You are on page 1of 8

State of Charge Estimation Using Extended Kalman

Filters for Battery Management System


Carlo Taborelli, Simona Onori, IEEE Member
Department of Automotive Engineering - Clemson University
4 Research Drive, Greenville, SC, 29607 USA
Email: c.taborelli@gmail.com - sonori@clemson.edu

Abstract—In this work, the problem of battery state of charge In indirect methods, SoC is evaluated using information
estimation is investigated using a model based approach. An from other estimated or measured quantities, such as the open
experimentally validated model of a battery developed by AllCell circuit voltage (VOCV ) [3] which is direct function of SoC,
Technologies, specific for light electric vehicles (electric scooter
or bicycles) is used. Two state of charge estimation algorithms experimentally evaluated. For a large variety of Lead-Acid
are developed: an extended Kalman filter and an adaptive and Li-ion batteries the SoC estimation with this method is
extended Kalman filter. The adaptive version of Kalman filter is straightforward due to the linear decrease of the VOCV with
designed in order to adaptively set a proper value of the model reference to SoC. When the voltage relationship VOCV (SoC)
noise covariance, using the information coming from the on-line shows a flat region for a wide range of SoC values, it is hard
innovation analysis. A comparison between the two approaches
is conducted that shows that the adaptive Kalman filter can deal to translate the VOCV measurement to SoC [1], [4].
with the problem of incorrect value of the model noise covariance Other kind of methods have been used in literature, such as
matrix producing lower estimation error. artificial neural networks and impedance spectroscopy. These
Index Terms—Estimation; Battery; Kalman filter; Adaptive. methods are usually suitable for laboratory application, since
they require a large computational effort [5] and very accurate
I. I NTRODUCTION measurements [1].
For all these reasons, other methods have been investigated,
Light electric vehicles, such as electric bikes or scooters, especially for vehicle on-board application based on real mea-
offer many benefits over their traditional counterparts such as surements, as the case of e-bikes considered in this work. In
range, e-bikes and e-scooters can go further than conventional this paper two model based estimation methods are developed
bicycles with little effort. In electric vehicle architecture, and validated with experimental data: an extended Kalman
battery pack is one of the crucial elements of the powertrain, filter (EKF) and an adaptive extended Kalman filter (AEKF).
in terms of range available and driving performance. The EKF is a successful model-based method to estimate
Lithium-ion batteries have become the battery of choice the state of a non-linear state-space model developed for a
not only for hybrid and electric vehicle, but also for light physical system. The estimation is based on the comparison
vehicle applications, thanks to their high specific energy, between the model output and the measurements from the
energy density, cycle/calendar life as well as their reduced real system. The physical system is modeled in such a way
need for maintenance compared to flooded lead acid batteries. that the state and output equations are affected by gaussian
One of their few drawbacks is the difficulty estimating the white noises. A complete knowledge of the noises statistical
amount of remaining energy. properties is assumed [6]. The a priori covariance values of
An accurate estimation of the energy available inside the measurement and process noises are crucial for the stability
battery is essential to excellent powertrain operation and and the convergence property of the EKF. A choice of constant
prevent stranding the rider. Knowing the remaining energy also values for these parameters is not always straightforward: often
helps in preventing overcharge and overdischarge of batteries, the state variables do not correspond to physical measurable
vital to safe use and long life of lithium-ion batteries. quantities and a statistical analysis is hard to perform. For this
The available energy inside the battery is represented by reasons, noises added in the equations become design param-
the state of charge (SoC). SoC cannot be directly measured, eters for the filter with effect on the estimation performance.
hence the estimation of this quantity must be performed. The estimated state with EKF in case of battery applications
In literature different methods have been developed for SoC is the state of charge: SoC estimation with EKF is performed
estimation. Following the Coulomb counting definition, SoC in [7]–[10].
is evaluated as the ratio between the available capacity inside The AEKF is developed to deal with the problem of
the battery and the nominal capacity [1]. This requires to choosing the noises covariances in order to improve the
compute the integral of the battery current; hence this method estimation performance with respect to the EKF. With the
is very sensitive to the SoC initial condition, not always known AEKF, covariance parameters are not taken as constant, but
precisely, and the integration can easily diverge in case of adaptively updated. The AEKF has been applied to different
additional noise [2]. engineering fields: robotic applications, tank reactor moni-

