Sunteți pe pagina 1din 6

Comparison of two battery equivalent circuit models

for state of charge estimation in electric vehicles


Narayani Koirala, Fengxian He and Weixiang Shen
Faculty of Science, Engineering and Technology
Swinburne University of Technology
Hawthorn, Australia, VIC 3122,
wshen@swin.edu.au

transition from battery terminal voltage to open circuit voltage


[5, 6].

AbstractThis study compares two battery equivalent


circuits for state of charge (SOC) estimation in electric vehicles
(EVs), namely the RC circuit and Thevenin circuit. The state
space representations of each circuit are used to develop the
adaptive gain sliding mode observers (AGSMO) for the SOC
estimations, which are compared with the true SOC. The results
show that the Thevenin circuit provides more accurate SOC
estimation than the RC circuit. A lithium-ion battery is chosen
for experimental verification under constant current discharge
and variable current discharge based on EV driving cycles.

To account for these additional polarization effects in the


battery, the most commonly used electric circuit models
contain additional capacitors and resistors. Several studies [59] have compared the discharge characteristics of various
models with the discharge characteristics of a Li-ion battery,
using constant current discharge as well as variable current
discharge, such as the Dynamic Stress Test (DST) and the
Federal Urban Dynamic Schedule (FUDS), to simulate more
realistic discharge conditions. The results of these tests have
shown that the Dual Polarization (DP) model is the most
accurate in modelling the terminal voltage of a Li-ion battery,
closely followed by Thevenin model. The DP model is the
Thevenin model with an additional parallel RC network to
separate the effect of the electrochemical and concentration
polarizations. Despite its improvement in accuracy, the DP
model does increase system complexity. Another commonly
used electric circuit is the RC model, which was implemented
by NREL for ADVISOR [4]. This model is more accurate to
track battery terminal voltage than the simple internal
resistance model, however its accuracy is less than that of
Thevenin model [6]. Although the RC model does present a
large modelling error, recent studies have shown that accurate
SOC tracking of the Li-ion battery has been achieved with the
sliding mode observer (SMO) and adaptive gain SMO
(AGSMO) techniques based on the RC model [10-18].
Particularly, the AGSMO technique involves the dynamic selfadjustment of the feedback gains, so they are only as large as
needed to counteract the model inaccuracies and uncertainties.
This method therefore minimises chattering and offers more
robust performance. In this paper, the AGSMO for SOC
estimation has been examined on both the Thevenin and the
RC models of the Li-ion battery.

Keywordsstate of charge; sliding mode observer; Thevenin


model; RC model

I.

INTRODUCTION

Research and development of electric vehicles (EVs) is an


important area of concern to help eliminate fuel emissions
produced from internal combustion engines and provide a more
secure means of energy. In EVs, the battery management
system (BMS) is crucial to efficient operation of the battery,
where battery state of charge (SOC) is one of the important
parameters. Battery SOC cannot be measured directly; it
depends on battery chemical composition and its working
environment. Thus, battery modelling is necessary for SOC
estimation. A number of battery models exist, which are often
categorized as electrochemical model, electric equivalent
circuit model and stochastic or analytical model [1].
Electrochemical models are highly accurate, as they aim to
model electrochemical reactions that take place inside a
battery; however this makes them extremely complex and
hence difficult and costly to use in EVs for real time SOC
estimation [1]. Electric circuit models however are less
complex and provide sufficient representation of an actual
battery, leading to their common use in SOC estimation for
EVs [1-3]. In this paper, the electric circuit models are adopted.
They use a combination of resistors and capacitors to mimic
the behavior of the battery during charging and discharging.
The simplest electric circuit model contains a capacitor and
resistor and is often referred to as the internal resistance model.
This model was implemented by the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL) for their Advanced Vehicle
Simulator (ADVISOR) in 1994 [4]. Despite its simplicity,
studies have shown that this model is inadequate for long term
use as it cannot represent dynamical characteristics of the
battery; in particular it does not model the electrochemical and
concentration polarizations of the battery that affect the rate of

c
978-1-4799-8389-6/15/$31.00 2015
IEEE

II.

