Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Battery health prediction under generalized conditions using a Gaussian process transition model

Battery health prediction under generalized conditions using a Gaussian process transition model Battery health prediction under generalized conditions using a Gaussian process transition model Robert R. Richardson, Michael A. Osborne and David A. Howey July 18, 2018 Abstract 1 Introduction Accurately predicting the future health of batteries is nec- Electrochemical batteries, such as lithium-ion and lead- essary to ensure reliable operation, minimise maintenance acid cells, experience degradation over time and during costs, and calculate the value of energy storage invest- usage, leading to decreased energy storage capacity and ments. The complex nature of degradation renders data- increased internal resistance. Being able to predict the driven approaches a promising alternative to mechanis- rate of degradation and the remaining useful life (RUL) tic modelling. This study predicts the changes in bat- of a battery is important for performance and economic tery capacity over time using a Bayesian non-parametric reasons. For example, in an electric vehicle, the driveable approach based on Gaussian process regression. These range is directly related to the battery capacity. For en- changes can be integrated against an arbitrary input se- ergy storage asset valuation, depreciation, warranty, insur- quence to predict capacity fade in a variety of usage sce- ance and preventative maintenance purposes, predicting narios, forming a generalised health model. The approach RUL at design stage and during operation is crucial, and naturally incorporates varying current, voltage and tem- the investment case is strongly dependent on the degra- perature inputs, crucial for enabling real world applica- dation behaviour [1]. To estimate accurately the second tion. A key innovation is the feature selection step, where hand value of assets such as EVs and grid batteries, cred- arbitrary length current, voltage and temperature mea- ible predictions of RUL are required. surement vectors are mapped to xed size feature vectors, Unfortunately, battery degradation is caused by many enabling them to be eciently used as exogenous vari- complex interacting chemical and mechanical processes [2, ables. The approach is demonstrated on the open-source 3], and physical modelling from rst principles is very chal- NASA Randomised Battery Usage Dataset, with data of lenging. To mitigate uncertainty in lifetime, batteries are 26 cells aged under randomized operational conditions. often over-sized and under-used, which results in increased Using half of the cells for training, and half for validation, system costs and sub-optimal performance. Hence, new the method is shown to accurately predict non-linear ca- approaches for accurate health prognostics are required, pacity fade, with a best case normalised root mean square and form an important component of a modern battery error of 4.3%, including accurate estimation of prediction management system or energy management system. uncertainty. Since the performance of a battery in an application is largely dependent on its nominal capacity and internal resistance, the state of health (SoH) is typically de ned Keywords by one or both of these parameters. In the present case Gaussian process regression, lithium-ion, battery, degra- we consider just cell capacity as the SoH metric, but the dation, prognostics, health methods outlined in this paper could be applied to any other SoH metric, such as internal resistance, or capacity at some nominal C-rate. A variety of techniques may be Highlights applied for SoH measurement and estimation [4], but in Gaussian process transition model of battery degra- this paper we simply assume that SoH metrics are avail- dation able, for example from a battery management system. The conventional approach to battery SoH forecasting is Predicts future capacity and associated uncertainty to t a parametric function to a broad set of ageing data measured under controlled laboratory conditions. Care- Arbitrary length current, voltage and temperature ful judgement is required to decide on the exact form of data mapped to xed size input vectors parametric model to use. For example, Schimpe [5] in- Demonstrated on dataset of 26 cells under random- vestigated both calendar and cycle ageing of lithium iron ized usage phosphate (LFP) batteries with respect to temperature and state of charge (SoC) and found that capacity evolved Best case normalised root mean square error of 4.3% arXiv:1807.06350v1 [stat.AP] 17 Jul 2018 with time according to explored in this context, including non-parametric ap- p p p proaches such as support vector machines [16, 17, 18, 19], Q = k t + k Q + k Q + k Q ; (1) loss 1 2 tot 3 ch 4 ch and Bayesian non-parametric approaches such as Gaussian process (GP) regression [20, 21, 22]. A non-parametric where Q is the capacity fade at some point in time, k loss 1:::4 model is one whose expressivity (as would increase with are empirically tted stress factors that are a function of the degree of a polynomial, for instance) naturally adapts temperature, charging current, time and SoC, Q is the tot to the complexity of data. Rather than having no param- total charge throughput to time t, and Q is the charge ch eters, a non-parametric model is perhaps better thought throughput only during charging, to time t. The stress of as one with a number of parameters that can scale with factors k typically t an Arrhenius equation of the form 1:::4 the data and could become arbitrarily large. Bayesian approaches naturally incorporate estimates of uncertainty k = k exp [ (u u )] ; (2) ref ref into predictions, allowing a model to acknowledge the where is a tted constant, u is some input such as cur- varying probabilities of a range of possible future health rent or the reciprocal of temperature, and u is reference ref values, rather than just giving a single predicted value. value for that input. Very similar approaches have been These approaches have been demonstrated to work well developed by others for LFP batteries [6], and for a vari- when a battery health dataset is available for batteries ety of other chemistries including NMC lithium-ion [7, 8] that have all been cycled in a similar way. For exam- and lead-acid [9]. These empirical degradation models are ple, our previous work [23] on RUL prediction applied essentially parametric curve tting using speci ed under- a multiple-output Gaussian process model to incorporate lying functions such as exponentials, square roots etc. For data from multiple batteries, all cycled in the same way, some kinds of battery degradation data, such as [10], these demonstrating a large improvement in accuracy of RUL approaches may give a reasonable t to the measured be- estimation over existing methods. However, for real world haviour, although there is very little information in the lit- RUL prediction at design stage, or for preventative main- erature about their long term predictive accuracy. These tenance, a much more exible approach is needed that approaches also require the form of the model to be speci- allows health predictions to be made as a function of the ed a priori, for example (1) assumes decoupling of inputs, changing stress factors such as time, charge throughput and this may not be the case. Additionally, many degrada- and temperature etc. The previously discussed paramet- tion datasets exhibit an accelerated capacity fade regime ric models can incorporate dependence on external inputs, in later life (see [11]), and this approach is not able to but are limited to pre-speci ed functions. In other words, model such a regime change. Also, accuracy may be lim- they assume that the shape of the degradation trajectory ited when environmental and load conditions di er from is known a priori, which limits their applicability. the training dataset. To address this, we introduce the idea of a Bayesian non- As an alternative approach to empirical parametric parametric transition model for battery health. Rather functions tted to laboratory test data, others have de- than tting the SoH data directly as a function of time or veloped ` rst principles' electrochemical models of battery cycle count, the model predicts the changes in SoH from ageing. These propose and model a set of underlying phys- one point to the next as the battery is used, as a function ical ageing mechanisms. For example a popular ageing of the usage. This is explained in detail in the next section. mechanism is growth of the anode solid electrolyte inter- phase (SEI) through reduction of the ethylene carbonate 2 Method in the electrolyte, modelled as a di usion-limited single step charge transfer reaction [12, 13]. This can be aug- 2.1 Transition model mented to include additional physics related to lithium plating [14], particle cracking [15] and other mechanisms. The approach in this paper formulates a transition model Although reasonable results are demonstrated for calendar to predict the capacity changes between periods of usage ageing, huge challenges remain with respect to parametri- that we term `load patterns'. We de ne this di erently sation and validation of such models, and what physics to to a standard battery charge-discharge cycle, instead it is include to capture all the relevant ageing mechanisms and the time-series of current, voltage and temperature data their interactions. between any two capacity measurements or estimates, Q In contrast to these approaches, so-called data-driven and Q . Load patterns do not need to be uniformly i+1 battery ageing models are beginning to be investigated. spaced, i.e. they could be short or long periods of usage, These have some similarities with the empirically tted and might include multiple charge-discharge events. functions previously discussed, but new techniques from The goal of a regression problem is to learn the mapping machine learning allow much greater exibility in these from input vectors x to outputs y, given a labelled training models than can be obtained using pre-speci ed paramet- N set of input-output pairs D = f(x ; y )g , where N is i i D i=1 ric functions. The simplest formulation of this is direct t- the number of training examples. In the present case, the ting of capacity data with respect to time, or cycle count, inputs x 2 R are vectors of selected features (see section which allows RUL estimation by extrapolation to future 2.2) for load pattern u , and the outputs y 2 R are the i i values. A