energies
Review
A Review on Battery Model-Based and Data-Driven Methods
for Battery Management Systems
Valentina Lucaferri 1,† , Michele Quercio 1,† , Antonino Laudani 2,†
Citation: Lucaferri, V.; Quercio, M.;
Laudani, A.; Riganti Fulginei, F. A
Review on Battery Model-Based and
Data-Driven Methods for Battery
Management Systems. Energies 2023,
16, 7807. https://doi.org/10.3390/
en16237807
Academic Editor: Donghwa Shin
Received: 17 October 2023
Revised: 19 November 2023
Accepted: 23 November 2023
Published: 27 November 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Energies 2023, 16, 7807. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16237807
and Francesco Riganti Fulginei 1, *,†
1 Department of Industrial Engineering, Electronics and Mechanics, Roma Tre University, Via Vito Volterra 62,
00146 Rome, Italy; valentina.lucaferri@uniroma3.it (V.L.); michele.quercio@uniroma3.it (M.Q.)
2 Department of Electrical, Electronic and Computer Engineering (DIEEI), University of Catania, Viale Andrea
Doria 6, 95125 Catania, Italy; alaudani@unict.it
* Correspondence: francesco.rigantifulginei@uniroma3.it
† These authors contributed equally to this work.
Abstract: Battery state estimation is fundamental to battery management systems (BMSs). An
accurate model is needed to describe the dynamic behavior of the battery to evaluate the fundamental
quantities, such as the state of charge (SOC) or the state of health (SOH). This paper presents an
overview of the most commonly used battery models, the equivalent electrical circuits, and data-
driven ones, discussing the importance of battery modeling and the various approaches used to
model lithium batteries. In particular, it provides a detailed analysis of the electrical circuit models
commonly used for lithium batteries, including equivalent circuit and thermal models. Furthermore,
a comprehensive overview of data-driven approaches is presented. The advantages and limitations of
each type of model are discussed. Finally, the paper concludes with a discussion of current research
trends and future directions in the field of battery modeling.
Keywords: equivalent circuit battery models; battery management systems; Li-ion battery
1. Introduction
Lithium batteries are the most promising technology for electric vehicles (EVs) and
energy storage systems (ESSs). The main goals for each battery-powered system are to
extend the battery’s lifetime and improve its reliability. The battery management system
(BMS) represents a pivotal component in the real-time monitoring of battery conditions.
Since it is impossible to have a direct measurement, the battery information, such as the
remaining charge, needs to be estimated using model-based estimation algorithms. The
battery models presented in the literature mainly fall into the following two main cate-
gories: the model-based, such as electrical equivalent circuit, and the data-driven methods,
such as neural network and support vector machine. The model-based methods, such as
equivalent electrical circuits (ECMs), are the most widely used to study the dynamics of
the battery [1–7]. The ECMs involve representing the complex electrochemical processes
occurring within a battery as a simplified circuit with various components. Engineers
and researchers can analyze and simulate the battery’s performance under different condi-
tions [8–11]. The equivalent circuit model typically consists of idealized components such
as resistors, capacitors, and voltage sources, representing the various physical phenomena
occurring within the battery [12–16]. These components are interconnected to mimic the
battery’s internal resistance, capacitance, and voltage dynamics. Using this modeling
technique makes it possible to study the battery’s response to different loads, charging
and discharging rates, temperature variations, and other factors [17,18]. It enables the
estimation of essential battery parameters like state of charge (SoC), state of health (SoH),
internal resistance, and capacity [19–23]. Battery modeling through equivalent electrical
circuits is crucial in various applications, including electric vehicles, renewable energy
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
Energies 2023, 16, 7807 2 of 19

systems, portable electronics, and grid energy storage [24–29]. It helps optimize battery
designs, develop battery management systems, and predict battery performance over time.
However, it is essential to note that the model’s accuracy depends on the chosen circuit
topology and the availability of accurate battery characterization data. Actual batteries
are complex systems with non-linear behavior, and creating an accurate equivalent circuit
model requires careful consideration of various factors.
For this reason, data-driven methods have become increasingly popular in battery
modeling thanks to their ability to describe complex non-linear phenomena. These models
use machine learning techniques to learn the relationship between input variables (such
as state of charge, temperature, and current) and output variables (such as voltage and
capacity) from a large dataset of battery measurements.
This overview aims to present a detailed analysis of the most used models in the
literature. The paper is mainly organized as follows: Section 2 describes the most commonly
used ECMs, from the simplest to the most complex. Kinetic and thermal models are
presented in Section 3. Section 4 illustrates the data-driven approaches. Finally, results and
conclusions are drawn.

2. Equivalent Electrical Circuit Models

To adequately simulate the battery storage of a complex system such as the one
in Figure 1, ensuring a certain degree of accuracy at the minimum error and minimum
computational cost, it is possible to refer to electrochemical, electrical, or “data-driven”
models. The electrochemical ones require a considerable processing time to compute the
information associated with chemical reactions at the microscopic level [30,31]. On the
other hand, the analytical–mathematical models exploit empirical equations to exclusively
and rapidly estimate characteristics of efficiency and residual charge without, however,
allowing the evaluation of the internal parameters and the relationship between voltage and
current at the terminals. Therefore, electrical models are the most versatile for analyzing a
battery’s static and dynamic behavior, expressed through voltage or current generators,
resistors, and capacitors [32]. It should be noted that a model often used in BESS to relate
the battery power to the state of charge [33] is the so-called generic model, which expresses
the SOC as a function of the energy stored in the battery relative to its maximum capacity.
An increasing or decreasing trend occurs depending on whether the battery itself is in
charge or discharge as follows:

PBESS (t) · ηC · ∆t
SOC (t + ∆t) = SOC (t) + (Charge) (1)
ECBESS

PBESS (t) · ∆t
SOC (t + ∆t) = SOC (t) + ( Discharge) (2)
ECBESS · ηD
where the power PBESS in Equation (1) indicates the charge power (>0), while in Equa-
tion (2) that of discharge (<0). (ηC ) Moreover, (ηD ) indicate the charging and discharging
efficiencies, respectively, and depend on the particular technology [34,35] and the energy
capacity of the system (ECBESS ). This model allows evaluating the relation PBESS = f (SOC )
without specifying in which operating context (voltage, current) this occurs. Therefore, it is
clear that an assessment of the dynamic behavior of the battery as a function of the SOC
is important to understand its operation better. In mathematical terms, this is equivalent
to saying that the voltage at the terminals can be expressed as a function ( f ) of the SOC,
current, and temperature Equation (3):

V = f (SOC, I, T ) (3)

In which the function f regulates the dynamics of the battery, meaning the latter is at a
macroscopic level (battery pack).
Energies 2023, 16, 7807 3 of 19

Figure 1. BESS block scheme.