978-1-4799-6075-0/14/$31.00 ©2014 IEEE


toring, inertial navigation system/global positioning system
(INS/GPS) and automotive batteries. In this paper, the adaptive
solution developed for INS/GPS application in [11] is used for
battery state of charge estimation.
The AEKF algorithm has been used for SoC estimation of
a generic Li-ion battery in [12] where the process covariance
matrix is updated online with a dedicated estimator. In [13] a Fig. 1: Equivalent circuit representation of the battery model
battery for electric vehicle application is considered and the
adaptive algorithm is activated only when the SoC estimation
is diverging, in order keep it stable. In both the cases, particular
attention is given to the accuracy of the model, with parameters

∆t

SoC(k + 1) = SoC(k) − I(k)
estimation realized respectively with neural networks and the 


 Q nom
filter itself. In [14] a solution more similar to what proposed

 ∆t ∆t 
− −

 
in this paper was developed for a Lead-Acid battery used in τ
VCT (k + 1) = e CT VCT (k) + RCT 1 − e CT I(k) τ (1)
hybrid and electric vehicles. 


 ∆t ∆t 
In this work, the problem of SoC estimation is addressed for

 −  −
 τ Di f τ
VDi f (k) + RDi f 1 − e Di f I(k)
VDi f (k + 1) = e

a Li-ion battery pack manufactured by AllCell Technologies1

for e-bike application. The main purpose is to design a


where k is the discrete time index.
reliable algorithm for an accurate detection of SoC to be
The first equation represents the SoC dynamics, in which
implemented in the battery management system (BMS) of the
Qnom is the battery nominal capacity and ∆t = 0.1s is the
new categories of light vehicle such as e-bikes. In Section II
discrete time step and I(k) is input current, considered positive
the battery mathematical model is introduced and in Section
during discharging and negative during charging. The two RC
III model parameters are identified from experimental tests.
parallel branches (RCT ,CCT and RDi f ,CDi f ) are used to model
In Section IV the EKF and AEKF estimations algorithms are
the dynamic response of the battery cell and τCT = RCT CCT
presented and simulation results are shown. Conclusions are
and τDi f = RDi f CDi f are the respective time constants. The
in Section V.
two parallel branches model the charge transfer (CT ) and
II. BATTERY M ODELING diffusion (Di f ) phenomena inside the battery. In [24] a detailed
In order to develop a model-based SoC estimator, a mathe- representation of these battery phenomena is addressed: dif-
matical model for the battery is defined. In literature two cat- fusion and charge transfer properties are described with more
egories of models have been proposed to model a lithium-ion impedance elements, with specific dependence on the input
battery: electrochemical based models [15]–[17] and equiva- current.
lent circuit based models (ECM) [7], [18], [19]. The model output equation relates the output voltage V (k)
The ECMs are the mostly used models for BMS application to the voltage drops across the equivalent circuit elements, as
and system integration [20], since they are not computational follows:
demanding and they are easy to use in electrical networks V (k) = VOCV (SoC(k)) −VCT (k) −VDi f (k) − R0 I(k) (2)
[21]. At the same time, it is hard to trace the battery aging
phenomena back to the ECM parameters: this is a limitation where VOCV (SoC) is the open circuit voltage function of SoC
for this kind of models, and the main reason why electro- and R0 is the battery internal resistance.
chemical models are developed [22]. Electrochemical models  Defining the state  vector as x(k) =
T
are defined studying the chemical processes that take place SoC(k) VCT (k) VDi f (k) , the model input u(k) = I(k)
inside the battery to eventually allow the aging phenomena and output y(k) = V (k), the discrete-time non-linear state
to be described in detail. For these reasons, they are too space model of the battery can be written as:
computational demanding for BMS application on-board of (
the vehicle [23], at least at the present time. x(k) = A x(k) + B u(k)
(3)
In this study, a second order ECM is considered, as shown y(k) = g(x(k), u(k))
in Figure 1, where the parameters are identified from experi- The non linearity of the model is in the output equation
mental data. (2), in that the open circuit voltge is non linear with respect
The state space formulation in discrete time domain is given to the state x(k). The battery cell model (3) is defined as
by: a function of: the dynamic parameters RCT ,CCT , RDi f ,CDi f ,
1 AllCell Technologies LLC, 2321 W. 41st St. Chicago, IL 60609 USA. the open circuit voltage VOCV and the resistance R0 . The
AllCell Technologies designs and manufactures lithium-ion battery packs for identification of these parameters is discussed in Section III.
transportation and renewable energy applications. The company patented a
thermal management technology based on phase change materials, which III. PARAMETERS IDENTIFICATION
guarantees heat extraction and an uniform temperature distribution inside the
pack. AllCell designs and produces the hardware and software component of The battery cells used for the e-bike application are LG
BMS. ICR18650MG1. Battery open circuit voltage VOCV , dynamic
parameters (RCT , CCT , RDi f and CDi f ) and resistance R0 are B. Dynamic parameters identification
identified using experimental tests performed on this type of
An experimental test has been performed on a battery at
cells. VOCV and R0 are identified with two different identifica-
BOL in order to identify the dynamic parameters (RCT , CCT ,
tion tests which allow to characterize their dependence on SoC.
RDi f and CDi f ). The designed parameter identification test
The dynamic parameters of the model are identified neglecting
consist in a series of symmetrical discharge-charge current
SoC dependence.
pulses performed at different levels of SoC. The test current
All the experimental characterization tests were performed profile is shown in Figure 3(a) and the corresponding battery
at AllCell Technologies at ambient temperatures. For the voltage response is shown in Figure 3(b). A zoomed current
purpose of this work, the temperature dependence of all the pulse is shown in Figure 3(c) performed at SoC = 50% and
model parameters is not taken into account and the ambient the corresponding voltage zoom is in Figure 3(d).
temperature is considered the reference operative thermal
condition.
Parameter identification test
In the following, the tests are described with the current lev- 4
els expressed in terms of C-rate. The C-rate is the expression 2