variety of data-driven techniques have been 2 corresponding di erences in measured capacity between Firstly, the present cell capacity, load pattern u and u . The underlying model takes the i i+1 x = Q : i;4 i form y = f (x) + ", where f (x) represents a latent func- tion and "  N (0;  ) is an independent and identically Secondly, the time elapsed during which certain condi- distributed noise contribution. tions are met. This is achieved by de ning a selection of The learned model can then be used to make predic- current, voltage and temperature ranges, and evaluating tions on a set of test inputs x = fx g (i.e. load pat- i i=1 the time spent by the battery within these ranges: terns where we wish to estimate the capacity), producing outputs y = fy g , where N is the number of test i i=1 x = t ; i;j P <P<P l u indices. In our case we are interested in predicting the capacity changes in a new { previously unseen { battery for j 2 f5; 6; : : :g, where P , P and P are the parameters l u cell, which has been exposed to a known test regime. This of interest, and their upper and lower bounds respectively. is called the validation or test dataset. For example, a battery's aging behaviour is expected to be a ected by high or low temperatures [5]. Hence, one might de ne the duration of time the battery spends (1) below 2.2 Input feature extraction 0 C, (2) between 0 and 40 C, and (3) above 40 C as Each load pattern, u , may contain within it an arbitrary three distinct inputs: number of time steps, N . However, in order to use the inputs in our model, since the capacity measurements are x = t i;5 T<0 C only known per load pattern, we must rst map time-series x = t i;6 0 C<T<40 C data to a xed size input vector. In other words, assuming there are N time-steps within a load pattern u , then the i i x = t i;7 40 C<T N N N i i i measurements I 2 R , V 2 R , T 2 R are mapped An example of an input vector for a single load pattern to a single n-dimensional input vector, x, where n is the is given in Table 1. In this case, inputs were de ned for number of features of interest. Irrespective of the number ranges of temperature and current. Of course, additional of time steps in a load pattern, the size of the input vector inputs could also be de ned by voltage ranges, but these x is the same. have been omitted here for clarity of presentation. Note For each load pattern, u , the features to be extracted that the sum of all the times spent in each parameter range are de ned by prior assumptions about what causes a bat- (e.g. in each temperature or current range) must equal the tery to age. As discussed in the preceding section, there total time elapsed within that load pattern. are many possible di erent stress factors that a ect bat- tery ageing, depending on the dataset and model. How- ever, in the dataset used it was found that accurate results 2.3 Example data could be obtained with only a small number of factors (see Fig. 1 shows an exemplary schematic of the rst 4 load table 4), as follows: patterns for a single cell. There is one capacity measure- The rst component of the input vector, for the ith load ment (Q ) at the very start of the cell's life and then 4 pattern, is the total time elapsed during the load pattern, subsequent measurements (Q Q ) at later times. The 2 5 given by load patterns consist of everything that occurs between x = t = t t ; i;1 i+1 i each capacity measurement; each load pattern is trans- where t and t are the times at the start and end of the i i+1 lated into equal sized input vectors, x . load pattern respectively. Fig. 2 gives examples of real measurement data for two The second component is the charge throughput, Q , thru di erent cells, including the capacity values Q, some of during the load pattern, i.e. the total absolute current the extracted inputs for each load pattern, and exemplary through the cell during the load pattern, given by time series measurements corresponding to a portion of a i+1 load pattern. The dataset used for this work is explained x = Q = jIj dt: i;2 thru in section 3. The third component is the absolute time value, in sec- 2.4 Evaluation onds, since the beginning of the whole dataset, The model predictions are evaluated using three di erent x = t: i;3 metrics, which re ect the quantities of interest in a prac- As discussed later, for the dataset considered here, it tical application. The rst is the root-mean-squared error was found that the choice of model and number of overlap- (RMSE) in the mean output of the model (i.e. the capacity ping load patterns were generally more important for de- di erences), de ned as termining predictive accuracy than the inclusion of addi- tional input features. However, with a larger dataset, ad- u X ditional features could improve predictive accuracy. These RMSE (y ^ ; y ) = (y ^ y ) ; (3) Q i i i i might include the following: T i=1 3 X y Capacity Inputs Output Q[Ah] t t q [Ah] t t t t t t Q[Ah] thru T<5 C 5 C<T<40 C T>40 C I<2A 2A<I<3A I>3A 2:1 5:5 10:6 1:4 0 5 0:5 4 1:25 0:25 0:05 Table 1: Example input format for a single step. Note that the values of the inputs shown here are arbitrary and for explanatory purposes only. All units are in hours, except where denoted otherwise. 1 Δ𝑡 RMSE ), but the individual predictions might not be (im- 1.0 𝑦 = Δ𝑥 1 1→ 2 plying poor RMSE ). Hence, a good model should have 0.9 𝑦 = Δ𝑥 Q 2 2→ 3 low values of both these metrics. Q 𝑦 = Δ𝑥 0.8 3 3→ 4 Thirdly, since the approach used here is probabilistic, Q = 4 4 0.6 the accuracy of the uncertainty estimates can also be Δ𝑥 4→ 5 quanti ed using the calibration score (CS). This is de ned 0.4 as the frequency of measured results in the test dataset that are within a predicted credible interval. Within a 2 interval, corresponding to a 95.4% probability for a 3 Gaussian distribution, the CS is given by CS = [jy ^ y j < 2] : (6) 2 i i=1 -5 Therefore, CS should be approximately 0.954 if the uncertainty predictions are accurate, using the techniques t (hrs) outlined in this paper. Higher or lower scores indicate 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 under- or over-con dence, respectively. u u 3 4 2.5 Gaussian process regression Figure 1: Schematic diagram showing raw input data and This section gives a brief overview of Gaussian process re- outputs for the rst four load patterns for a single cell. gression, the main approach chosen in this paper for mod- elling the transition in health from one load pattern to the where N is the number of points to be evaluated (i.e. all next. A Gaussian process (GP) [24] de nes a probability points in the test dataset), y is the measured capacity distribution over functions, and is denoted as: di erence using the test dataset and y ^ is the estimated mean capacity di erence predicted by the model, each be- f (x)  GP m(x); (x; x ) ; (7) tween load pattern u and u . The second is the RMSE i i+1 where m(x) and (x; x ) are the mean and covariance func- in actual capacity, de ned as tions respectively, denoted by u X 2 t  m(x) = E[f (x)]; (8) ^ ^ RMSE (Q ; Q ) = Q Q ; (4) Q i i i i T T 0 0 0 i=1 (x; x ) = E[(f (x) m(x)) (f (x ) m(x )) ]: (9) where Q is the measured capacity (using the test dataset) For any nite collection of input points, say X = and Q is the estimated mean capacity, each at load pat- x ; :::; x , this process de nes a probability distribution 1 N tern i. This may also be expressed as a normalised value, p (f (x ); :::; f (x )) that is jointly Gaussian, with some 1 N to facilitate comparison with other studies, whereby the mean m(x) and covariance K(x) given by K = (x ; x ). ij i j absolute capacities may be of di erent magnitudes: Gaussian process regression is a way to undertake non- u0 1 2 parametric regression with Gaussian processes. Rather N ^ ( Q Q u i i than suggesting a parametric form for the function f (x; ) ^ t@ A RMSE (Q ; Q ) = : Q;norm i and estimating the parameters  (as in parametric regres- N Q T i i=1 sion), we instead assume that the function f (x) is a sample (5) from a Gaussian process as de ned above. Note that it is possible for a model to perform well in one In this work, we use the Mat ern covariance function: of these metrics but poorly in the other. For instance, 1 0 0 p p 2 (x x ) (x x ) if a model over-predicts Q every second load pattern 0 2 (xx ) =  2 R 2 ; Ma but under-predicts on alternate load patterns, the over- () all capacity evolution may be accurate (implying good (10) Capacity T ( C) I (A) V (V) ° Cell 9 Cell 19 Cell 9 Cell 19 1.00 1.0 4.0 4.0 0.75 0.8 3.5 3.5 0.50 0.6 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 0 50 100 150 0 100 200 5.0 2.5 0.0 2 100 2.5 0 0 0 5.0 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 0 100 200 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 0 50 100 150 0 0 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 0 50 100 150 0 100 200 Time [days] Time [days] Time [days] Time [days] Figure 2: Examples of raw data (left two columns) and extracted input features (right two columns) for two di erent cells with output scale  , smoothness hyperparameter,  = NLML automatically performs a trade-o between bias 5=2 (larger  implies smoother functions) and R is the and variance, and hence ameliorates over- tting to the modi ed Bessel function. This kernel was chosen because data [26]. Given an expression for the NLML and its it is suitable for functions with varying degrees of smooth- derivative with respect to  (both of which can be ob- ness, although similar performance was observed using tained in closed form),  can be estimated using gradient- other common kernels, including the squared exponen- based optimization. The Python GPy library was used to tial [24]. implement these algorithms. A fuller discussion of various di erent kernels that may be used for GP regression in the context of battery health 2.6 Gradient boosting prediction is given in [23]. Finally, we also compare per- As a state-of-the-art comparison to Gaussian process re- formance against a linear kernel, since this is equivalent gression, we also investigated predictive performance with to Bayesian linear regression [24]: an alternative technique, gradient boosting. This is a pop- 0 2 0 k (x; x ) =  (x c)(x c); (11) lin f ular data-driven time series modelling approach based on combining an ensemble of weak prediction models into a where c is a constant de ning the o set of the linear func- stronger model [25]. While this approach is not inher- tion. The mean function of the GP is commonly de ned ently probabilistic, and does not output a full covariance as m(x) = 0, and we follow this convention