2.1. Simple Battery Model

The most straightforward version present in the literature is the simple battery
model [36,37], which allows a quantitative study of battery behavior without excessively
investigating the internal electrochemical processes. The following electrical circuit model
(ECM) consists of an ideal voltage generator, the OCV, and an (internal) series resistance,
such as Rint , both generally dependent quantities from the SOC and temperature.
The equation describing the circuit in Figure 2 is:

Vbatt = f (SOC, i, T ) = OCV (SOC, T ) − Rint · i (4)

Figure 2. Simple battery model.

The open-circuit voltage represents the voltage OCV at the terminals under no-load
(equilibrium) conditions. It has a non-linear relationship with the SOC, while Rint con-
tributes to evaluating the instantaneous response of the battery and limits the internal
current flow. As described in [38,39], it is influenced by two main terms: the electronic
resistance, depending on the resistivity of the materials, and the ionic resistance, which
relates the current flow to the electrochemical internal processes (ion mobility, conductivity
of the electrolyte and effective surface area of the electrodes). Also, this internal resistance
allows investigating the degradation mechanism, as it tends to increase with it, being
related to the SOH.

2.2. Equivalent Electrical Circuit—1RC

The circuit of Figure 3 allows the study of the dynamic and transient behavior; a
parallel RC network is added to model the transient response caused by the flow of lithium
ions in the electrolyte, and in the negative electrode R1 , and C1 respectively constitute the
resistance and the polarization capacity. These terms describe how the voltage varies as a
Energies 2023, 16, 7807 4 of 19

function of the current. These parameters, as well as the OCV and R0 , are functions of the
SOC and the battery temperature [40].

Figure 3. Thevenin equivalent electrical circuit 1RC.

Therefore, the dynamic behavior of the voltage is obtained by applying Kirchhoff’s

law (KVL) to the circuit in Figure 3, as follows Equation (5):

Vbatt (t) = OCV (SOC, T ) − R0 (SOC, T ) · i − v RC (t) (5)

In which the v RC can be obtained by applying Ohm’s first law for the resistance and the
characteristic equation of the capacitor, respectively, reported below Equations (6) and (7):

v R1 (t) = i R1 (t) · R1 (SOC, T ) (6)

Z t
1
vC1 (t) = · iC1 (t)dt (7)
C1 (SOC, T ) to

In which, given the topology of the circuit, for each instant of time, the voltage is expressed
as vrc =vc1 = v R1 . While applying Kirchhoff’s law, it is possible to express the current affecting
the battery as Equation (8):
ibat = i = i R1 + iC1 (8)
which is valid for each instant of time, and it can be rewritten taking into account Equa-
tions (6) and (7) as follows:

dvC1 (t) v R1 (t)

i = C1 (SOC, T ) · + (9)
dt R1 (SOC, T )

For the considerations made, the previous one becomes:

i dv (t) v RC (t)
= RC + (10)
C1 (SOC, T ) dt R1 (SOC, T ) · C1 (SOC, T )

In addition, using the previous (Equation (10)) and (Equations (6) and (7)), it is possible to
express the voltage affecting the RC network as follows:

i v RC (t)
v RC (t) = − (11)
C1 (SOC, T ) R1 (SOC, T ) · C1 (SOC, T )

The resolution of the differential Equation (11), then inserted in Equation (5), allows for the
investigation of the dynamic behavior of the battery (diffusive phenomena between the
electrodes) over time, i.e., of the response to a current excitation through the time constant
τ = R1 · C1 [41].
Energies 2023, 16, 7807 5 of 19

2.3. Equivalent Electrical Circuit—nRC

The previous model can be generalized to n-RC networks (Figure 4) to introduce more
time constants and, therefore, analyze the behavior of the ESS in greater detail. However,
the complexity increases the computational cost since it is necessary to extract the values of
each component of the equivalent circuit to identify the experimental curves, thus reducing
the possibility of use in real-time-type applications.

Figure 4. n-th-order generalized circuit.

The 2RC model of Figure 4 offers an excellent compromise between precision and
computational cost. It has two distinct time constants τ1 and τ2 = R2 · C2 relating to two
phases of the voltage transient, one faster and a slower one (respectively). From a physical
point of view, as mentioned in the previous section, RC networks are associated with ion
diffusion in the electrolyte and porous active elements (electrodes), with charge transfer,
and with the electric double layer effect (electric double dayer (EDL)) [42]. The latter
constitutes a region (established between an electric conductor and an ionic one, in this
case, the electrolyte, on account of the local inhomogeneities of the charge) in which the
electrochemical phenomena occur, which mainly influences the electronic flow so that
during the charging phenomena the cations present in the cathode–electrolyte interface
will be removed leaving many solvents available and thus amplifying the electrolyte
decomposition phenomena [40,43]. Analyzing the circuit in Figure 5, it is clear how
the previous one in Equation (5) is modified by adding the term due to the second RC
network, i.e.,:

Vbatt (t) = VOC (SOC, T ) − R0 (SOC, T ) · i − v RC,1 (t) − v RC,2 (t) (12)

Similar to what is reported in the previous section, for this circuit, it is possible to obtain
the following:
i = i R1 + iC1 = i R2 + iC2 (13)

i v RC (t)
v RC1 (t) = − (14)
C1 (SOC, T ) R1 (SOC, T ) · C1 (SOC, T )

i v RC (t)
v RC2 (t) = − (15)
C2 (SOC, T ) R2 (SOC, T ) · C2 (SOC, T )
Figure 6 shows in more detail the behavior of the circuit in Figure 5 in response to
a generic current variation (impulsive in the specific case proposed). The resistance R0
represents the instantaneous voltage contribution in the transition between the no-load
circuit and the load connected. The resistance can be evaluated by analyzing, using Ohm’s
law, the ohmic drop following the previous cyclic phase (charge or discharge). The ohmic
drop is evaluated by the ratio between the difference between the end charge (or discharge)
voltage and the voltage at the first instant of inversion of the relative curve (as evident in
the figure by AV variation) and the current involved in the process (this must be doubled
if the same current is used in the transition between phases). However, this parameter
depends non-linearly on temperature and SOC.
Energies 2023, 16, 7807 6 of 19

Figure 5. Second-order electrical equivalent circuit.

Figure 6. Response of the 2RC-type ECM to a current pulse in the PDT test, “Pulse Discharge Test” [44].