IPexp(k) [A]
of rate of charge or discharge current in normalized form:
0
I(k)
C-rate = [1/h] −2
Qnom
−4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
where I(k) is the battery current and Qnom is the battery time [s] x 10
5

nominal capacity. The general expression is C/xx, where (a)


xx indicates the number of hours to completely discharge
4.5
the battery at a constant current. At the same time in the
expression xx ·C the number xx indicates the constant current 4

VP (k) [V]
equivalent to xx times the nominal battery capacity2 . 3.5
exp
3

A. Open circuit voltage identification 2.5


0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
time [s] x 10
5
The relationship between VOCV and SoC has been identified
(b)
with an identification test on a battery at beginning of life
(BOL). A constant-current discharge test was performed at Parameter identification test − zoom
4
C/20 on a battery fully charged through constant-current-
constant-voltage (CC-CV) protocol3 . 2
IPexp(k) [A]

The VOCV corresponds to the voltage measured during the 0

test: when a very small current is flowing in the battery, the −2


voltage drops on the internal impedances are negligible and −4
the measured voltage is thus equal to the VOCV . 1.3675 1.368 1.3685 1.369 1.3695 1.37
time [s] x 10
5

The identified VOCV (SoC) characteristic is shown in Figure


(c)
2, where the SoC is evaluated with the Coulomb Counting
3.9
method.
3.8
VPexp(k) [V]

4.5 3.7
VOCV [V]

3.6
4
3.5
1.3675 1.368 1.3685 1.369 1.3695 1.37
3.5 time [s] x 10
5

3 (d)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
SoC [−] Fig. 3: Experimental test for dynamic parameters identification: (a) Battery
P (k); (b) Measured voltage V P (k); (c) Zoom of battery current
current Iexp
Fig. 2: Open circuit voltage: identified VOCV function of SoC exp
P (k) around a pulse performed at SoC = 50%; (d) Zoom of the measured
Iexp
voltage at SoC = 50%

2 A rate of C/5 corresponds to a constant current value able to discharge The symmetrical current pulses have a duration of 10s at
the battery in 5 hours; 2C is the current corresponding to the double of the a current level of ±1C. The different SoC levels between
capacity, at which the battery will be discharged 1/2 hour. two consecutive pulses are reached discharging the battery
3 CC-CV protocol: the battery is charged at a constant current (1C) until
the voltage reaches the upper voltage limit, followed by a phase where the with a low constant current at C/40. Although the pulses are
voltage is hold at constant value until the current drops to zero. performed at different levels of SoC, the dependence of these
parameters on SoC is not taken into account as a wide variation R0−identification test
of the parameters values on the SoC has not been registered
during testing. 20

Iexp(k) [A]
Least Square method (LS) has been used for the identifi-
cation. Parameters values are identified minimizing the sum S 10
of the squared difference between the experimental measured

R
P (k) in Figure 3(b), and the voltage predicted by
voltage Vexp 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
the model (3): 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Tf
! time [s]
 P 2
min(S) = min ∑ Vexp ( j) − g(x( j), u( j)) (4) (a)
j=T0

where T0 and T f are the initial and final time instants of the VRexp(k)
4.2
experimental test. In (4), the model input u( j) corresponds Vmod(k)
4
to the current profile of Figure 3(a), while the state x( j) is
evaluated integrating the model (1) starting from the test initial 3.8
condition: SoC(0) = 100%, VCT (0) = VDi f (0) = 0V .