here. matrix for the predictions, it can be trained using quan- Now, if one observes a labelled training set of input- tile regression (QR) to approximately predict a probability output pairs D = f(x ; y )g , predictions can be made i i i=1 distribution. Quantile regression deliberately introduces a at test indices X by computing the conditional distri- bias in the prediction in order to estimate statistics. The bution p(y jX ; X; y). This can be obtained analytically loss function is modi ed such that instead of identifying by the standard rules for conditioning Gaussians [25], and the mean of the variable to be predicted, QR seeks the (assuming a zero mean for notational simplicity) results median and any other desired quantiles. To identify the in a Gaussian distribution given by upper and lower bounds of a prediction interval, QR is repeated at several di erent quantiles. One advantage of p(y jX ; X; y) = N (y jm ;  ) (12) this method is that asymmetric intervals can be predicted. where On the other hand, it is not clear how the con dence in- tervals for Q should be calculated from the values for Q, T 1 m = K(X; X ) K(X; X ) y (13) since the full covariance matrix is unavailable. In this T 1 = K(X ; X ) K(X; X ) K(X; X ) K(X; X ): case, we simply centred the intervals around the mean, (14) and tted a Gaussian distribution in order to achieve this. The values of the covariance hyperparameters  may be optimised by minimising the negative log marginal likeli- hood de ned as NLML = log p(yjX; ). Minimising the Temperature [ C] Current [A] Voltage [V] Voltage [V] Temperature [ C] Current [A] Q [%] Throughput [Ah] t (T > 35 C) [days] Throughput [Ah] t (T > 35 C) [days] Q [%] Manufacturer LG Chem 0.6 30 Form factor 18650 Chemistry Lithium cobalt oxide vs. graphite 0.4 # cells 26 0.2 10 # Q samples 950 0.0 0 Q range (Ah) 2.10 ! 0.80 0 10 0.0 0.2 0.4 Cycling 7 groups each with di erent regime dt [days] Charge throughput [Ahx10 ] Table 2: Dataset overview. Row `# Q samples' indicates 0.075 1.0 total number of capacity measurements, i.e. approximate total 0.050 number of health transitions. Row `Q range' indicates values 0.5 of the maximum initial capacity and minimum nal capacity. 0.025 0.0 0 0.000 5 0 5 3 4 0 50 Group 1 (Cells 1, 2, 7, 8) Current [A] Voltage [V] Temperature [ C] Repeatedly charged to 4.2 V using a randomly selected dura- tion between 0.5 hours and 3 hours, then discharged to 3.2 V Figure 3: Distribution of input data for each parameter. using a randomized sequence of discharging currents between 0.5 A and 4 A. Reference characterisation every 50 cycles. Group 2 (Cells 3-6) 3 Dataset Same as group 1 except charging cycle not randomized. Group 3 (Cells 9-12) The battery dataset used here was obtained from the Operated using a sequence of charging/discharging currents NASA Ames Prognostics Center of Excellence Random- between -4.5 A and 4.5 A. Each loading period lasted 5 min- ized Battery Usage Repository [27]. The data in this utes. Reference characterisation carried out after 1500 periods repository were rst used in Ref. [28] for an investigation (about 5 days). into capacity fade under randomized load pro les. The Group 4 (Cells 13-15) data are randomised in order to better represent practi- Repeatedly charged to 4.2 V and then discharged to 3.2 V cal battery usage. This is ideal for training a data-driven using a randomized sequence of discharging currents between model. Fig. 3 gives smoothed histograms computed from 0.5 A and 5 A. A customized probability distribution skewed the cell data showing the ranges of times, charge through- towards selecting higher currents was used to select a new load put, currents, voltages and temperatures that are explored setpoint every 1 minute during discharging. by this dataset. Group 5 (Cells 18-20) An overview of the battery dataset is given in Table 2. Same as Group 4 except the probability distribution was de- The cells used have a relatively high energy density, but signed to be skewed towards selecting lower currents. short lifetime. The remainder of this subsection describes Group 6 (Cells 21-24) the cycling and characterisation procedure, based on [27]. Same as Group 5 except with ambient temperature of 40 C. For this study we used data from 26 of the 28 total bat- Group 7 (Cells 25-28) tery cells available in the repository (cells 16 and 17 were Same as Group 4 except with ambient temperature of 40 C. omitted, since these were found to contain spurious data resulting in certain cycles having negative duration). The Table 3: NASA data load pro les. Each group of cells under- cells were grouped into 7 groups of 4, with each group went a di erent loading procedure. Full details in [27]. undergoing a di erent randomized cycling procedure as described in Table 3. 4 Results The rst 5 groups were cycled at room temperature throughout the duration of the experiments, whilst groups We considered 6 di erent con gurations of data-driven 6-7 were cycled at 40 C. In all cases a characterisation transition model, as de ned in Table 4, in order to show a test was periodically carried out, whereby a 2 A charge- range of comparisons in predictive accuracy. In each case, discharge cycle was applied (i.e. approximately 1C) be- the model was trained on the data from even numbered tween the cell voltage limits { these discharge curves were cells (i.e. all the mappings between inputs and capacity used to evaluate the capacity as an indicator of state of drops across all of those cells), and subsequently tested on health. There were a total of 950 discharge curves avail- the odd numbered cells. able across all cells (i.e.  34 curves per cell). Models 1 and 2 use a GP with a Mat ern kernel. The The cell capacity was calculated by integrating the cur- di erence between these two models is the way in which rent from each of the 2 A charge curves. Calculated ca- long term trends are captured. For model 1, data from pacities for the cells in each group are plotted against time the preceding 6 load patterns were all used as inputs for in Fig. 4. The evolution of the capacity is quite di erent the mapping, and the total time elapsed was not included for each group of cells. as an input. For model 2, only data from the current Density Density Density Density Density 2.00 2.00 1 3 2.0 9 13 2.0 2 4 10 14 1.75 1.75 7 5 11 15 1.5 1.5 1.50 8 6 12 1.50 1.25 1.25 1.0 1.0 1.00 1.00 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 200 day day day day 18 25 2.00 2.0 19 26 2.0 1.75 20 27 1.8 21 1.50 1.8 1.6 1.25 1.4 1.00 0 100 200 0 50 100 0 50 100 day day day Figure 4: Measured cell capacities for each group of similarly cycled cells. No. Model Kernel Lags Inputs dQ (Ah) Q (Ah) t (s) Q (Ah) t (s) RMSE CS RMSE RMSE CS thru 2 norm 2 1. GP Ma5 6 3 3 7 0.0201 0.959 0.070 0.043 0.967 2. GP Ma5 1 3 3 3 0.0236 0.950 0.116 0.086 0.922 3. GP Lin 6 3 3 7 0.0284 0.939 0.186 0.173 0.839 4. GP Lin 1 3 3 3 0.0319 0.945 0.642 0.593 0.241 5. SKGB n/a 6 3 3 3 0.0244 0.850 0.089 0.067 0.846 6. SKGB n/a 1 3 3 7 0.0246 0.889 0.125 0.106 0.757 Table 4: Results for the 6 di erent model combinations. The best values of each metric are indicated in bold. load pattern was used, but to capture long term trends it 5 Discussion was necessary to also include the total time elapsed as an The results given in section 4 show that model 1 accurately additional input. predicts the capacity trajectory, and provides reasonable, Models 3 and 4 are analogous to models 1 and 2, except if slightly over-cautious, estimates of the uncertainty, in- a linear kernel was used in the GP rather than a Mat ern dicated by the calibration score being close to 0.954. The kernel. This gives a simple base case for comparison. Us- true capacity generally lies within the 2 interval de- ing a linear kernel is equivalent to implementing Bayesian noted by the blue shaded region in Fig. 6. linear regression, and the key point to note in this con- The model is also seen to be capable of predicting both text is that it provides far less exibility for the model positive and negative capacity di erences. For instance, predictions compared with a Mat ern kernel. it is apparent in Fig. 6 that, although the capacities expe- Models 5 and 6 are also analogous to models 1 and 2, rience a long-term downward trend, they also experience except that, rather than using a GP, they use a di er- occasional step increases. The model correctly predicts ent regression technique called gradient boosting, as was the timing of a number of these instances, e.g. for cell 7 introduced in section 2.6. at day  140. As an aside, the physical explanation for The predicted versus actual Q for each approach is these increases is not clear; they may in fact be an artefact shown in Fig. 5. Model 1 was the best performing of the of the measurement process, possibly arising when refer- 6 cases tested, with RMSE and RMSE of 0:0201 Ah Q Q ence tests are performed, after the cell is unused for some and 0:07 Ah respectively. Normalised capacity prediction time. However, regardless of their cause, accounting for error RMSE for model 1 was 4.3%. norm these e ects is essential since the capacity measurement Finally we present in more detail in Fig. 6 the evolution provided in a real application could also manifest similar of the capacity for each of the cells in the test dataset, behaviour. using the best performing approach (model 1). Regarding feature selection, the fact that model 1 per- forms better than model 2 in the case of the dataset used Capacity [Ah] Capacity [Ah] Capacity [Ah] Capacity [Ah] Capacity [Ah] Capacity [Ah] Capacity [Ah] GP, Linear, 6 lags SKGB, 6 lags GP, Matern52, 6 lags 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 Actual Actual Actual GP, Matern52, 1 lag GP, Linear, 1 lag SKGB, 1 lag 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 Group 1 0.05 0.05 Group 2 Group 3 0.10 Group 4 0.10 0.10 Group 5 0.15 Group 6 0.15 0.15 Group 7 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 Actual Actual Actual Figure 5: Predicted versus actual Q values for each dataset. The coloured markers indicate predicted values, and grey error bars indicate 2 credibility intervals. here suggests that valuable information is being extracted 6 Conclusions from the inputs over the previous load patterns, which is This paper has developed a new technique for battery not available from using just the total time elapsed as an health prediction based on a Bayesian non-parametric additional input. model that estimates the change in capacity over a par- Models 3 and 4, based on a linear kernel as noted ear- ticular period of time as a