The parallel network R1 , C1 is associated with the fast time constant τ1 = R1 · C1 ,

whose contribution describes the behavior of the battery concerning transient phenomena
of short duration, being associated with the electrochemical polarization for the transfer of
the charge [41,45]. In parallel, the R2 , C2 network is associated with transient phenomena
of longer duration (with slow time constant τ2 = R2 · C2 ) linked to polarization by con-
centration (changes in the concentration of the electrolyte due to the electronic flow at the
interface with the electrodes); therefore, it depends on the formation of a concentration
gradient in correspondence with the ion diffusion or the relaxation phase [41,46–48]. For
these reasons, this model is also defined as a double polarization model, or DP, and allows
the tracking of internal electrochemical phenomena responsible for the non-linear relation-
ship between voltage at the terminals and residual charge. In addition, the resistances and
capacities of the two networks RC also depend on the state of charge and the temperature,
as will be detailed below, being C1 , C2 necessary to characterize the dynamic response
during the transfer of energy (therefore power) between the battery and the mains/load.
Energies 2023, 16, 7807 7 of 19

Furthermore, the dependencies on the state of charge and the temperature are contained
directly in the model.

2.4. General Non-Linear Model

The 1RC and 2RC models presented can be equipped with an additional bulk capacitor
placed in series with the OCV, respectively, giving rise to the PNGV (Partnership for a
New Generation of Vehicles) and GNL (general non-linear) model in which this additional
element models the variations of this voltage during load application and reflects the
capacity of the storage system [43,49–52] (Figure 7). These dependencies will be integrated
into the 2RC model, taking into account an accurate identification of the OCV, exploiting
special discharges at low C-rates, and a precise imposition of the capacity exhibited by the
cell concerning the discharge power and the operating temperature.

Figure 7. PNGV and GNL equivalent electrical circuit.

2.5. RC Equivalent Model

This model exploits two capacitors and three resistors, as evident in Figure 8, noting
how the ideal voltage generator associated with the open-circuit voltage is absent OCV. In
detail [41,47], the capacitor Cb , of modest value, models the effects of the surface nature
of the storage and the double layer (EDL). In contrast, Cc represents the battery’s energy
capacity (storage charge) and has a decidedly higher value than the previous one.

Figure 8. RC equivalent electrical circuit.

Energies 2023, 16, 7807 8 of 19

On the other hand, the resistances Rt , Re , and Rc , respectively, constitute the losses
associated with the terminal section (interfacing with the external load), those associated
with the final section and the series resistance capacitor loss ratio (ESR), which describes the
Joule losses. Knowing the conventions of Figure 8, the model is described by the following
coupled equations [40,41,47]:

 
 −1 −1 
 
 − Rc 
v̇b  Cb ( Re + Rc ) Cb ( Re + Rc )  vb
+  Cb ( R−e R+ Rc )  i
 
= (16)

v̇c −1 −1 
vc e
Cc ( Re + Rc ) Cc ( Re + Rc ) Cc ( Re + Rc
    
  Rc Re vb Re Rc  
vbatt = + − Rt − i (17)
( Re + Rc ) ( Re + Rc ) vc Re + Rc
where Equation (17) represents the transfer function relating the output voltage to the
current source. Although this model has the same number of passive components compared
to the DP, the latter, however, remains superior. These comparative evaluations further
reaffirm the validity of the choice of the 2RC or double polarization model.
Comparing the 1RC dynamic model with the 2RC dynamic model, it was found that
the 2RC model provides a more accurate representation of battery behavior, particularly in
terms of voltage and capacity estimation. The additional resistor-capacitor element in the
2RC model allows for better modeling of the battery’s internal resistance and polarization
effects, leading to improved accuracy in predicting battery performance.
When comparing the PNGV and LNG models with the RC equivalent model, it
was found that the RC equivalent model provides a more straightforward and more
computationally efficient approach to battery modeling. However, the PNGV and LNG
models offer more detailed representations of battery behavior, particularly regarding
thermal and aging effects. As such, the choice of model depends on the specific application
and level of detail required for accurate battery management.
Overall, while each model has strengths and weaknesses, using electrical circuit
models for lithium batteries is crucial for effective battery management and optimization.

3. State of Charge and Temperature Evaluation

The state of charge and the operating temperature strongly influence the models
presented in the previous sections. Therefore, to accurately describe the storage system, it
is necessary to introduce a model estimating the SOC and a thermal model evaluating the
temperature profile.

3.1. Thermal Model

The temperature directly influences the performance of the storage system. There is a
relationship capable of regulating the heat exchange with the surrounding environment,
also influencing the variability of the characteristic parameters of the representative model.
Each identified parameter must refer to a specific temperature value or range.
To model the temperature variation and the heat exchange, the dissipated power by
the Joule effect must be considered. Figure 9 shows a model in which the thermal power is
evaluated according to electrical equivalent components as a current generator, the thermal
resistance (Rt ) characteristic of the thermal gradient present in the exchange (temperature
differences between ESS and external environment), and finally the storage system as a
thermal capacity (Ct ). The upper and lower potentials of the circuit refer, respectively, to
the temperature detected for the storage system (measured by temperature sensors) and
at the reference temperature of 0 ◦ C, indicated as the mass reference in electrical terms.
In addition, thermal resistance comes between the (thermal) potential of the ESS and the
correlated one to the heat exchange with the external reference temperature (controlled)
in order to guarantee a non-instantaneous response to possible sudden variations in the
external temperature [47].
Energies 2023, 16, 7807 9 of 19

Figure 9. Thermal model adopted to monitor the temperature variations of the BESS.

In this way, the cell temperature, indicated with That, can be expressed as follows in
the energy balance [47]:

dTbatt T − Tamb
Ct = PJoule − Pe = −( batt ) + PJoule (18)
dt Rt

By solving in the Laplace domain (s), it is possible to obtain from the previous one the
temperature profile in the compact form:

PJoule Rt + Tamb
Tbatt (s) = (19)
1 + Rt Ct s

It is adaptable to the specification of the 2RC model adopted by obtaining, the relationship
between PJoule and the electrical quantities of the circuit:

δv RC,1 2
PJoule = R0 (SOC, Tbatt )i2batt + R1 (SOC, Tbatt )(ibatt − C1 (SOC, Tbatt ) ) +
δt (20)
δv
+ R2 (SOC, Tbatt )(ibatt − C2 (SOC, Tbatt ) RC,2 )2
δt
In detail, it should be noted that Rt = 1/(hconv Abatt ); where hconv is the coefficient of con-
vective heat exchange with the surrounding environment (air), expressed in (W m−2 K−1 )
and Abatt is the surface area of the storage system, therefore based on the dimensional
analysis it follows that this resistance is expressed in (K/W). In parallel, Ct is a function
of the specific heat of the constituent material ESS, expressed in J kg−1 K−1 , and its mass
(expressed in kg) and precisely its value can be estimated using a unique optimization
algorithm in which the temperature profile recorded by the BMS is compared with the one
simulated following the previous equations.

