Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3, SEPTEMBER 2010
821
AbstractAccurate information on battery state-of-charge, expected battery lifetime, and expected battery cycle life is essential for many practical applications. In this paper, we develop a
nonchemically based partially linearized (in battery power) input
output battery model, initially developed for lead-acid batteries in
a hybrid electric vehicle. We show that with properly tuned parameter values, the model can be extended to different battery types,
such as lithium-ion, nickel-metal hydride, and alkaline. The validation results of the model against measured data in terms of power
and efficiency at different temperatures are then presented. The
model is incorporated with the recovery effect for accurate lifetime estimation. The obtained lifetime estimation results using the
proposed model are similar to the ones predicted by the Rakhmatov and Virudhula battery model on a given set of typical loads at
room temperature. A possible incorporation of the cycling effect,
which determines the battery cycle life, in terms of the maximum
available energy approximated at charge/discharge nominal power
level is also suggested. The usage of the proposed model is computationally inexpensive, hence implementable in many applications,
such as low-power system design, real-time energy management in
distributed sensor network, etc.
Index TermsBattery cycle life validation, battery model, lifetime estimation, recovery effect, validation.
I. INTRODUCTION
ATTERIES are widely used as a finite source of energy for
a variety of applications ranging from low-power design of
portable devices to high-power hybrid electric vehicle (HEV).
Battery performance is affected by various factors, such as operating temperature, humidity, discharging/charging cycles, etc.
Battery models are essential for any battery-powered system
design that aims at extending the batterys expected life and
in battery power management. This creates a need for battery
models that capture essential application-dependent character-
Manuscript received August 15, 2008; revised June 26, 2009; accepted
January 6, 2010. Date of current version August 20, 2010. The work of
K. Uthaichana was supported by grant Thailand Research Fund, Commission
on Higher Education. Paper no. TEC-00320-2008.
V. Agarwal and L. H. Tsoukalas are with the School of Nuclear Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907 USA (e-mail: agarwal1@
purdue.edu; tsoukala@purdue.edu).
K. Uthaichana is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Chiang Mai
University, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand (e-mail: kasemsak@chiangmai.ac.th).
R. A. DeCarlo is with the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907 USA (e-mail: decarlo@
ecn.purdue.edu).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TEC.2010.2043106
822
In this research, we show that with appropriately tuned parameters, the battery model in [10] can be extended to accurately describe behaviors of additional battery types [alkaline,
lithium-ion (Li-ion), nickel-metal hydride (Ni-MH)]. This extension is validated against the actual discharging and charging
data. Based on the validation results, we set forth a functional
relationship that exists between the model coefficients and temperatures for lead-acid and Ni-MH battery types alone. The
actual data at different temperatures for Li-ion and alkaline
battery types were not available to us. Although, Uthaichana
et al. [10] did not consider the recovery effect, by incorporating
the recovery effect, the model can be used for battery lifetime
estimation under various discharging load conditions.
A possible incorporation of the cycling effect, which determines the battery cycle life when it undergoes repeated discharging and charging is also suggested. Specifically, the maximum
available energy in a battery is characterized as a function of
number of cycles and nominal charge/discharge power level at
a specific depth of discharge (DOD). The quality of the approximation is validated against the actual data for a Li-ion
battery. Hence, the versatility of the model to different battery types widens its utility for practical applications. For example, in distributed sensor network application, estimation of
battery longevity, estimates of scheduled maintenance, and battery replacement are some of the key issues in such application [12][15].
The paper is organized as follows. The discussion on Rakhmatov and Virudhula battery model [8] and the development of
nonlinear and partially linearized battery model with recovery
is presented in Section II. The relationship between both battery
models is also discussed. The validation of the proposed model
for different battery types against the actual data measured at
different temperatures for both discharging and charging is illustrated in Section III. Section IV presents the validation of the
proposed model with the incorporated recovery model for Li-ion
battery lifetime estimation under different constant and varying
power load conditions. The approximation and the validation of
the maximum rated energy for a Li-ion battery to incorporate the
effect of cycling on battery cycle life is presented in Section V.
Finally, conclusions are drawn in Section VI.