function of how the battery lier, perform considerably more poorly than the other ap- was used during that period. A simple histogram-based proaches in terms of capacity prediction error, indicating feature selection approach was presented and models were that the simple linear combination of the inputs is insu- trained using data from NASA [27]. It was found that the cient to predict battery health for the dataset considered best performing approach used Gaussian process regres- here, and the nonlinearities captured by the Mat ern kernel sion with a Mat ern kernel function, and that time elapsed are signi cant in this case. Their calibration scores also and charge throughput were the most important features indicate over-con dence. to incorporate within the model, given the dataset used The models based on gradient boosting are slightly less in this paper. It was also found that more accurate re- accurate in terms of mean predictions than models 1 and sults could be achieved by considering the preceding 6 load 2 and it is also noteworthy that they are erroneously over- patterns to capture longer range trends, rather than us- con dent, as indicated by their low calibration scores. ing absolute time as an input feature. Automated feature Finally, we note that the train/test split used in this pa- selection would be worth future investigation. per (whereby the even numbered cells are used for training The best case results presented have a relative accu- and the odd numbered cells for testing) ensures that there racy on mean capacity predictions that is within 5% of is at least one training cell in each of the 7 groups of dif- the actual values. To our knowledge this is one of the rst ferently cycled cells, Table 3. Inferior results may be ob- papers to actually quantify battery health predictive accu- tained if this were not the case, e.g. if the rst N cells were racy comprehensively, and this is one of the most accurate used for training and the remaining 26-N used for testing, long range predictions of future capacity seen to date. since in the latter case the model would be extrapolating The approaches explored in this paper o er an interest- beyond the region of the input space used for training. In ing insight into how the stress factors that drive degrada- practice, the performance of these methods will rely on tion actually in uence the capacity trajectory. It is note- using a suciently large training set being available, such worthy that, despite having a dataset that includes a wide that a large range of input conditions are covered. range of temperatures and currents, in this case it was Predicted Predicted Predicted Predicted Predicted Predicted Cell 1 Group 1 Cell 3 Group 2 Cell 5 Group 2 Cell 7 Group 1 Cell 9 Group 3 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 day day day day day Cell 11 Group 3 Cell 13 Group 4 Cell 15 Group 4 Cell 19 Group 5 Cell 21 Group 6 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.6 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.0 0.5 0 100 0 100 200 0 100 200 0 100 200 0 50 100 day day day day day Cell 23 Group 6 Cell 25 Group 7 Cell 27 Group 7 2.0 True capacity 2.0 2.0 1.8 Predictions 1.8 1.8 1.6 Credibility intervals 1.6 1.4 1.6 0 50 100 0 50 100 0 50 day day day Figure 6: Predicted capacity versus time on the test data. Black lines are true values, blue lines with markers are mean predictions and blue shaded region indicates 2 credibility region. found that time elapsed and charge throughput were the References dominant inputs. However, a naive modelling approach [1] F. Wankmueller, P. R. Thimmapuram, K. G. Gal- that uses a simple linear combination of inputs results in lagher, A. Botterud, Impact of battery degradation very inaccurate predictions, as shown by the GP regres- on energy arbitrage revenue of grid-level energy stor- sion results using linear kernels. age, Journal of Energy Storage 10 (2017) 56{66. There are a number of interesting next steps to explore. First, it would be useful to test these ideas against a much [2] C. R. Birkl, M. R. Roberts, E. McTurk, P. G. Bruce, larger dataset to show their general validity and explore in D. A. Howey, Degradation diagnostics for lithium ion more detail the sensitivity of the approach to additional cells, Journal of Power Sources 341 (2017) 373{386. inputs. Second, prior knowledge about expected degra- dation behaviour could be included as an extension to [3] P. Ruetschi, Aging mechanisms and service life of this work by including a parametric mean function within lead{acid batteries, Journal of Power Sources 127 (1- the GP framework. Third, in the present work, when the 2) (2004) 33{44. model is used predictively, it assumes perfect knowledge [4] A. Farmann, W. Waag, A. Marongiu, D. U. Sauer, about the inputs, i.e. that the future current, voltage and Critical review of on-board capacity estimation tech- temperature time series are known in advance. In practice niques for lithium-ion batteries in electric and hybrid this will not be the case, since depending on the applica- electric vehicles, Journal of Power Sources 281 (2015) tion these variables depend on driving style or market con- 114{130. ditions, ambient weather conditions etc. Predicting these inputs is a separate but important issue. [5] M. Schimpe, M. von Kuepach, M. Naumann, H. Hesse, K. Smith, A. Jossen, Comprehensive mod- eling of temperature-dependent degradation mecha- Acknowledgments nisms in lithium iron phosphate batteries, Journal of The Electrochemical Society 165 (2) (2018) A181{ This work was funded by Continental AG and an A193. RCUK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Coun- cil grant, ref. EP/K002252/1. [6] J. Wang, P. Liu, J. Hicks-Garner, E. Sherman, S. Soukiazian, M. Verbrugge, H. Tataria, J. Musser, P. Finamore, Cycle-life model for graphite-LiFePO 4 Capacity [Ah] Capacity [Ah] Capacity [Ah] Capacity [Ah] Capacity [Ah] Capacity [Ah] Capacity [Ah] Capacity [Ah] Capacity [Ah] Capacity [Ah] Capacity [Ah] Capacity [Ah] Capacity [Ah] cells, Journal of Power Sources 196 (8) (2011) 3942{ [17] M. A. Patil, P. Tagade, K. S. Hariharan, S. M. Ko- 3948. lake, T. Song, T. Yeo, S. Doo, A novel multistage Support Vector Machine based approach for li ion [7] J. Schmalstieg, S. K abitz, M. Ecker, D. U. Sauer, A battery remaining useful life estimation, Applied En- holistic aging model for Li (NiMnCo) O2 based 18650 ergy 159 (2015) 285{297. lithium-ion batteries, Journal of Power Sources 257 (2014) 325{334. [18] D. Wang, Q. Miao, M. Pecht, Prognostics of lithium- ion batteries based on relevance vectors and a condi- [8] M. Ecker, J. B. Gerschler, J. Vogel, S. K abitz, tional three-parameter capacity degradation model, F. Hust, P. Dechent, D. U. Sauer, Development of Journal of Power Sources 239 (2013) 253{264. a lifetime prediction model for lithium-ion batteries based on extended accelerated aging test data, Jour- [19] A. Nuhic, T. Terzimehic, T. Soczka-Guth, M. Buch- nal of Power Sources 215 (2012) 248{257. holz, K. Dietmayer, Health diagnosis and remaining useful life prognostics of lithium-ion batteries using [9] R. Dufo-L opez, J. M. Lujano-Rojas, J. L. Bernal- data-driven methods, Journal of Power Sources 239 Agust n, Comparison of di erent lead{acid battery (2013) 680{688. lifetime prediction models for use in simulation of stand-alone photovoltaic systems, Applied Energy [20] K. Goebel, B. Saha, A. Saxena, J. R. Celaya, 115 (2014) 242{253. J. P. Christophersen, Prognostics in battery health management, IEEE Instrumentation & Measurement [10] C. Birkl, D. A. Howey, Oxford Battery Degradation Magazine 11 (4) (2008) 33. Dataset 1, http://dx.doi.org/10.5287/bodleian: KO2kdmYGg (2017). [21] B. Saha, K. Goebel, Uncertainty management for di- agnostics and prognostics of batteries using Bayesian [11] S. J. Harris, D. J. Harris, C. Li, Failure statistics techniques, in: Aerospace Conference, 2008 IEEE, for commercial lithium ion batteries: A study of 24 IEEE, 2008, pp. 1{8. pouch cells, Journal of Power Sources 342 (2017) 589{ [22] W. He, N. Williard, M. Osterman, M. Pecht, Prog- nostics of lithium-ion batteries based on Dempster{ [12] C. Kupper, W. G. Bessler, Multi-scale thermo- Shafer theory and the Bayesian Monte Carlo method, electrochemical modeling of performance and aging Journal of Power Sources 196 (23) (2011) 10314{ of a lifepo4/graphite lithium-ion cell, Journal of The Electrochemical Society 164 (2) (2017) A304{A320. [23] R. R. Richardson, M. A. Osborne, D. A. Howey, [13] M. B. Pinson, M. Z. Bazant, Theory of sei formation Gaussian process regression for forecasting battery in rechargeable batteries: capacity fade, accelerated state of health, Journal of Power Sources 357 (2017) aging and lifetime prediction, Journal of the Electro- 209{219. chemical Society 160 (2) (2013) A243{A250. [14] X.-G. Yang, Y. Leng, G. Zhang, S. Ge, C.-Y. [24] C. E. Rasmussen, Gaussian processes for machine Wang, Modeling of lithium plating induced aging learning, Citeseer, 2006. of lithium-ion batteries: Transition from linear to [25] K. P. Murphy, Machine learning: a probabilistic per- nonlinear aging, Journal of Power Sources 360 (2017) spective, MIT press, 2012. 28{40. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour. [26] C. M. Bishop, Pattern Recognition and Machine 2017.05.110http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/ Learning, Springer, 2006. retrieve/pii/S0378775317307619 [27] B. Bole, C. Kulkarni, M. Daigle, Randomized bat- [15] R. D. Deshpande, D. M. Bernardi, Modeling tery usage data set, NASA AMES prognostics data Solid-Electrolyte Interphase (SEI) Fracture: Cou- repository. pled Mechanical/Chemical Degradation of the Lithium Ion Battery, Journal of The Electro- [28] B. Bole, C. S. Kulkarni, M. Daigle, Adaptation of chemical Society 164 (2) (2017) A461{A474. an electrochemistry-based li-ion battery model to ac- doi:10.1149/2.0841702jes. count for deterioration observed under randomized URL http://jes.ecsdl.org/lookup/doi/10. use, in: Proceedings of Annual Conference of the 1149/2.0841702jes Prognostics and Health Management Society, Fort Worth, TX, USA, Vol. 29, 2014. [16] X. Hu, J. Jiang, D. Cao, B. Egardt, Battery health prognosis for electric vehicles using sample en- tropy and sparse Bayesian predictive modeling, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 63 (4) (2016) 2645{2656. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Statistics arXiv (Cornell University)

Battery health prediction under generalized conditions using a Gaussian process transition model

Statistics , Volume 2018 (1807) – Jul 17, 2018

Loading next page...
