Electrical Power and Energy Systems 98 (2018) 133–146

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Electrical Power and Energy Systems

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijepes

Complete cell-level lithium-ion electrical ECM model for different T

chemistries (NMC, LFP, LTO) and temperatures (−5 °C to 45 °C) –
Optimized modelling techniques
⁎
Alexandros Nikoliana, , Joris Jaguemonta, Joris de Hooga, Shovon Goutama, Noshin Omara,
Peter Van Den Bosschea,b, Joeri Van Mierloa
a
Mobility, Logistic and Automotive Technology Research Center (MOBI), Department of Electrical Engineering and Energy Technology (ETEC), Vrije Universiteit Brussel,
Pleinlaan 2, Brussel 1050, Belgium
b
Department of Industrial Engineering (INDI), Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Nijverheidskaai 170, Anderlecht 1070, Belgium

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this study a complete cell-level electrical equivalent circuit model (ECM) of energy and power lithium-ion
Lithium-ion batteries cells with 3 different chemistries and multiple temperatures (−5 °C to 45 °C) is developed and validated under
Electric modelling different dynamic load profiles. The chemistries under investigation are Nickel Manganese Cobalt 20 Ah (high
Equivalent circuit models energy), Lithium Iron Phosphate 14 Ah (high power) and Lithium Titanate Oxide 5 Ah (high power), providing a
Dynamic load profiles
range of different cell characteristics and capacities. An updated workflow for the development of the ECM
ECM parameterization
Simulation platform
model is presented which includes extended versions of previous characterization and parameterization pro-
cedures used to populate a 2nd Order Thévenin ECM topology. The model is able to use two types of charge
estimations, the extended coulomb counting and the extended Kalman filter techniques. The accuracy of the
simulation in all three chemistries is increased through this improved characterization and optimization pro-
cedures. The “Initial State of Charge value”, “Capacity Value”, “Internal Resistance value” and the “Open Circuit
Voltage” are included inside the complete model and have shown to affect greatly the accuracy of the simula-
tions, specifically when the extended coulomb counting technique is implemented. The State of Health (SoH)
level the validation profile was characterize in combination with the total time the simulation is performed have
shown to affect also the accuracy of the simulation. The complete developed model is able to be combined with
thermal and ageing models of lithium-ion cells. Combining this with the extended database of validated simu-
lations for the different chemistries and temperatures, provides a suitable model to be extended to pack-level
models of battery packs.

1. Introduction
Global concerns following current energy crises [1–5] and en-
vironmental changes [6,7] have push our society to consider other
means of energy production and storage. This has translated in multiple
developments and integrations of electric systems, ranging from elec-
tronic appliances to vehicle applications into our production and
transportation chains [8–10]. Examining the automotive industry more
closely a huge increase can be observed in the development of different
types of vehicle applications based on electric powertrains. An industry
trend can be witnessed where automotive manufacturers are transi-
tioning from internal combustion engines (ICE) to more efficient and
environmental electrical motors [11–15]. These vehicles can be cate-
gorized into two main categories, the hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs)
and the plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs). The PEVs includes the battery
electric vehicle (BEVs), extended range electric vehicles (EREVs) and
plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEVs) [16–21].
The development of multiple rechargeable energy storage systems
(RESS) have played a major role in the development of these vehicle
applications [8,22,23]. While different energy systems have been de-
veloped and implemented it is apparent that each of the available en-
ergy storage technologies have different energy and power character-
istics, as observed in the Ragone plot in Fig. 1 [15]. Lithium-ion cells
have the characteristic to encompass a wide range of energy and power
capabilities and it is define with the type of chemical combination the
battery cell will have between the anodes, cathodes and electrolytes
[22]. Not all chemical combinations in lithium-ion cells can deliver the
same energy and power rates but combinations of these can provide the

