batteries are tested under certain conditions (with temperature Qn = an exp(bn ∗ n) + cn exp(dn ∗ n) + vn , vn  N (0, σ ) (14)
+23 e C) and the test ending life is set as 70% of the rated
capacity to measure the capacity degradation. Detailed where Qn is the capacity measurement at cycle n , N (0, σ )
information about the data set can be found in [10]. In this is the Gaussian noise with zero mean and standard
study, the capacity is considered as the health indicator of the deviation σ .
degradation of the Li-ion battery, which can provide actual
information on battery remaining energy. We set 70% of the 2.1
Battery number 05
rated capacity as the failure threshold [11]. The experiments 2 Battery number 06

will be stopped when the batteries reached the EOL criteria of 1.9
Battery number 07
Battery number 18
30% fade in rated capacity (from 2 Ah to 1.4 Ah). 1.8
Failure threshold

The data set includes the capacity of four batteries, that is,
Capacity炷 Ah)

1.7

batteries number 05, number 06, number 07, and number 18. 1.6

The Li-ion battery capacity degradation is shown in Fig. 1. 1.5

In Fig. 1, we can see that Battery number 07 cannot reach 1.4

the failure threshold during the known cycles; thus, we reject 1.3

the data for Battery number 07. 1.2

1.1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
B. Lithium-ion battery regression model Cycle

The capacity indicates the amount of the charge that comes

Fig. 1 The degradation curves of four batteries
out of a battery from the full to empty state, which is obtained
by integrating the current over time. We can represent it as:
 2.1
To analyze the prediction results explicitly, we discuss the
2 RUL prediction results and PDF distributions. From Fig. 3 and
1.9 Battery 06 4, we know that the novel method has a better mean prediction
than the other two methods. In addition, Fig. 5 and Fig. 6
1.8
respectively shows the PDF distributions of different methods
1.7 in cycle 70 and cycle 90, which can express and manage the
Capacity(Ah)

1.6 uncertainty of prediction.

1.5
Battery 18
Battery 05
From Fig. 5 and Fig. 6, we can find that the red curve,
1.4 which represents the distribution of the novel method, is
1.3
narrower and taller than the curves representing PSOPF and
standard PF. The distributions of the prediction results show
1.2
the precision of prediction. The narrower and taller the
1.1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 distributions are, the higher precision the results have.
Cycle Therefore, the novel method shows a higher precision than the
Fig. 2 The actual degradation curves and the correponding fitting curves
other two algorithms. Meanwhile, PSOPF is better than PF.
The details of comparisons can be seen in Table 2 and Table 3.

With the proposed method, we can get the estimation of the 2

state variables X n = [ an ; bn ; cn ; d n ] at cycle n , then, the

Real data
1.9 PSOPF
Novel method
p-th step prediction at cycle n can be written as: 1.8
PF

start of prediction
N
Qn + p = ¦ Q i
n+ p (15) Capacity(Ah)
1.7

i =1 130 133
1.6
128 143
Qni + p = ani exp[bni * ( n + p )] + cni exp[ d ni * ( n + p )] + vn (16) 1.5
Failure threshold: 1.4
The estimated probability density function (PDF) of the 1.4
prediction is
1.3
N
p (Qn + p | Q0:n ) ≈ ¦ w δ (Qn + p − Q i
k
i
n+ p ) (17) 1.2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
i =1 Cycle

To illustrate the performances of the method, we use the

Fig. 3 The prediction results at cycle 70 for 05 battery
root mean square error (RMSE) values, which is defined as

1 T m
RMSE = ¦
T i =1
( X i − X i )2 (18)
Real data
1.9 PSOPF
To compare the accuracy of the method, we use the
Novel method
estimation error(%) which is defined as 1.8
PF

1.7 start of prediction

| prediction result − true value | 135 137
estimation error (%) = % (19) 1.6
true value 142
128
1.5
Failure Threshold: 1.4
In this paper, the inspection cycles (i.e. cycle 70 and cycle 1.4
90) are selected to validate the prediction results. Fig.3 shows
the estimated curve obtained using different methods, where 1.3
data from the first 70 cycles are used to update the prediction. 1.2
Fig. 4 shows the prediction results with 90 known capacity 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
data. The mean in table 1 was defined as the initial state. Both
in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, we find that the red curve has the best RUL Fig. 4 The prediction results at cycle 90 for 05 battery
prediction result, which is generated by the our proposed
method. Then the green curve has the second-best result, which
is generated by PSOPF. The black curve generated by PF
comes in last.
 TABLE I. MODEL PARAMETERS OF BATTERY 06 AND 18 Comparison Proposed
PF PSOPF
items method
Model Parameters
Battery 70 90 70 90 70 90
a b c d
Number Prediction
143 142 133 137 130 135
B0006 -0.34100 -28.1000 2.02544 -0.00336 result(cycle)