Ct = mbatt Cspeci f ic(batt) (21)

As demonstrated in [53–55], it is clear that the variation of the model parameters is signifi-
cant in correspondence with decidedly accentuated Tbatt variations, i.e., with gradients even
higher than ∆T >> 10 ◦ C; therefore, it is legitimate to state that for insignificant variations
Energies 2023, 16, 7807 10 of 19

in the temperature profile the parameters can be considered unchanged, i.e., not explana-
tory of particular changes in their values. It should be specified that the environments in
which the BESSs are placed have an actively controlled temperature in order to stabilize
performance and avoid possible excessive increases (or reductions) such as to jeopardize
behavior (such as thermal leaks, although in such contexts, there is also the corrective
intervention of the BMS) and at the same time convective heat exchange mechanisms are
implemented with the surrounding environment described by the following relationship:

Pe = hconv Abatt [ Tbatt (t) − Tamb ] (22)

Observing how Tbatt (t) refers to the temperature profile as a function of time, obtainable
from (3.36) as follows:

−t
Tbatt = Rt PJoule (1 − exp t Ct ) + Tamb
R (23)

where the non-instantaneous response to temperature change is modeled by the response

constant τt = Rt Ct .

3.2. Kinetic Battery Model

As for the temperature profile, it is necessary to monitor the behavior of the SOC,
which is such a crucial parameter for analyzing the circuit’s behavior in response to a current
excitation and contributing to the identification phase of the 2RC electrical parameters.
In literature, the Kinetic Battery model is combined with the 2RC model to evaluate the
state of charge. This model supposes the battery as a structure composed of two wells,
Figure 10, one contains the available charge, which flows directly into the load, while the
other contains the bound charge, which refills the available charge well through a valve, k.
The difference between good heights regulates the exchanged charge. h1 represents the
SOC that becomes zero when the battery is fully discharged.

Figure 10. Kinetic model.

The SOC can be expressed as:

Z t
Cavailable (t) 1
SOC (t) = = SOC (t0 ) − [ ibatt (t)dt + Cunav(t) ] (24)
Cmax Cmax t0
Energies 2023, 16, 7807 11 of 19

where Cavailable and Cmax are the available and maximum battery capabilities, respectively.
Cunavailable is computed in detail in [56].

4. Data-Driven Models
Data-driven models have become increasingly popular in battery modeling due to their
ability to accurately capture complex non-linear behaviors and their flexibility in handling
various data types. These models use machine learning techniques to learn the relationship
between input variables (such as state of charge, temperature, and current) and output
variables (such as voltage and capacity) from a large dataset of battery measurements.
One advantage of data-driven models is their ability to capture the dynamic behavior of
batteries, which is crucial for accurate state estimation and prediction. Traditional physics-
based models often rely on simplified assumptions and may not be able to capture the full
complexity of battery behavior. On the other hand, data-driven models can learn from
large datasets and adapt to changes in battery behavior over time. Another advantage
of data-driven models is their ability to handle different data types, such as time-series
data or images of electrode microstructures. This allows for a more holistic approach
to battery modeling, where multiple data types can be integrated to provide a more
comprehensive understanding of battery behavior. However, one challenge in using
data-driven models for battery modeling is the need for high-quality data. This requires
careful experimental design and data collection procedures. Unbalanced data would
cause a model to be subjected to overfitting and underfitting in decision-making [57].
These issues are well addressed, and the researchers have developed general guidelines
to address the problem [58]. Additionally, the choice of machine learning algorithms and
model architecture can significantly impact the performance and interpretability of the
model (Figure 11). Despite these challenges, data-driven models have shown promising
results in accurately predicting battery behavior and have the potential to improve battery
management systems significantly. As more data becomes available and machine learning
techniques continue to advance, data-driven models are expected to play a significant role
in the future of battery modeling.

Figure 11. Data-driven approaches.

Energies 2023, 16, 7807 12 of 19

Several machine learning techniques can be used in the data-driven approach for
battery modeling. These include:
1. Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs): ANNs are a type of machine learning algorithm
that is inspired by the structure and function of the human brain (Figure 12). They
consist of interconnected nodes or neurons that process and transmit information.
ANNs are well suited for battery modeling as they can handle complex relationships
between input and output variables. One specific application of ANNs in battery
modeling is the state of charge (SOC) estimation. SOC is a critical parameter for
battery management as it represents the amount of charge remaining in a battery
and is crucial for determining its performance and lifespan. ANNs are particularly
well suited for SOC estimation as they can handle complex relationships between
input variables, such as voltage, current, and temperature, and the output variable of
SOC. The training process involves feeding the ANN with a large dataset of input–
output pairs, where the input variables represent the battery’s operating conditions
and the output variable is the corresponding SOC value. The ANN then learns the
relationship between the input and output variables and creates a mathematical model
to predict the SOC for new input data accurately. This model can then be used in
real-time to estimate the SOC of a battery based on its current operating conditions.
One advantage of using ANNs for SOC estimation is their ability to handle non-linear
relationships between input and output variables. This is particularly useful for
batteries as their behavior can be highly non-linear and dependent on various factors
such as temperature and aging. Moreover, ANNs can also be trained to account for
different battery chemistries, making them versatile for use with different types of
batteries. This is important as different battery chemistries have different charge–
discharge characteristics, and an accurate SOC estimation model must consider this.
Neural networks have recently been used in several works to evaluate the SOC
parameter of batteries. Table 1 summarizes the various results.

Figure 12. The general architecture of the 3-layer neural network.

Energies 2023, 16, 7807 13 of 19

Table 1. NN used for SOC estimation.

