Battery models have gained great importance in recent years, thanks to the increasingly massive penetration of electric vehicles in the transport market. Accurate battery models are needed to evaluate battery performances and design an efficient battery management system. Different modeling approaches are available in literature, each one with its own advantages and disadvantages. In general, more complex models give accurate results, at the cost of higher computational efforts and time-consuming and costly laboratory testing for parametrization. For these reasons, for early stage evaluation and design of battery management systems, models with simple parameter identification procedures are the most appropriate and feasible solutions. In this article, three different battery modeling approaches are considered, and their parameters' identification are described. Two of the chosen models require no laboratory tests for parametrization, and most of the information are derived from the manufacturer's datasheet, while the last battery model requires some laboratory assessments. The models are then validated at steady state, comparing the simulation results with the datasheet discharge curves, and in transient operation, comparing the simulation results with experimental results. The three modeling and parametrization approaches are systematically applied to the LG 18650HG2 lithium-ion cell, and results are presented, compared and discussed.

Campagna N., Castiglia V., Miceli R., Mastromauro R.A., Spataro C., Trapanese M., et al. (2020). Battery models for battery powered applications: A comparative study. ENERGIES, 13(15), 1-26 [10.3390/en13164085].

Battery models for battery powered applications: A comparative study

Campagna N.;Castiglia V.;Miceli R.;Spataro C.;Trapanese M.;Viola F.
2020-01-01

Abstract

Battery models have gained great importance in recent years, thanks to the increasingly massive penetration of electric vehicles in the transport market. Accurate battery models are needed to evaluate battery performances and design an efficient battery management system. Different modeling approaches are available in literature, each one with its own advantages and disadvantages. In general, more complex models give accurate results, at the cost of higher computational efforts and time-consuming and costly laboratory testing for parametrization. For these reasons, for early stage evaluation and design of battery management systems, models with simple parameter identification procedures are the most appropriate and feasible solutions. In this article, three different battery modeling approaches are considered, and their parameters' identification are described. Two of the chosen models require no laboratory tests for parametrization, and most of the information are derived from the manufacturer's datasheet, while the last battery model requires some laboratory assessments. The models are then validated at steady state, comparing the simulation results with the datasheet discharge curves, and in transient operation, comparing the simulation results with experimental results. The three modeling and parametrization approaches are systematically applied to the LG 18650HG2 lithium-ion cell, and results are presented, compared and discussed.
2020
Settore ING-IND/32 - Convertitori, Macchine E Azionamenti Elettrici
Settore ING-IND/31 - Elettrotecnica
Settore ING-INF/07 - Misure Elettriche E Elettroniche
Campagna N., Castiglia V., Miceli R., Mastromauro R.A., Spataro C., Trapanese M., et al. (2020). Battery models for battery powered applications: A comparative study. ENERGIES, 13(15), 1-26 [10.3390/en13164085].
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
energies-13-04085-v2.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Versione Editoriale
Dimensione 7.08 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
7.08 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10447/432071
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 37
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 28
social impact