II. BATTERY MODELING
Given various forms of battery models, we briefly summarize
the Rakhmatov and Virudhula battery model [8] and develop a
partially linearized inputoutput battery model of Uthaichana
et al. [10]. The generalization of Uthaichana et al. model [10]
to different battery types and its validation against the actual
data measured at different temperatures for both charging and
discharging are some of the main contributions of the paper. In
addition, a differential equation describing the recovery effect
is presented. Under the constant maximum energy assumption,
Uthaichana et al. model [10] with the incorporated recovery
model can be applied to solve the battery lifetime estimation
problem for nonrecharging load profiles and is presented in
Section IV. A possible relaxation on the constant maximum
energy assumption to capture the cycling effect and estimate
C(x, t)
x
C(x, t)
2 C(x, t)
=D
x
2 x
(1)
(2)
i(t)d
C(0, t) = C
nF Aw 0
t
2 D ( t ) m 2
2
w
+ lim 2
i(t)e
d . (5)
0
m =1
the usage (i(t) > 0). Once the concentration C(0, t) drops to
Ccuto , we obtain the measure of battery lifetime L.
In certain applications, it is important to obtain an estimate
of the amount of energy consumed, and consequently, the remaining battery stored energy; this then allows estimates of the
battery lifetime given nominal loading profiles. To make the
model more amendable to various applications, (5) has been
expressed in terms of battery capacity as follows:
i(t)d + 2
=
0
m =1
i(t)e
m 2 (L )
d.
(6)
The first term in (6) is the total charge drawn by the load
and battery losses. The second term of (6) is the unavailable charge left in the battery due the nonuniform distribution of the electroactive species during discharging. Here, the
two battery parameters and are introduced. The parameter
= nF AwC (1 Ccuto /C ) denotes the battery capacity,
i.e., the estimated
amount of charge used during the battery lifetime and = D/w denotes the discharge time constant. The
values of both parameters depend on the battery type. Note that
the nonuniform distribution of the electroactive species in the
second term of (6) results in lower concentration at the electrode
surface C(0, t) than at the other electrode C(w, t). If a rest period is introduced, the nonuniformity decreases over time and
more charge are available at the electrode surface, which is a part
of the recovery effect. The equation capturing this phenomenon
is described in [17].
In general, the load i(t) is unknown and nonconstant. Even
if known, the nonlinear and random behavior would make the
usage of (6) numerically difficult. Nevertheless, if i(t) has an
average value over small intervals of time, the time-varying
discharge rate can be approximated by piecewise constant loads,
i.e., i(t) is approximated in the time interval [0, T ] by N equal
size staircase basis functions as follows:
i(t)
N
1
Ik U (t tk ) U (t tk +1 )
(7)
k =0
, )
minimizing M
i=1 |Ii Ii | , where Ii = Ii (
of the experimental current load based on the most recent values
of
and within the iteration process.
Given the estimated battery parameters and N -step staircase
approximation of the load [see (7)], the battery lifetime computation involves two steps. The first step is to find the subinterval
(Tk = tk +1 tk , k = 1, 2, . . . , N 1), such that the concentration at the electrode surface C(0, tk +1 ) is below Ccuto at
tk +1 , i.e., find the subinterval Tk , such that L [tk , tk +1 ].
The second step is to determine the smallest t within the subinterval Tk , such that C(0, tk +1 ) Ccuto . The smallest t can
be found using the modified secant method, as in [18].
823
W
bat =
m ax = W m ax bat (W bat , Pbat , v)Pbat (t)
Wbat
bat
(8)
where 1) v is the battery mode of operation, where v = 0 means
the battery is discharging and v = 1 means the battery is charging; 2) bat (W bat , Pbat , v) is a generic efficiency for discharging and charging; and 3) Pbat (t) is the discharging (+)/charging
() battery power flow (input) as expressed in (9). The negative sign in (8) indicates decreasing Wbat (t) during discharging,
while (8) becomes positive during charging, thereby indicating
increasing Wbat (t)
> 0, discharging
Pbat (t) =
(9)
< 0, charging.