Method Inputs Error

Multi-layer BPNN [59] - Relative error: <4.5%
RMSE at 25 ◦ C: 0.81% for DST,
BPNN-BSA [60] V ( k ), I ( k ), T ( k )
for 0.91% for FUDS
Single hidden layer dV (k ) dT (k )
[61] , MSE: 0.004% at 25 ◦ C
FNN with PCA dt dt
Two hidden layer FNN [62] V ( k ), I ( k ), T ( k ) Max. RMSE: 1.75%
Two hidden layer
FNN with EKF 1.62% RMSE using UDDS
[63] V ( k ), I ( k )
for charging vehicle dynamic profile
SoC estimation
DFNN [64] V (k), T (k), Iavg , Vavg MAE: 1.10% at 25 ◦ C
VVTI during
Hierarchical ensemble CC part of
[65] RMSE: 1.26%
ELM charging and discharging
profile
ASO-ELM for
series-connected [66] V (k ), I (k), capacity RMSE: 0.007
battery pack
LSTM-CNN [67] V (k), I (k), T (k), Iavg , Vavg RMSE: 1.35%
GRU-CNN
[68] V ( k ), I ( k ) Max RMSE: 0.385%
with Kalman filter

2. Support Vector Machines (SVMs): SVMs are supervised learning algorithms that
can be used for classification and regression tasks. They work by finding the op-
timal hyperplane that separates data points into different classes or predicts a
continuous output variable (Figure 13). SVMs are effective for battery modeling
as they can handle high-dimensional data and non-linear relationships. In battery
SOC estimation, SVMs can be trained using a dataset of input variables such as
voltage, current, temperature, and corresponding SOC values. The SVM then finds
the hyperplane that can best separate the data points and create a model that can
accurately predict the SOC for new input data. Additionally, SVMs have a robust
generalization ability, meaning they can perform well on unseen data. This is
important for battery SOC estimation as the model needs to accurately predict the
SOC for various operating conditions, not just the ones it was trained on. Further-
more, SVMs effectively handle noisy data, which is common in battery systems
due to external factors such as sensor errors or variations in battery chemistry. By
accounting for noise in the training process, SVMs can create a more accurate SOC
estimation model. Table 2 shows a summary of the works in which SVM was used
for SoC estimation.
Energies 2023, 16, 7807 14 of 19

Figure 13. SVM algorithm.

Table 2. Summary of the contributions that used SVMs for SoC estimation.

Method Inputs Error

LS-SVM with AUKF [69] V ( k ), I ( k ) Absolute error: <3%
SVR with double
search-optimized [70] I (k), T (k), Power Max. MSE: 2.23%
hyper-parameters
Classification SVR with PCA [44] - MSE: 0.00495%
SVR with PSO
[71] V ( k ), I ( k ), T ( k ) Average estimation error: 1.5%
optimized hyperparameters
LS-SVM [72] V (k), I (k ), SoH Max. Error: <2%
Online SVR [73] - RMSE: 0.0172

3. Decision Trees: Decision trees are supervised learning algorithms that use a tree-like
structure to make predictions based on a series of if-then rules. They are handy for
battery modeling as they can handle numerical and categorical data and easily handle
variables’ interactions.
4. Random Forests: Random forests are an ensemble learning technique that combines
multiple decision trees to make predictions. They create many decision trees and
use the average prediction from all the trees to make the final prediction. Random
forests are useful for battery modeling as they can handle high-dimensional data and
reduce overfitting.
5. Gaussian Processes (GPs): Gaussian processes are a probabilistic machine learning
technique that can be used for regression tasks [74,75]. They work by modeling the
relationship between input and output variables as a Gaussian distribution, allowing
for uncertainty in the predictions. Since the forecast is based on a Gaussian distribu-
tion, the forecast can be improved using adaptive fitting [76]. The typical trend of a
GPR model is illustrated in Figure 14.
Energies 2023, 16, 7807 15 of 19

Figure 14. GPR model.

Gaussian processes are helpful for battery modeling as they can handle noisy and
sparse data. GPs are a powerful machine learning technique that can be used for
battery SOC estimation. One advantage of using GPs for SOC estimation is their ability
to handle non-linear relationships between input and output variables. Batteries
exhibit non-linear behavior due to aging, temperature, and discharge rate. Traditional
linear models need help to capture these complexities, leading to inaccurate SOC
estimations. GPs, on the other hand, can capture these non-linear relationships
and provide more accurate predictions. Another significant advantage of GPs is
their ability to estimate uncertainty for their predictions. This is crucial for battery
management as it allows for more informed decision-making. Batteries are subject
to various uncertainties, such as measurement errors and environmental factors,
which can affect their performance and lead to potential failures. By considering the
uncertainty in the SOC estimation, battery management systems can take appropriate
actions to prevent failures and ensure optimal battery performance.
6. Fuzzy Logic: Fuzzy logic is another popular approach for battery SOC estimation.
Fuzzy logic is a mathematical framework that can handle imprecise and uncertain
information, making it well suited for battery systems that exhibit non-linear and
uncertain behavior. In fuzzy logic, input variables such as voltage, current, and
temperature are mapped to linguistic terms such as “low”, “medium”, and “high”.
These terms are then used to define fuzzy sets, which represent the different states of
the battery. The rules for how these input variables affect the SOC are defined using
expert knowledge and experience. The fuzzy logic system then takes in the linguistic
inputs and uses these rules to calculate the SOC. One advantage of this approach
is its ability to handle imprecise and uncertain inputs. Batteries often experience
variations in their behavior due to aging and environmental conditions. Fuzzy logic
can account for these uncertainties and provide more accurate SOC estimations.
Another advantage of fuzzy logic is its interpretability. The rules used in the fuzzy
logic system can be easily understood by humans, making it easier to validate and
improve the model. This is particularly useful for battery management systems,
where it is essential to understand clearly how the SOC estimation is calculated.
However, one limitation of fuzzy logic is that it relies heavily on expert knowledge
and assumptions about the data. This can be a disadvantage in cases where the data is
complex and cannot be easily captured by simple rules. Additionally, fuzzy logic may
need help handling large datasets, as it requires significant computational resources
to process linguistic inputs and apply rules.
Overall, the choice of machine learning technique will depend on the specific goals
and characteristics of the battery modeling project. It is essential to carefully consider the
data and problem to determine the most suitable approach.
Energies 2023, 16, 7807 16 of 19