Voltage [V]
3.6

C. Internal resistance identification 3.4

Resistance R0 is a crucial parameter for the model to repro- 3.2 4

duce the battery behavior. For this reason the dependence of R0 3 3.9

on the SoC has been identified using a dedicated experimental 3.8


2.8
test referred to as R0 -identification test. This is a discharge test 99% SoC 3.7 1% SoC
performed on a battery at BOL. The discharge current profile 2.6 3.6
is shown in Figure 4(a) and the voltage response Vexp R (k) is 500 600 700 800 900 1000
2.4
in Figure 4(b). With reference to the e-bike application, the 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
time [s]
only discharge scenario is evaluated, since regeneration is not
(b)
possible on board of the vehicle.
In order to define the dependence R0 (SoC), the input and R (k); (b) Comparison
Fig. 4: R0 -identification test: (a) Battery current Iexp
output data are divided into batches, as shown in Figure 4 from R
between the measured voltage, called Vexp (k), and the model output voltage
the vertical dashed lines. The resistance values are identified Vmod , evaluated using the identified R0 (SoC)
with LS method: the procedure is the same as discussed earlier,
with the difference that in this case the LS algorithm is applied
at each single batch i. For each batch i, a constant resistance defined and it is shown in Figure 5 where the resistance values
value R0,i is identified minimizing the sum of the squared corresponding to each batches are linearly interpolated.
difference Si between the experimental measured voltages
R
Vexp,i and the voltage predicted by the model output relation −3
in (3): x 10
8
T
!
f ,i
6
min(Si ) = min ∑ R
(Vexp,i ( j) − g(x( j), u( j), R0,i ))2 (5)
R0 [Ω]

j=T0,i 4

where T0,i and T f ,i are the initial and final time instants of 2
each batch i respectively. As shown in Section II, the output
0
function g(·) has a linear dependence on the parameter R0,i and 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
the input u(k), and it is non linear with reference to the model SoC [−]
state x(k). To apply the LS method, the input u(k) and the Fig. 5: Identified resistance R0 (SoC) function of state of charge
state x(k) are known at each time instant, the former from the
test current profile (Figure 4(a)) and the latter obtained from R (k) is compared
In Figure 4(b) the experimental voltage Vexp
the model by integrating equation (1) where the parameters
with the model output voltage Vmod (k), evaluated from the
identified in Subsection III-B are substituted; this is possible
model output equation (2) where VOCV and the dynamic
since the current measurements are accurate and the values
parameters identified in the previous subsections are used
SoC(0) = 100% and VCT (0) = VDi f (0) = 0V are considered as
along with R0 (SoC) just identified. The matching between the
initial conditions. R (k) is quantified using
Vmod (k) and the measured voltage Vexp
For each batch i, the average state of charge SoCi is
the voltage error ẽLS (k) defined as:
calculated, to relate the identified resistance values R0,i to
R
the corresponding SoCi . The dependence R0 (SoC) is thus ẽLS (k) = Vexp (k) −Vmod (k) (6)
The RMS value4 of ẽLS (k) is evaluated considering the Validation test
whole SoC discharge range from 0% to 100% SoC, called
RMS0,100 , and also for the reduced SoC range from 10% to 20

IVexp(k) [A]
90% SoC, called RMS10,90 . The numerical values of RMS0,100
10
and RMS10,90 are shown in Table I.

TABLE I: RMS values of the voltage error ẽLS 0

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500


Values time [s]
RMS0,100 0.0216 (a)
RMS10,90 0.0027
4.4
VVexp(k)
The difference between the two RMS values is related to 4.2 Vmod(k)
the matching performance of the model at low values of SoC,
4
as also shown in Figure 4(b).
3.8