In general, during discharging, when 0 Pbat (t) < , where
is a small threshold and usually negligible compared to the discharging loads, a battery undergoes charge recovery, which is described in Section II-D. During discharge, the generic efficiency
0
0
(W bat , Pbat , v) > 1, where bat
bat (W bat , Pbat , v) = 1/bat
is the actual discharging efficiency. A desired power output
causes the battery to discharge more rapidly than what is required to account for losses. On the other hand, during charging
1
1
(W bat , Pbat , v) < 1, where bat
is
bat (W bat , Pbat , v) = bat
the actual charging efficiency, indicates that more power is
needed to overcome charging losses.
Given this relationship, the approximations of the generic efficiency bat (W bat , Pbat , v), v {0, 1} as a function of W bat
(state) and Pbat (input) for both cases is done by interpolating
a nonlinear function against the downscaled battery efficiency
map (see Appendix B) for v {0, 1}. Intuitively observing that
generic efficiency curves of a battery appear to have a logarithmic characteristic, the following approximation was empirically
determined:
bat (W bat , Pbat , v) = ln(W bat + d1,v ) + d2,v Pbat (t) + d3,v .
(10)
Given appropriate coefficients, the objective of this paper is to
show the quality of this approximation for four distinct battery
824
d k R
2
d2,v
v
W bat (t) = m ax Pbat,nom
Wbat
Pbat (t)
v
ln(W bat (t) + d1,v ) + 2d2,v Pbat,nom
+ d3,v
m ax .
Wbat
(12)
The details on the methodology to obtain the partially linearized model [see (12)] are presented in Appendix A.
C. Relationship Between Rakhmatov and Virudhula and Partially Linearized Battery Model
In many practical applications, the actual knowledge about
the battery SOC is essential. In Rakhmatov and Virudhula [8]
battery model the concentration of the electroactive species at
the electrode surface is given by (5). Since the specific gravity
of the electroactive species is greater than that of water, the
higher the concentration of the electrospecies is the higher the
specific gravity. When a battery is fully charged (SOC = 1),
then the concentration in the electrolyte is at its maximum C
and so is the specific gravity. On the other hand, if the concentration of the species is at Ccuto (SOC = C
= 0), then the
specific gravity is at minimum operating value. In fact, there
is a linear relationship between the battery SOC and the specific gravity as shown in [20] under an assumption of uniform
concentration of the electroactive species at equilibrium. Based
on aforementioned discussion, there exists a relationship between the battery SOC and concentration in the Rakhmatov and
Virudhula battery model at equilibrium. Uthaichana et al. battery model [10] approximates the battery SOC as normalized
battery energy (W bat ) under the assumption of relatively constant open-circuit voltage. This relationship between the concentration in the Rakhmatov and Virudhula battery model [8]
and W bat in Uthaichana et al. battery model [10] is expressed
as follows:
C(t) = W bat (t)(C Ccuto ) + Ccuto
(13)
v
between W
bat given by (12) at a given Pbat,nom and the actual
data for charging and discharging under various loads, SOC,
and temperatures.
The validation results during charging and discharging at
0 C, 25 C, and 50 C are shown for 17.2 Ah, 12 V lead-acid
battery type. The validation results during discharging alone are
shown for 6.5 Ah, 7.2 V Ni-MH battery type at 5 C, 20 C,
30 C, and 40 C, as the internal resistance data during charging
was not available to us. Based on the validation, we set forth
a functional relationship between the model coefficients, dk ,v ,
k = 1, 2, 3 and temperature (T ) during charging and discharging
TABLE I
MODEL COEFFICIENTS AND THE APPROXIMATION ERROR FOR 17.2 Ah, 12 V
LEAD-ACID BATTERY FOR THE NONLINEAR EFFICIENCY APPROXIMATION FOR
BOTH DISCHARGING AND CHARGING AT DIFFERENT TEMPERATURE
for both lead-acid and Ni-MH battery types. On the other hand,
the validation results during both charging and discharging for
1.41 Wh Li-ion and during discharging alone for 2850 mAh
alkaline batteries1 at room temperature are shown.