5. Conclusions
The electrical circuit modeling of lithium-ion batteries through electrical circuit models
and data-driven approaches plays a crucial role in accurately estimating parameters and
state of charge (SOC) for battery management systems (BMS) in electric vehicles and other
applications. The research in this area focuses on developing accurate models that can
capture the dynamic behavior of lithium-ion batteries under different operating conditions
and driving styles. Furthermore, the research also delves into comparing different battery
modeling methods, including electrical circuits and data-driven models, for accurate SOC
estimation in BMS. The study compares the pros and cons of these modeling methods and
explores future research directions in this domain.
In particular, for the electrical circuit model, the comparison between the 1RC dynamic
model and the 2RC dynamic model revealed that the 2RC model provides a more accurate
representation of battery behavior, particularly regarding voltage and capacity estimation.
The additional resistor-capacitor element in the 2RC model allows for better modeling
of the battery’s internal resistance and polarization effects, leading to improved accuracy
in predicting battery performance. On the other hand, when comparing the PNGV and
LNG models with the RC equivalent model, it was found that the RC equivalent model
provides a more straightforward and computationally efficient approach to battery model-
ing. However, the PNGV and LNG models offer more detailed representations of battery
behavior, particularly regarding thermal and aging effects. The choice of model depends on
the specific application and the level of detail required for accurate battery management.
The data-driven approach to model lithium-ion batteries addresses the inconsistent
and varied characteristics of battery cells, which pose challenges for battery pack modeling.
This approach aims to reduce computational work while maintaining good model accu-
racy. The data-driven approach offers a promising solution to the challenges of modeling
lithium-ion batteries, particularly in electric vehicle applications. By leveraging data-driven
methods, researchers aim to enhance the accuracy and efficiency of battery modeling,
contributing to the development of advanced battery management systems for electric
vehicles and renewable energy storage applications. In conclusion, the research on electrical
circuit modeling of lithium-ion batteries through electrical circuit models and data-driven
approaches provides valuable insights into developing accurate and reliable models for
battery management systems, ensuring the safe and efficient operation of electric vehicles
and other applications.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, V.L., M.Q., A.L. and F.R.F.; methodology, V.L., M.Q., A.L.
and F.R.F.; data curation, V.L., M.Q., A.L. and F.R.F.; writing—original draft preparation, V.L., M.Q.,
A.L. and F.R.F.; writing—review and editing, V.L., M.Q., A.L. and F.R.F. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: No data available.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Schmitt, J.; Horstkötter, I.; Bäker, B. Electrical lithium-ion battery models based on recurrent neural networks: A holistic approach.
J. Energy Storage 2023, 58, 106461. [CrossRef]
2. Krishnamoorthy, U.; Gandhi Ayyavu, P.; Panchal, H.; Shanmugam, D.; Balasubramani, S.; Al-rubaie, A.J.; Al-khaykan, A.; Oza,
A.D.; Hembrom, S.; Patel, T.; et al. Efficient Battery Models for Performance Studies-Lithium Ion and Nickel Metal Hydride
Battery. Batteries 2023, 9, 52. [CrossRef]
3. Çorapsiz, M.R.; Kahveci, H. A study on Li-ion battery and supercapacitor design for hybrid energy storage systems. Energy
Storage 2023, 5, e386. [CrossRef]
4. Shin, J.; Kim, W.; Yoo, K.; Kim, H.; Han, M. Vehicular level battery modeling and its application to battery electric vehicle
simulation. J. Power Sources 2023, 556, 232531. [CrossRef]
5. Navas, S.J.; González, G.C.; Pino, F.; Guerra, J. Modelling Li-ion batteries using equivalent circuits for renewable energy
applications. Energy Rep. 2023, 9, 4456–4465. [CrossRef]
Energies 2023, 16, 7807 17 of 19

6. Quelin, A.; Damay, N. Coupling electrical parameters of a battery equivalent circuit model to electrodes dimensions. J. Power
Sources 2023, 561, 232690. [CrossRef]
7. Canova, A.; Campanelli, F.; Quercio, M. Flywheel Energy Storage System in Italian Regional Transport Railways: A Case Study.
Energies 2022, 15, 1096. [CrossRef]
8. Pillai, P.; Nguyen, J.; Balasingam, B. Performance analysis of empirical open-circuit voltage modeling in lithium ion batteries,
part-1: Performance measures. arXiv 2023, arXiv:2306.16542.
9. Hassini, M.; Redondo-Iglesias, E.; Venet, P. Second-Life Batteries Modeling for Performance Tracking in a Mobile Charging
Station. World Electr. Veh. J. 2023, 14, 94. [CrossRef]
10. Petri, E.; Reynaudo, T.; Postoyan, R.; Astolfi, D.; Nesic, D.; Rael, S. State estimation of an electrochemical lithium-ion battery
model: improved observer performance by hybrid redesign. arXiv 2023, arXiv:2304.09680.
11. Wang, J.; Gao, S.; Zhu, J.; Mao, J. Thermal performance analysis and burning questions of refrigerant direct cooling for electric
vehicle battery. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2023, 232, 121055. [CrossRef]
12. Choi, W.; Shin, H.C.; Kim, J.M.; Choi, J.Y.; Yoon, W.S. Modeling and applications of electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS)
for lithium-ion batteries. J. Electrochem. Sci. Technol. 2020, 11, 1–13. [CrossRef]
13. Tran, M.K.; DaCosta, A.; Mevawalla, A.; Panchal, S.; Fowler, M. Comparative study of equivalent circuit models performance in
four common lithium-ion batteries: LFP, NMC, LMO, NCA. Batteries 2021, 7, 51. [CrossRef]
14. Kroeze, R.C.; Krein, P.T. Electrical battery model for use in dynamic electric vehicle simulations. In Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE
Power Electronics Specialists Conference, Rhodes, Greece, 15–19 June 2008; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2008; pp. 1336–1342.
15. Chen, M.; Rincon-Mora, G.A. Accurate electrical battery model capable of predicting runtime and IV performance. IEEE Trans.
Energy Convers. 2006, 21, 504–511. [CrossRef]
16. Fotouhi, A.; Auger, D.J.; Propp, K.; Longo, S.; Wild, M. A review on electric vehicle battery modelling: From Lithium-ion toward
Lithium–Sulphur. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 56, 1008–1021. [CrossRef]
17. Bibin, C.; Vijayaram, M.; Suriya, V.; Ganesh, R.S.; Soundarraj, S. A review on thermal issues in Li-ion battery and recent
advancements in battery thermal management system. Mater. Today Proc. 2020, 33, 116–128. [CrossRef]
18. Tran, M.K.; Mathew, M.; Janhunen, S.; Panchal, S.; Raahemifar, K.; Fraser, R.; Fowler, M. A comprehensive equivalent circuit
model for lithium-ion batteries, incorporating the effects of state of health, state of charge, and temperature on model parameters.
J. Energy Storage 2021, 43, 103252. [CrossRef]
19. Hallmann, M.; Wenge, C.; Komarnicki, P.; Balischewski, S. Methods for lithium-based battery energy storage SOC estimation.
Part I: Overview. Arch. Electr. Eng. 2022, 71, 139–157.
20. Xiao, R.; Hu, Y.; Jia, X.; Chen, G. A novel estimation of state of charge for the lithium-ion battery in electric vehicle without open
circuit voltage experiment. Energy 2022, 243, 123072. [CrossRef]
21. Solomon, O.O.; Zheng, W.; Chen, J.; Qiao, Z. State of charge estimation of Lithium-ion battery using an improved fractional-order
extended Kalman filter. J. Energy Storage 2022, 49, 104007. [CrossRef]
22. Lai, X.; Wang, S.; Ma, S.; Xie, J.; Zheng, Y. Parameter sensitivity analysis and simplification of equivalent circuit model for the
state of charge of lithium-ion batteries. Electrochim. Acta 2020, 330, 135239. [CrossRef]
23. Adaikkappan, M.; Sathiyamoorthy, N. Modeling, state of charge estimation, and charging of lithium-ion battery in electric
vehicle: A review. Int. J. Energy Res. 2022, 46, 2141–2165. [CrossRef]
24. Madani, S.S.; Schaltz, E.; Knudsen Kær, S. An electrical equivalent circuit model of a lithium titanate oxide battery. Batteries 2019,
5, 31. [CrossRef]
25. Soltani, M.; Beheshti, S.H. A comprehensive review of lithium ion capacitor: Development, modelling, thermal management and
applications. J. Energy Storage 2021, 34, 102019. [CrossRef]
26. Chen, W.; Liang, J.; Yang, Z.; Li, G. A review of lithium-ion battery for electric vehicle applications and beyond. Energy Procedia
2019, 158, 4363–4368. [CrossRef]
27. Liu, X.; Li, W.; Zhou, A. PNGV equivalent circuit model and SOC estimation algorithm for lithium battery pack adopted in AGV
vehicle. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 23639–23647. [CrossRef]
28. Canova, A.; Giaccone, L.; Quercio, M. A proposal for performance evaluation of low frequency shielding efficiency. In Proceedings
of the CIRED 2021—The 26th International Conference and Exhibition on Electricity Distribution, Online, 20–23 September 2021;
Volume 2021, pp. 935–939. [CrossRef]
29. Canova, A.; Quercio, M. A Shielding System Proposal for the Cabling of Electric Glass Melters. IEEE Open J. Ind. Appl. 2023,
4, 1–10. [CrossRef]
30. Von Srbik, M.T. Advanced Lithium-Ion Battery Modelling for Automotive Applications. Ph.D. Thesis, Imperial College London,
London, UK, 2015.
31. Smith, K.A. Electrochemical Modeling, Estimation and Control of Lithium Ion Batteries. Ph.D. Thesis, Pennsylvania University,
Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2007.
32. Camas-Náfate, M.; Coronado-Mendoza, A.; Vega-Gómez, C.J.; Espinosa-Moreno, F. Modeling and Simulation of a Commercial
Lithium-Ion Battery with Charge Cycle Predictions. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14035. [CrossRef]
33. Yang, Y.; Bremner, S.; Menictas, C.; Kay, M. Modelling and optimal energy management for battery energy storage systems in
renewable energy systems: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 167, 112671. [CrossRef]
Energies 2023, 16, 7807 18 of 19