Voltage [V]
D. Model validation
A new experimental test, called validation test, has been 3.6
performed on the battery pack at BOL in order to validate the
3.4
model. This test represents a generic usage scenario for the
battery, related to the light electric-vehicle application. 3.2
Starting from a fully charged condition, reached following
CC-CV protocol, the battery pack is fully discharged with the 3
current profile in Figure 6(a). It is made by different steps at 99% SoC 1% SoC
2.8
3 different levels of C-rate, up to a maximum current value 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
V (k), is time [s]
of 2C. The validation test measured voltage, called Vexp
shown in Figure 6(b). (b)
The model validation is shown in Figure 6(b), where the V (k); (b) Comparison between
V (k) is compared with the model Fig. 6: Validation test: (a) Battery current Iexp
experimental voltage Vexp V
measured voltage, called Vexp (k), and the model output voltage Vmod (k)
output voltage Vmod (k) evaluated with (2) using the identified
parameters and the current profile in Figure 6(a) given as input.
It is noticeable that the identified model describes the battery the gaussian noises on the state and the output equations, as
behavior with an output voltage close to the measurements. Kalman assumptions:
The matching between Vmod (k) and Vexp V (k) is not as close as
(
in Figure 4(b) where the experimental voltage Vexp R (k) is the x(k + 1) = A x(k) + B u(k) + v(k)
(7)
same used for the resistance R0 identification. V (k) = g (x(k), u(k)) + w(k)
The accuracy of the identified state space model is a crucial
point to obtain good SoC estimation performance with a model where v(k) ∼ N (0, Q) and w(k) ∼ N (0, R) are white gaussian
based estimation algorithm, as presented in the next section. noises with zero mean and covariance matrices Q for the model
state equation and R for the output equation respectively.
IV. STATE OF CHARGE ESTIMATION The EKF algorithm is based on the implementation of
ALGORITHMS Prediction Step and Correction Step [7], whose equations are
The SoC estimation problem for an e-bike application is repeated in Table II.
addressed, with the purpose to define an algorithm suitable TABLE II: Summary of Extended Kalman filter algorithm equations
for on board implementation, in order to improve the battery
usage and the vehicle power management. To this end, two Prediction Step:
algorithms are discussed: an extended Kalman filter and an x̂− (k) = A x̂(k − 1) AT + B u(k − 1) (8a)
adaptive extended Kalman filter. −
P (k) = A P(k − 1) A + Q T
(8b)
Correction Step:
A. Extended Kalman Filter L(k) = P− (k)C(k)T (C(k)P− (k)C(k)T + R)−1 (9a)
To estimate the state of the battery model defined in Section x̂(k) = x̂− (k) + L( k)[Vexp (k) − g x̂− (k), u(k) ]

(9b)
II an EKF is proposed due to the non linearity of the output
P(k) = (I − L(k)C(k))P− (k) (9c)
equation. The model in (3), is written with the inclusion of
q
4 RMS value of a generic vector x(n) is defined as RMSx = 1
N ∑N
n=1 |x(n)|
2 The quantity x̂(k) is the estimated state and P(k) = E[e(k) ·
where N is the number of elements in vector x(n). e(k)T ] is the covariance matrix of the estimation error defined
as: e(k) = x(k) − x̂(k). In the prediction step, x̂(k) and P(k) g(x̂− (k), u(k)). In d(k) the predicted voltage is computed by
are projected to the next time step using the dynamic model the model output equation when the state in the prediction
equation (7) and the noise covariance Q. The superscript minus step, x̂− (k), is taken into account.
indicates that these quantities in (8a) and (8b) have not yet The innovation covariance matrix is computed as:
been corrected using the measurements [7]. In the correction
step, the state estimation x̂− (k) and its covariance P− (k) are 1 N
corrected by using the information from the measurements Vexp
D̂(k) = ∑ d(i)d(i)T
N i=i
(11)
0
and the adapted Kalman gain L(k). L(k) is evaluated through
using a moving average of the innovation d(k), over a moving
(9a), and Vexp (k) in equation (9b) refers to the actual voltage
estimation window of size N, where i0 = k − N + 1 is the first
measured. x̂(k) is the state estimation, obtained to reduce the
instant inside the window. Matrix D̂(k) represents the actual
difference between the experimental voltage Vexp (k) and the
performance of the estimation process, so that it is a crucial
model response g (x̂− (k), u(k)). element to be used in defining the adaptive law for matrix Q.
∂ g(x,I)
Matrix C(k) = ∂ x , used in the filter equations The choice of the window length N become a design parameter
x̂− (k),u(k) for the algorithm: it must be not so small to correctly represent
(9a) and (9c), is the linearized output matrix with respect to
the estimation performance and at the same time, for on-board
the state x(k), obtained from the linearization of the model
implementation, it has to consider the memory available on a
output function g(x, u) and evaluated in the linearization point
physical board.
(x̂− (k), u(k)).
With regards to the choice of the noise covariance matrices Starting from the evaluation of D̂(k), the innovation based
Q and R, matrix Q is chosen under the assumption that adaptive Kalman filter can be used, as demonstrated in [11].
there is no correlation between the noise on cross state The innovative contribution in [11] is the formulation of the
components [10], leading to a diagonal structure. The state filter in terms of maximum likelihood (ML) estimator. The
noise v(k) represents the model uncertainties as well as the advantage of this approach is to define the traditional EKF
approximation due to the non-linearities not considered, which estimator function of some adaptive parameters, usually the
cause the battery dynamic behavour not to be completely process and measure noise covariances Q and R. A ML equa-
represented by the model #[9]. The proposed matrix Q = tion is also defined, function of the same adaptive parameters.
In this work, the adaptive parameter considered is the process
"
1000 · R 0 0
0 0.1 · R 0 , which is defined with reference noise covariance matrix Q. The ML equation represents the
0 0 0.01 · R mathematical condition which allows to derive an adaptive
to the matrix R, shows a higher weight on the first component law for the matrix Q function of the innovation covariance
of the state x(k), since the main interest is in the SoC matrix D̂(k). Under the assumption that the measurement noise
estimation. covariance R is taken as constant, the ML equation in [11] can
The output noise covariance R is evaluated considering the
be transformed in:
voltage identification error ẽLS (k) defined in Subsection III-C.
From a statistical analysis of the error, it can be shown that 1 N
ẽLS (k) is well approximated by a Gaussian distribution with
Q̂(k) = ∑ ∆x̂(i) ∆x̂(i)T + P(k) − A P(k − 1) AT
N i=i
(12)
0
zero mean and covariance value R = 4.4725 · 10−4 .
where ∆x̂ is the state correction:
In the next subsection an adaptive version of the EKF is
presented. ∆x̂(k) = x̂(k) − x̂− (k) (13)
B. Adaptive Extended Kalman Filter evaluated as the difference between the state before and after
The AEKF approach used in this work is based on the work updates. From (9b) it can also be written as:
developed in [11] for INS/GPS application. An adaptive update
∆x̂(k) = L(k) d(k) (14)
of process covariance matrix Q can help in overcoming the
model uncertainties represented by the state and output noises. Substituting (14) into (12), Q̂(k) is approximated as [11]:
An adaptive choice for matrix R is not investigated, since a
reliable analysis of the measurement covariance R is possible Q̂(k) = L(k) D̂(k) L(k)T (15)
starting from the model validation, as discussed in the previous To conclude, the AEKF algorithm for the SoC estimation uses
subsection. the same equation of the EKF filter summarized in Table II,
In most of the adaptive solutions developed in literature, with the only difference that equation (8b) is now implemented
estimation performance are evaluated through the information using Q̂(k) as in (15):
represented by the innovation sequence d(k). The innovation
d(k) is defined: P− (k + 1) = A P(k) AT + Q̂(k)