 
/lp/arxiv-cornell-university/battery-health-prediction-under-generalized-conditions-using-a-20FFnpIT2D
ISSN
2352-152X
eISSN
ARCH-3347
DOI
10.1016/j.est.2019.03.022
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Battery health prediction under generalized conditions using a Gaussian process transition model Robert R. Richardson, Michael A. Osborne and David A. Howey July 18, 2018 Abstract 1 Introduction Accurately predicting the future health of batteries is nec- Electrochemical batteries, such as lithium-ion and lead- essary to ensure reliable operation, minimise maintenance acid cells, experience degradation over time and during costs, and calculate the value of energy storage invest- usage, leading to decreased energy storage capacity and ments. The complex nature of degradation renders data- increased internal resistance. Being able to predict the driven approaches a promising alternative to mechanis- rate of degradation and the remaining useful life (RUL) tic modelling. This study predicts the changes in bat- of a battery is important for performance and economic tery capacity over time using a Bayesian non-parametric reasons. For example, in an electric vehicle, the driveable approach based on Gaussian process regression. These range is directly related to the battery capacity. For en- changes can be integrated against an arbitrary input se- ergy storage asset valuation, depreciation, warranty, insur- quence to predict capacity fade in a variety of usage sce- ance and preventative maintenance purposes, predicting narios, forming a generalised health model. The approach RUL at design stage and during operation is crucial, and naturally incorporates varying current, voltage and tem- the investment case is strongly dependent on the degra- perature inputs, crucial for enabling real world applica- dation behaviour [1]. To estimate accurately the second tion. A key innovation is the feature selection step, where hand value of assets such as EVs and grid batteries, cred- arbitrary length current, voltage and temperature mea- ible predictions of RUL are required. surement vectors are mapped to xed size feature vectors, Unfortunately, battery degradation is caused by many enabling them to be eciently used as exogenous vari- complex interacting chemical and mechanical processes [2, ables. The approach is demonstrated on the open-source 3], and physical modelling from rst principles is very chal- NASA Randomised Battery Usage Dataset, with data of lenging. To mitigate uncertainty in lifetime, batteries are 26 cells aged under randomized operational conditions. often over-sized and under-used, which results in increased Using half of the cells for training, and half for validation, system costs and sub-optimal performance. Hence, new the method is shown to accurately predict non-linear ca- approaches for accurate health prognostics are required, pacity fade, with a best case normalised root mean square and form an important component of a modern battery error of 4.3%, including accurate estimation of prediction management system or energy management system. uncertainty. Since the performance of a battery in an application is largely dependent on its nominal capacity and internal resistance, the state of health (SoH) is typically de ned Keywords by one or both of these parameters. In the present case Gaussian process regression, lithium-ion, battery, degra- we consider just cell capacity as the SoH metric, but the dation, prognostics, health methods outlined in this paper could be applied to any other SoH metric, such as internal resistance, or capacity at some nominal C-rate. A variety of techniques may be Highlights applied for SoH measurement and estimation [4], but in Gaussian process transition model of battery degra- this paper we simply assume that SoH metrics are avail- dation able, for example from a battery management system. The conventional approach to battery SoH forecasting is Predicts future capacity and associated uncertainty to t a parametric function to a broad set of ageing data measured under controlled laboratory conditions. Care- Arbitrary length current, voltage and temperature ful judgement is required to decide on the exact form of data mapped to xed size input vectors parametric model to use. For example, Schimpe [5] in- Demonstrated on dataset of 26 cells under random- vestigated both calendar and cycle ageing of lithium iron ized usage phosphate (LFP) batteries with respect to temperature and state of charge (SoC) and found that capacity evolved Best case normalised root mean square error of 4.3% arXiv:1807.06350v1 [stat.AP] 17 Jul 2018 with time according to explored in this context, including non-parametric ap- p p p proaches such as support vector machines [16, 17, 18, 19], Q = k t + k Q + k Q + k Q ; (1) loss 1 2 tot 3 ch 4 ch and Bayesian non-parametric approaches such as Gaussian process (GP) regression [20, 21, 22]. A non-parametric where Q is the capacity fade at some point in time, k loss 1:::4 model is one whose expressivity (as would increase with are empirically tted stress factors that are a function of the degree of a polynomial, for instance) naturally adapts temperature, charging current, time and SoC, Q is the tot to the complexity of data. Rather than having no param- total charge throughput to time t, and Q is the charge ch eters, a non-parametric model is perhaps better thought throughput only during charging, to time t. The stress of as one with a number of parameters that can scale with factors k typically t an Arrhenius equation of the form 1:::4 the data and could become arbitrarily large. Bayesian approaches naturally incorporate estimates of uncertainty k = k exp [ (u u )] ; (2) ref ref into predictions, allowing a model to acknowledge the where is a tted constant, u is some input such as cur- varying probabilities of a range of possible future health rent or the reciprocal of temperature, and u is reference ref values, rather than just giving a single predicted value. value for that input. Very similar approaches have been These approaches have been demonstrated to work well developed by others for LFP batteries [6], and for a vari- when a battery health dataset is available for batteries ety of other chemistries including NMC lithium-ion [7, 8] that have all been cycled in a similar way. For exam- and lead-acid [9]. These empirical degradation models are ple, our previous work [23] on RUL prediction applied essentially parametric curve tting using speci ed under- a multiple-output Gaussian process model to incorporate lying functions such as exponentials, square roots etc. For data from multiple batteries, all cycled in the same way, some kinds of battery degradation data, such as [10], these demonstrating a large improvement in accuracy of RUL approaches may give a reasonable t to the measured be- estimation over existing methods. However, for real world haviour, although there is very little information in the lit- RUL prediction at design stage, or for preventative main- erature about their long term predictive accuracy. These tenance, a much more exible approach is needed that approaches also require the form of the model to be speci- allows health predictions to be made as a function of the ed a priori, for example (1) assumes decoupling of inputs, changing stress factors such as time, charge throughput and this may not be the case. Additionally, many degrada- and temperature etc. The previously discussed paramet- tion datasets exhibit an accelerated capacity fade regime ric models can incorporate dependence on external inputs, in later life (see [11]), and this approach is not able to but are limited to pre-speci ed functions. In other words, model such a regime change. Also, accuracy may be lim- they assume that the shape of the degradation trajectory ited when environmental and load conditions di er from is known a priori, which limits their applicability. the training dataset. To address this, we introduce the idea of a Bayesian non- As an alternative approach to empirical parametric parametric transition model for battery health. Rather functions tted to laboratory test data, others have de- than tting the SoH data directly as a function of time or veloped ` rst principles' electrochemical models of battery cycle count, the model predicts the changes in SoH from ageing. These propose and model a set of underlying phys- one point to the next as the battery is used, as a function ical ageing mechanisms. For example a popular ageing of the usage. This is explained in detail in the next section. mechanism is growth of the anode solid electrolyte inter- phase (SEI) through reduction of the ethylene carbonate 2 Method in the electrolyte, modelled as a di usion-limited single step charge transfer reaction [12, 13]. This can be aug- 2.1 Transition model mented to include additional physics related to lithium plating [14], particle cracking [15] and other mechanisms. The approach in this paper formulates a transition model Although reasonable results are demonstrated for calendar to predict the capacity changes between periods of usage ageing, huge challenges remain with respect to parametri- that we term `load patterns'. We de ne this di erently sation and validation of such models, and what physics to to a standard battery charge-discharge cycle, instead it is include to capture all the relevant ageing mechanisms and the time-series of current, voltage and temperature data their interactions. between any two capacity measurements or estimates, Q In contrast to these approaches, so-called data-driven and Q . Load patterns do not need to be uniformly i+1 battery ageing models are beginning to be investigated. spaced, i.e. they could be short or long periods of usage, These have some similarities with the empirically tted and might include multiple charge-discharge events. functions previously discussed, but new techniques from The goal of a regression problem is to learn the mapping machine learning allow much greater exibility in these from input vectors x to outputs y, given a labelled training models than can be obtained using pre-speci ed paramet- N set of input-output pairs D = f(x ; y )g , where N is i i D i=1 ric functions. The simplest formulation of this is direct t- the number of training examples. In the present case, the ting of capacity data with respect to time, or cycle count, inputs x 2 R are vectors of selected features (see section which allows RUL estimation by extrapolation to future 2.2) for load pattern u , and the outputs y 2 R are