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: alexandros.nikolian@vub.ac.be (A. Nikolian).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2017.11.031
Received 8 June 2017; Received in revised form 17 November 2017; Accepted 25 November 2017
Available online 14 December 2017
0142-0615/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Nikolian et al.
desired characteristics [24–27].
Typically, any vehicle application integrated with lithium-ion cells
includes a battery pack of multiple cells. To control the pack during the
use (driving, breaking, charging and parking) a battery management
system (BMS) in charge of the electric and thermal supervision of each
activity of the pack is included. All basic BMSs have a role in keeping
the different cells inside the pack into a balance state of charge (SoC)
while driving and charging [16,28]. More advanced BMSs have the
ability to maintain the thermal equilibrium and keep the pack in safe
and optimal operating area while maintaining a stable communication
with the different vehicle systems. To perform these a BMS includes
internal devices for temperature, voltage control and communication
but these have to be combined with accurate, low computational cost
models that will monitor the cells in the pack and communicate fun-
damental operating instructions to the battery pack [29–31]. The
creation of such accurate models is a very important aspect. While the
automotive industry is mainly concentrated in the 90–10% SoC window
due to ageing and performance considerations the proper character-
ization and monitoring of the whole SoC window (minimum to max-
imum voltage) can help in having a holistic view of the performance of
the lithium-ion cells.
Adding to this, it is apparent that when performing lithium-ion
equivalent circuit model (ECM) simulations on a cell level, different
parameters and conditions affects the total accuracy of the model [32].
While all the inputs of the ECM model will affect the result of the si-
mulations to some extent, some inputs will have a greater effect in the
accuracy of the model. Thus, the optimization of these aspects provides
an avenue to reach greater accuracy for the whole SoC window of the
battery. Subsequently combined the above observations, the develop-
ment of battery packs based on accurate modelling techniques for en-
ergy and power lithium-ion cells topologies could be beneficial in de-
veloping further the lifetime and driving range of current vehicle
application.
The simulation of lithium-ion cells is a vast issue and different
routes can be implemented to model the performance and behaviour of
the cells. An overview of the different techniques to model the cell
electrochemically, thermally and electrically is already performed in a
previous study [33]. In this study a closer look is taken on the different
electrical ECM topologies that exist and can model the cells in time and
frequency domain. Multiple studies have been performed covering the
134
Electrical Power and Energy Systems 98 (2018) 133–146
Fig. 1. Ragone chart of different cell-level energy
storage systems [49].
different issues related to the electrical modelling of the lithium-ion
cells [34–40] with better estimations of the SoC, investigating the
ageing performance of the cell or implementing new techniques for
parameterization of the ECM models. Therefore, this research is fo-
cussed to have a holistic approach in the modelling of the lithium-ion
cells under investigation. A closer look will is given regarding the
characterization tests, electrical ECM parameter creation and para-
meterization of the model while also create a model that can be com-
bined with thermal and ageing models in future iterations. Moreover,
different calculations of the SoC and error reporting techniques are
implemented for having a comprehensive overview on how the simu-
lations performs under different conditions and SoC calculation
methods. This provides the platform to create an electrical ECM model
that can be directly implemented in a simulative battery pack in which
series, parallel or combined topologies of the cells are under in-
vestigation.
Following these observations, the goal of this study is the develop-
ment of a highly accurate ECM battery model for a wide range of
chemical and nominal capacities characteristics at different tempera-
tures and load profiles. The developed model is based on an Electric
ECM 2nd Order Thévenin Topology (Fig. 2). The lithium-ion chemis-
tries identified for this analysis was the Nickel Manganese Cobalt
(NMC) 20 Ah [32,41–43]. The Lithium Ion Phosphate (LFP) 14 Ah
[44–46,38] and the Lithium Ion Titanate (LTO) 5 Ah [47]. The char-
acteristics of these cells are discussed in Section 2 and can be observed
in Table 1. To have a holistic approach of the behaviour of the cells a
wide range of temperatures were identified ranging from −5 °C, 5 °C,
Fig. 2. Second order Thévenin equivalent circuit topology to model a lithium-ion battery.
A. Nikolian et al.
Table 1
Cell characteristics of the lithium-ion cells of three chemistries (+ve/−ve).
Graphite/NMC Graphite/LFP
Model C020 P014
Length [mm] 217 216
Width [mm] 130 130
Thickness [mm] 7.1 7.1
Weight [g] 428 380
Nominal voltage [V] 3.65 3.2
Nominal capacity [Ah] 20 14
Specific energy [W h/kg] 174 120
Energy density [W h/L] 370 230
Specific power [W/kg] 2300 2500
Power density [W/L] 4600 4500
15 °C, 25 °C, 35 °C, 45 °C. The model is validated at these temperatures
under dynamic profiles such as the Dynamic Discharge Pulse test (DDP)
and Worldwide harmonized Light duty Test Cycle (WLTC). For accuracy
reasons the model has been developed based on two SoC estimation
techniques the extended coulomb counting (ECC) and the extended
Kalman filter (EKF) techniques and has been combined with an ECM
thermal model developed by Jaguemont et al. [48]. The thermal model
attached to the electrical model was not used in this study to simulate
the dynamic temperature behaviour of the cells but rather providing a
constant temperature profile depending on the chosen simulation
temperature. Information on the SoC estimations techniques are in-
cluded in Section 3. Developing the models for all three chemistries
based on the characterization protocols described in [32], it was con-
cluded that the accuracy was not appropriate if these models will have
to be used later on, in simulating battery packs. The main issues en-
countered were related with the simulation of the nonlinear behaviours
at very high (100–95%) and low (5–0%) SoC regions and inaccurate
OCV output of the model due to different OCV behaviours of the cell
chemistries. Other issue also identified in the previous publication, was
that the ECM parameters introduced in the models had dynamic
changes throughout the whole SoC window. For these multiple reasons,
an improved Extended Advanced Characterization (EAC) technique is
implemented, which incorporates additional characterization steps to
provide more accurate results at the nonlinear regions of the cells.
Moreover, to provide additional accuracy during the simulations, the
parameters extracted for parameterization are introduced in the
smoothing and adaptation methods developed in this study. Informa-
tion about the EAC and optimization methods can be found also in
Section 3 and supplementary material Section A. Last but not least,
different State of Health (SoH) of the different cells is identified and the
creation of parameters at these points was calculated. An overview of
the aged parameters is provided in Section 4 providing the first step
towards the combination of the electrical model to an ageing model The
extended range of temperatures and dynamic profiles, which the model
is validated combined with the simulation of the whole SoC range of the
cells provides a unique approach in developing lithium-ion ECM
models.
2. Material & experimental setup
Three different lithium-ion chemistries were identified to represent
energy and power cell characteristics as described in Section 1. The
different information provided by the manufacturer for each cell can be
found in Table 1. In Fig. 3 the different capacity values of all three
chemistries under different It-load profiles can be observed followed by
Fig. 4 in which the three discharge quasi-open circuit voltage (QOCV)
are demonstrated. The current It-rates are the applied current rates
when charging and discharging the lithium-ion batteries, also known as
“C-rate”. The QOCV test consist of performing very slow discharge and
charge with a current of It/25 to extract the voltage behaviour of the
cells against time. This illustrates the nonlinear and differences voltage
Electrical Power and Energy Systems 98 (2018) 133–146
behaviours of the cells under investigation. In this research, the NMC is
categorized as an energy cell with a specific energy of 174 W h/kg
which is the highest value compared to the other two chemistries.
LTO/NMC
Moreover the NMC cell has the capability to provide reasonable power
TO05 output of 2300 W/kg. The NMC chemistry has been reported to have
276 the capability to provide either high energy or high power character-
173
istics but not both at the same time. This is due to the characteristics of
4
262 the high voltage nickel-manganese-cobalt material included in the
2.2 cathode material of the cell [50]. The LFP cell has lower voltage limits
5 than the NMC and a flatter open circuit voltage (OCV) behaviour. De-
42 veloped with lithium-ion phosphate for its cathode material it can
90
provide adequate electrochemical and life cycle performances. The
2250
4400 flatter OCV behaviour of the LFP chemistry provides a flatter power
output to respect to the NMC chemistry [51]. With a specific energy of
120 W h/kg and a specific power of 2500 W/kg, the LFP-based chem-
istry represents a middle range cell in energy terms but has a higher
power output than the NMC chemistry. It should be noted that the LFP
has lower capacity value than the NMC. On the contrary the LTO (5 Ah)
cell have the lowest capacity value and voltage limits and can deliver a
specific power of 2250 W/kg and a specific energy of 42 W h/kg. The
advantage of the LTO chemistry is that the titanate material is the
anode material which replaces the graphite present in the other two
chemistries. This reduces lithium plating on the anodes even when the
cells is charged at high It-rates. The added value of this is the low in-
ternal resistance that the cell inherently has and exhibits also
throughout its life time. The cell can provide excellent pulse power
characteristics and very long lifecycles. The LTO in this research ex-
hibits a low capacity value but high total power output thus re-
presenting a power cell. The manufacturer reports that the LTO cell
reaches 80% SoH at 25 °C after 9000 cycles of CC CV charging with a
current of 20 A. The high It-rate of 20 A shows the robustness of the cell
in giving high power throughout its lifetime with small decrease of its
capacity.
The infrastructure providing the platform to perform all the char-
acterization tests consist of different systems. The temperature was
controlled with a CTS-Climate Test Chamber (series C-40/350 L) having
the possibility to provide temperatures from −40 °C to 180 °C.
Choosing the characterization temperatures between −5 °C and 45 °C,
the selected chamber can provide a constant and stable temperature
during the experiments, as these levels are far away from its highest and
lowest limits. The load profiles were applied to the cells through an ACT
0550 Tester with 80 channels, manufactured by Project Engineering
and Contracting (PEC) that has the capability to provide a total power
of 35 kW and current of 50 A per channel. The cells were directly
connected to the channel cable through a custom-made connector block
setup built from copper.
All analysis and model development performed in this study was
performed with Matlab® and Simulink® software packages. The back-
bone of the model was already developed for the NMC lithium-ion cell
chemistry in a previous publication [32,33]. This model was already
incorporated with the Coulomb Counting technique and the extended
Kalman filter. While this model was based on previous advanced
characterization techniques described in that journal, the new model
developed for the NMC, LFP and LTO chemistry in this study, is based
on a new Extended Advanced Characterization (EAC) procedure de-
scribed in the next Section 3. The values extracted from the EAC pro-
cedure were combined to provide a mean value behaviour of 6 cells of
each chemistry and then where forwarded to the different parameter
adjustment methods that were developed. These methods are also de-
scribed in more detail in the next Section.
Extending the analysis to the simulation results, new error handling
and reporting techniques were also developed. Carrying over from
previous publications, the instantaneous error which calculates the in-
stantaneous difference between the measured and simulated results for
each time step of the simulation was the only error calculation method
implemented. It was apparent that this technique didn’t take into
135
A. Nikolian et al.
Fig. 3. Capacity behaviour of the three cell chemistries under different It-rates and temperatures. (a) NMC, (b) LFP, (c) LTO.
Fig. 4. Discharge Quasi-Open Circuit Voltage (QOCV) behaviour of the three cell che-
mistries.
consideration the dynamic behaviour of the simulation and it didn’t
provide a holistic overview of the accuracy of the model. For these
reasons the total Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of the simulation
from start to end of the validation profile was also incorporated while
also the Moving Root Mean Square Error (MRMSE) of specific SoC steps
was introduced. Additional information about these techniques are in-
cluded in the next Section. Based on these, the models could be run with
different parameters, capacities values and validation profiles and have
a clear overview of the accuracy of the simulation including the in-
stantaneous differences while also the dynamic behaviour of the si-
mulation in terms of MRMSE and total RMSE.
3. Methods & model development
As described in Section 1 the main objective of this study is to de-
velop an accurate ECM model for the whole SoC window for different
lithium-ion cell chemistries. The complete ECM battery model which
was incorporated with a range of energy to power lithium-ion cell has
the possibility to be attached with other type of models (e.g. thermal,
ageing) and can assist in further development of experimental topolo-
gies of energy and power battery packs combinations. To achieve this,
an optimized workflow has been created for the development of the
ECM models and can be observed in Fig. 5. This modelling workflow is
an extension and updated version of the ECM modelling workflow
136
Electrical Power and Energy Systems 98 (2018) 133–146
found in [32]. The workflow can be separated in the following steps: (i)
Optimal Cell Identification, (ii) Extended Advanced Characterization,
(iii) Parameter Development & Optimization, (iv) ECM Parameteriza-
tion to finally arrive to the final step (v) Complete ECM Battery Model.
The different inputs that are needed by the ECM model are presented in
Table 2.
3.1. Extended advanced characterization
The EAC testing techniques performed on the cells included the
advanced capacity, hybrid pulse power characterization (HPPC), open
circuit voltage (OCV), Dynamic Discharge pulse (DDP) and World
harmonized Light vehicle Test Cycle (WLTC) at the temperatures of
−5 °C, 5 °C, 15 °C, 25 °C, 35 °C, 45 °C. The non-linear behaviour of all
three chemistries with comparatively more pronounced nonlinearities
for the LFP and LTO chemistry at high and low SoC regions, combined
with the linear OCV behaviour during the mid-SoC levels of 90–10%,
were some key issues to develop this new EAC testing technique. The
technique was mainly implemented on the OCV and HPPC test. The
OCV was constructed by performing very small steps of charge or dis-
charge pulses with very small It-rates of 0.1% of the cell capacity be-
tween the 100–98% and 2–0% SoC region while steps of 5% of the cell
capacity were performed between the SoC region of 98% and 2%
(Fig. 6b). The relaxation times after each of the current pulses remained
at 3 h. While we had the chance to increase the relaxation time to ac-
quire a considerably more accurate relaxed behaviour during the high
and low SoC regions, the total time needed to perform the test was in
the range of 15 days. Making this test a very time consuming char-
acterization procedure but resulting in interesting and accurate results.
For the HPPC tests only steps of 0.5% were implemented during the
high and low SoC regions while having the same steps as the OCV for
the mid SoC regions. This was done due to time constraints as both tests
duration increased substantially. This also effects the total time needed
for the development of the complete electrical ECM Battery model. The
difference in the results between the Advanced Characterization and
the EAC techniques can be seen in Fig. 6. It is evident that the voltage
behaviour that can be extracted from the OCV of the EAC method can
provide a more accurate voltage performance at the highly non-linear
regions of high and low SoCs, as multiple points can be derived for very
A. Nikolian et al. Electrical Power and Energy Systems 98 (2018) 133–146

Fig. 5. Complete workflow for the development and validation of a lithium ion ECM model.