A. Efficiency Data for Validation
To obtain the efficiency data for lead-acid, Ni-MH, Li-ion,
and alkaline batteries, we follow the procedure described in [22].
In [22], the battery is represented by a simple resistive Thevenin
equivalent circuit. The internal resistance of the battery is a
function of load rate, SOC, and temperature. The internal resistance value is obtained as an average value under various
loads for each SOC at different temperature values for lead-acid
and Ni-MH batteries and for each SOC at room temperature
for Li-ion and alkaline batteries. The battery efficiency is then
obtained as the ratio of the terminal voltage to the open-circuit
voltage for discharging and vice versa for charging, where the
voltage difference is due to the losses through the internal resistance. The data on the internal resistance for each SOC at
different temperature values for 17.2 Ah, 12 V lead-acid, and
6.5 Ah, 7.2 V Ni-MH batteries is obtained from [23] and [24],
respectively. While, the internal resistance data for each SOC at
room temperature for 1.41 Wh Li-ion, and 2850 mAh alkaline
batteries is obtained from [25].
B. Validation Results for Lead-Acid at Different Temperature
Initially, we present the discharging and charging validation
results of the partially linearized battery model without considering the recovery model for 17.2 Ah, 12 V lead-acid battery
type at 0 C, 25 C, and 50 C.
In the case of a 17.2 Ah, 12 V lead-acid battery, we assume a
nominal load power of 27.5 W during discharging and 22 W
during charging for all the temperature values. The coefficients
dk ,v , k = 1, 2, 3 used to validate the linearized approximation
during discharging and charging at different temperatures are
presented in Table I along with the two-norm normalized error.
The approximation of the linearized generic battery efficiency
is accurate around the nominal input power of 27.5 W during
discharging and around the nominal input power of 22 W
during charging. Fig. 1, whose y-axis is Pbat bat , illustrates
1 Alkaline batteries in the market are mostly nonrechargeable as the existing
rechargeable alkaline batteries are not commonly used.
825
the accuracy of the efficiencies from the linearized approximation against the actual data for both discharging and charging,
respectively. The approximation error increases for large excursion from the nominal input power level, as observed in Fig. 1, as
expected. The partially linearized battery model, initially developed for an HEV application, showed a similar accuracy pattern
over the range of battery power in the case of a 30 of 12 Ah
12 V lead-acid battery [10], [11], [26].
From Table I, upon interpolation of the data, we see that
the variation in the model coefficients is essentially linear with
temperature and is given by a functional relationship in Table II
for both discharging and charging.
C. Validation Results for Ni-MH at Different Temperature
The validation results of the partially linearized battery model
for 6.5 Ah, 7.2 V Ni-MH battery type at 5 C, 20 C, 30 C, and
40 C for discharging alone are presented. A nominal load power
of 15 W is assumed during discharging for all the temperature
values. The approximation of the linearized battery model is
accurate around the nominal input power level of 15 W during
discharging. Fig. 2 shows a similar accuracy pattern over the
range of battery power. The coefficients used to validate the
linear approximation during discharging for 6.5 Ah, 7.2 V NiMH battery at 5 C, 20 C, 30 C, and 40 C are listed in Table III
along with the two-norm approximation error. From Table III,
we observe that the variation in the model coefficients during
discharging is essentially linear with temperature and is given
by a functional relationship in Table IV.
D. Validation Results for Li-ion and Alkaline Batteries
at Room Temperature
Initially, we present the discharging and charging validation
results of the partially linearized battery model for 1.41 Wh Liion battery at room temperature alone, as the internal resistance
data at different temperature values was not available to us.
Later, we present the validation result during discharging for
2850 mAh alkaline battery at room temperature.
In the case of a 1.41 Wh Li-ion battery, the same validation procedure is applied. The two-norm normalized error for
discharging is 3.15% and for charging is 1.38%. The approximation of the linearized battery model is accurate around the
nominal input power level of 253 mW during discharging and
250 mW during charging, as shown in Fig. 3. The approximation error increases during both discharging and charging as the
load power level deviates from respective nominal power level,
but not significantly over the range, as shown in Fig. 3.