BATTERY MODELLING

A. RC Battery Model
In the RC model, as shown in Fig. 1, Cn _ RC represents the
nominal capacitance and Voc _ RC ( SOCRC ) is the open circuit

voltage, which is a function of SOC. Cs _ RC is much smaller


than Cn _ RC and represents the immediate current delivery
associated with the battery i.e. the effects within the cell
surface. VCs _ RC represents the voltage across the surface

17

capacitor and Re _ RC , Rs _ RC and Rt _ RC represent the end, surface


and terminal resistances, respectively. For discharging, the
conventional terminal current (I) is flowing out of the cell and
therefore taking to be negative. As Li-ion batteries have low
self-discharge, a resistance to model this is ignored. This model
does not consider hysteresis effects as only discharging
characteristics are of interest.
Fig. 2 Thevenin Battery Model

The state variables of the circuit are Vt _ TH , SOCTH and V p _ TH .


Based on the analysis in [18], the state space equations for the
Thevenin model are as follows:
Vt _ TH = a1_ TH Vt _ TH + a1_ THVoc _ TH ( SOCTH ) + b1_ TH I + d1_ TH
Fig. 1 RC Battery Model

(4)

<

The state variables of the circuit are Vt _ RC , SOCRC and


VCs _ RC . Based on the analysis in [10], the state space equations
for the RC model are as follows:
Vt _ RC = a1_ RCVt _ RC + a2 _ RCVoc _ RC ( SOC RC ) + b1_ RC I + d1_ RC

(1)

SOC RC = a3 _ RCVCs _ RC a3 _ RCVoc _ RC ( SOC RC ) + b2 _ RC I + d 2 _ RC

(2)

SOC TH = a2 _ OTVt _ TH a2 _ TH Voc _ TH ( SOCTH ) a2 _ TH V p _ TH + d 2 _ TH

(5)

Vp _ TH = a1_ TH V p _ TH + b2 _ TH I + d3_ TH

(6)

where Voc _ TH ( SOCTH ) = nSOCTH + d , a1_ TH = 1 / R p _ TH C p _ TH ,


,
a2_TH =1/ Ri _THCn_TH , b1_TH = n / Cn_TH +1/ Cp_TH + Ri _TH / Rp_THCp_TH
b2 _ TH = 1/ C p _ TH and the term d i _ TH (i = 1,2,3) represents the
inaccuracies. The observability matrix for this system has been
shown to be full rank [15].

VCs _ RC = a4 _ RCVCs _ RC + a4 _ RCVoc _ RC ( SOCRC ) + b3_ RC I + d3_ RC (3)

III.

where Voc _ RC ( SOCRC ) = mSOCRC + c ,


a1_ RC =

( Re _ RC + Rs _ RC )mRs _ RC ( Re _ RC + Rs _ RC )
1

Re _ RC Cn _ RC
Cs _ RC
( Re _ RC + Rs _ RC ) 2

a2 _ RC =

Re _ RC mRs _ RC

mRs _ RC 2
R
1

+ s _ RC

2
( Re _ RC + Rs _ RC ) Cs _ RC Cn _ RC Cn _ RC Re _ RC Cs _ RC

a3_ RC =
b1_ RC =

1
1
, a4 _ RC =
Cn _ RC ( Re _ RC + Rs _ RC )
Cs _ RC ( Re _ RC + Rs _ RC )

( Re _ RC

b2 _ RC =

( Re _ RC + Rs _ RC )( Re _ RC + Rt _ RC ) mRs _ RC Rt _ RC
Rs _ RC
1

(1 +
)

+ Rs _ RC ) 2
Cs _ RC
Cn _ RC
Re _ RC

Rs _ RC
Cn _ RC ( Re _ RC + Rs _ RC )

, b3_ RC =

Re _ RC
Cs _ RC ( Re _ RC + Rs _ RC )

and the terms d i _ RC ( i = 1,2,3) represents the inaccuracies of


the battery model compared to the actual battery. The
observability matrix for this system has been shown to provide
full rank [19], indicating the output Vt _ RC can be used to
determine the state variables by observation over finite time.
B. Thevenin Battery Model