Table 2 parameter estimation method. The calculated parameters are then

Second order Thévenin model inputs. forwarded to the 2nd Order Thévenin ECM topology equations which
calculates the total voltage output Vbat of the cell based on a specific
Model parameters Units
current load profile Ibat. The underlying equations followed by the 2nd
Cell capacity C [Ah] Order Thévenin ECM topology can be observed in Eq. (1) and are ex-
Open Circuit Voltage (OCV) [V] plained in detailed in previous completed studies [32,33] and in other
Initial state of charge [%]
publications [52–56]. In comparison to the normal least square method,
Internal resistance Ro [mOhms]
Activation resistance Rpa [mOhms] the RLS method considers the different input signals (time, voltage,
Concentration resistance Rpc [mOhms] current, SoC) as stochastic and not deterministic. Thus making it an
Activation time-constant τpa [sec] appropriate method when trying to analyse a huge amount of different
Concentration time constant τpc [sec] characterization results at multiple temperature levels. The output of
the RLS method is individual coefficients that are directly translated to
the ECM electrical parameters. In Fig. 7 the results of the RLS method of
small SoC intervals. On the other hand when observing the HPPC re-
a HPPC pulse at 73.55% SoC level at 1 It-current is observed which is
sults of the EAC technique (Fig. 6c & d), some weaknesses could be
superpose on top of the measured HPPC pulse result. The results ex-
identified. Charge HPPC pulses during high SoC levels and discharge
tracted through the HPPC test and the RLS method are the first raw
HPPC pulses during low SoC levels are intrinsically get affected by the
parameters collected for the three chemistries. Previously, all models
high and low cut off voltage limits of the cell under investigation which
were always performed with the direct results taken from this analysis.
can be observed in Fig. 6c to some extent and much more pronounced
While for the NMC cell these results gave acceptable accuracies, the
in Fig. 6d. This voltage behaviour is not the one intended by the cell at
initial parameters developed for the LFP and LTO chemistries were not
this high and low SoC levels as the voltage is stopped by the safety
optimized, providing high inaccuracies when performing the different
voltage limits set by the cell manufacturer. On the contrary if we ob-
simulations. Thus, two adjustment methods were developed to review
serve the discharge pulses at high SoC levels and charge pulses at low
the different parameters and try to optimize the inputs provided to the
SoC, which are the opposite pulses to the ones that cannot be performed
electrical ECM model. The first method called “Parameter Smoothing”
correctly, we can clearly see that they are unaffected and have the
outputs, a more smoothed parameter behaviour (Fig. 8a & b), which has
possibility to perform the whole 10 s pulse intended by the HPPC pro-
been found to help and translate into smoother simulation results
file. These opposite pulses could be used to acquire the general trend of
during the dynamic changes of the simulations. The second method
the pulses. This aspect are directly implemented in the parameter de-
called “Parameter Adaptation” was develop to fix all the identified
velopment & optimization module of the optimize workflow.
dynamic changes of the parameters due to the high and low SoC issues
pointed out in the previous section. In Fig. 8b & c the difference be-
3.2. Analysis of parameters
tween the parameters before and after these modules can be observed.
Additional information about the development methods of the two
A list of the different parameters which must be provided to a 2nd parameter adjustment methods can be also found in Section A as sup-
Order Thévenin electrical ECM model was presented in Table 1. The
plementary material.
internal resistance (Ro), activation resistance (Rpa), concentration re-
sistance (Rpc) and time constants (τpa & τpc) for charge and discharge
are all calculated through the HPPC characterization test approx-
imating the different parameters using the recursive least square (RLS)

137
A. Nikolian et al. Electrical Power and Energy Systems 98 (2018) 133–146

Fig. 6. The OCV and HPPC test under the Advanced and the Extended Advanced Characterization, (a) OCV AC, (b) OCV EAC, (c) HPPC AC, (d) HPPC EAC.

⎧Vpȧ =− Vpa I
+ Cbat characterization results of each individual cell at all different tem-
Rpa Cpa pa
⎪ peratures, additional tests were performed on these cells in terms of
V ̇ = − Vpc + Ibat ageing and calendar testing. Following these results an ageing model
⎨ pc Rpc Cpc Cpc
⎪ has been developed and was presented in the following publication
Vbat = Voc − V pa− V pc−Ibat R o (1)
⎩ [57] for the NMC cell. Ultimately combining this complete electrical
where ECM lithium-ion model to the aforementioned ageing model, the model
should have the capability to predict the cell ECM parameter behaviour
Ro = internal ohmic resistance (Ω) at different State of Health (SoH) levels of its lifetime. For this purpose
Rpa = the activation resistance (Ω) parameters of the internal resistance of the NMC chemistry at 95% and
Rpc = the concentration resistance (Ω) 90% SoH at 25 °C and for the LFP chemistry at 98% and 95% SoH at
Cpa = capacitor in RC setup with the Rpa resistance and time con- 25 °C were developed. These parameters have not been incorporated in
stant τpa (F) the electrical model or passed through the parameter adjustment
Cpc = capacitor in RC setup with the Rpc resistance and time con- methods but will be performed in the future during next advancement
stant τpc (F) of the ECM model. For the LTO chemistry no aged parameters were
Ibat = total battery current (A) calculated due to the long lifetime these cells exhibited. With a capacity
Voc = battery voltage source to compute the open circuit voltage (V) of 4.5 Ah during it’s initial stage of life (Begin of Life – BoL) the cells
Vpa = voltage across the capacitor Cpa (V) still have a SoH level of 103% providing a capacity of 4.6 Ah after
Vpc = voltage across the capacitor Cpc (V) 21.000 cycles of 90% Depth of Discharge.
Vbat = voltage across the terminals of the battery when a load Ibat is
applied on the ECM circuit (V). 3.4. SoC estimations

3.3. Parameterization at different state of health levels The SoC estimation techniques deployed for the calculation of the
SoC levels during the simulations are the Extended Coulomb Counting
In combination to the extended analysis performed to acquire the (ECC) and the extended Kalman filter (EKF). Based on our previous SoC

Fig. 7. Measured vs Simulated HPPC 1 It Pulse at 73.55% SoC through the RLS method (left) discharge pulse, (right) charge pulse.