34. Divya, K.; Østergaard, J. Battery energy storage technology for power systems—An overview. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2009,
79, 511–520. [CrossRef]
35. Rodrigues, E.; Osório, G.; Godina, R.; Bizuayehu, A.; Lujano-Rojas, J.; Matias, J.; Catalão, J. Modelling and sizing of NaS (sodium
sulfur) battery energy storage system for extending wind power performance in Crete Island. Energy 2015, 90, 1606–1617.
[CrossRef]
36. ostigov. PNGV Battery Test Manual; USDOE Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy: Washington, DC,
USA, 1997. [CrossRef]
37. Johnson, V. Battery performance models in ADVISOR. J. Power Sources 2002, 110, 321–329. [CrossRef]
38. Razi, M.F.I.M.; Daud, Z.H.C.; Asus, Z.; Mazali, I.I.; Ardani, M.I.; Hamid, M.K.A. Li-NMC Battery Internal Resistance at Wide
Range of Temperature. J. Adv. Res. Fluid Mech. Therm. Sci. 2022, 99, 9–16.
39. Anseán, D.; González, M.; Viera, J.C.; Garcia, V.M.; Alvarez, J.C.; Blanco, C. Electric vehicle Li-Ion battery evaluation based
on internal resistance analysis. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference (VPPC), Coimbra,
Portugal, 27–30 October 2014; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2014; pp. 1–6.
40. Singirikonda, S.; Obulesu, Y. Battery modelling and state of charge estimation methods for Energy Management in Electric
Vehicle-A review. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 937, 012046. [CrossRef]
41. He, H.; Xiong, R.; Fan, J. Evaluation of lithium-ion battery equivalent circuit models for state of charge estimation by an
experimental approach. Energies 2011, 4, 582–598. [CrossRef]
42. Zhang, W.; Lu, Y.; Wan, L.; Zhou, P.; Xia, Y.; Yan, S.; Chen, X.; Zhou, H.; Dong, H.; Liu, K. Engineering a passivating electric
double layer for high performance lithium metal batteries. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 2029. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
43. Meng, J.; Luo, G.; Ricco, M.; Swierczynski, M.; Stroe, D.I.; Teodorescu, R. Overview of lithium-ion battery modeling methods for
state-of-charge estimation in electrical vehicles. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 659. [CrossRef]
44. Xuan, L.; Qian, L.; Chen, J.; Bai, X.; Wu, B. State-of-Charge Prediction of Battery Management System Based on Principal
Component Analysis and Improved Support Vector Machine for Regression. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 164693–164704. [CrossRef]
45. Kalogiannis, T.; Hosen, M.S.; Sokkeh, M.A.; Goutam, S.; Jaguemont, J.; Jin, L.; Qiao, G.; Berecibar, M.; Van Mierlo, J. Comparative
study on parameter identification methods for dual-polarization lithium-ion equivalent circuit model. Energies 2019, 12, 4031.
[CrossRef]
46. Brivio, C. Battery Energy Storage Systems: Modelling, Applications and Design Criteria. Master’s Thesis, Politecnico di Milano:
Milano, Italy, 2017.
47. Nutricato, R.Modelli Elettrici e Stima dei Parametri di Batterie al Litio. Master’s Thesis, Università Politecnica delle Marche:
Ancona, Italy, 2021.
48. Stolz, L.; Winter, M.; Kasnatscheew, J. Concentration Polarization in Batteries: Theory, Experimental Verification and Practical
Relevance. Electrochem. Soc. Meet. Abstr. 2022, 241, 250. [CrossRef]
49. Aung, H.; Low, K.S.; Soon, J.J. State-of-charge estimation using particle swarm optimization with inverse barrier constraint in a
nanosatellite. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 10th Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications (ICIEA), Auckland,
New Zealand, 15–17 June 2015; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 1–6.
50. Geng, Y.; Pang, H.; Liu, X. State-of-charge estimation for lithium-ion battery based on PNGV model and particle filter algorithm.
J. Power Electron. 2022, 22, 1154–1164. [CrossRef]
51. Gou, Y.; Han, X. Study of SOC dynamic estimation method of power lithium battery. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018,
452, 032057. [CrossRef]
52. Yan, X.W.; Guo, Y.W.; Cui, Y.; Wang, Y.W.; Deng, H.R. Electric vehicle battery soc estimation based on gnl model adaptive kalman
filter. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2018, 1087, 052027. [CrossRef]
53. Xu, Y.; Hu, M.; Fu, C.; Cao, K.; Su, Z.; Yang, Z. State of charge estimation for lithium-ion batteries based on temperature-dependent
second-order RC model. Electronics 2019, 8, 1012. [CrossRef]
54. Nikolian, A.; Jaguemont, J.; De Hoog, J.; Goutam, S.; Omar, N.; Van Den Bossche, P.; Van Mierlo, J. Complete cell-level lithium-ion
electrical ECM model for different chemistries (NMC, LFP, LTO) and temperatures (−5 ◦ C to 45 ◦ C)–Optimized modelling
techniques. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2018, 98, 133–146. [CrossRef]
55. Wang, Q.; Gao, T.; Li, X. SOC Estimation of Lithium-Ion Battery Based on Equivalent Circuit Model with Variable Parameters.
Energies 2022, 15, 5829. [CrossRef]
56. Kim, T.; Qiao, W. A hybrid battery model capable of capturing dynamic circuit characteristics and nonlinear capacity effects.
IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 2011, 26, 1172–1180. [CrossRef]
57. Domingos, P. A few useful things to know about machine learning. Commun. ACM 2012, 55, 78–87. [CrossRef]
58. Bishop, C.M.; Nasrabadi, N.M. Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2006; Volume 4.
59. Zhang, G.; Xia, B.; Wang, J. Intelligent state of charge estimation of lithium-ion batteries based on L-M optimized back-propagation
neural network. J. Energy Storage 2021, 44, 103442. [CrossRef]
60. Hannan, M.A.; Lipu, M.S.H.; Hussain, A.; Saad, M.H.; Ayob, A. Neural Network Approach for Estimating State of Charge of
Lithium-Ion Battery Using Backtracking Search Algorithm. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 10069–10079. [CrossRef]
61. Lipu, M.H.; Hannan, M.; Hussain, A. Feature selection and optimal neural network algorithm for the state of charge estimation
of lithium-ion battery for electric vehicle application. Int. J. Renew. Energy Res. (IJRER) 2017, 7, 1700–1708.
Energies 2023, 16, 7807 19 of 19

