Applicability of available Li-ion battery degradation models for system and control algorithm design

Abstract Within electrified vehicle powertrains, lithium-ion battery performance degrades with aging and usage, resulting in a loss in both energy and power capacity. As a result, models used for system design and control algorithm development would ideally capture the impact of those efforts on battery capacity degradation, be computationally efficient, and simple enough to be used for algorithm development. This paper provides an assessment of the state-of-the-art in lithium-ion battery degradation models, including accuracy, computational complexity, and amenability to control algorithm development. Various aging and degradation models have been studied in the literature, including physics-based electrochemical models, semi-empirical models, and empirical models. Some of these models have been validated with experimental data; however, comparisons of pre-existing degradation models across multiple experimental data sets have not been previously published. Three representative models, a 1-d electrochemical model (a combination of performance model and degradation model), a semi-empirical degradation model (the performance is predicted by an equivalent circuit model) and an empirical degradation model (the performance is predicted by an equivalent circuit model), are compared against four published experimental data sets for a 2.3-Ah commercial graphite/LiFePO 4 cell. Based on simulation results and comparisons to experimental data, the key differences in the aging factors captured by each of the models are summarized. The results show that the physics-based model is best able to capture results across all four representative data sets with an error less than 10%, but is 20 x slower than the empirical model, and 134 x slower than the semi-empirical model, making it unsuitable for powertrain system design and model-based algorithm development. Despite being computationally efficient, the semi-empirical and empirical models, when used under conditions that lie outside the calibration data set, exhibit up to 71% error in capacity loss prediction. Such models require expensive experimental data collection to recalibrate for every new application. Thus, in the author’s opinion, there exists a need for a physically-based model that generalizes well across operating conditions, is computationally efficient for model-based design, and simple enough for control algorithm development.

[1]  Simona Onori,et al.  A new life estimation method for lithium-ion batteries in plug-in hybrid electric vehicles applications , 2012 .

[2]  B. Bhushan,et al.  Multi-Scale Characterization Studies of Aged Li-Ion Large Format Cells for Improved Performance: An Overview , 2013 .

[3]  M. Safari,et al.  Multimodal Physics-Based Aging Model for Life Prediction of Li-Ion Batteries , 2009 .

[4]  Tony Markel,et al.  PHEV Battery Trade-Off Study and Standby Thermal Control (Presentation) , 2009 .

[5]  Guodong Fan,et al.  Modeling of Li-Ion Cells for Fast Simulation of High C-Rate and Low Temperature Operations , 2016 .

[6]  Xing Jin,et al.  Design-space exploration of series plug-in hybrid electric vehicles for medium-duty truck applications in a total cost-of-ownership framework , 2017 .

[7]  M. Verbrugge,et al.  Cycle-life model for graphite-LiFePO 4 cells , 2011 .

[8]  Shrikant C. Nagpure,et al.  Multi-scale Characterization Studies of Aged Li-ion Battery Materials for Improved Performance , 2011 .

[9]  Xing Jin,et al.  Physically-based reduced-order capacity loss model: SEI layer growth and active material loss for graphite anode , 2017, 2017 American Control Conference (ACC).

[10]  Ralph E. White,et al.  Solvent Diffusion Model for Aging of Lithium-Ion Battery Cells , 2004 .

[11]  V. Subramanian,et al.  Efficient Macro-Micro Scale Coupled Modeling of Batteries , 2005 .

[12]  J. Bernard,et al.  A Simplified Electrochemical and Thermal Aging Model of LiFePO4-Graphite Li-ion Batteries: Power and Capacity Fade Simulations , 2013 .

[13]  Venkat R. Subramanian,et al.  Model-Based SEI Layer Growth and Capacity Fade Analysis for EV and PHEV Batteries and Drive Cycles , 2014 .

[14]  H. Fathy,et al.  Reduction of an Electrochemistry-Based Li-Ion Battery Model via Quasi-Linearization and Padé Approximation , 2011 .

[15]  Xing Jin,et al.  Comparison of Li-ion battery degradation models for system design and control algorithm development , 2017, 2017 American Control Conference (ACC).

[16]  Chaoyang Wang,et al.  Solid-state diffusion limitations on pulse operation of a lithium ion cell for hybrid electric vehicles , 2006 .

[17]  Chaoyang Wang,et al.  Model Order Reduction of 1D Diffusion Systems Via Residue Grouping , 2008 .

[18]  Richard D. Braatz,et al.  Modeling and Simulation of Lithium-Ion Batteries from a Systems Engineering Perspective , 2010 .

[19]  M. Safari,et al.  Life Simulation of a Graphite/LiFePO4 Cell under Cycling and Storage , 2012 .

[20]  M. Safari,et al.  Simulation-Based Analysis of Aging Phenomena in a Commercial Graphite/LiFePO4 Cell , 2011 .

[21]  Eric Holloway,et al.  Simulation Framework for the Optimization of HEV Design Parameters: Incorporating Battery Degradation in a Lifecycle Economic Analysis , 2015 .

[22]  Oleg Wasynczuk,et al.  Physically-based reduced-order capacity loss model for graphite anodes in Li-ion battery cells , 2017 .

[23]  Simona Onori,et al.  Aging and Characterization of Li-Ion Batteries in a HEV Application for Lifetime Estimation , 2010 .

[24]  Adam Niesłony,et al.  Determination of fragments of multiaxial service loading strongly influencing the fatigue of machine components , 2009 .

[25]  M. Safari,et al.  Aging of a Commercial Graphite/LiFePO4 Cell , 2011 .

[26]  J. Apt,et al.  Lithium-ion battery cell degradation resulting from realistic vehicle and vehicle-to-grid utilization , 2010 .