138
A. Nikolian et al.
Fig. 8. (a) Raw Internal Resistance Ro extracted parameter from HPPC, (b) Smoothed Parameter, (c) Adapted Parameter.
estimation techniques only the Coulomb Counting (CC) was trans-
formed to the extended version of the module. The difference with the
previous work of the CC technique is that now the module has the
capability to be incorporated with all the capacity values at different
temperatures. Thus giving the possibility to extrapolate or interpolate
to the different capacity values at different temperatures at which the
simulation is performed. The equation of the ECC is note in Eq. (2). The
EKF technique was not updated with any new iteration as the results of
this technique have shown to provide accurate results at the state it is.
Additional information about the parameters and development of the
EKF technique can be found in Section B as supplementary material.
1 t
z (t ) = z (t0)−
3600C (T )
∫t
0
I (t )dt
(2)
where
z(t): The SoC at time t;
z(t0): Initial SoC (at time t = t0);
C(T): Estimated battery cell available capacity;
I(t): Battery current (A) assumed positive when discharging.
3.5. Simulation error reporting
Different techniques have been deployed to compare the end result
of the ECM model and compared, which load profile has been more
accurately simulated. The most straightforward technique employed is
the calculation of the instantaneous error which calculates the differ-
ence of the simulated and measured voltage outputs of the simulation.
The equation used to calculate the instantaneous error can be seen in
Eq. (3). While this method gives a good representation of the in-
stantaneous accuracy of the simulation it doesn’t provide the total ef-
ficiency of the model and the dynamic efficiency to simulate dynamic
behaviours observed during the DDP and WLTC load profiles. Thus the
RMSE of the total simulation and the MRMSE for a specific SoC window
were included in the analysis. Enabling us to compare in more details
the end results of the simulations. The RMSE and MRMSE equations can
be observed in Eqs. (4) and (5), respectively.
139
Electrical Power and Energy Systems 98 (2018) 133–146
Vmeasured−Vsimulated
Inst. err% = 100 ×
Vmeasured (3)
t
end
∑tstart (Vmeasured−Vsimulated )2
Total RMSE = 100 ×
ttotal (4)
(Vmeasured−Vsimulated )2
Moving RMSE = 100 ×
(t2−t1) (5)
3.6. Cell-level to pack-level
Taking a closer look at the different functionalities of a battery pack
and the use of a BMS, a short summery is included in the following
points
• Monitoring and Control – Battery Energy Balancing (SoC based) &
Temperature Control;
• Diagnosing and Assigning – State of Charge, State of Heath, State of
Function tracking;
• Communication – Receive and send instructions from the vehicle
peripherals and devices to the battery pack.
The BMS incorporated with a battery pack is in charge to keep the
pack and cells in Safe Operating Area (SOA) and Optimal Operating
Area (OOA) in terms of electrical but also thermal characteristics.
Moreover, it is in charge to follow the lifetime characteristics of the
cells for a proper use of the pack until the End of Life (EoL) of the cells.
The EoL of a battery pack in the current automotive industry is con-
sidered to be around 80% SoH. Finally, the pack has to have the cap-
ability to communicate to the vehicle all previous information while be
able to manage the multiple current rates instructions coming from the
vehicle. All this must be performed as accurately as possible in the
defined SoC working range of the battery pack. The key aspect of this is
to create a platform, which has low computational burden with the
highest accuracy possible. This will have as an effect to increase sim-
plicity of the incorporated models and BMS instructions with reduced
CPU power usage while striving to decrease the amount of data points
A. Nikolian et al.
stored in the on-board computer.
Based on the cells characteristics different topologies of energy-
power combinations battery packs can be created. This was has not
been performed in this study but a summary of three different scenarios
of different sizing and topologies of battery packs can be found in the
following points:
• Homogeneous cell-level characteristics – One type of lithium-ion
chemistry is used, having the same capacity and OCV characteristics
throughout all the cells included in the battery pack;
• Semi-Homogenous cell-level characteristics – Two different types of
lithium-ion chemistries are implemented probably in series thus
developing two branches for each chemistry which each one has its
own voltage limits (e.g. NMC in series with LTO having kept the
second branch of the topology to the LTO voltage limits);
• Inhomogeneous cell level characteristics – Multiple lithium-ion che-
mistries and topologies are used in combination to provide hybrid
topologies of high power and energy battery pack combinations.
The completed cell-level electrical ECM model completed in this
study with the three different lithium-ion chemistries parameters have
the ability to be combined with other type of models simulating the
thermal and ageing behaviour of the cells. For these reasons combined
with the extended range of temperatures and chemistry characteriza-
tion lookup tables, this developed electric ECM model is a suitable
model when considering pack-level topologies and sizing strategies of
battery packs.
4. Results & discussions
Following from the analysis performed in [32] on the effect of
ageing on the different ECM parameters implemented for the NMC
chemistry, the same type of analysis was conducted for the LFP
chemistry. The results from the NMC study can be found in [32]. In this
study each individual ECM parameter (Ro, Rpa, Rpc, τpa & τpc) was
considered and for each parameter the Begin of Life (BoL), the 95% SoH
and, 90% SoH were presented. As observed in [32] the different values
of the ECM parameters are getting increased as the State of Health of
the cell is reaching lower levels, combined this with the degradation of
the capacity value the rate of age of the cell can be identified.
Extending this initial ageing analysis to the LFP chemistry in Fig. 9
the total internal resistances for charge and discharge at the Begin of
Life, 98% and 95% SoH of the cell lifetime are provided. The values
presented in this figure are the total resistance of the cell including the
internal, polarization and activation resistances. The difference in the
SoH levels chosen for the LFP chemistry is due to missing ageing data of
this chemistry. The LFP cells didn’t have enough time to reduce their
capacity to a lower SoH level during the period of the experimental
phase. This type of analysis was not performed on the LTO chemistry, as
the cells under investigation didn’t have the time to reach any of the
Fig. 9. BoL, 98% and 95% SoH total internal resistance of the LFP chemistry.
140
Electrical Power and Energy Systems 98 (2018) 133–146
desired SoH levels. This reaffirms the robustness of the LTO in keeping
its total capacity to high values for longer period.
Having performed such analysis provides the possibility to get an
overview of the ageing effect on the parameter behaviour of each
chemistry included in the electrical ECM model. While this analysis
provides the basis in initializing the incorporation of an ageing model
with the developed electrical ECM model, it also contributes in having a
holistic overview of the parameter rate of change to respect to ageing.
Moreover these defined rates of changes due to ageing can be further
correlated with the rate of change observed in the parameters due to the
change of temperature to provide a complete view on the behaviour of
the parameters.
4.1. Models results for ECC and EKF at different capacities
In the following section all the simulation results performed in this
study are presented and discussed. In Table 3, all the capacity values
that were implemented inside the final ECM models are noted. The
difference between the It/2 and It/5 capacity values can be observed
followed by the value of the optimized capacity for each characteriza-
tion temperature. As expected the total capacity extracted at slow It-
rates is higher than higher It-rates and this is observed in all tempera-
tures and chemistries presented. At this stage it should be noted that the
optimized capacity value established through this study for the dif-
ferent simulations is based on the simulations performed for the DDP
(Dynamic Discharge Performance) validations tests. The DDP test is
performed from 100% to 0% SoC level of the cells while the WLTC test
is performed from 90% to 70% or 70% to 50% depending on the initial
SoC condition introduce in the model. The capacity required during the
DDP validation should be higher than the capacity used during the
WLTC validation. Combine with the fact that the DDP test is clearly a
more dynamic test than an advanced capacity test the total capacity
that the model expects to perform the simulation correctly should be
higher than the capacity values extracted from the capacity tests. In that
regard looking only at the capacity values, the optimized capacities
have a higher value than the two extracted advanced capacity values
extracted for It/5 and It/2. There are some exceptions with the −5 °C,
5 °C and 15 °C temperatures where the optimized capacity had to be
lower than the It/5 value to acquire an acceptable simulation result.
Taking a look at the different simulation results these low temperatures
were the most controversial, having difficulty in providing very accu-
rate results under the ECC SoC estimation technique. Ultimately a lower
capacity than the It/5 value was found to provide more accurate si-
mulation results at these temperatures. Some of the inaccuracies at
these temperatures were also translated in the simulations under the
EKF SoC estimation technique.
Before going into more detail in the simulation results (Tables 4–6)
an example of a notable simulation is presented in the Figs. 10 and 11.
In Fig. 10a–c. We observed the LFP cell at 35 °C under the ECC tech-
nique which has a total RMSE 1.545%. The total RMSE of the LFP
A. Nikolian et al. Electrical Power and Energy Systems 98 (2018) 133–146

Table 3
Discharge and charge capacity values for It/2, It/5 and It optimized for the NMC, LFP and LTO chemistry at different temperatures.