ADAPTIVE GAIN SLIDING MODE OBSERVER DESIGN

The AGSMO can provide robust performance against


model uncertainties by using self-adjusting feedback gains to
minimize the error between the model terminal voltage and
actual terminal voltage of the battery. Once the errors between
the systems are compensated, the estimated SOC of the Li-ion
battery can be obtained.
A. RC Model AGSMO
Using the previously defined state-space equations for the
RC circuit (equations (1)-(3)), an equivalent control based
AGSMO can estimate the SOC as follows [18, 20]:
<
V t _ RC = a1_ RCVt _ RC + a2 _ RCVoc _ RC ( SOCRC ) + b1_ RC I + K 1_ RC sign(eVt _ RC ) (7)
<

(8)
n RC = a

SOC
3 _ RCVCs _ RC a3 _ RCVoc _ RC ( SOC RC ) + b2 _ RC I + K 2 _ RC sign ( eSoc _ RC )
<

V Cs _ RC = a4_ RCVCs _ RC + a4_ RCVoc _ RC (SOCRC ) + b3_ RC I + K 3_ RC sign(eVcs _ RC ) (9)

It should be noted that the accent ^ denotes the estimate of


the corresponding variable and sign represents the signum
function that has the following property:

In the Thevenin battery model, as seen in Fig. 2, Cn _ TH


represents the nominal capacitance and the OCV (open circuit
voltage) is the voltage across this capacitor, which is used to
estimate the SOC. C p _ TH and R p _ TH model the electrochemical

sign(a) = + 1, a > 0 ; sign(a) = 0, a = 0; sign(a) = 1, a < 0.


The gains K 1_ RC , K 2 _ RC and K 3 _ RC adjust according to the
following adaption laws [20]:

polarization capacitance and resistance, respectively, and the


input ohmic resistance is modelled by Ri _ TH [18]. Again, the

discharging current is taken to be negative.

18


1_ RC

= k 1 _ R C e V t _ R C , K

3 _ RC

= k 3 _ R C eV c s _ R C

2 _ RC

= k 2 _ RC e Soc _ R C

2015 IEEE 10th Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications (ICIEA)

(10)

where

k1_ RC , k2 _ RC , k3_ RC are positive constants that

represent the speed at which the gains are changing and the
sliding errors eVt _ RC , eVoc _ RC , eVcs _ RC are given by:
eVt _ RC =Vt _ RC Vt _ RC

remaining). Discharge battery using CC = 1C and cut-off


voltage at 2.5V. Repeat charge/discharge process until a stable
capacity is reached, which is taken as the battery capacity at 1C
discharge rate for subsequent tests and calculations. This was
found to be 1.98Ah.

(11)

<

n RC = [V

eSoc _ RC = SOCRC SOC


oc _ RC ( SOCRC ) Voc _ RC ( SOCRC )]/ m = eVoc _ RC / m

eVcs _ RC =VCs _ RC VCs _ RC

(12)
(13)

To prove the voltage errors in (11)-(13) asymptotically


converge to zero, a Lyapunov function candidate is chosen
[18,20], which leads to the conditions that satisfy the
Lyapunov stability theorem and ensure the convergence:
K1_ RC > a2 _ RC meSoc _ RC + d1_ RC , K 2 _ RC > a3_ RC eVcs _ RC + d 2 _ RC (14)
K3_ RC > a4 _ RC meSoc _ RC + d3 _ RC

The resulting AGSMO equations for the system can be


expressed as follows:

B. OCV versus SOC Curve


Using the battery tester, Fig. 3, a pulse discharge profile is
used to determine the OCV versus SOC curve. This pulse
discharge profile, as shown in Fig. 4, consists of a discharge
current of 1C for six minutes, followed by a rest period for one
hour. This repeats ten times, with each discharge pulse
resulting in a 10% decrease in the SOC of the battery [18]. At
the end of each one hour rest period, the battery is assumed to
reach equilibrium and hence the voltage is taken to be the
OCV. This value, in conjunction with the corresponding SOC
value, is used to establish the OCV versus SOC curve, as
shown in Fig. 5. Between each 10% SOC value, linearisation is
assumed.

