Improved Battery Modeling Approach Considering

Operating Scenarios for HEV/EV Applications

Jufeng Yang 1,2, Bing Xia 2, Yunlong Shang 2,3, Wenxin Huang 1 and Chris Mi 2,*
1
Department of Electrical Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 211106, China;
jufeng.yang@mail.sdsu.edu (J. Yang), huangwx@nuaa.edu.cn (W. Huang)
2
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, San Diego State University, San Diego 92182, USA;
bixia@eng.ucsd.edu (B. Xia), cmi@sdsu.edu (C. Mi)
3
School of Control Science and Engineering, Shan Dong University, Jinan 250061, China;
shangyunlong@mail.sdu.edu.cn (Y. Shang)

Abstract— This paper presents an improved battery
modeling approach based on typical operating scenarios in
hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) and pure electric vehicles (EVs).
Compared with the conventional modeling methods, the
proposed method takes both the constant-current (CC) charging
and dynamic driving scenarios into account, and two separate
sets of parameters are estimated through different periods of the
pulse-rest test. For the CC charging scenario, data from the
pulse-charging period are employed in parameter estimation. For
the dynamic driving scenario, data from the rest period are
employed, and the length of the fitted dataset is determined by
the spectrum analysis of the load current. In addition, the initial
voltage expressions of the RC networks in the fitting function are
improved to ensure a higher model fidelity. The feasibility of the
developed modeling approach is experimentally verified on a 40
Ah LiNMC battery. Experimental results validate the advantages
of the proposed approach.
Keywords—lithium-ion battery; operating scenario; equivalent
circuit modeling; parameter estimation; battery management
system
collected from the pulse-rest test. For the constant-current (CC)
charging process, parameters can be estimated through the data
from rest periods at different SoC [10-12]. However,
electrochemical reactions occurred under the CC excitation and
the rest period are different, thus the estimated parameters may
not accurately represent the charging characteristics of the
battery. For the dynamic driving scenario, circuit parameters
can be obtained by the simple algebraic operations [13-15],
which is straightforward but exists large estimation errors. A
more accurate method is to fit the experimental data from the
whole rest period with exponential functions [16-18]. The
limitation of this method is its poor dynamic performance. Ref
[19] proposed an application-oriented parameter extraction
test, leading to a fast-dynamics battery model with high
fidelity. However, the parameter extraction test should be re-
implemented when load profiles show different bandwidths.
RRC,short RRC,long
Rin I
CRC,short CRC,long

I. INTRODUCTION Voc VRC,short VRC,long Vt

Lithium-ion batteries have been widely used as the energy
storage system in hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) and pure
electric vehicles (EVs), due to their improved power and Fig. 1. The second order ECM.
energy densities [1-5]. To ensure the safe and reliable operation
of lithium-ion batteries, it is critical to accurately monitor the 3.72 25
essential states of the battery, which are usually obtained by the Voltage
model based estimation algorithms. Based on the previous 3.7 Current 20
study, the ECM is widely used in the automotive application
Current (A)
Voltage (V)

3.68 15
[6, 7]. The accuracy of the ECM is highly dependent on the
model structure and circuit parameters. Considering a tradeoff 3.66 10
between the fidelity and the computational burden, the second A
3.64 B 5
order ECM is widely applied [8]. The structure of the second C
order ECM is illustrated in Fig. 1, in which the Voc stands for 3.62 0
the open circuit voltage (OCV), Rin is the internal resistance, 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Time (sec)
and two RC networks respectively describe the short-term and
long-term diffusion processes [9]. The above parameters are Fig. 2. Pulse-rest test profile (SoC=50%).
dependent on the state of charge (SoC) and usually identified
through the charging/discharging pulse-rest test. The pulse-rest This paper proposes an improved battery modeling
test is conducted with a step of 2% SoC, and the profiles of the approach, which is applicable to typical operating scenarios in
discharging pulse-rest test at 50% SoC are shown in Fig. 2. In HEV/EV applications. For the CC charging scenario, data from
general, circuit parameters are estimated by analyzing the data the pulse-charging period are adopted in parameter estimation.