Temp. (°C) Current rate NMC LFP LTO

Charge (Ah) Discharge (Ah) Charge (Ah) Discharge (Ah) Charge (Ah) Discharge (Ah)

−5 °C It/2 13,569 13,589 12,855 12,875 4023 4043

It/5 15,275 15,295 13,034 13,054 4075 4095
It optimize 15,245 15,265 12,586 12,606 4244 4264

5 °C It/2 17,046 17,066 13,409 13,429 4301 4321

It/5 18,556 18,576 13,445 13,465 4579 4599
It optimize 17,856 17,876 13,168 13,188 5120 5140

15 °C It/2 19,199 19,219 13,537 13,557 4658 4678

It/5 20,653 20,673 13,576 13,596 5026 5046
It optimize 19,853 19,873 13,404 13,424 5144 5164

25 °C It/2 20,603 20,623 13,668 13,688 4992 5012

It/5 21,170 21,190 13,702 13,722 5306 5326
It optimize 21,320 21,340 13,723 13,743 5866 5886

35 °C It/2 21,374 21,394 13,737 13,757 5451 5471

It/5 21,511 21,531 13,759 13,779 5676 5696
It optimize 22,021 22,041 13,921 13,941 5902 5922

45 °C It/2 21,534 21,554 13,635 13,655 5642 5662

It/5 21,551 21,571 13,622 13,642 5774 5794
It optimize 22,051 22,071 13,866 13,886 5724 5744

model at 35 °C when developed with the advanced characterization
techniques rather than the EAC technique and without the parameter
smoothing and adaptation adjustment methods was in the range of
6.7%. This shows that the different optimization steps taken (EAC,
parameter smoothing, parameter adaptation) for the development of
more accurate simulation results decreases the simulation errors ob-
served. The same can be observed when comparing the MRMSE of the
simulation. In Fig. 10c the MRMSE for each 2% steps of the SoC is
presented. We observed a 2% to 0.5% MRMSE value between the 100%
and 90% SoC window, 0.5% to 1% value between 90% and 8% SoC
window and a value increasing to 6% between the 8% to the 0% SoC
level. The MRMSE of the LFP model at 35 °C without the EAC technique
and parameter smoothing and adaptation adjustment methods was in
the range of 2.7–0.6% for the 100–90% SoC window, 0.5–1% values
between the 90–8% and an increase to 14.5% between 8% and 0% SoC
level. The higher MRMSE at high and low SoC levels shows that by
implementing the EAC technique and the parameter smoothing and
adaptation adjustment methods a decrease in error can be observed at
the high and low SoC regions. In the contrary the errors during the mid
SoC regions have remained almost identical in both versions of the
model. The results observed in Fig. 10c shows that the model simulation
was accurate between the 100% to the 8% SoC window while it in-
creased its inaccuracies under the 8% SoC level. This behaviour can be
also observed with the instantaneous error, which is between +3% and
−6% to the very end (10–0% SoC) of the simulation. While at the same
time only an instantaneous error of ± 1% is observed between the 90%
to the 10% SoC level. This re-affirms that the simulations under ECC
SoC estimation technique will always result in higher errors at the
nonlinear behaviours of 100–90% and 10–0% SoC windows of lithium-
ion cells. This behaviour has been observed for all chemistries and si-
mulation temperatures investigated in this work. Not illustrated in the
figure it should be noted that total RMSE of the WLTC validation profile
at 35 °C of the LFP chemistry is of the level of 1.508% and was per-
formed under the It/2 capacity value and not the optimized capacity

Table 4
NMC chemistry simulation results for different temperatures, SoC estimation techniques and capacity values.

SoC estimation Extended coulomb counting Extended Kalman filter

Current rate It/5 It/2 It optimize It optimize It optimize

Validation profile DDP WLTC DDP WLTC DDP WLTC DDP WLTC

NMC −5 °C Total RMSE 5.410 4.5156 6.9612 4.2819 5.4093 4.51 1.2679 2.0957
Inst. Error % (Max/Min) 7/−5 2/−6 10/−5 2/−6 7/−5 2/−6 3/−3 2/−3
Inst. Error % (90–10% SoC) 3.5/−3.5 3.5/−3.5 3.5/−3.5 3/−3
5 °C Total RMSE 3.2117 3.4931 3.6757 3.1805 2.8452 3.3514 0.8905 0.2916
Inst. Error % (Max/Min) 2/−4 2/−4 8/−4 2/−4 3/−3 2/−4 1/−3.5 2/−2
Inst. Error % (90–10% SoC) 2/−3 2/−3 2/−3 1/-2
15 °C Total RMSE 2.6806 N/A 3.2504 N/A 1.7947 N/A 0.3529 N/A
Inst. Error % (Max/Min) 6/−7 6/−2 3/−4 1/−1
Inst. Error % (90–10% SoC) 1/−2 1/−2 1/−2 1/−1
25 °C Total RMSE 1.7482 2.0139 4.1162 1.9155 1.5986 2.0396 0.228 0.1361
Inst. Error % (Max/Min) 2.5/−1.5 0/−2 8/−1.5 0/−2 1.5/−2 0/−2 2/−1 0.5/−0.5
Inst. Error % (90–10% SoC) 1/−1.5 1/−1.5 1/−1.5 1/−1
35 °C Total RMSE 3.1848 1.9365 4.2311 1.9179 1.1568 2.007 0.1906 0.1106
Inst. Error % (Max/Min) 5/−1 0/−1 5/2 0/−1 1.5/−3 0/−1 2/−2 0.5/−0.5
Inst. Error % (90–10% SoC) 0.5/−1 0.5/−1 0.5/−1 1/−1
45 °C Total RMSE 3.097 N/A 3.1914 N/A 0.9806 N/A 0.3762 N/A
Inst. Error % (Max/Min) 6/4 7/4 0.5/−2 0.5/−0.5
Inst. Error % (90–10% SoC) 0.2/−1 0.2/−1 0.2/−1 0.5/−0.5

141
A. Nikolian et al. Electrical Power and Energy Systems 98 (2018) 133–146

Table 5
LFP chemistry simulation results for different temperatures, SoC estimation techniques and capacity values.

SoC estimation Extended coulomb counting Extended Kalman filter

Current rate It/5 It/2 It optimize It optimize It optimize

Validation profile DDP WLTC DDP WLTC DDP WLTC DDP WLTC

LFP −5 °C Total RMSE 8.396 4.8916 6.8912 4.8915 5.3407 4.8914 1.5115 1.2699
Inst. Error % (Max/Min) 5/−14 2/−6 5/−12 2/−6 5/7 2/−6 5/−2 3/−2
Inst. Error % (90–10% SoC) 4−/4 4/−4 4/−4 5/−2
5 °C Total RMSE 5.5392 2.1457 5.1615 2.1456 3.3752 2.1452 1.6857 0.7463
Inst. Error % (Max/Min) 2/−4 1/−3 2/−3 1/−3 2/−2 1/−3 5/−3 1/−1
Inst. Error % (90–10% SoC) 2/−2 2/−2 1.5/−1.5 3/−3
15 °C Total RMSE 5.2773 1.5603 4.6922 1.5602 3.2297 1.5598 2.8332 1.1396
Inst. Error % (Max/Min) 1/−3 1/−2 1/−3 1/−2 1/−1 1/−2 3/−3 4/−0.5
Inst. Error % (90–10% SoC) 1/−1 1/−1 1/−1 1/−1
25 °C Total RMSE 1.8428 1.0623 2.4175 1.0627 1.7118 1.062 0.8355 0.2539
Inst. Error % (Max/Min) 4/−5 1/−1 5/−1 1/−1 3/−3 1/−1 4/−5 0.5/−0.5
Inst. Error % (90–10% SoC) 1/−1 1/−1 0.2/−1 1/−1
35 °C Total RMSE 4.242 1.5081 4.6309 1.508 1.5457 1.5093 1.1933 0.4538
Inst. Error % (Max/Min) 14/−1 2/−2 14/−1 2/−2 3/−6 2/−2 4/−4 1.2/−0.5
Inst. Error % (90–10% SoC) 1/−1 1/−1 1/−1 0.5/−1
45 °C Total RMSE 5.1809 N/A 4.9654 N/A 1.5878 N/A 1.1934 N/A
Inst. Error % (Max/Min) 13/−16 13/−16 3/−3 2/−3
Inst. Error % (90–10% SoC) 1/−1 1/−1 1/−1 0.5/−1

develop for the DDP validation test.
Following the simulation activity for the 35 °C LFP chemistry in
Fig. 11a–d the simulation results under the EKF SoC estimation tech-
nique for the DDP and the WLTC validations profiles are presented. The
total RMSE of the DDP test is at 1.193% and for the WLTC test is at
0.453%. It can be clearly noticed that the total RMSE of these simula-
tions are lower than total RMSE of the ECC SoC estimation technique,
showing that these models have better simulated the dynamic and
linear parts of the validations profiles. Taking a closer look to the DDP
test, we observe errors at the non-linear regions of the SoC window but
the levels reached are much lower than what was observed with the
ECC SoC estimation technique. The max instantaneous errors reached
are of the levels of ± 4% with an error of +0.5/−1% between the 90%
and 10% SoC window of the simulation.
The WLTC simulation provided an instantaneous error of +1.2/
−0.5% throughout the SoC window. While the errors under the EKF
was much lower than the ECC for the WLTC validation profile, the error
in both SoC techniques was much lower than the errors observed for the
DDP validation profile. An explanation to this is that the SoC window of
the WLTC simulation started at 70% and finished around the 50% of the
cell SoC. This SoC region is part of the 90–10% SoC regions which is
identified as the region where lithium-ion cells behaves linearly. As the
ECM models have better efficiency in simulating linear behaviours the
error observed during these validation profile at these SoC levels
showed greater accuracy even with a very dynamic profile like the
WLTC. This effect can be observed with all the three capacity values,
which the simulations are performed having insignificant difference in
their total RMSE values.
Included in Tables 4–6 the total RMSE and general observations of
the instantaneous error during each of the simulations performed in this
study is presented. In each table dedicated for each chemistry the re-
sults is shown for the different temperatures and the technique im-
plemented for the calculation of the SoC. For each section the results
under the different capacity values implemented during each simula-
tion is included.
It is apparent that when observing the overall simulation results, a

Table 6
LTO chemistry simulation results for different temperatures, SoC estimation techniques and capacity values.