<

Vt _RC =a1_RCVt_RC + a2_RCVoc_RC ( SOCRC ) + b1_RCI + K1_RCsign(eVt _RC )

(15)

<

V Cs _ RC = a4 _ RCVCs _ RC + a4 _ RCVoc _ RC ( SOCRC ) + b3_ RC I +


K 3_ RC sign( K 2 _ RC sign(

K 1_ RC sign(eVt _ RC )
ma2 _ RC

(16)

) / a3_ RC )

<
K1_ RCsign(eVt _ RC )
n RC = a V

SOC

3_ RC Cs _ RC a3_ RCVoc _ RC ( SOCRC ) +b2_ RC I + K2_ RC sign

ma2_ RC

(17)
Fig. 3 Battery tester

B. Thevenin Model AGSMO


The same AGSMO design is carried out for the Thevenin
model. The following equations are the AGSMO equations for
the SOC estimation, the details of which can be seen in [18]:
<

V t _ TH = a1_ THVt _TH + a1_THVoc _TH ( SOCTH ) + b1_TH I + K1_TH sign(eVt _TH )

(18)

n TH = a V a V ( SOC ) a V +K sign K1_THsign(eVt _TH )


SOC
2_TH t _TH
2_TH oc_TH
TH
2_TH p_TH
2_TH

(19)
na
1_TH

<

<
K1_TH sign(eVt _TH )
V p_TH = a1_THVp_TH +b2_TH I + K3_TH sign(K2_TH sign(
)/ a2_TH ) (20)
na1_TH

IV.

EXPERIMENT

A.

Lithium-ion Battery Capacity


The battery chosen for the experiment is a Sony
US18650VTC4 Li-ion cell with nominal voltage of 3.6V and
typical capacity of 2.1Ah at 0.2C discharge rate. The setup for
this experiment is shown in Fig. 3. The Prodigit 3311F
electronic load is used to discharge the battery and the
Sorensen DLM60-50E power supply used for charging the
battery.

The test procedure is outlined as follows. Charge battery


using constant current constant voltage (CC/CV) with CC = 1C
(~2Ah) and CV=4.2V with cut-off at 0.1A (5% charge current

Fig. 4 Battery pulse discharge current and terminal voltage profile

C. Parameter Extraction
This section details the methods used to obtain the
unknown parameters of the RC circuit and Thevenin circuit,
respectively. For the RC Model, the nominal capacitance
Cn _ RC is taken to be the ampere-second capacity of the battery,

hence Cn _ RC = 1.98*3600 As . The surface capacitor C s _ RC is


much smaller than the nominal capacitance Cn _ RC , hence the
time constant associated with it is much smaller. A highfrequency pulse discharge test is therefore used to determine
this resistor value [11]. This test applies a discharge current of

2015 IEEE 10th Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications (ICIEA)

19

1C for one second, followed by a rest interval of one second.


To allow enough data points, the sampling rate for this test is
0.01s. This test is carried out at each 10% decrease in battery
SOC to obtain ten sets of data. Fig. 6 shows a typical terminal
voltage response from a high-frequency pulse discharge test
and the voltages required to determine the parameters [11].

parameters obtained, the approximate values of the unknown


constants for the AGSMO are determined. They are:
a1_ RC = 0.7214, a2 _ RC = 7214, a3_ RC = 0.0011, a4 _ RC = 0.7220,

b1_ RC = 0.0629, b2 _ RC = 0.000070146, b3_ RC = 0.0472.


TABLE I.
RMSES

SELECTED PARAMETERS OF RC AND THEVININ CIRCUITS AND

Rt_RC ()

Re_RC = Rs_RC ()

Cs_RC (F)

RMSEs

0.02179775
Ri_TH ()

0.065393251
Rp_TH ()

10.5907
Cp_TH (F)

0.0986
RMSE

0.088174224

0.022607861

1398.088921

0.0742

4.5
Estimated RC circuit terminal voltage
Battery terminal voltage

Voltage [V]

Fig. 5 OCV vs. SOC curve for the lithium-ion battery

3.5

2.5

500

1000

1500
2000
Time [s]