In the case of 2850 mAh alkaline battery, the same validation
procedure is applied during discharging alone, since alkaline
batteries are mostly nonrechargeable. The existing rechargeable
alkaline batteries are not commonly used. Fig. 4 shows the accuracies of the linearized battery model for 2850 mAh alkaline
battery, which is linearized about the nominal input power of
125 mW. The two-norm normalized error is 4.01%. From Fig. 4,
a similar accuracy pattern over the range of battery power is
observed.
826
Fig. 1. Linearized approximation of 17.2 Ah 12 V lead-acid battery. (Left column) During discharging around the nominal power of 27.5 W at (a) 0 C,
(b) 25 C, and (c) 50 C. (Right column) During charging around the nominal power of 22 W at (d) 0 C, (e) 25 C, and (f) 50 C.
The coefficients used to validate the linear approximation during discharging and charging for 1.41 Wh Li-ion and 2850 mAh
alkaline batteries during discharging alone are listed in Table V.
The linearized approximation of the battery captures the fact
that the battery efficiency decreases as SOC decreases and bat-
827
Fig. 2. Linearized approximation of 6.5 Ah, 7.2 V Ni-MH battery during discharging around the nominal power of 15 W at (a) 5 C, (b) 20 C, (c) 30 C, and
(d) 40 C.
TABLE II
FUNCTIONAL RELATIONSHIP OF THE MODEL COEFFICIENTS WITH
TEMPERATURE DURING DISCHARGING AND CHARGING FOR 17.2 Ah, 12 V
LEAD-ACID BATTERY
TABLE III
MODEL COEFFICIENTS AND THE APPROXIMATION ERROR FOR 6.5 Ah, 7.2 V
Ni-MH BATTERY FOR THE NONLINEAR EFFICIENCY APPROXIMATION DURING
DISCHARGING AT DIFFERENT TEMPERATURES
TABLE IV
FUNCTIONAL RELATIONSHIP OF THE MODEL COEFFICIENTS WITH
TEMPERATURE DURING DISCHARGING FOR 6.5 Ah, 7.2 V Ni-MH Battery
828
Fig. 3. Linearized approximation of 1.41 Wh Li-ion battery during (a) battery discharging around the nominal power of 253 mW and (b) battery charging around
the nominal power of 250 mW.
TABLE V
MODEL COEFFICIENT FOR THE NONLINEAR EFFICIENCY APPROXIMATION FOR
BOTH DISCHARGING AND CHARGING FOR 1.41 Wh AND FOR DISCHARGING
ALONE FOR 2850 mAh ALKALINE BATTERIES AT ROOM TEMPERATURE
TABLE VI
DESCRIPTION OF ACTUAL [16] AND DOWNSCALED POWER LOADS
OF SUBSET P T
tual battery lifetime with the estimate obtained using the battery
model in Section IIB and D [see (12) and (14)] and with the
estimate obtained using the Rakhmatov and Virudhula battery
model (6).
829
TABLE VII
DESCRIPTION OF ACTUAL [16] AND DOWNSCALED VARYING POWER LOADS OF SUBSET P c
830
TABLE VIII
MODEL COEFFICIENTS FOR THE NONLINEAR EFFICIENCY APPROXIMATION FOR
DISCHARGING (v = 0) AT THE NOMINAL POWER LEVEL OF 181.2 mW FOR
1.41 Wh LI-ION BATTERY AT ROOM TEMPERATURE
TABLE XI
MEASURE OF BATTERY RECOVERY
TABLE IX
MEASURED AND ESTIMATED LIFETIMES FOR EACH CONSTANT POWER LOAD
C. Discussion
TABLE X
MEASURED AND ESTIMATED LIFETIMES FOR EACH VARYING POWER LOAD
C6, and C7 can be slightly higher than the actual recovery of real
battery. This is due to the fact that the partially linearized model
underestimates the power losses when the load power is higher
than Pbat,nom , as shown in Fig. 3. In general, the battery recovery has more profound effect when the power discharge rate is
high. Since the power discharge rate in C7 is higher than one in
C6 and C7 exhibits higher percentage recovery, as indicated in
Table XI.