SoC estimation Extended coulomb counting Extended Kalman filter

Current rate It/5 It/2 It optimize It optimize It optimize

Validation profile DDP WLTC DDP WLTC DDP WLTC DDP WLTC

LTO −5 °C Total RMSE 2.2462 1.1107 2.6557 1.0998 1.6968 1.1468 0.2689 0.1164
Inst. Error % (Max/Min) 8/−4 0.5/−2 8/−4 0.5/−2 3/−10 0.5/−2 1.5/−1 0.5/−0.5
Inst. Error % (90–10% SoC) 1/−1 1/−1 1/−1.5 1.5/−1
5 °C Total RMSE 5.0685 0.8985 8.8233 0.8499 1.9425 1.0085 0.6428 0.0776
Inst. Error % (Max/Min) 16/−6 0.5/−1.5 21/−6 0.5/−1.5 6/−6 0.5/−1.5 0.5/−2 0.5/−0.5
Inst. Error % (90–10% SoC) 16/−3 21/−3 6/−3 0.5/−2
15 °C Total RMSE 2.0026 0.9487 4.2955 0.8764 1.7631 0.981 1.2672 0.00777
Inst. Error % (Max/Min) 5/−13 1/−1 15/−15 1/−1 3/−15 1/−1 6/−7 0.5/−0.5
Inst. Error % (90–10% SoC) 4/−1 14/−1 2/−1 0.5/−0.5
25 °C Total RMSE 4.2963 0.9434 9.3166 0.903 1.5143 1.0378 0.3799 0.132
Inst. Error % (Max/Min) 18/−4 0/−2 2/−4 0/−2 4/−4 0/−2 2/−5 0.8/−0.8
Inst. Error % (90–10% SoC) 2/−2 2/−2 1/−1 1/−1
35 °C Total RMSE 2.5409 1.2067 6.1917 1.1668 2.0573 1.2479 0.8361 0.1318
Inst. Error % (Max/Min) 6/−11 0/−1.5 25/−6 0/−1.5 4/−13 0/−1.5 1.5/−4 1/−1
Inst. Error % (90–10% SoC) 6/−1 8/−1 3/−1 1/−4
45 °C Total RMSE 1.2817 N/A 1.5279 N/A 1.1265 N/A 0.3119 N/A
Inst. Error % (Max/Min) 3/−10 5/−7 3/−8 1/−2
Inst. Error % (90–10% SoC) 2./−0.5 2/−0.5 2/−0.5 1/−1