d(k) = Vexp (k) − g(x̂− (k), u(k)) (10) C. Simulation results


which is the difference between the experimental voltage EKF and AEKF algorithms are both tested with two ex-
Vexp (k) measured by the BMS and the predicted value perimental tests: R0 -identification test in Figure 4 and the
SoCcc (k) SoCcc (k)
1 ˆ E K F (k) 1 ˆ E K F (k)
SoC SoC
ˆ AE K F (k)
SoC ˆ AE K F (k)
SoC
0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6
SoC [−]

SoC [−]
0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
time [s] time [s]
Fig. 7: Comparison between SoC estimation results with reference to the Fig. 9: Comparison between SoC estimation results with reference to the
R0 -identification test (Figure 4): reference Coulomb counting SoCcc (k), ˆ EKF (k)
validation test (Figure 6): reference Coulomb counting SoCcc (k), SoC
ˆ EKF (k) estimated with EKF and SoC
SoC ˆ AEKF (k) estimated with AEKF estimated with EKF and SoC ˆ AEKF (k) estimated with AEKF
0.1 0.1
eAE K F (k) eAE K F (k)

SOC error [−]


SoC error [−]

+5% +5%
0.05 eE K F (k) 0.05 eE K F (k)
+1% +1%
0 0
−1% −1%
−0.05 −5% −0.05 −5%

−0.1 −0.1
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
time [s] time [s]
Fig. 8: Comparison between SoC estimation error eEKF (k) and eAEKF (k) Fig. 10: Comparison between SoC estimation error eEKF (k) and eAEKF (k)
with reference to the R0 -identification test (Figure 4) with reference to the validation test (Figure 6)

R
validation test in Figure 6 where the measured voltage is Vexp
1
V ˆ ˆ
and Vexp respectively. We refer to SoCEKF and SoCAEKF as
0.8
SoC [−]