2500

3000

3500

Fig. 7 Actual and estimated RC circuit terminal voltages with 1C CCD

For the Thevenin model, the parameters are obtained


from the pulse discharge test seen in Fig. 4 [18]. The value of
the nominal capacitance, Cn _ TH , is determined through the same
Fig. 6 Voltage response of a high-frequency discharge test

method as used to obtain Cn _ RC . The ohmic resistance Ri _ TH , is


the main contribution to the initial rise in voltage after the
current is removed [14], hence Ri _ TH = (V3 V2 ) / I discharge and the

The resistors contribute to the initial recovery of the battery


voltage, as seen from V2 to V3, hence R = (V3 V2 ) / I disch arg e . The

value

values of the individual resistors are then obtained through


assumption [10,11]: Rt _ RC = R / 4, Re _ RC = Rs _ RC = 3R / 4 . The

R p _ TH = V p _ TH / I discharge . The time constant pTH is taken to be

following equation describes the transient process of the


terminal voltage

the time at which the voltage reached 63.2% of its final value,
hence C p _ TH is calculated by C p _ TH = p / R p _ TH . This

V ( t ) = V3 + (V1 V3 ) 1 e t / RC

V p _ TH

is

taken

as V p _ TH = V4 V3

thus

TH

(21)

with the starting voltage (V3), the final voltage (V1) and time
interval ( t ), the time constant RC can be approximated as

procedure is repeated for each set of data from the 10 discharge


pulses, to determine 10 sets of the parameters. Again, one set
of data is shown in Table I, which will be used in subsequent
calculations.

RC = t / ln((V1 V4 ) / (V1 V3 )) and as both the surface and

Fig. 7 compares the battery terminal voltage response and the


estimated terminal voltage from the RC circuit model, using
the parameters in Table I. Table I also shows the root mean
square error (RMSE) of the estimated terminal voltage under
the constant current discharge (CCD) at 1C. From the

4.5
Estimated Thevenin circuit terminal voltage
Battery terminal voltage
4

Voltage [V]

end resistors contribute to the time constant of the surface


capacitor, the surface capacitance is calculated as follows
Cs _ RC = RC / ( Re _ RC + Rs _ RC ) . This procedure is repeated for
each battery terminal voltage response, obtained from the ten
discharge pulses, hence ten sets of parameters can be obtained.
Table I shows one set of parameters, which are used in
subsequent calculations.

20

of

3.5

2.5

500

1000

1500
2000
Time [s]

2500

3000

3500

Fig. 8 Actual and estimated Thevinin circuit terminal voltages with 1C CCD

2015 IEEE 10th Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications (ICIEA)

1000

1500

2000
Time [s]

2500

3000

3500

500

1000

1500

2000
Time [s]

2500

3000

3500

SOC
SOC Error

0.1
0
-0.2

4.5

AGSMO with RC estimated terminal voltage


Battery terminal voltage

4
3.5
3
2.5
2

500

2000
Time [s]

2500

3000

3500

AGSMO with Thevenin SOC


True SOC (Ah)
0.5

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Time [s]

0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
0

500

1000

1500
Time [s]

4.5
AGSMO with Thevenin estimated terminal voltage
Battery terminal voltage

4
3.5
3
2.5
2

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Time [s]

Fig. 10 AGSMO with Thevinin Ccircuit SOC error - CCD at 1C

B. Variation of Initial SOCs


Fig. 11 and Fig. 12 show the estimated SOC for each
circuit when the initial SOCs are varied under CCD at 1C.
1.2
AGSMO with RC
AGSMO with RC
AGSMO with RC
AGSMO with RC
True SOC (Ah)

0.8

SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC

and initial SOC


and initial SOC
and initial SOC
and initial SOC

=1
= 0.7
= 0.4
=0

AGSMO with Thevenin SOC and initial SOC =


AGSMO with Thevenin SOC and initial SOC =
AGSMO with Thevenin SOC and initial SOC =
AGSMO with Thevenin SOC and initial SOC =
True SOC (Ah)

1
0.7
0.4
0

SOC

SOC

0.8
0.6

0.4

0.6

0.4

0.2

Fig. 10 shows the SOC estimation under the Thevenin


circuit. The SOC estimation error is minimised to less than
2.5%, an increase in error towards the end of the discharge is
due to the large error between the actual battery terminal
voltage and the estimated terminal voltage as shown in Fig. 8.