978-1-5090-5366-7/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE 1216

For the dynamic driving scenario, data from the rest period are charging periods are approximately consistent with the
employed to estimate parameters, and the length of the fitted corresponding points in Fig. 3. While in Fig. 5, the variation
data is determined by the spectrum analysis of the load current. trend of the predicted stable voltage values differ greatly
Moreover, an improved fitting equation with more accurate compared to the results in Fig. 4. This is mainly due to
initial voltage expressions of the RC networks is adopted. different electrochemical processes occur in the battery, which
Finally, experimental results verify the effectiveness of the has been discussed in detail in [10, 20].
proposed approach.
14%-16%SoC (A) 50%-52%SoC (D)
18%-20%SoC (B) 60%-62%SoC (E)
II. MODELING APPROACH FOR THE CC CHARGING 26%-28%SoC (C) 80%-82%SoC (F)
0.06
SCENARIO
0.05
The polarization voltage (VP), as expressed in (1), is 0.04
adopted to illustrate the variation of parameters under the CC

|VP| (V)
0.03
excitation. The evolution of VP versus SoC (VP-SoC) during the 0.02
1/2C rate CC charging process is shown in Fig. 3. It can be 0.01
observed that VP increases dramatically in stage I (10%~18% 0
SoC), then it declines slowly and shows a concave shape 0 50
Time (sec)
100 150

voltage curve in stage II, with the local minimum value at

around 30% SoC. During stage III (40% ~70% SoC), VP Fig. 4. |VP| profiles at different SoC during pulse-charging.
becomes relatively stable. After that (70%~90% SoC), VP rises
sharply. The detailed explanation for the evolution of VP-SoC 16%SoC (A) 52%SoC (D)
20%SoC (B) 62%SoC (E)
can be found in [10, 20]. 28%SoC (C) 82%SoC (F)
0.03
VP  VRC , short  VRC ,long  Voc (SoC )  Vt  IRin (1) 0.025

0.02
where the positive current I represents discharging, and VRC,short

|VP| (V)
0.015
and VRC,long have a following general formalism
0.01
t  t1 t  t1
  0.005
VRC  t   VRC  t1  e  RC
 IRRC (1  e  RC
) (2) 0
0 50 100 150
Time (sec)
where t is the time, t1 is the start time, RRC and τRC are the
resistance and time constant of the corresponding RC network, Fig. 5. |VP| profiles at different SoC during rest.
respectively, and τRC = RRC CRC.
Consequently, the voltage response during the pulse-
0.08 charging period can describe the characteristics of the CC
charging process with higher fidelity, thus it can be adopted to
0.06 F model the batteries operated in the CC charging scenario.
A Assuming the VP has reached to the equilibrium during the
VP (V)

B D
E
0.04
C former rest period, the fitting function during the pulse-
charging period can be expressed as
0.02
t t1 t t1
Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ Ⅳ  
Vt (t )  VOC (SoC )  IRin  IRRC ,short (1  e
 RC ,short  RC ,long
0 )  IRRC ,long (1  e ) (3)
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
SoC (%)

Fig. 3. VP-SoC under CC charging.
The absolute value of VP during the pulse-charging and rest
periods are plotted in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, respectively. It can be
seen from both figures that the shape of the polarization
voltage curve strongly depends on the SoC. In Fig. 4, it is
obvious that the final value of the polarization voltage obtained
from 26%~28% SoC is the lowest, which is similar to point C
in Fig. 3. Moreover, the final values of the voltage curves
obtained from 18%~20% SoC and 50%~52% SoC are almost
coincided with each other, which approximately matches the
corresponding parts (point B and point D) in Fig. 3.
Meanwhile, the relations among the final voltage values
collected from 14%~16% SoC, 60%~62% SoC and 80%~82%
SoC are also identical to the relations among point A, point E
and point F in Fig. 3, respectively. Hence, it can be concluded
that the final values of VP obtained from different pulse-
III. MODELING APPROACH FOR THE DYNAMIC DRIVING
SCENARIO
For the dynamic driving scenario, especially for the urban
driving scenario, vehicles accelerate and brake frequently,
which cause the long-time lasting load current seldom exist.
However, the low C-rate discharging current, particularly
around zero-value amplitudes, accounts for a larger portion.
Hence, the voltage response during the rest period can be
employed to estimate the RC network parameters for the
dynamic driving scenario.
The diffusion process plays a major role during the rest
period, and it can be accurately modeled as infinite series-
connected RC networks with a wide range of time constants
(τRC,1, τRC,2, …, τRC,j) [21]. When only the initial segment of the
voltage response is employed in parameter estimation, such as
part A in Fig. 2, the voltages across the shorter-term RC