B0018 -0.34450 -28.23440 1.82659 -0.00257 Estimation

15 14 5 9 2 7
error(cycle)
mean -0.34275 -28.16720 1.92601 -0.00297
Estimation
11.72 10.94 3.91 7.03 1.56 5.47
error (%)

TABLE III. THE COMPARISON OF RMSE (CYCLE 1-128)

Comparison items PF PSOPF Proposed method

Particle number 300 300 300

RMSE mean 0.120 0.096 0.087
RMSE variance 0.363 0.321 0. 304

Fig. 5 PDF of the prediction result at cycle 70 for 05 battery
Fig. 6 PDF of the prediction result at cycle 90 for 05 battery
IV. CONCLUSIONS
This paper proposes a novel method, combining the
Kalman filter and PSOPF, to predict the RUL of Li-ion
batteries. The proposed method not only improves the precision
over standard PF but also overcomes the particle degradation
due to particle resampling. From the experimental results, it
can be seen that the proposed method has better accuracy and
higher precision than the PSOPF and PF.
TABLE II. THE COMPARISON OF THE PREDICTION ERROR
REFERENCES
[1] Y. Nishi, “Lithium ion secondary batteries; past 10 years and future,”
Journal of Power Sources, vol. 100, pp. 101-106, 2001.
[2] S.-W. Eom, M.-K.Kim, I.-J. Kim, S.-I. Moon, Y.-K. Sun, and H.-S.Kim,
“Life prediction and reliability assessment of lithium secondary
batteries,” Journal of Power Sources, vol. 174, no. 2, pp. 954-958, 2007.
[3] B.Saha, K. Goebel, S.Poll, and J. Christophersen, “Prognostics methods
for battery health monitoring using a Bayesian Framework,” IEEE
Transactions on instrumentation and measurement, vol. 58, no. 2, 2009
[4] M. Qiang, X. Lei, C. Hengjuan, L. Wei, P. Michael, “Remaining useful
life prediction of lithium-ion battery with unscented particle filter
technique,” Microelectronics Reliability, vol. 53, pp. 805-810, 2013
[5] E. Zio and G. Peloni, “Particle filtering prognostic estimation of the
remaining useful life of nonlinear components,” Reliability Engineering
and System Safety, vol. 96, no. 3, pp. 403-409,2011
[6] N. J. Gordon, D. J. Salmond, and A. F. M. Smith, ͆Novel approach to
nonlinear/non-gaussian Bayesian state estimation,͇IEE Proceedings F:
Radar and Signal Processing, vol. 140, no. 2, pp. 107̽113, 1993.
[7] A. Doucet, N.J.Gordon, and V. Krishnamurthy, “Particle filters for state
estimation of jump Markov linear systems,” IEEE Transactions on
Signal Processing, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 613-624, 2001.
[8] T. R. Lu, L. Zhu, and D. F. Li, ͆Swarm intelligence algorithm for
particle filtering,͇ Journal of Xidian University, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 273̽
277, 2007
[9] J. Y. Liu, X. H. Chen, Q. Liu, and J. Z. Sun, Battery Data Set, NASA
Ames Prognostics Data Repository, NASA Ames,Moffett Field, Calif,
USA, 2007
[10] D. Liu, Y. Luo, L. Guo, and Y. Peng, ͆Uncertainty quantification of
fusion prognostics for lithium-ion battery remaining useful life
estimation,͇ in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Prognostics and
Health Management (PHM ̓13), pp. 1̽8, Gaithersburg, Md, USA,
June 2013.
[11] IEEE Std.1188-2005 IEEE Recommended Practices for Maintenance,
Testing and Replacement of Valve Regulated Lead-Acid (VRLA)
Batteries in Stationary Applications.
[12] Y. Xing, E. W. M. Ma, K. Tsui, and M. Pecht, ͆An ensemble model for
predicting the remaining useful performance of lithium-ion batteries,͇
Microelectronics Reliability, vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 811 ̽ 820, 2013.