4.8 Article

Online state of charge and model parameters estimation of the LiFePO4 battery in electric vehicles using multiple adaptive forgetting factors recursive least-squares

期刊

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
卷 296, 期 -, 页码 215-224

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2015.07.041

关键词

Battery management system; Recursive least-squares estimation; Multiple adaptive forgetting factors; State-of-charge estimation; LiFePO4 battery; Model parameters estimation

资金

  1. AutoCRC Ltd of Australia
  2. Malaysian Automotive Institute
  3. Australian Institute of Innovative Materials, University of Wollongong [1-112]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper deals with the contradiction between simplicity and accuracy of the LiFePO4 battery states estimation in the electric vehicles (EVs) battery management system (BMS). State of charge (SOC) and state of health (SOH) are normally obtained from estimating the open circuit voltage (OCV) and the internal resistance of the equivalent electrical circuit model of the battery, respectively. The difficulties of the parameters estimation arise from their complicated variations and different dynamics which require sophisticated algorithms to simultaneously estimate multiple parameters. This, however, demands heavy computation resources. In this paper, we propose a novel technique which employs a simplified model and multiple adaptive forgetting factors recursive least-squares (MAFF-RLS) estimation to provide capability to accurately capture the real-time variations and the different dynamics of the parameters whilst the simplicity in computation is still retained. The validity of the proposed method is verified through two standard driving cycles, namely Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule and the New European Driving Cycle. The proposed method yields experimental results that not only estimated the SOC with an absolute error of less than 2.8% but also characterized the battery model parameters accurately. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据