142
A. Nikolian et al.
clear pattern is noticeable at higher simulation temperature the accu-
racy of the model is also increased. This observation was also noted in
previous research work where only the NMC chemistry was under in-
vestigation and none of the EAC and parameter adjustment methods
were developed. In all three chemistries the simulations performed at
low temperatures of −5 °C, 5 °C and 15 °C had higher difficulty to
provide accurate results under the DDP validation profile. The reason
for this, is related with the fact that the voltage behaviour of the cells at
these temperatures are affected by the lower capacity value provided by
the cell, higher non-linear effects during the high and low SoC levels
combined with slow dynamics of the electrical and chemical internal
phenomena inside the cell. Based on these observations we can con-
clude that the simulations at these low temperatures have to be opti-
mized further to have very accurate results. To tackle some of these
issues the optimized capacity value was implemented which increased
Fig. 11. WLTC and DDP test simulation with a 2nd Order Thévenin Model for the LFP chemistry at 35 °C under the EKF SoC technique, (a) DDP Measure vs Simulated Voltage, (b) DDP
Instantaneous Error, (c) WLTC Measured vs Simulated Voltage, (d) WLTC Instantaneous Error.
143
Electrical Power and Energy Systems 98 (2018) 133–146
Fig. 10. DDP test simulation with a 2nd
Order Thévenin Model for the LFP chemistry
at 35 °C under the ECC SoC technique. (a)
Measure vs Simulated Voltage, (b)
Simulation Instantaneous (Errorc) MRMSE.
the accuracy of these low temperatures models.
Out of the three chemistries, the LFP model was the one that dis-
played the highest difficulty in providing accurate results with its most
accurate model being at the 35 °C described previously. While the NMC
and LTO models exhibited greater accuracies throughout the SoC
window and temperature ranges. Different reasons can be identified for
this behaviour. As mentioned in the section Materials and Experimental
Setup the difference in OCV behaviour provides dynamic difficulties to
the SoC estimation modules of the ECM model. The very flat behaviour
of the OCV of the LFP chemistry between the 90% and 10% SoC
window while the high dynamic changes in OCV values during the
100–90% and 10–0% SoC window makes it more difficult to model this
chemistry accurately. In contrast with the NMC chemistry, where the
changes during the non-linear SOC windows is less pronounced than
the LFP chemistry provided results that are better in terms of total
A. Nikolian et al.
RMSE and instantaneous error. Additionally while the LTO chemistry
also has high changes in the non-linear parts of the SoC windows the
changes are less pronounced than the LFP chemistry providing more
accurate results.
Taking a closer look at the ECC simulations, during the nonlinear
high and low SoC regions of 100–90% and 10–0% we observed the
higher inaccuracies. Implementing the different optimization modules
(EAC, parameter smoothing, parameter adaptation) combined with the
different optimized capacity values the errors at these regions could be
minimized to a lower level. While the 100–90% region was easily fixed
the 10–0% region was more challenging. Inspecting more closely this
region it was identified that the errors are increased from the moment
that the simulation enters in these low SoC regions and reaching even
greater errors after the 3% SoC level. The difference between the errors
of the 10–3% SoC window with respect to the 3–0% SoC window is so
high that ultimately when implementing these models for the simula-
tion of individual cells inside a battery pack these very low SoC regions
could be omitted and not be taken into consideration by the BMS.
Examining the results of the ECC WLTC validation profile a com-
pletely different behaviour can be identified. As for the DDP test we
have seen an increase in accuracy in terms of total RMSE and in-
stantaneous error as the temperature is increased, we can observe that
all three capacity values implemented provides an accurate result under
the WLTC profile. There exist differences in accuracies between the
capacities but those are less pronounced than the differences we see
under the DDP profile. As explained previously the WLTC profile is
performed during 90–70% or 70–50% SoC window depending of the
initial SoC condition of the simulation. These regions are part of the
linear regime of the cells which are easily modelled with the simulation
platform develop in this study providing high accuracies under the
WLTC profile. Taking into consideration this and the problems en-
countered at low SoC regions during the DDP profile it can be con-
cluded that the Extended Coulomb Counting SoC technique combined
with a 2nd Order Thévenin ECM model can simulates accurately the
SoC regions 100–10% with an instantaneous error between 0% and 5%
value, under the EAC test techniques and the parameter adjustment
methods. While increased inaccuracies at the low region of 10–0% are
emerging even after the different optimization steps.
These issues can be tackled with the implementation of the
Extended Kalman Filter SoC estimation technique which inherently
capable of simulating the SoC behaviour of the cells more accurately. It
is apparent that when implementing the EKF method the error of the
simulation in terms of total RMSE are immediately decreased. This
decrease in total RMSE can also be observed in terms of instantaneous
errors but the differences are less pronounced than the total RMSE.
Moreover, as the temperature increases the difference in instantaneous
error between the ECC and EKF is also minimized while keeping the low
value of total RMSE. It can be concluded that the EKF method is well
suited to provide further assistance in simulating correctly the dynamic
changes of the validations profiles rather than the linear parts of the
profile, which is easily dealt by its calculations. As observed in Fig. 11
for the LFP 35 °C EKF model while the inaccuracies at very low SoC
regions of 10–0% are decreased some errors still remains. This was
observed in all chemistries and temperatures. Different methods have
been identified to deal in the future with this region which encompasses
the development of electrical nonlinear state space models which have
shown their strength in dealing with the non-linear behaviour of the
cells at these regions [58].
Following all these observations and having performed the full ex-
tent of the intended simulations some specific conclusions on simu-
lating a lithium-ion cell level batteries can be drawn. Having performed
a complete review of the ECM parameters through the parameter de-
velopment & optimization module combined with the analysis per-
formed on finding the optimum capacity values, an overview of which
ECM parameter affects predominately the accuracy of the models
emerged. Out of this analysis it was concluded that mainly 3 ECM
144
Electrical Power and Energy Systems 98 (2018) 133–146
parameters, 1 initial condition and 2 state observers are affecting di-
rectly the accuracy of the model. These variables have a greater effect
when trying to model the whole SoC window rather when trying to
model just a part of the SoC window and are listed below:
– Initial SoC value (Initial Condition): Especially for the ECC the initial
SoC value is very important if the simulation has to be performed
correctly. In contrast with the EKF where this variable doesn’t really
has a significant effect as the EKF will have the capability to bring
the simulation to the correct SoC level based on its Kalman Gain;
– Capacity value (ECM Parameter): As for the “Initial SoC value” the
capacity value introduce inside the model under the ECC technique
plays a major role in having an accurate result;
– Internal Resistance value (ECM Parameter): Having introduced all
parameters inside the parameter adjustment methods the Internal
Resistance was the parameter that needed to be adjust the most.
With the adaptation of this parameter the accuracy of the simula-
tions showed immediate improvement. This was observe for all
three chemistries and at all temperatures;
– OCV (ECM parameter): The relation of the OCV to respect to the SoC
of the cell showed to affect scientifically the accuracy of each model.
The ECM OCV calculations should follow the different OCV beha-
viours observed for each chemistry. Proper characterization of the
OCV behaviour, combined with a proper input of the initial SoC
value should provide simulation results with acceptable accuracies;
– Validation Timeframe and Lifetime point (State observers): The total
simulation time and at which SoH the validation profile was ex-
tracted affects greatly the accuracy of the simulations performed. If
the validation profile was extracted in a different SoH than the ECM
parameters the simulation results will not be accurate. Additionally
it was found that the total time that simulation is to set to be per-
formed would increase or decrease the inaccuracies. Thus a set total
time frame should be introduce for each simulation for comparison
reasons.
The extended range of validated conditions, the different lithium-
ion battery chemistries investigated combined with the possibility to
merge the Electric ECM model with a Thermal and Ageing model makes
this model an excellent candidate to implement it when going from cell
level to pack-level topologies. In combination with the two SoC esti-
mation techniques the Extended Coulomb Counting and the extended
Kalman filter and with the validated profiles for all three chemistries
the electrical ECM model provides a platform in which different com-
binations can be implemented by the user. Different topologies can be
envisaged where energy or power cells are attached in series, parallel or
combinations of energy to power cells merge together. This type of
research will be performed in a later stage but the study performed in
this research will be use directly in creating such simulative battery
packs.
5. Conclusion
During the creation of this lithium-ion electrical ECM for the dif-
ferent chemistries and operating conditions, multiple challenges were
encountered during each step of it’s development. Based on already
established modelling workflows, the new method was extended at
almost each step. Significant differences emerge when attempted to
simulate the whole SoC region from 100% to 0% rather than a part of it.
The non-linear electrical behaviour of the cell at the high (100–90%)
and low (10–0%) SoC regions really increases the challenge of simu-
lating the cells correctly. For this reason, a new EAC technique, para-
meter techniques (smoothing and adaptation adjustment methods) for
the electrical ECM parameters, different SoC estimation techniques
(Extended Coulomb Counting & Extended Kalman Filter) and a com-
plete overview of the dynamic and instantaneous response of the si-
mulation results is presented. With these new methods established, the
A. Nikolian et al.
different models for the NMC, LFP and LTO chemistry from −5 °C to
45 °C were develop and validated under the DDP and WLTC profile
which exhibited an increase in the simulation accuracy to respect to
previous modelling workflows. It was found that the new developed
modelling workflow which included the EAC technique, parameter
smoothing and adaptation adjustment methods presented mainly an
increase in accuracy at the high (100–90%) and low (10–0%) SoC re-
gions of the simulations. While the accuracy at the mid SoC regions
remain almost identical to respect to previous modelling workflows.
This aspect was possible to be investigated based on the DDP and WLTC
validation profiles. The main difference between the DDP and WLTC
test is that the DDP test is performed from the 100% to the 0% SoC level
while the WLTC was only implemented for certain window of the SoC of
the cell. This aspect contributes in understanding better how the cell
simulate a validation profile from the 100% to the 0% SoC level while
simulate a highly dynamic profile only for a certain SoC window.
The main variables that affected significantly the accuracy of each
simulation, in all three chemistries under investigation, was the initial
SoC, the capacity, the internal resistance and the SoH the validation
