A Generic Electrothermal Li-ion Battery Model for Rapid Evaluation of Cell Temperature Temporal Evolution

This paper presents a generic electrothermal model for Li-ion battery. The model is developed with the objective to simplify the parameter identification procedure, while representing adequately the thermal effects on the battery performance. Most of the well-accepted electrothermal Li-ion battery m...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:IEEE transactions on industrial electronics (1982) 2017-02, Vol.64 (2), p.998-1008
Hauptverfasser: Motapon, Souleman Njoya, Lupien-Bedard, Alexandre, Dessaint, Louis-A, Fortin-Blanchette, Handy, Al-Haddad, Kamal
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:This paper presents a generic electrothermal model for Li-ion battery. The model is developed with the objective to simplify the parameter identification procedure, while representing adequately the thermal effects on the battery performance. Most of the well-accepted electrothermal Li-ion battery models require in-depth and proprietary battery data or dedicated test environments for parameter identification. The dedicated test bench usually involves expensive thermal test chambers, calorimeters, and temperatures sensors, and challenges associated with their installations. This makes the electrical and thermal simulation of Li-ion batteries difficult to achieve. This paper proposes a generic electrothermal model with a simpler parameter identification process. The parameters identification process is solely based on datasheet discharge curves and simple experiments at room temperature. The model is validated experimentally using a 12 V 40 Ah LiFePO 4 battery module. The performance of the model is tested with constant current discharges, constant current-constant voltage charges, as well as with a Simplified Federal Urban Driving Schedule dynamic driving cycle, at different operating temperatures. As expected, the simulation results show an error within ±1% and ±1.3% compared to experimental results, for both steady and dynamic states, respectively.
ISSN:0278-0046
1557-9948
DOI:10.1109/TIE.2016.2618363