1217
networks have a larger degree of variability, which in turn Usually in the pulse-rest test, the length of pulse-
leads to smaller estimated time constants and ignores the slow- discharging period is set for several minutes (resulting in 2%
dynamics diffusion process. On the contrary, when the whole SoC variation in this paper). Since the value of τlong is more
voltage response of the long-time rest period is adopted, such than one order of magnitude greater than that of τshort, the
as part C in Fig. 2, the voltages across the shorter-term RC voltage across the short-term RC network can easily converge
networks have converged to the equilibrium, and data with to the equilibrium during the pulse-discharging process, thus
slower-varying values account for a large portion, which leads the initial voltage across the short-term RC network can be
to the relatively larger estimated time constants and ignores the expressed as VRC,short(0)=IRRC,short. While for the long-term RC
fast-dynamics process. Hence, estimated time constants are network, the voltage varies continuously due to a relatively
closely related to the length of fitted experimental dataset ∆t. large time constant, thus the initial voltage should be expressed
The selection of ∆t is simply illustrated as follows. as VRC ,long (0)  IRRC ,long (1  e D  ) . Hence, the improved fitting
RC ,long

During ∆t, the derivative of (2) with respect to τRC,i can be function during the rest period can be expressed as follows:
shown as t  t1 D t  t1
  


t 
D

t Vt (t )  Voc (SoC )  IRRC , short e  RC , short
 IRRC ,long (1  e
 RC ,long
)e
 RC ,long
(6)
 RC ,i  RC ,i  RC ,i
dVRC ,i e t I RRC ,i (1  e )e
 t VRC ,i  0  = (4)
d RC ,i  RC
2
,i  RC
2
,i IV. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
where D denotes the length of the pulse-discharging period, i is A. Experimental Setup
the index of RC networks and i ∈ {1, 2, 3, …, j}.
In this paper, all of the model parameters are estimated
For two well-separated time constants τRC,i and τRC,i+m through the discharging/charging pulse-rest test at room
(τRC,i+m ≥ 5τRC,i, and 0 < m < j-i), the voltage across the shorter- temperature (22℃~25℃). The 8-channel Arbin BT2000 cycler-
term RC network has a larger degree of variability when based tester is used to test a lithium-ion polymer battery with
satisfying |dVRC,i/dτRC,i|/|dVRC,i+m/dτRC,i+m|≥k (k denotes the nickel-manganese-cobalt-based cathode and graphite-based
degree of variability, and it subjects to k >1). Subsequently, the anode (LiNMC). The specification of the tested battery is
range of ∆t can be obtained as follows presented in TABLE I. The current and voltage sensors of each
channel have accuracies of ±0.02% or ±0.05% (0-100A full-
 
D
 RC ,t
 scale for current sensors and 0-5V full-scale for voltage
 RRC ,i RC
2
,i  m (1  e )   RC ,i RC ,i  m sensors). Since the noise of current and voltage sensors is very
t  ln   (5)
 
D

 RC ,t  m  RC , i  m
  RC ,i small, it is reasonable to assume that the measured current and
kR  2
 RC ,i  m RC ,i (1  e )  voltage can accurately describe the characteristics of the tested
Defining the right term of (5) as ∆tc. It can be deduced that battery.
an approximate value of τRC,i should be known in advance to
obtain a proper value of ∆tc. The spectrum analysis of the load TABLE I. SPECIFICATION OF TESTED BATTERY
current is adopted to predetermine the approximate value of
τRC,i. For the typical urban driving cycles, namely, the Urban Charge capacity 40.99 Ah
Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) test, the single-sided Discharge capacity 40.89 Ah
amplitude spectrum of the load current is shown in Fig. 6. It
can be concluded that excluding the DC components (point A), Nominal voltage 3.7 V
the major low frequency component for the test is around Charge cutoff voltage 4.2 V
0.00146 Hz (point B). Thus the approximate value of τRC,i is
selected as 685 s. In order to exclude the voltage variation Discharge cutoff voltage 2.7 V
caused by the large time constants (larger than 5τRC,i), the prior
1-hour measured battery voltage dataset (substituting k=2 into B. Parameter Extraction Test Design
(5)), such as part B in Fig. 2, is employed in RC network The discharging pulse-rest test starts with a fully charged
parameter estimation. battery. In each cycle of test, the battery is discharged at a 2%
SoC step with C/2 constant current, then followed by a rest
8
8 period, where C is the amplitude of the current with which the
A battery can be fully discharged in 1 hour. In order to eliminate
6 6
the polarization voltage, the OCV values are extracted at the
4 B end of each rest period. Too short rest time leads to a large
|Y(f)|