62. Bhattacharyya, H.S.; Choudhury, A.B.; Kumar Chanda, C. Performance Analysis of a Lithium-ion Battery Pack in EV Application
Using an Auto-Upgraded Neural Network Model. In Proceedings of the 2019 8th International Conference on Power Systems
(ICPS), Jaipur, India, 20–22 December 2019; pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
63. Zhou, N.; Liang, H.; Cui, J.; Chen, Z.; Fang, Z. A Fusion-Based Method of State-of-Charge Online Estimation for Lithium-Ion
Batteries Under Low Capacity Conditions. Front. Energy Res. 2021, 9, 790295. [CrossRef]
64. Chemali, E.; Kollmeyer, P.J.; Preindl, M.; Emadi, A. State-of-charge estimation of Li-ion batteries using deep neural networks: A
machine learning approach. J. Power Sources 2018, 400, 242–255. [CrossRef]
65. Liu, W.; Xu, Y.; Feng, X. A Hierarchical and Flexible Data-Driven Method for Online State-of-Health Estimation of Li-Ion Battery.
IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2020, 69, 14739–14748. [CrossRef]
66. Chin, C.S.; Gao, Z. State-of-Charge Estimation of Battery Pack under Varying Ambient Temperature Using an Adaptive Sequential
Extreme Learning Machine. Energies 2018, 11, 711. [CrossRef]
67. Song, X.; Yang, F.; Wang, D.; Tsui, K.L. Combined CNN-LSTM Network for State-of-Charge Estimation of Lithium-Ion Batteries.
IEEE Access 2019, 7, 88894–88902. [CrossRef]
68. Tian, J.; Xiong, R.; Shen, W.; Lu, J. State-of-charge estimation of LiFePO4 batteries in electric vehicles: A deep-learning enabled
approach. Appl. Energy 2021, 291, 116812. [CrossRef]
69. Meng, J.; Luo, G.; Gao, F. Lithium Polymer Battery State-of-Charge Estimation Based on Adaptive Unscented Kalman Filter and
Support Vector Machine. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2016, 31, 2226–2238. [CrossRef]
70. Hu, J.; Hu, J.; Lin, H.; Li, X.; Jiang, C.; Qiu, X.; Li, W. State-of-charge estimation for battery management system using optimized
support vector machine for regression. J. Power Sources 2014, 269, 682–693. [CrossRef]
71. Li, R.; Xu, S.; Li, S.; Zhou, Y.; Zhou, K.; Liu, X.; Yao, J. State of Charge Prediction Algorithm of Lithium-Ion Battery Based on
PSO-SVR Cross Validation. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 10234–10242. [CrossRef]
72. Song, Y.; Liu, D.; Liao, H.; Peng, Y. A hybrid statistical data-driven method for on-line joint state estimation of lithium-ion
batteries. Appl. Energy 2020, 261, 114408. [CrossRef]
73. Zhang, W.; Wang, W. Lithium-ion battery SoC estimation based on online support vector regression. In Proceedings of the
2018 33rd Youth Academic Annual Conference of Chinese Association of Automation (YAC), Nanjing, China, 18–20 May 2018;
pp. 564–568. [CrossRef]
74. Meng, J.; Boukhnifer, M.; Diallo, D. Comparative study of lithium-ion battery open-circuit-voltage online estimation methods.
IET Electr. Syst. Transp. 2020, 10, 162–169. [CrossRef]
75. Meng, J.; Boukhnifer, M.; Delpha, C.; Diallo, D. Incipient short-circuit fault diagnosis of lithium-ion batteries. J. Energy Storage
2020, 31, 101658. [CrossRef]
76. Calandra, R.; Peters, J.; Rasmussen, C.E.; Deisenroth, M.P. Manifold Gaussian Processes for regression. In Proceedings of the 2016
International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), Vancouver, BC, Canada, 24–29 July 2016; pp. 3338–3345. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.