1500

A. SOC Estimation Results for CCD at 1C


Fig. 9 shows the SOC estimation under the RC circuit. The
SOC estimation has obvious difference from the true SOC.
However, its error can still be maintained at about 3% below
the true SOC. This is likely due to the large error in terminal
voltage caused by the circuit parameters as shown in Fig. 7.

1000

Fig. 9 AGSMO with RCcircuit SOC error - CCD at 1C

Voltage [V]

To assess the influences of two battery circuit models on


the accuracy of the SOC estimation techniques and gain further
insight into the behaviors of the two battery circuit models, the
following two tests are carried out: 1. CCD at 1C to assess
accuracy of SOC estimation for AGSMO with RC circuit and
Thevenin circuit. 2. Variable discharge current profile based on
USA Urban dynamometer driving schedule (UDDS) to asses
SOC estimation accuracy. In each test, the sensitivity of the
SOC estimations to initial SOC value is also studied.

500

-0.1

k 2 _ TH = 0.0000001 , k3 _ TH = 0.000001 ; K1_ RC = 0.015 K 2 _ RC = 0.0075 ,


K 3_ RC = 0.003 ; k1_ RC = 0.0013, k 2 _ RC = 0.000001, k3_ RC = 0.000001 .

0.2

Voltage [V]

V. AGSOM FOR SOC ESTIMATION


Having designed the AGSMO and determined the OCV vs
SOC relationship as well as the unknown parameters for both
circuits, the SOC estimation techniques are implemented. For
SOC estimation with the AGSMO to be possible, the initial
feedback gains K i , i = 1, 2, 3 are required to be set large enough
to satisfy the conditions as detailed in section VI. They are then
tuned to ensure the highest accuracy of the SOC estimation by
reducing undesirable chattering. The switching gains
ki , i = 1, 2,3 are chosen to ensure correct adaption speed such
that the sliding surface of each state is adhered to. The data
from a CCD test at 1C and the corresponding terminal voltage
response are used to tune these parameters with the initial SOC
set to 70%. The following values are the gains used in the
system to ensure stability and the SOC estimation accuracy:
k1_ TH = 0.001
K 1_ TH = 0.015 , K 2 _ TH = 0.0075 , K 3_ TH = 0.002

AGSMO with RC SOC


True SOC (Ah)

0.5

SOC

a1_ TH = 0.0316, a2 _ TH = 0.0016, b1_ TH = 0.0036, b2TH = 0.00071526.

SOC Error

Fig. 8 compares the battery terminal voltage and the estimated


terminal voltage for the Thevinin model, using the parameters
in Table I. From the parameters obtained, the approximate
values of the unknown constants for the AGSMO are
determined:

0.2

500

1000

1500
2000
Time [s]

2500

3000

Fig. 11 Estimated SOC with RC


circuit

3500

500

1000

1500
2000
Time [s]

2500

3000

3500

Fig. 12 Estimated SOC with


Thevenin circuit

From these results, it shows that the AGSMO is able to


account for the error in Thevenin model and RC model to
obtain an accurate SOC estimation except for the end of
discharge period, which is roughly around 20% SOC.

It can be seen that the SOC estimation converge to the true


SOC faster with the RC circuit than with the Thevenin circuit,
however the accuracy of the SOC estimation is better with the
Thevenin circuit than with the RC circuit. These results
indicate the importance of proper selection of the initial
adaptive gain and accurate identification of circuit parameters.

Compared with the RC model, the Thevenin model with


AGSMO provides a more accurate SOC estimation. Thevenin
model is also simple to model in state space form and easy to
obtain the parameters; its circuit structure allows for clear and
logical parameter determination.