4
2 OCV estimation error, whereas too long rest time makes the
0 whole test time-consuming. It has been shown previously that
2 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 for the LiNMC batteries, electrochemical reactions are
negligible after a 2-hour rest period . Therefore, the rest time in
0 this paper is predetermined as 2 hours. This cycle is repeated
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Frequency (Hz) until the battery is fully discharged. Data points (including
current, voltage, charging capacity and discharging capacity)
Fig. 6. The spectral of current under UDDS test.
are collected with the sampling frequency of 1 Hz. The
relevant voltage and current profiles of discharging pulse-rest

1218
test are plotted in Fig. 7. The charging pulse-rest test is observed from Fig. 3 and Fig. 9 that the variation tendencies of
conducted similarly, that is, it begins with a fully discharged the polarization voltage and the short-term resistance are
battery, then charged at a 2% SoC step with C/2 constant similar during the middle SoC range. At the end of the
current, and followed by a rest period. The polynomial function charging process, the short-term resistance decreases and
as shown in (7) is adopted to describe the average OCV-SoC stabilizes around a very small value, while the long-term
relationship. resistance increases almost linearly after 60% SoC, leading to a
ni
similar variation tendency of the polarization voltage,
Voc ( SoC )   ai SoC i (7) compared to the corresponding part in Fig. 3. Hence, it can be
i 0 concluded that the long-term diffusion process plays a major
where ni is the order of the polynomial function, which is set as role in this stage.
8 in this paper, ai is the polynomial coefficient which is
50 500
extracted with the curve-fitting method.
τshort
40 4.5 τlong
40 400
Current

τlong (sec)
τshort (sec)
Voltage
30 4 30 300

Voltage (V)
Current (A)

20 3.5 20 200

10 3 10 100
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
SoC (%)
0 2.5 Fig. 8. Time constant estimation results for the CC charging scenario.
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time (hour)

Fig. 7. Illustration of the discharging pulse-rest test. 3 6

Rshort
2.5 Rlong 5
C. Verification Test Design 2 4

Rlong (mΩ)
Rshort (mΩ)

In this paper, the CC charging test and the consecutive

1.5 3
UDDS tests, which respectively represent two typical operating
scenarios in HEV/EV applications, are conducted to verify the 1 2
effectiveness of the proposed approach. 0.5 1
For the CC charging test, the battery is charged from 0 0
10%~90% SoC. The typical charging current in practice varies 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
from C/8 to 2C [22], and a C/2 rate current is employed in the SoC (%)
charging test. Fig. 9. Resistance estimation results for the CC charging scenario.
The consecutive UDDS test starts from 90% SoC, and
Fig. 10 demonstrates the comparison results among three
terminates when SoC drops below 20% SoC. A 10-minute rest
model outputs and measured battery terminal voltage curves
period is set between two consecutive cycles to simulate a
under the CC charging test, and the corresponding RMSEs are
short-time parking. The current profile of UDDS is scaled such
given in TABLE II. It can be observed that during the whole
that the maximum discharge current is 2.5C (100A) and the
charging process, the model with parameters estimated from
maximum charge current is 2C (80A).
the data in pulse-charging periods outputs a voltage curve
matching to the measured curve better because of considering
V. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS the continuous external electric driving forces. However,
parameters estimated from the data in the rest periods result in
A. CC Charging Scenario relatively larger errors, especially in the high SoC region. In
According to the analysis in Section II, parameters applied addition, during most part of the charging period, the model
to the CC charging scenario are estimated from the voltage with parameters used in the dynamic driving scenarios outputs
response of the pulse-charging period, and the estimated time voltage higher than the experimental voltage. Comparing the
constants and resistances are shown in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9, corresponding curves in Fig. 9 and Fig. 15, it can be deduced
respectively. It can be seen from Fig. 8 that the general order of that the higher estimated voltage is mainly caused by the larger
magnitude of the short-term time constant is 10 s, it fluctuates value of estimated long-term resistance, especially during the
greatly when the SoC changes, especially in the middle SoC middle range of SoC region.
region, while the order of magnitude of the long-term time
constant is 100 s, it is relatively flat during the whole SoC
TABLE II. RMSES OF ESTIMATED VOLTAGE UNDER CC CHARGING TEST
region. It can be observed from Fig. 9 that in the middle SoC
range, the short-term resistance has a larger value, which Modeling method dynamic-condition rest-period pulse-period
means that the voltage across the short-term RC network RMSE (mV) 18.41 19.76 5.448
accounts for more weight during this period. Hence, it can be