Intuitively, a battery at a higher SOC must be able to handle
a large power load better than a battery at a lower SOC. This
assists in identifying the power load pattern that would result in
better lifetime. The cases C1 and C2 have the same power load
values except the order in which the battery is subjected to load
power is reversed (as described in Section IV-A). As expected,
the lifetime of C1 is slightly higher than the lifetime of C2. Case
C4 is a periodic repetition of an increasing staircase as in C2
for ten cycles, but the time for each power level is downscaled
by a factor of ten, while the total load power consumption in
both cases is identical. The battery in case C2 handles high-load
power at low SOC, while in case C4, the battery is subject to
periodic variation of both low- and high-load power at low SOC.
As a result, the lifetime estimated in case C4 is slightly better
than the lifetime estimated in case C2.
In the case of selected constant loads (see Table VI), the
lifetime estimation widely ranges from 2 h to 10 days. Table IX
shows the comparison of the accuracy of the lifetime estimations
between the partially linearized model and the chemical-based
Rakhmatov and Virudhula battery model [8]. The estimation
error of the partially linearized battery model is less than 10%
on average at nominal load power for the typical constant loads
listed in Table VI. We observe that the estimation error increases
as the load power level increases or decreases from the nominal
input power. This observation is consistent with the assumption
made during the linearization of nonlinear battery efficiency
[see (8)] and the validation results presented in Section III. For
example, the estimation error for 701.4 mW load power, which
is 520.2 mW more than nominal input power, is 9.8%, while
the error for 7.2 mW load power, which is 174 mW less than
nominal input power, is 7.2%. In the case of Rakhmatov and
Virudhula battery model (6), the estimation error increases as
the load on the battery decreases.
Based on the numerical results presented earlier, we observe
that the inputoutput partially linearized model with incorporated recovery model provides reasonably accurate lifetime estimation on average at nominal power in comparison to the
lifetime estimation result obtained from the Rakhmatov and
Virudhula model [8].
V. BATTERY CYCLE LIFE VALIDATION
In general, cycling a battery at different DODs and
charge/discharge power rates affects battery cycle life as battery
m ax
is a function of
ages. Data in the literature suggests that Wbat
number of cycles, DOD, and nominal charge/discharge power
level. In this section, we specifically model how the maximum
rated energy stored in a battery is affected by repeated charging
and discharging at different power levels given a specific level
831
(16)
(17)
832
the estimated lifetimes using the Rakhmatov and Virudhula battery model were given for comparison. By approximating the
maximum rated energy term of the linearized model as a function of number of cycle and nominal charge/discharge power
level at a specific DOD level, the effect of repeated charging
and discharging on the overall battery cycle life was presented.
Although the developed model is linear in the input, it captures
all the essential nonlinear characteristics of the battery under
varying load conditions.
The partial linearized inputoutput battery model has been
used successfully for control-oriented power flow management
in an HEV application [11], [26]. Specifically, the model is very
useful for control when an inverter controls the currentvoltage
levels (and thus power levels) between the battery and any device, such as an electric drive, sensor, or actuator. In distributed
sensor network application, estimation of battery longevity, estimates of scheduled maintenance, and replacement are some
of the key issues. The usage of the model is computationally
inexpensive and can provide reasonably accurate information
on the SOC of the batteries. This information will assist in intelligent network activity scheduling, dynamic rerouting, and
battery energy aware protocol designs in scenarios, where battery maintenance and replacement is impractical.
The accuracy of the partially linearized battery model can be
improved by selecting different nominal input powers based on
the operating load power. For example, one can create a set of
range of load powers and select an associated nominal input
power for each range to lower the deviation between load power
and nominal input power, and hence to reduce the approximation
error.
APPENDIX A
Consider a general nonlinear state equation x = f (x, u),
where x is the state, and u is the (control) input. A Taylor
series expansion around the nominal operating input u is given
by
f (x, u)
|u u + H.O.T.