the estimated SoC evaluated with EKF and AEKF algorithms,


respectively. A comparison between the estimations is shown 0.6 SoCcc (k)
in Figure 7 with reference to the R0 -identification test and ˆ E K F (k)
SoC
0.4
ˆ AE K F (k)
SoC
in Figure 9 for the validation test. As a reference for the
0.2
comparison, state of charge obtained with Coulomb Counting 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
time [s]
method (SoCcc ) is considered, defined by the discrete-time
dynamic equations: ˆ EKF and SoC
Fig. 11: Zoom of the initial dynamics of SoC ˆ AEKF with reference
to the R0 -identification test
∆t
SoCcc (k + 1) = SoCcc (k) − I(k) (16)
Qnom
which corresponds to the first equation of model (1). follows:
ˆ EKF (k)
eEKF (k) = SoCcc (k) − SoC (17)
In both the cases, in order to test the convergence perfor- ˆ AEKF (k)
eAEKF (k) = SoCcc (k) − SoC (18)
mance of the filters, the model state is estimated starting from
the initialization state x(0) = [ 0.4 0 0 ]T , corresponding both evaluated as the difference between SoCcc from Coulomb
counting and the estimated states of charge SoC ˆ EKF and
to an initial SoC(0) = 0.4, while the actual SoC level is close
ˆ
SoCAEKF . The errors are shown in Figure 8 for the R0 -
to 1, since the battery is fully charged in both the tests. In
Figure 11 a zoom of initial dynamics of SoC ˆ EKF and SoCˆ AEKF identification test and in Figure 10 for the validation test.
is shown, with reference to the R0 -identification test. A rapid As shown in Figure 8 and 10, using EKF the SoC estimation
convergence of both EKF and AEKF to the SoC = 1 is shown. error eEKF (k) is within the 5% range with respect to the
SoCcc . This result is related to the performance of the model
in reproducing the battery behavior: thanks to the model
For both EKF and AEKF, the estimation error is defined as identification performed, when the model well describes the
battery behavior with a response close to the measurements, [3] J. Chiasson and B. Vairamohan. Estimating the state of charge of a
the estimation error is reduced. By contrast, when the model battery. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 13(3):465–
470, 2005.
response is less close to the measurements (Figure 4(b) and [4] M. Coleman, Chi Kwan Lee, Chunbo Zhu, and W.G. Hurley. State-of-
6(b)), and in particular at low SoC values, also the estimation Charge Determination From EMF Voltage Estimation: Using Impedance,
becomes more difficult. The amplitude of eEKF (k) is smaller Terminal Voltage, and Current for Lead-Acid and Lithium-Ion Batteries.
Industrial Electronics, IEEE Transactions on, 54(5):2550–2557, Oct
for the R0 -identification test (Figure 8) with respect to the 2007.
validation test (Figure 10), since the matching between the [5] S. Piller, M. Perrin, and A. Jossen. Methods for state-of-charge determi-
model output voltage and the measured Vexp R is closer, being nation and their applications. Journal of Power Sources, 96(1):113 – 120,
2001. Proceedings of the 22nd International Power Sources Symposium.
this the same test used for resistance identification. For this [6] V. Fathabadi, M. Shahbazian, K. Salahshour, and L. Jargani. Comparison
reasons, estimation results related to the validation test in of adaptive Kalman filter methods in state estimation of a nonlinear
Figure 9 are more representative of the estimation performance system using asynchronous measurements. In Proceedings of the World
Congress on Engineering and Computer Science, volume 2, 2009.
in a generic usage scenario for the vehicle application. [7] M. Rubagotti, S. Onori, and G. Rizzoni. Automotive battery prognostics
With the AEKF an improvement in the estimation perfor- using dual Extended Kalman Filter. In ASME 2009 Dynamic Systems
mance is achieved, as shown in Figure 7 and 9. For both the and Control Conference, pages 257–263, 2009.
[8] G.L. Plett. Extended Kalman filtering for battery management systems of
tests considered, estimation error eAEKF (k) remains close to LiPB-based HEV battery packs: Part 3. State and parameter estimation.
1% (Figure 8 and 10), a good improvement with reference Journal of Power Sources, 134(2):277 – 292, 2004.
to the EKF, thanks to the adaptive update of the covariace [9] S. Lee, J. Kim, J. Lee, and B.H. Cho. State-of-charge and capacity
estimation of lithium-ion battery using a new open-circuit voltage versus
Q. In this way, the uncertainty of the model are adaptively state-of-charge. Journal of Power Sources, 185(2):1367 – 1373, 2008.
compensated since Q̂(k) changes following the estimation [10] A. Vasebi, M. Partovibakhsh, and S. M. Taghi Bathaee. A novel
error. Also for low values of SoC, the estimation is improved, combined battery model for state-of-charge estimation in lead-acid