1219
 4.2
experiment 0.5hr 1hr 2hr
Battery voltage (V)

4 dynamic condition 2000

rest-period
pulse-period 1600
3.8

τlong (sec)
3.6 1200
3.4
800
60
Voltage error (mV)

400
40
0
20 0 20 40 60 80 100
SoC (%)
0 Fig. 12. Long-term time constant estimation results with different length of
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Time (sec) experimental dataset.
Fig. 10. Verification results under the CC charging test.
0.005
B. Dynamic Driving Scenario 0
For the case of the dynamic driving scenario, the -0.005
discharging pulse-rest test is employed, and the data from the -0.01

VP (V)
rest periods are adopted in the parameter estimation. According -0.015 measured
to the analysis in Section III, different time constants will be ∆t=0.5hr
-0.02 ∆t=1hr
obtained from the fitted experimental datasets in different ∆t=2hr
-0.025
lengths. Fig. 11 and Fig. 12 show the short-term time constants
and long-term time constants estimated from the measured -0.03
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
voltage dataset in different length (0.5 hour, 1 hour and 2 Time (min)
hour), respectively. It can be observed that the time constants,
Fig. 13. The overall result of curve fitting results of VP during the rest period
both for the short-term and the long-term, increase of the discharging pulse-rest test at 60% SoC.
simultaneously when the length of fitted dataset increases.
Furthermore, in order to compare the best fit performances for
the measured datasets in different lengths, the measured battery
terminal voltage response at 60% SoC during a 2-hour rest -0.01
period is adopted. Curve fitting results are shown in Fig. 13,
and the close look of transient part at the beginning of the -0.015
VP (V)

curve fitting results are shown in Fig. 14. It can be observed measured
from Fig. 13 that the fitting result of the whole measured -0.02 ∆t=0.5hr
voltage response shows a better performance during most of ∆t=1hr
-0.025 ∆t=2hr
the rest period, especially in the equilibrium state. Whereas for
the performance of first 200 seconds, the fitting result through -0.03
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
the prior 0.5-hour measured voltage response yields less errors, Time (sec)
as shown in Fig. 14. In addition, by comparing Fig. 11 and Fig.
12 with Fig. 8, it can be concluded that the time constants Fig. 14. The close look of transient part at the beginning of Fig. 13.
applied in the CC charging scenario and the dynamic driving
scenario show different variation tendencies. Hence, it is The resistances can be obtained after determining the length
essential to adopt different sets of model parameters for of the fitted experimental dataset. Fig. 15 shows the long-term
different operating scenarios. resistances estimated by the conventional fitting function and
the improved fitting function. It can be concluded from Fig. 15
0.5hr 1hr 2hr that the Rlong estimated by the conventional fitting function is
60 generally less than the one estimated by the improved fitting
50 function, because it neglects the (1  e D  ) part. In order to RC ,long

demonstrate the advantage of the improved fitting function,

τshort (sec)

40
data from the 20th cycle of the discharging pulse-rest test are
30 adopted, and the current profile of the 20th discharging pulse-
rest test is applied on the ECM MATLAB/SIMULINK model
20 as an excitation. Fig. 16 shows the model output voltage
10 responses with two sets of estimated model parameters, and
0 20 40 60 80 100 Fig. 17 shows the close look of transient part at the beginning
SoC (%) of the curve fitting results. It can be seen from Fig. 16 and Fig.
Fig. 11. Short-term time constant estimation results with different length of 17 that the model with parameters estimated by the proposed
experimental dataset. fitting function outputs better estimation results.