(18)
u
where H.O.T. means higher order terms that are assumed small
and negligible. Therefore, the linearization of (8) about a nomv
, v {0, 1}, becomes
inal battery power Pbat,nom
x = f (x, u)|u +
W
bat
v
Pbat,nom
m ax
Wbat
v
+ d3,v ]Pbat}
{[ln(W bat + d1,v ) + d2,v Pbat,nom
+
v
Pbat
v
= [ln(W bat + d1,v ) + d2,v Pbat,nom
+ d3,v ]
Pb a t, n o m
Pbat
m ax
Wbat
(19)
v
where Pbat = Pbat (t) Pbat,nom
. Now, we compute the parv
tial derivative in (19) and evaluate at Pbat,nom
{[ln(W bat + d1,v ) + d2,v Pbat + d3,v ]Pbat }
v
Pbat
Pb a t, n o m
(20)
833
Pbat,nom
v
W
bat = [ln(W bat + d1,v ) + d2,v Pbat,nom + d3,v ]
m ax
Wbat
v
[ln(W bat + d1,v ) + 2d2,v Pbat,nom
+ d3,v ]
Pbat
m ax .
Wbat
(21)
Pbat,nom
v
W
bat = [ln(W bat + d1,v ) + d2,v Pbat,nom + d3,v ]
m ax
Wbat
v
[ln(W bat + d1,v ) + 2d2,v Pbat,nom
+ d3,v ]
v
Pbat (t) Pbat,nom
m ax
Wbat
(22)
and arrive at the final partially linearized equation for the battery
SOC
d2,v
v
2
W
bat (t) =
m ax (Pbat,nom ) [ln(W bat (t) + d1,v )
Wbat
v
+ 2d2,v Pbat,nom
+ d3,v ]
Pbat (t)
m ax .
Wbat
(23)
where x(t) is the state at time t, x(0) is the initial value of the
state, and = RC is the time constant with R and C being the
resistance and the capacitance, respectively.
Taking natural logarithmic on both side of (25), we get
ln(x(t)) = ln(x(0)) t/.
APPENDIX B
The discharging and charging efficiency of lead-acid (25 of
18 Ah 12.5 V) battery pack is obtained from [35]. In order to
obtain discharging and charging efficiency maps of lead-acid (30
of 12 Ah 12 V) battery pack used in this paper, a downscaling
is performed.
m ax
be the maximum rated energy of lead-acid battery
Let Wbat1
m ax
be the maximum rated energy of the leadpack 1 [35] and Wbat2
acid battery pack 2, the one used in this paper. We define scaling
m ax
m ax
/Wbat1
. The assumption used in downscaling
factor = Wbat2
the battery efficiency map of [35] to the size used in this paper is
as follows: let Pbat1 denote the power delivered by battery pack
1 and Pbat2 that of battery pack 2, whenever = Pbat2 /Pbat1 ,
then for v {0, 1}
bat1 (SOC, Pbat1 , v) = bat2 (SOC, Pbat2 , v).
(24)
A similar scaling procedure and assumption is adopted in downscaling the load powers of [16], [27] to the energy level of
m ax
Li-ion battery used in this paper: let Wbat1
represent the maxm ax
be
imum rated energy of Li-ion battery 1 (2.2 Wh) and Wbat2
the maximum rated energy of Li-ion battery 2 (1.41 Wh) used
m ax
m ax
/Wbat1
be a scaling factor. The
in this paper. Let = Wbat2
(25)
(26)
tr
(27)
834
tr
(28)
tr
W bat (t)
Kasemsak Uthaichana (M07) received the B.S. degree in electrical, computer, and systems engineering
from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, in
2000, and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical
and computer engineering from Purdue University,
West Lafayette, IN, in 2002 and 2006, respectively.
His doctoral research focused on modeling and power
flow control for parallel hybrid electric vehicles.
From 2007 to 2008, he was with Caterpillar Inc.,
Peoria, IL, where he was engaged in integrated power
systems control software for wheel loader machines.
He is currently in the Department of Electrical Engineering, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand. His research interests include power management in
hybrid vehicles, operational control of fuel cells, battery management system,
and friction estimation and compensation.
Dr. Uthaichana is an Active Member of the IEEE Control Systems Society
and the IEEE Power and Energy Society.
835