batteries based on extended Kalman filter for hybrid electric vehicle
even if is not possible to assure a good estimation very close applications. Journal of Power Sources, 174(1):30 – 40, 2007.
to zero value of SoC. It is noticeable that also with reference to [11] A.H. Mohamed and K.P. Schwarz. Adaptive Kalman filtering for
the validation test, the adaptive solution lowers the estimation INS/GPS. Journal of geodesy, 73(4):193–203, 1999.
[12] M. Charkhgard and M. Farrokhi. State-of-Charge Estimation for
error eAEKF (k) to the target of 1%. Lithium-Ion Batteries Using Neural Networks and EKF. Industrial
About the convergence, both filters show a quick response. Electronics, IEEE Transactions on, 57(12):4178–4187, Dec 2010.
In AEKF in particular, the convergence time depends on the [13] H. He, R. Xiong, X. Zhang, F. Sun, and J. Fan. State-of-Charge
Estimation of the Lithium-Ion Battery Using an Adaptive Extended
initial choice of Q̂(0) in the initialization phase: the value Kalman Filter Based on an Improved Thevenin Model. Vehicular
Q̂(0) = Q, corresponding to the constant Q used for the EKF, Technology, IEEE Transactions on, 60(4):1461–1469, May 2011.
is chosen. It has been verified that even starting with a poor [14] J. Han, D. Kim, and M. Sunwoo. State-of-charge estimation of lead-
acid batteries using an adaptive extended Kalman filter. Journal of Power
initialization, the AEKF estimation performance are however Sources, 188(2):606 – 612, 2009.
good after a first convergence period. [15] P.M. Gomadam, J.W. Weidner, R.A. Dougal, and R.E. White. Mathe-
matical modeling of lithium-ion and nickel battery systems. Journal of
V. CONCLUSION Power Sources, 110(2):267 – 284, 2002.
[16] D. Di Domenico, G. Fiengo, and A. Stefanopoulou. Lithium-ion
In this work, a state space model of a Li-ion battery pack battery state of charge estimation with a Kalman Filter based on a
used for light vehicle application such as e-bikes was identified electrochemical model. In Control Applications, 2008. CCA 2008. IEEE
and validated over experimental data. International Conference on, pages 702–707, Sept 2008.
[17] WB Gu and CY Wang. Thermal-electrochemical modeling of battery
The state of charge estimation problem has been addressed systems. Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 147(8):2910–2922,
using two algorithms: EKF and the adaptive version, AEKF. 2000.
With AEKF, an adaptive law for the process covariance was [18] F. Codeca, S.M. Savaresi, and G. Rizzoni. On battery state of charge
estimation: A new mixed algorithm. In Control Applications, 2008. CCA
defined. These algorithms have been implemented is simula- 2008. IEEE International Conference on, pages 102–107, Sept 2008.
tion and tested on experimental data, and the estimation results [19] G. L. Plett. Extended Kalman filtering for battery management systems
are compared. The choice of an adaptive law for the process of LiPB-based HEV battery packs: Part 2. Modeling and identification.
Journal of Power Sources, 134(2):262 – 276, 2004.
noise covariance matrix shows an improvement in estimation [20] L. Gao, S. Liu, and R.A. Dougal. Dynamic lithium-ion battery model
performance. In terms of estimation error, the EKF results are for system simulation. Components and Packaging Technologies, IEEE
into 5% estimation error range, while with AEKF this range Transactions on, 25(3):495–505, Sep 2002.
[21] M. Ceraolo. New dynamical models of lead-acid batteries. Power
is reduced down to 1%. Systems, IEEE Transactions on, 15(4):1184–1190, Nov 2000.
[22] P. Rong and M. Pedram. An analytical model for predicting the
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT remaining battery capacity of lithium-ion batteries. Very Large Scale
This work is supported by AllCell Technology. The collab- Integration (VLSI) Systems, IEEE Transactions on, 14(5):441–451, May
2006.
oration with Peter Sveum, Sebastien Maes and Naz Al-Khayat [23] G.K. Prasad and C.D. Rahn. Development of a first principles equivalent
is gratefully acknowledged. circuit model for a lithium ion battery. In ASME 2012 5th Annual
Dynamic Systems and Control Conference joint with the JSME 2012
R EFERENCES 11th Motion and Vibration Conference, pages 369–375, 2012.
[1] W. Chang. The state of charge estimating methods for battery: a review. [24] P.L. Moss, G. Au, E.J. Plichta, and J.P. Zheng. An electrical circuit for
ISRN Applied Mathematics, 2013, 2013. Article ID 953792. modeling the dynamic response of li-ion polymer batteries. Journal of
[2] S. Pang, J. Farrell, J. Du, and M. Barth. Battery state-of-charge The Electrochemical Society, 155(12):A986–A994, 2008.
estimation. In American Control Conference, 2001. Proceedings of the
2001, volume 2, pages 1644–1649. IEEE, 2001.

You might also like