1220
 4.2
8 experiment

Battery voltage (V)

4 conventional
conventional fitting function improved-2hr
improved fitting function 3.8
6 improved-1hr
3.6
Rlong (mΩ)

4 3.4
3.2
40
2

Voltage error (mV)

30
0 20
0 20 40 60 80 100
SoC(%) 10

Fig. 15. Long-term resistance estimation results. 0

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Time (sec)
3.75
Fig. 18. Verification results under the UDDS test.
3.73
3.8

Battery voltage (V)

Vt (V)

3.71 3.7
experimental data experiment
3.69 conventional fitting function 3.6 conventional
improved fitting function improved-2hr
improved-1hr
3.67 3.5
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 25
Time(sec) Voltage error (mV) 20

Fig. 16. Voltage curves of one cycle of discharging pulse-rest test 15

(62%~60%). 10
5
3.75 0
10200 10400 10600 10800 11000 11200 11400 11600 11800 12000
Time (sec)
3.73
Fig. 19. The close look of Fig. 18 from 10000 s to 12000 s .
Vt (V)

3.71
experimental data TABLE III. RMSES OF ESTIMATED VOLTAGE UNDER THE UDDS TEST
3.69 conventional fitting function
improved fitting function Modeling method Conventional Improved-2 hr Improved-1 hr
RMSE (mV) 8.504 6.329 4.244
3.67
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time(sec)

Fig. 17. The close look of transient part at the beginning of Fig. 16.
The model and experimental voltage outputs in the
consecutive UDDS validation are plotted in Fig. 18. And a
close look from 10000 s to 12000 s is plotted to make a
detailed comparison, as shown in Fig. 19. The RMSEs of the
aforementioned modeling methods during the whole
consecutive UDDS test are shown in TABLE III. It can be
concluded that the model containing parameters estimated by
the prior 1-hour data from the rest period with the improved
fitting function gives voltage outputs with least errors in the
UDDS test. Based on the aforementioned analysis, larger time
constants are obtained from the data of the whole rest period.
This causes the corresponding model voltage output cannot
recover fast after a relatively long-term discharging current
(occurs around 10200 s), which leads to an offset of voltage
errors, in comparison to the voltage errors caused by the
proposed approach.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
This paper proposes an advanced battery modeling
approach based on two general operating scenarios in HEV/EV
applications, namely, CC charging scenario and dynamic
driving scenario. Two sets of model parameters are extracted
from the pulse-rest charging/discharging tests. Specifically, for
the dynamic driving scenario, the length of fitted data is
determined by the spectrum analysis of the load current under
two typical urban driving conditions. In addition, an improved
fitting equation with more accurate initial voltage expression of
the RC network is adopted. Finally, the CC charging and the
UDDS tests are conducted, and comparisons between the
conventional and proposed battery modeling approaches are
discussed. Experimental results show that the proposed
modeling approach presents better performance in both tests.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to acknowledge the funding support
from the China Scholarship Council (CSC); the US DOE
Graduate Automotive Technology Education (GATE) Center
of Excellence; and Nanjing Golden Dragon Bus Co., Ltd.

1221
 REFERENCES

[1] Y. Shang, C. Zhang, N. Cui, and J. M. Guerrero, "A cell-to-cell
battery equalizer with zero-current switching and zero-voltage
gap based on quasi-resonant LC converter and boost converter,"
IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 30, pp. 3731-
3747, 2015.
[2] Y. Shang, C. Zhang, N. Cui, J. M. Guerrero, and K. Sun, "A
crossed pack-to-cell equalizer based on quasi-resonant LC
converter with adaptive fuzzy logic equalization control for
series-connected lithium-ion battery strings," in 2015 IEEE
Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition (APEC),
2015, pp. 1685-1692.
time applications," Energy Conversion and Management, vol.
92, pp. 396-405, 2015.
[16] L. Lam, P. Bauer, and E. Kelder, "A practical circuit-based
model for Li-ion battery cells in electric vehicle applications,"
in Telecommunications Energy Conference (INTELEC), 2011
IEEE 33rd International, 2011, pp. 1-9.
[17] M. Chen and G. A. Rincon-Mora, "Accurate electrical battery
model capable of predicting runtime and IV performance,"
Energy conversion, ieee transactions on, vol. 21, pp. 504-511,
2006.