the i i values. A variety of data-driven techniques have been 2 corresponding di erences in measured capacity between Firstly, the present cell capacity, load pattern u and u . The underlying model takes the i i+1 x = Q : i;4 i form y = f (x) + ", where f (x) represents a latent func- tion and "  N (0;  ) is an independent and identically Secondly, the time elapsed during which certain condi- distributed noise contribution. tions are met. This is achieved by de ning a selection of The learned model can then be used to make predic- current, voltage and temperature ranges, and evaluating tions on a set of test inputs x = fx g (i.e. load pat- i i=1 the time spent by the battery within these ranges: terns where we wish to estimate the capacity), producing outputs y = fy g , where N is the number of test i i=1 x = t ; i;j P <P<P l u indices. In our case we are interested in predicting the capacity changes in a new { previously unseen { battery for j 2 f5; 6; : : :g, where P , P and P are the parameters l u cell, which has been exposed to a known test regime. This of interest, and their upper and lower bounds respectively. is called the validation or test dataset. For example, a battery's aging behaviour is expected to be a ected by high or low temperatures [5]. Hence, one might de ne the duration of time the battery spends (1) below 2.2 Input feature extraction 0 C, (2) between 0 and 40 C, and (3) above 40 C as Each load pattern, u , may contain within it an arbitrary three distinct inputs: number of time steps, N . However, in order to use the inputs in our model, since the capacity measurements are x = t i;5 T<0 C only known per load pattern, we must rst map time-series x = t i;6 0 C<T<40 C data to a xed size input vector. In other words, assuming there are N time-steps within a load pattern u , then the i i x = t i;7 40 C<T N N N i i i measurements I 2 R , V 2 R , T 2 R are mapped An example of an input vector for a single load pattern to a single n-dimensional input vector, x, where n is the is given in Table 1. In this case, inputs were de ned for number of features of interest. Irrespective of the number ranges of temperature and current. Of course, additional of time steps in a load pattern, the size of the input vector inputs could also be de ned by voltage ranges, but these x is the same. have been omitted here for clarity of presentation. Note For each load pattern, u , the features to be extracted that the sum of all the times spent in each parameter range are de ned by prior assumptions about what causes a bat- (e.g. in each temperature or current range) must equal the tery to age. As discussed in the preceding section, there total time elapsed within that load pattern. are many possible di erent stress factors that a ect bat- tery ageing, depending on the dataset and model. How- ever, in the dataset used it was found that accurate results 2.3 Example data could be obtained with only a small number of factors (see Fig. 1 shows an exemplary schematic of the rst 4 load table 4), as follows: patterns for a single cell. There is one capacity measure- The rst component of the input vector, for the ith load ment (Q ) at the very start of the cell's life and then 4 pattern, is the total time elapsed during the load pattern, subsequent measurements (Q Q ) at later times. The 2 5 given by load patterns consist of everything that occurs between x = t = t t ; i;1 i+1 i each capacity measurement; each load pattern is trans- where t and t are the times at the start and end of the i i+1 lated into equal sized input vectors, x . load pattern respectively. Fig. 2 gives examples of real measurement data for two The second component is the charge throughput, Q , thru di erent cells, including the capacity values Q, some of during the load pattern, i.e. the total absolute current the extracted inputs for each load pattern, and exemplary through the cell during the load pattern, given by time series measurements corresponding to a portion of a i+1 load pattern. The dataset used for this work is explained x = Q = jIj dt: i;2 thru in section 3. The third component is the absolute time value, in sec- 2.4 Evaluation onds, since the beginning of the whole dataset, The model predictions are evaluated using three di erent x = t: i;3 metrics, which re ect the quantities of interest in a prac- As discussed later, for the dataset considered here, it tical application. The rst is the root-mean-squared error was found that the choice of model and number of overlap- (RMSE) in the mean output of the model (i.e. the capacity ping load patterns were generally more important for de- di erences), de ned as termining predictive accuracy than the inclusion of addi- tional input features. However, with a larger dataset, ad- u X ditional features could improve predictive accuracy. These RMSE (y ^ ; y ) = (y ^ y ) ; (3) Q i i i i might include the following: T i=1 3 X y Capacity Inputs Output Q[Ah] t t q [Ah] t t t t t t Q[Ah] thru T<5 C 5 C<T<40 C T>40 C I<2A 2A<I<3A I>3A 2:1 5:5 10:6 1:4 0 5 0:5 4 1:25 0:25 0:05 Table 1: Example input format for a single step. Note that the values of the inputs shown here are arbitrary and for explanatory purposes only. All units are in hours, except where denoted otherwise. 1 Δ𝑡 RMSE ), but the individual predictions might not be (im- 1.0 𝑦 = Δ𝑥 1 1→ 2 plying poor RMSE ). Hence, a good model should have 0.9 𝑦 = Δ𝑥 Q 2 2→ 3 low values of both these metrics. Q 𝑦 = Δ𝑥 0.8 3 3→ 4 Thirdly, since the approach used here is probabilistic, Q = 4 4 0.6 the accuracy of the uncertainty estimates can also be Δ𝑥 4→ 5 quanti ed using the calibration score (CS). This is de ned 0.4 as the frequency of measured results in the test dataset that are within a predicted credible interval. Within a 2 interval, corresponding to a 95.4% probability for a 3 Gaussian distribution, the CS is given by CS = [jy ^ y j < 2] : (6) 2 i i=1 -5 Therefore, CS should be approximately 0.954 if the uncertainty predictions are accurate, using the techniques t (hrs) outlined in this paper. Higher or lower scores indicate 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 under- or over-con dence, respectively. u u 3 4 2.5 Gaussian process regression Figure 1: Schematic diagram showing raw input data and This section gives a brief overview of Gaussian process re- outputs for the rst four load patterns for a single cell. gression, the main approach chosen in this paper for mod- elling the transition in health from one load pattern to the where N is the number of points to be evaluated (i.e. all next. A Gaussian process (GP) [24] de nes a probability points in the test dataset), y is the measured capacity distribution over functions, and is denoted as: di erence using the test dataset and y ^ is the estimated mean capacity di erence predicted by the model, each be- f (x)  GP m(x); (x; x ) ; (7) tween load pattern u and u . The second is the RMSE i i+1 where m(x) and (x; x ) are the mean and covariance func- in actual capacity, de ned as tions respectively, denoted by u X 2 t  m(x) = E[f (x)]; (8) ^ ^ RMSE (Q ; Q ) = Q Q ; (4) Q i i i i T T 0 0 0 i=1 (x; x ) = E[(f (x) m(x)) (f (x ) m(x )) ]: (9) where Q is the measured capacity (using the test dataset) For any nite collection of input points, say X = and Q is the estimated mean capacity, each at load pat- x ; :::; x , this process de nes a probability distribution 1 N tern i. This may also be expressed as a normalised value, p (f (x ); :::; f (x )) that is jointly Gaussian, with some 1 N to facilitate comparison with other studies, whereby the mean m(x) and covariance K(x) given by K = (x ; x ). ij i j absolute capacities may be of di erent magnitudes: Gaussian process regression is a way to undertake non- u0 1 2 parametric regression with Gaussian processes. Rather N ^ ( Q Q u i i than suggesting a parametric form for the function f (x; ) ^ t@ A RMSE (Q ; Q ) = : Q;norm i and estimating the parameters  (as in parametric regres- N Q T i i=1 sion), we instead assume that the function f (x) is a sample (5) from a Gaussian process as de ned above. Note that it is possible for a model to perform well in one In this work, we use the Mat ern covariance function: of these metrics but poorly in the other. For instance, 1 0 0 p p 2 (x x ) (x x ) if a model over-predicts Q every second load pattern 0 2 (xx ) =  2 R 2 ; Ma but under-predicts on alternate load patterns, the over- () all capacity evolution may be accurate (implying good (10) Capacity T ( C) I (A) V (V) ° Cell 9 Cell 19 Cell 9 Cell 19 1.00 1.0 4.0 4.0 0.75 0.8 3.5 3.5 0.50 0.6 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 0 50 100 150 0 100 200 5.0 2.5 0.0 2 100 2.5 0 0 0 5.0 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 0 100 200 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 0 50 100 150 0 0 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 0 50 100 150 0 100 200 Time [days] Time [days] Time [days] Time [days] Figure 2: Examples of raw data (left two columns) and extracted input features (right two columns) for two di erent cells with output scale  , smoothness hyperparameter,  = NLML automatically performs a trade-o between bias 5=2 (larger  implies smoother functions) and R is the and variance, and hence ameliorates over- tting to the modi ed Bessel function. This kernel was chosen because data [26]. Given an expression for the NLML and its it is suitable for functions with varying degrees of smooth- derivative with respect to  (both of which can be ob- ness, although similar performance was observed using tained in closed form),  can be estimated using gradient- other common kernels, including the squared exponen- based optimization. The Python GPy library was used to tial [24]. implement these algorithms. A fuller discussion of various di erent kernels that may be used for GP regression in the context of battery health 2.6 Gradient boosting prediction is given in [23]. Finally, we also compare per- As a state-of-the-art comparison to Gaussian process re- formance against a linear kernel, since this is equivalent gression, we also investigated predictive performance with to Bayesian linear regression [24]: an alternative technique, gradient boosting. This is a pop- 0 2 0 k (x; x ) =  (x c)(x c); (11) lin f ular data-driven time series modelling approach based on combining an ensemble of weak prediction models into a where c is a constant de ning the o set of the linear func- stronger model [25]. While this approach is not inher- tion. The mean function of the GP is commonly de ned ently probabilistic, and does not