profile was extracted in combination with the total timeframe the si-
mulation was performed. In that regard a large difference in accuracy
was observed when changing from the ECC to the EKF SoC estimation
technique. With the EKF technique highly accurate simulations were
performed in which the initial SoC value and the capacity value in-
cluded in the model didn’t make great difference in the end results of
the simulation. While running the simulations with ECC the capacity
value and the initial SoC value included during the simulation have
shown to affect significantly the model accuracy in terms of dynamic
response and instantaneous differences. When simulating a smaller
window of the cell SoC, which are not part of the non-linear behaviours
of the cell, the 2nd Order Thévenin model can easily simulate dynamic
profiles even with the ECC SoC technique.
The LFP chemistry showed the greatest difficulty in provided ac-
curate results even after all the optimization procedures. The LTO
chemistry simulation results exhibited a higher accuracy than the LFP
but the chemistry that provides the most accurate results in terms of
dynamic response and intravenous difference was the NMC chemistry.
In which the results were optimum under the optimized capacity in
both SoC techniques. All the models were validated for each tempera-
ture and a general pattern emerged in which as the simulation tem-
perature was increase the dynamic response was more accurately
modelled and the instantaneous errors were decreased. This was iden-
tified with the DDP, WLTC validation profiles and ECC and EKF SoC
estimation techniques.
Due to the different energy and power characteristics of the dif-
ferent lithium-ion cells validated and incorporated in the electrical ECM
model combined with the optimized capacity values and the different
SoC estimations techniques, this cell-level electrical model can be in-
troduce to simulate a pack level topology in which different chemistries
and combinations could be considered.
Acknowledgments
This research work was possible thanks to the funding received from
the Flemish Agency for Innovation and Entrepreneurship trough the
SBO BATTLE project (IWT130019) and the strategic research center
Flanders Make.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the
online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2017.11.031.
145
Electrical Power and Energy Systems 98 (2018) 133–146
References
[1] Awan AB, Khan ZA. Recent progress in renewable energy – remedy of energy crisis
in Pakistan. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;33:236–53.
[2] Ortar N. Dealing with energy crises: working and living arrangements in peri-urban
France. Transp Policy 2016.
[3] Dagoumas A, Kitsios F. Assessing the impact of the economic crisis on energy
poverty in Greece. Sustai. Cities Soc 2014;13:267–78.
[4] Abdel-Latif H, Ouattara B, Murphy P. Catching the mirage: the shadow impact of
financial crises. Q Rev Econ Financ 2017.
[5] Roinioti A, Koroneos C. The decomposition of CO2 emissions from energy use in
Greece before and during the economic crisis and their decoupling from economic
growth. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;76:448–59.
[6] Nanaki EA, et al. Environmental assessment of 9 European public bus transportation
systems. Sustain Cities Soc 2017;28:42–52.
[7] Katsumata K, Fukasawa M. Changes in meridional fluxes and water properties in the
Southern Hemisphere subtropical oceans between 1992/1995 and 2003/2004. Prog
Oceanogr 2011;89(1–4):61–91.
[8] Chellaswamy C, Ramesh R. Future renewable energy option for recharging full
electric vehicles. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;76:824–38.
[9] Daina N, Sivakumar A, Polak JW. Modelling electric vehicles use: a survey on the
methods. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;68:447–60.
[10] Passerini S, Coustier F, Owens BB. Lithium-ion batteries for hearing aid applica-
tions. II. Pulse discharge and safety tests. J Power Sources 2000;90(2):144–52.
[11] He H, Xiong R, Guo H, Li S. Comparison study on the battery models used for the
energy management of batteries in electric vehicles. Energy Convers Manage
2012;64:113–21.
[12] Han X, Ouyang M, Lu L, Li J, Zheng Y, Li Z. A comparative study of commercial
lithium ion battery cycle life in electrical vehicle: aging mechanism identification. J
Power Sources 2014;251:38–54.
[13] Ramadesigan V, Northrop PWC, De S, Santhanagopalan S, Braatz RD, Subramanian
VR. Modeling and simulation of lithium-ion batteries from a systems engineering
perspective. J Electrochem Soc 2012;159(3):R31–45.
[14] Hegazy O, Affiliations C. Series hybrid electric vehicles. Encyclopedia of automotive
engineering. John Wiley; 2011.
[15] Omar N, et al. Standardization work for BEV and HEV applications: critical ap-
praisal of recent traction battery documents. Energies 2012;5(12):138–56.
[16] Pistoia G, Broussely M. CHAPTER THIRTEEN – battery requirements for HEVs,
PHEVs, and EVs: an overview. In: Electric and hybrid vehicles; 2010. p. 305–45.
[17] Arslan O, Yıldız B, Ekin Karaşan O. Impacts of battery characteristics, driver pre-
ferences and road network features on travel costs of a plug-in hybrid electric ve-
hicle (PHEV) for long-distance trips. Energy Policy 2014;74:168–78.
[18] Du J, Yang F, Cai Y, Du L, Ouyang M. Testing and analysis of the control strategy of
Honda accord plug-in HEV. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2016;49(11):153–9.
[19] Bjerkan KY, Nørbech TE, Nordtømme ME. Incentives for promoting Battery Electric
Vehicle (BEV) adoption in Norway. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ
2016;43:169–80.
[20] She Z-Y, Sun Qing, Ma J-J, Xie B-C. What are the barriers to widespread adoption of
battery electric vehicles? A survey of public perception in Tianjin, China”. Transp
Policy 2017;56:29–40.
[21] Pelletier S, Jabali O, Laporte G, Veneroni M. Battery degradation and behaviour for
electric vehicles: review and numerical analyses of several models. Transp Res Part
B Methodol 2017.
[22] Omar N, et al. Rechargeable energy storage systems for plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles—assessment of electrical characteristics. Energies 2012;5(12):2952–88.
[23] Omar N, et al. Assessment of Rechargeable energy storage systems for plug-in hy-
brid electric vehicles. Vrije Universiteit Brussel 2012.
[24] Gabrielli G, Marinaro M, Mancini M, Axmann P, Wohlfahrt-Mehrens M. A new
approach for compensating the irreversible capacity loss of high-energy Si/C|LiNi
0.5 Mn 1.5 O 4 lithium-ion batteries. J Power Sources 2017;351:35–44.
[25] Sakti A, et al. Enhance d representations of lithium-ion batteries in power systems
models and their effect on the valuation of energy arbitrage applications. J Power
Sources 2016;342:1–22.
[26] Zhang T, Cheng XB, Zhang Q, Lu Y, Luo G. Construction of a cathode using
amorphous FePO4 nanoparticles for a high-power/energy-density lithium-ion bat-
tery with long-term stability. J Power Sources 2016;324:52–60.
[27] Ke X, et al. Improvement in capacity retention of cathode material for high power
density lithium ion batteries: the route of surface coating. Appl Energy
2016;194:540–8.
[28] Uddin K, Picarelli A, Lyness C, Taylor N, Marco J. An acausal Li-ion battery pack
model for automotive applications. Energies 2014;7(9):5675–700.
[29] Ahmad MK, Pesaran A, Kim Gi-Heon. Integration issues of cells into battery packs
for plug-in and hybrid electric vehicles. Int. Electr. Veh. Symp. 2009.
[30] Plett GL. Extended Kalman filtering for battery management systems of LiPB-based
HEV battery packs. J Power Sources 2004;134(2):252–61.
[31] Waag W, Fleischer C, Sauer DU. Critical review of the methods for monitoring of
lithium-ion batteries in electric and hybrid vehicles. J Power Sources
2014;258:321–39.
[32] Nikolian A, et al. Lithium ion batteries—development of advanced electrical
equivalent circuit models for nickel manganese cobalt lithium-ion. Energies
2016;9(5):360.
[33] Nikolian A, De Hoog J, Fleurbay K, Timmermans J, Van De Bossche P, Van Mierlo J.
Classification of electric modelling and characterization methods of lithium-ion
batteries for vehicle applications. Eur Electr Veh Congr 2014:1–15.
[34] Huria T, Ceraolo M, Gazzarri J, Jackey R. Simplified extended kalman filter
A. Nikolian et al.
observer for SOC estimation of commercial power-oriented LFP lithium battery
cells; 2013.
[35] Xia B, Wang H, Wang M, Sun W, Xu Z, Lai Y. A new method for state of charge
estimation of lithium-ion battery based on strong tracking cubature kalman filter;
2015. p. 13458–72.
[36] Ouyang M, Liu G, Lu L, Li J, Han X. Enhancing the estimation accuracy in low state-
of-charge area: a novel onboard battery model through surface state of charge de-
termination. J Power Sources 2014;270:221–37.
[37] Knap V, Stroe DI, Teodorescu R, Swierczynski M, Stanciu T. Comparison of para-
metrization techniques for an electrical circuit model of Lithium-Sulfur batteries. In:
Proceeding – 2015 IEEE Int. Conf. Ind. Informatics, INDIN 2015; 2015. p. 1278–83.
[38] Omar N, et al. Lithium iron phosphate based battery – assessment of the aging
parameters and development of cycle life model. Appl Energy 2014;113:1575–85.
[39] Vetter J, et al. Ageing mechanisms in lithium-ion batteries. J Power Sources
2005;147(1–2):269–81.
[40] Rehman MMU, Zhang F, Evzelman M, Zane R, Smith K, Maksimovic D. Advanced
cell-level control for extending electric vehicle battery pack lifetime; 2016.
[41] Stiaszny B, Ziegler JC, Krauß EE, Zhang M, Schmidt JP, Ivers-Tiffée E.
Electrochemical characterization and post-mortem analysis of aged LiMn2O4–NMC/
graphite lithium ion batteries part II: calendar aging. J Power Sources
2014;258:61–75.
[42] Omar N, Van Den Bossche P. Assessment of performance of lithium iron phosphate
oxide, nickel manganese cobalt oxide and nickel cobalt aluminum oxide based cells
for using in plug-in battery electric vehicle applications; 2011.
[43] Schmalstieg J, Käbitz S, Ecker M, Sauer DU. A holistic aging model for Li(NiMnCo)
O2 based 18650 lithium-ion batteries. J Power Sources 2014;257:325–34.
[44] Grolleau S, et al. Calendar aging of commercial graphite/LiFePO4 cell – predicting
capacity fade under time dependent storage conditions. J Power Sources
2014;255:450–8.
[45] Omar N, Daowd M. Assessment of second life of lithium iron phosphate based
batteries. Int Rev Electr Eng 2012;7.
146
Electrical Power and Energy Systems 98 (2018) 133–146
[46] Blanco C, Sanchez L, Gonzalez M, Anton JC, Garcia V, Viera JC. An equivalent
circuit model with variable effective capacity for LiFePO4 batteries. IEEE Trans Veh
Technol 2014;63(8):3592–9.
[47] Dinger A. Batteries for electric cars. Bost Consult Gr 2010.
[48] Jaguemont J, Nikolian A, Omar N, Van Den Bossche P, Van Mierlo J. Development
of a 2D-thermal model of three battery chemistries considering entropy; 2017.
p. 1–9.
[49] Van den Bossche P, Vergels F, Van Mierlo J, Matheys J, Van Autenboer W. SUBAT:
an assessment of sustainable battery technology. J Power Sources
2006;162(2):913–9.
[50] International AB. Comparison common-lithium-technologies. p. 1–6.
[51] Nitta N, Wu F, Lee JT, Yushin G. Li-ion battery materials: present and future. Mater
Today 2015;18(5):252–64.
[52] Rahmoun A, Biechl H, Rosin A. Evaluation of equivalent circuit diagrams and
transfer functions for modeling of lithium-ion batteries. Electr Control Commun Eng
2013;2(1).
[53] Pattipati B, Balasingam B, Avvari GV, Pattipati KR, Bar-Shalom Y. Open circuit
voltage characterization of lithium-ion batteries. J Power Sources
2014;269:317–33.
[54] Shafiei A, Member S, Momeni A, Williamson SS. Battery modeling approaches and
management techniques for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles; 2011.
[55] W. University of W. Scott, Impact of High Fidelity Battery Models for Vehicle
Applications; 2015.
[56] Wehbe J, Karami N. Battery equivalent circuits and brief summary of components
value determination of lithium ion a review. Third Int Conf Technol Adv Electr
Electron Comput Eng 2015:45–9.
[57] de Hoog J, et al. Combined cycling and calendar capacity fade modeling of a nickel-
manganese-cobalt oxide cell with real-life profile validation. Appl Energy
2017;200:47–61.
[58] Relan R, Tiels K, Schoukens J. Dealing with transients due to multiple experiments
in nonlinear system identification. IFAC-Papers OnLine 2016;49(13):181–6.