[3] B. Xia and C. Mi, "A fault-tolerant voltage measurement
method for series connected battery packs," Journal of Power
Sources, vol. 308, pp. 83-96, 2016.
[4] B. Xia, T. Nguyen, J. Yang, and C. Mi, "The improved
interleaved voltage measurement method for series connected
battery packs," Journal of Power Sources, vol. 334, pp. 12-22,
2016.
[18] F. Baronti, G. Fantechi, E. Leonardi, R. Roncella, and R. Saletti,
"Enhanced model for lithium-polymer cells including
temperature effects," in IECON 2010-36th Annual Conference
on IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, 2010, pp. 2329-2333.
[19] J. Li and M. S. Mazzola, "Accurate battery pack modeling for
automotive applications," Journal of Power Sources, vol. 237,
pp. 215-228, 2013.

[5] B. Xia, Y. Shang, T. Nguyen, and C. Mi, "A correlation based
fault detection method for short circuits in battery packs,"
Journal of Power Sources, in press, DOI 10.1016/j.jpowsour.
2016.11.007.
[6] Z. Chen, B. Xia, and C. C. Mi, "A novel state-of-charge
estimation method for lithium-ion battery pack of electric
vehicles," in Transportation Electrification Conference and
Expo (ITEC), 2015 IEEE, 2015, pp. 1-6.
[20] M. Nakayama, K. Iizuka, H. Shiiba, S. Baba, and M. Nogami,
"Asymmetry in anodic and cathodic polarization profile for
LiFePO4 positive electrode in rechargeable Li ion battery,"
Journal of the Ceramic Society of Japan, vol. 119, pp. 692-696,
2011.
[21] J. Lee, O. Nam, and B. H. Cho, "Li-ion battery SOC estimation
method based on the reduced order extended Kalman filtering,"
Journal of Power Sources, vol. 174, pp. 9-15, 11/22/ 2007.

[7] B. Xia, X. Zhao, R. de Callafon, H. Garnier, T. Nguyen, and C. [22] X. Gong, R. Xiong, and C. C. Mi, "A Data-Driven Bias-
Mi, "Accurate Lithium-ion battery parameter estimation with Correction-Method-Based Lithium-Ion Battery Modeling
continuous-time system identification methods," Applied Approach for Electric Vehicle Applications," IEEE Transactions
Energy, vol. 179, pp. 426-436, 2016. on Industry Applications, vol. 52, pp. 1759-1765, 2016.

[8] G. Pérez, M. Garmendia, J. F. Reynaud, J. Crego, and U.

Viscarret, "Enhanced closed loop State of Charge estimator for
lithium-ion batteries based on Extended Kalman Filter,"
Applied Energy, vol. 155, pp. 834-845, 10/1/ 2015.
[9] A. Jossen, "Fundamentals of battery dynamics," Journal of
Power Sources, vol. 154, pp. 530-538, 3/21/ 2006.
[10] J. Jiang, Q. Liu, C. Zhang, and W. Zhang, "Evaluation of
acceptable charging current of power Li-ion batteries based on
polarization characteristics," Industrial Electronics, IEEE
Transactions on, vol. 61, pp. 6844-6851, 2014.
[11] Z. Chen, B. Xia, C. C. Mi, and R. Xiong, "Loss-Minimization-
Based Charging Strategy for Lithium-Ion Battery," Industry
Applications, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 51, pp. 4121-4129,
2015.
[12] N. Kim, J.-H. Ahn, D.-H. Kim, and B.-K. Lee, "Adaptive loss
reduction charging strategy considering variation of internal
impedance of lithium-ion polymer batteries in electric vehicle
charging systems," in 2016 IEEE Applied Power Electronics
Conference and Exposition (APEC), 2016, pp. 1273-1279.
[13] B. Schweighofer, K. M. Raab, and G. Brasseur, "Modeling of
high power automotive batteries by the use of an automated test
system," Instrumentation and Measurement, IEEE Transactions
on, vol. 52, pp. 1087-1091, 2003.
[14] C. Fleischer, W. Waag, H.-M. Heyn, and D. U. Sauer, "On-line
adaptive battery impedance parameter and state estimation
considering physical principles in reduced order equivalent
circuit battery models: Part 1. Requirements, critical review of
methods and modeling," Journal of Power Sources, vol. 260, pp.
276-291, 2014.
[15] S. Castano, L. Gauchia, E. Voncila, and J. Sanz, "Dynamical
modeling procedure of a Li-ion battery pack suitable for real-

1222