output a full covariance as m(x) = 0, and we follow this convention here. matrix for the predictions, it can be trained using quan- Now, if one observes a labelled training set of input- tile regression (QR) to approximately predict a probability output pairs D = f(x ; y )g , predictions can be made i i i=1 distribution. Quantile regression deliberately introduces a at test indices X by computing the conditional distri- bias in the prediction in order to estimate statistics. The bution p(y jX ; X; y). This can be obtained analytically loss function is modi ed such that instead of identifying by the standard rules for conditioning Gaussians [25], and the mean of the variable to be predicted, QR seeks the (assuming a zero mean for notational simplicity) results median and any other desired quantiles. To identify the in a Gaussian distribution given by upper and lower bounds of a prediction interval, QR is repeated at several di erent quantiles. One advantage of p(y jX ; X; y) = N (y jm ;  ) (12) this method is that asymmetric intervals can be predicted. where On the other hand, it is not clear how the con dence in- tervals for Q should be calculated from the values for Q, T 1 m = K(X; X ) K(X; X ) y (13) since the full covariance matrix is unavailable. In this T 1 = K(X ; X ) K(X; X ) K(X; X ) K(X; X ): case, we simply centred the intervals around the mean, (14) and tted a Gaussian distribution in order to achieve this. The values of the covariance hyperparameters  may be optimised by minimising the negative log marginal likeli- hood de ned as NLML = log p(yjX; ). Minimising the Temperature [ C] Current [A] Voltage [V] Voltage [V] Temperature [ C] Current [A] Q [%] Throughput [Ah] t (T > 35 C) [days] Throughput [Ah] t (T > 35 C) [days] Q [%] Manufacturer LG Chem 0.6 30 Form factor 18650 Chemistry Lithium cobalt oxide vs. graphite 0.4 # cells 26 0.2 10 # Q samples 950 0.0 0 Q range (Ah) 2.10 ! 0.80 0 10 0.0 0.2 0.4 Cycling 7 groups each with di erent regime dt [days] Charge throughput [Ahx10 ] Table 2: Dataset overview. Row `# Q samples' indicates 0.075 1.0 total number of capacity measurements, i.e. approximate total 0.050 number of health transitions. Row `Q range' indicates values 0.5 of the maximum initial capacity and minimum nal capacity. 0.025 0.0 0 0.000 5 0 5 3 4 0 50 Group 1 (Cells 1, 2, 7, 8) Current [A] Voltage [V] Temperature [ C] Repeatedly charged to 4.2 V using a randomly selected dura- tion between 0.5 hours and 3 hours, then discharged to 3.2 V Figure 3: Distribution of input data for each parameter. using a randomized sequence of discharging currents between 0.5 A and 4 A. Reference characterisation every 50 cycles. Group 2 (Cells 3-6) 3 Dataset Same as group 1 except charging cycle not randomized. Group 3 (Cells 9-12) The battery dataset used here was obtained from the Operated using a sequence of charging/discharging currents NASA Ames Prognostics Center of Excellence Random- between -4.5 A and 4.5 A. Each loading period lasted 5 min- ized Battery Usage Repository [27]. The data in this utes. Reference characterisation carried out after 1500 periods repository were rst used in Ref. [28] for an investigation (about 5 days). into capacity fade under randomized load pro les. The Group 4 (Cells 13-15) data are randomised in order to better represent practi- Repeatedly charged to 4.2 V and then discharged to 3.2 V cal battery usage. This is ideal for training a data-driven using a randomized sequence of discharging currents between model. Fig. 3 gives smoothed histograms computed from 0.5 A and 5 A. A customized probability distribution skewed the cell data showing the ranges of times, charge through- towards selecting higher currents was used to select a new load put, currents, voltages and temperatures that are explored setpoint every 1 minute during discharging. by this dataset. Group 5 (Cells 18-20) An overview of the battery dataset is given in Table 2. Same as Group 4 except the probability distribution was de- The cells used have a relatively high energy density, but signed to be skewed towards selecting lower currents. short lifetime. The remainder of this subsection describes Group 6 (Cells 21-24) the cycling and characterisation procedure, based on [27]. Same as Group 5 except with ambient temperature of 40 C. For this study we used data from 26 of the 28 total bat- Group 7 (Cells 25-28) tery cells available in the repository (cells 16 and 17 were Same as Group 4 except with ambient temperature of 40 C. omitted, since these were found to contain spurious data resulting in certain cycles having negative duration). The Table 3: NASA data load pro les. Each group of cells under- cells were grouped into 7 groups of 4, with each group went a di erent loading procedure. Full details in [27]. undergoing a di erent randomized cycling procedure as described in Table 3. 4 Results The rst 5 groups were cycled at room temperature throughout the duration of the experiments, whilst groups We considered 6 di erent con gurations of data-driven 6-7 were cycled at 40 C. In all cases a characterisation transition model, as de ned in Table 4, in order to show a test was periodically carried out, whereby a 2 A charge- range of comparisons in predictive accuracy. In each case, discharge cycle was applied (i.e. approximately 1C) be- the model was trained on the data from even numbered tween the cell voltage limits { these discharge curves were cells (i.e. all the mappings between inputs and capacity used to evaluate the capacity as an indicator of state of drops across all of those cells), and subsequently tested on health. There were a total of 950 discharge curves avail- the odd numbered cells. able across all cells (i.e.  34 curves per cell). Models 1 and 2 use a GP with a Mat ern kernel. The The cell capacity was calculated by integrating the cur- di erence between these two models is the way in which rent from each of the 2 A charge curves. Calculated ca- long term trends are captured. For model 1, data from pacities for the cells in each group are plotted against time the preceding 6 load patterns were all used as inputs for in Fig. 4. The evolution of the capacity is quite di erent the mapping, and the total time elapsed was not included for each group of cells. as an input. For model 2, only data from the current Density Density Density Density Density 2.00 2.00 1 3 2.0 9 13 2.0 2 4 10 14 1.75 1.75 7 5 11 15 1.5 1.5 1.50 8 6 12 1.50 1.25 1.25 1.0 1.0 1.00 1.00 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 200 day day day day 18 25 2.00 2.0 19 26 2.0 1.75 20 27 1.8 21 1.50 1.8 1.6 1.25 1.4 1.00 0 100 200 0 50 100 0 50 100 day day day Figure 4: Measured cell capacities for each group of similarly cycled cells. No. Model Kernel Lags Inputs dQ (Ah) Q (Ah) t (s) Q (Ah) t (s) RMSE CS RMSE RMSE CS thru 2 norm 2 1. GP Ma5 6 3 3 7 0.0201 0.959 0.070 0.043 0.967 2. GP Ma5 1 3 3 3 0.0236 0.950 0.116 0.086 0.922 3. GP Lin 6 3 3 7 0.0284 0.939 0.186 0.173 0.839 4. GP Lin 1 3 3 3 0.0319 0.945 0.642 0.593 0.241 5. SKGB n/a 6 3 3 3 0.0244 0.850 0.089 0.067 0.846 6. SKGB n/a 1 3 3 7 0.0246 0.889 0.125 0.106 0.757 Table 4: Results for the 6 di erent model combinations. The best values of each metric are indicated in bold. load pattern was used, but to capture long term trends it 5 Discussion was necessary to also include the total time elapsed as an The results given in section 4 show that model 1 accurately additional input. predicts the capacity trajectory, and provides reasonable, Models 3 and 4 are analogous to models 1 and 2, except if slightly over-cautious, estimates of the uncertainty, in- a linear kernel was used in the GP rather than a Mat ern dicated by the calibration score being close to 0.954. The kernel. This gives a simple base case for comparison. Us- true capacity generally lies within the 2 interval de- ing a linear kernel is equivalent to implementing Bayesian noted by the blue shaded region in Fig. 6. linear regression, and the key point to note in this con- The model is also seen to be capable of predicting both text is that it provides far less exibility for the model positive and negative capacity di erences. For instance, predictions compared with a Mat ern kernel. it is apparent in Fig. 6 that, although the capacities expe- Models 5 and 6 are also analogous to models 1 and 2, rience a long-term downward trend, they also experience except that, rather than using a GP, they use a di er- occasional step increases. The model correctly predicts ent regression technique called gradient boosting, as was the timing of a number of these instances, e.g. for cell 7 introduced in section 2.6. at day  140. As an aside, the physical explanation for The predicted versus actual Q for each approach is these increases is not clear; they may in fact be an artefact shown in Fig. 5. Model 1 was the best performing of the of the measurement process, possibly arising when refer- 6 cases tested, with RMSE and RMSE of 0:0201 Ah Q Q ence tests are performed, after the cell is unused for some and 0:07 Ah respectively. Normalised capacity prediction time. However, regardless of their cause, accounting for error RMSE for model 1 was 4.3%. norm these e ects is essential since the capacity measurement Finally we present in more detail in Fig. 6 the evolution provided in a real application could also manifest similar of the capacity for each of the cells in the test dataset, behaviour. using the best performing approach (model 1). Regarding feature selection, the fact that model 1 per- forms better than model 2 in the case of the dataset used Capacity [Ah] Capacity [Ah] Capacity [Ah] Capacity [Ah] Capacity [Ah] Capacity [Ah] Capacity [Ah] GP, Linear, 6 lags SKGB, 6 lags GP, Matern52, 6 lags 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 Actual Actual Actual GP, Matern52, 1 lag GP, Linear, 1 lag SKGB, 1 lag 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 Group 1 0.05 0.05 Group 2 Group 3 0.10 Group 4 0.10 0.10 Group 5 0.15 Group 6 0.15 0.15 Group 7 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 Actual Actual Actual Figure 5: Predicted versus actual Q values for each dataset. The coloured markers indicate predicted values, and grey error bars indicate 2 credibility intervals. here suggests that valuable information is being extracted 6 Conclusions from the inputs over the previous load patterns, which is This paper has developed a new technique for battery not available from using just the total time elapsed as an health prediction based on a Bayesian non-parametric additional input. model that estimates the change in capacity over a par- Models 3 and 4, based on a linear kernel as noted ear- ticular period of time as a function of how the battery lier, perform considerably more poorly than the other ap- was used during that period. A simple histogram-based proaches in terms of capacity prediction error, indicating feature selection approach was presented and models were that the simple linear combination of the inputs is insu- trained using data from NASA [27]. It was found that the cient to predict battery health for the dataset considered best performing approach used Gaussian process regres- here, and the nonlinearities captured by the Mat ern kernel sion with a Mat ern kernel function, and that time elapsed are signi cant in this case. Their calibration scores also and charge throughput were the most important features indicate over-con dence. to incorporate within the model, given the dataset used The models based on gradient boosting are slightly less in this paper. It was also found that more accurate re- accurate in terms of mean predictions than models 1 and sults could be achieved by considering the preceding 6 load 2 and it is also noteworthy that they are erroneously over- patterns to capture longer range trends, rather than us- con dent, as indicated by their low calibration scores. ing absolute time as an input feature. Automated feature Finally, we note that the train/test split used in this pa- selection would be worth future investigation. per (whereby the even numbered cells are used for training The best case results presented have a relative accu- and the odd numbered cells for testing) ensures that there racy on mean capacity predictions that is within 5% of is at least one training cell in each of the 7 groups of dif- the actual values. To our knowledge this is one of the rst ferently cycled cells, Table 3. Inferior results may be ob- papers to actually quantify battery health predictive accu- tained if this were not the case, e.g. if the rst N cells were racy comprehensively, and this is one of the most accurate used for training and the remaining 26-N used for testing, long range predictions of future capacity seen to date. since in the latter case the model would be extrapolating The approaches explored in this paper o er an interest- beyond the region of the input space used for training. In ing insight into how the stress factors that drive degrada- practice, the performance of these methods will rely on tion actually in uence the capacity trajectory. It is note- using a suciently large training set being available, such worthy that, despite having a dataset that includes a wide that a large range of input conditions are covered. range of temperatures and currents, in this case it was Predicted Predicted Predicted Predicted Predicted Predicted Cell 1 Group 1 Cell 3 Group 2 Cell 5 Group 2 Cell 7 Group 1 Cell 9 Group 3 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 day day day day day Cell 11 Group 3 Cell 13 Group 4 Cell 15 Group 4 Cell 19 Group 5 Cell 21 Group 6 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.6 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.0 0.5 0 100 0 100 200 0 100 200 0 100 200 0 50 100 day day day day day Cell 23 Group 6 Cell 25 Group 7 Cell 27 Group 7 2.0 True capacity 2.0 2.0 1.8 Predictions 1.8 1.8 1.6 Credibility intervals 1.6 1.4 1.6 0 50 100 0 50 100 0 50 day day day Figure 6: Predicted capacity versus time on the test data. Black lines are true values, blue lines with markers are mean predictions and blue shaded region indicates 2 credibility region. found that time elapsed and charge throughput were the References dominant inputs. However, a naive modelling approach [1] F. Wankmueller, P. R. Thimmapuram, K. G. Gal- that uses a simple linear combination of inputs results in lagher, A. Botterud, Impact of battery degradation very inaccurate predictions, as shown by the GP regres- on energy arbitrage revenue of grid-level energy stor- sion results using linear kernels. age, Journal of Energy Storage 10 (2017) 56{66. There are a number of interesting next steps to explore. First, it would be useful to test these ideas against a much [2] C. R. Birkl, M. R. Roberts, E. McTurk, P. G. Bruce, larger dataset to show their general validity and explore in D. A. Howey, Degradation diagnostics for lithium ion more detail the sensitivity of the approach to additional cells, Journal of Power Sources 341 (2017) 373{386. inputs. Second, prior knowledge about expected degra- dation behaviour could be included as an extension to [3] P. Ruetschi, Aging mechanisms and service life of this work by including a parametric mean function within lead{acid batteries, Journal of Power Sources 127 (1- the GP framework. Third, in the present work, when the 2) (2004) 33{44. model is used predictively, it assumes perfect knowledge [4] A. Farmann, W. Waag, A. Marongiu, D. U. Sauer, about the inputs, i.e. that the future current, voltage and Critical review of on-board capacity estimation tech- temperature time series are known in advance. In practice niques for lithium-ion batteries in electric and hybrid this will not be the case, since depending on the applica- electric vehicles, Journal of Power Sources 281 (2015) tion these variables depend on driving style or market con- 114{130. ditions, ambient weather conditions etc. Predicting these inputs is a separate but important issue. [5] M. Schimpe, M. von Kuepach, M. Naumann, H. Hesse, K. Smith, A. Jossen, Comprehensive mod- eling of temperature-dependent degradation mecha- Acknowledgments nisms in lithium iron phosphate batteries, Journal of The Electrochemical Society 165 (2) (2018) A181{ This work was funded by Continental AG and an A193. RCUK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Coun- cil grant, ref. EP/K002252/1. [6] J. Wang, P. Liu, J. Hicks-Garner, E. Sherman, S. Soukiazian, M. Verbrugge, H. Tataria, J. Musser, P. Finamore, Cycle-life model for graphite-LiFePO 4 Capacity [Ah] Capacity [Ah] Capacity [Ah] Capacity [Ah] Capacity [Ah] Capacity [Ah] Capacity [Ah] Capacity [Ah] Capacity [Ah] Capacity [Ah] Capacity [Ah] Capacity [Ah] Capacity [Ah] cells, Journal of Power Sources 196 (8) (2011) 3942{ [17] M. A. Patil, P. Tagade, K. S. Hariharan, S. M. Ko- 3948. lake, T. Song, T. Yeo, S. Doo, A novel multistage Support Vector Machine based approach for li ion [7] J. Schmalstieg, S. K abitz, M. Ecker, D. U. Sauer, A battery remaining useful life estimation, Applied En- holistic aging model for Li (NiMnCo) O2 based 18650 ergy 159 (2015) 285{297. lithium-ion batteries, Journal of Power Sources 257 (2014) 325{334. [18] D. Wang, Q. Miao, M. Pecht, Prognostics of lithium- ion batteries based on relevance vectors and a condi- [8] M. Ecker, J. B. Gerschler, J. Vogel, S. K abitz, tional three-parameter capacity degradation model, F. Hust, P. Dechent, D. U. Sauer, Development of Journal of Power Sources 239 (2013) 253{264. a lifetime prediction model for lithium-ion batteries based on extended accelerated aging test data, Jour- [19] A. Nuhic, T. Terzimehic, T. Soczka-Guth, M. Buch- nal of Power Sources 215 (2012) 248{257. holz, K. Dietmayer, Health diagnosis and remaining useful life prognostics of lithium-ion batteries using [9] R. Dufo-L opez, J. M. Lujano-Rojas, J. L. Bernal- data-driven methods, Journal of Power Sources 239 Agust n, Comparison of di erent lead{acid battery (2013) 680{688. lifetime prediction models for use in simulation of stand-alone photovoltaic systems, Applied Energy [20] K. Goebel, B. Saha, A. Saxena, J. R. Celaya, 115 (2014) 242{253. J. P. Christophersen, Prognostics in battery health management, IEEE Instrumentation & Measurement [10] C. Birkl, D. A. Howey, Oxford Battery Degradation Magazine 11 (4) (2008) 33. Dataset 1, http://dx.doi.org/10.5287/bodleian: KO2kdmYGg (2017). [21] B. Saha, K. Goebel, Uncertainty management for di- agnostics and prognostics of batteries using Bayesian [11] S. J. Harris, D. J. Harris, C. Li, Failure statistics techniques, in: Aerospace Conference, 2008 IEEE, for commercial lithium ion batteries: A study of 24 IEEE, 2008, pp. 1{8. pouch cells, Journal of Power Sources 342 (2017) 589{ [22] W. He, N. Williard, M. Osterman, M. Pecht, Prog- nostics of lithium-ion batteries based on Dempster{ [12] C. Kupper, W. G. Bessler, Multi-scale thermo- Shafer theory and the Bayesian Monte Carlo method, electrochemical modeling of performance and aging Journal of Power Sources 196 (23) (2011) 10314{ of a lifepo4/graphite lithium-ion cell, Journal of The Electrochemical Society 164 (2) (2017) A304{A320. [23] R. R. Richardson, M. A. Osborne, D. A. Howey, [13] M. B. Pinson, M. Z. Bazant, Theory of sei formation Gaussian process regression for forecasting battery in rechargeable batteries: capacity fade, accelerated state of health, Journal of Power Sources 357 (2017) aging and lifetime prediction, Journal of the Electro- 209{219. chemical Society 160 (2) (2013) A243{A250. [14] X.-G. Yang, Y. Leng, G. Zhang, S. Ge, C.-Y. [24] C. E. Rasmussen, Gaussian processes for machine Wang, Modeling of lithium plating induced aging learning, Citeseer, 2006. of lithium-ion batteries: Transition from linear to [25] K. P. Murphy, Machine learning: a probabilistic per- nonlinear aging, Journal of Power Sources 360 (2017) spective, MIT press, 2012. 28{40. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour. [26] C. M. Bishop, Pattern Recognition and Machine 2017.05.110http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/ Learning, Springer, 2006. retrieve/pii/S0378775317307619 [27] B. Bole, C. Kulkarni, M. Daigle, Randomized bat- [15] R. D. Deshpande, D. M. Bernardi, Modeling tery usage data set, NASA AMES prognostics data Solid-Electrolyte Interphase (SEI) Fracture: Cou- repository. pled Mechanical/Chemical Degradation of the Lithium Ion Battery, Journal of The Electro- [28] B. Bole, C. S. Kulkarni, M. Daigle, Adaptation of chemical Society 164 (2) (2017) A461{A474. an electrochemistry-based li-ion battery model to ac- doi:10.1149/2.0841702jes. count for deterioration observed under randomized URL http://jes.ecsdl.org/lookup/doi/10. use, in: Proceedings of Annual Conference of the 1149/2.0841702jes Prognostics and Health Management Society, Fort Worth, TX, USA, Vol. 29, 2014. [16] X. Hu, J. Jiang, D. Cao, B. Egardt, Battery health prognosis for electric vehicles using sample en- tropy and sparse Bayesian predictive modeling, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 63 (4) (2016) 2645{2656.

Journal

StatisticsarXiv (Cornell University)

Published: Jul 17, 2018

References