C. UDDS discharge current profiles


To simulate more realistic EV driving conditions, the
current profile based on UDDS (see Fig. 13) is used to examine
the accuracy of the SOC estimation techniques. The results are

2015 IEEE 10th Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications (ICIEA)

21

shown from Figs. 14 to 15. The root mean square error


(RMSE) of the SOC for the Thevenin circuit is 0.0489 while
the RMSE of the SOC for the RC circuit is 0.0742. The
Thevenin circuit once again provides a smaller RMSE for SOC
estimation.

adaptive battery model that can accurately estimate SOC under


different ambient temperatures and battery aging.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]

Fig. 13 UDDS driving cycle current profile

SOC

[7]
0.5

AGSMO with Thevenin SOC


0

500

True SOC (Ah)

1000

1500

[8]

SOC Error

Time [s]

0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2

[9]
0

500

1000

1500

Time [s]

[10]

Voltage [V]

4.5
4
3.5
3

[11]

2.5
2

Estimated terminal voltage


0

500

Battery terminal voltage

1000

1500

Time [s]

Fig. 14 AGSMO with Thevenin circuit UDDS driving cycle

[12]

SOC

[13]

0.5

AGSMO with RC SOC


0

500

True SOC (Ah)

1000

1500

1000

1500

SOC Error

Time [s]

0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2

[14]

[15]
0

500
Time [s]

[16]

Voltage [V]

4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2

Estimated terminal voltage


0

500

Battery terminal voltage

1000

[17]

1500

Time [s]

Fig. 15 AGSMO with RC circuit UDDS driving cycle


[18]

VI.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper examines the RC and Thevenin circuit models


for the SOC estimation using an AGSMO. The results show
that the Thevenin battery model provides better SOC
estimation. However, if the errors in the model parameters are
large, the accuracy of the SOC estimations are low. Future
work will investigate the influence of model parameters on the
accuracy of the SOC estimation to eventually develop an

22

[19]

[20]

X. S. Hu, F. C. Sun, and Y. Zou, "Comparison between two modelbased algorithms for Li-ion battery SOC estimation in electric vehicles,"
Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, vol. 34, p. 1, 2013.
J. Feng, Y. He, and G. Wang, "Comparison Study of Equivalent Circuit
Model of Li-Ion Battery for Electrical Vehicles," Research Journal of
Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, vol. 6, p. 3756, 2013.
L. Long, P. Bauer, and E. Kelder, "A practical circuit-based model for
Li-ion
battery
cells
in
electric
vehicle
applications,"
Telecommunications Energy Conference 2011, pp. 1-9.
V. H. Johnson, "Battery performance models in ADVISOR," Journal of
Power Sources, vol. 110, pp. 321-329, 2002.
A. Rahmoun and H. Biechl, "Modelling of Li-ion batteries using
equivalent circuit diagrams," PRZEGLAD ELEKTRO TECHNICZNY,
vol. 88, pp. 152-156, 2012.
H. W. He, R. Xiong, and J. X. Fan, "Evaluation of Lithium-Ion Battery
Equivalent Circuit Models for State of Charge Estimation by an
Experimental Approach," Energies, vol. 4, pp. 582-598, 2011.
H. W. He, R. Xiong, H. Q. Guo, and S. C. Li, "Comparison study on the
battery models used for the energy management of batteries in electric
vehicles," Energy Convention Management, vol. 64, pp. 113-121, 2012.
M. Einhorn, F. V. Conte, C. Kral, J. Fleig, "Comparison, Selection, and
Parameterization of Electrical Battery Models for Automotive
Applications," IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 28, pp.
1429-1437, 2013.
X. S. Hu, S. B. Li, and H. Peng, "A comparative study of equivalent
circuit models for Li-ion batteries," J. Power Sources, vol. 198, pp. 359367, 2012.
K. Il-Song, "Nonlinear State of Charge Estimator for Hybrid Electric
Vehicle Battery," IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 23, pp.
2027-2034, 2008.
K. Daehyun, K. Keunhwi, J. Jae Jin, G. Taedong, and K. Sang Woo,
"Second-Order Discrete-Time Sliding Mode Observer for State of
Charge Determination Based on a Dynamic Resistance Li-Ion Battery
Model," Energies, vol. 6, p. 5538, 2013.
I.S. Kim, "The novel state of charge estimation method for lithium
battery using sliding mode observer," Journal of Power Sources, vol.
163, pp. 584-590, 2006.
T. Z. Wu, M. Y. Wang, and Q. Xiao, "State of Charge Estimation of
Power Lithium-Ion Battery Based on Sliding Mode Observer,"
Advanced Materials Research, vol. 805, pp. 1692-1699, 2013.
X.P. Chen, W.X. Shen, Z.W. Cao, and A. Kapoor, "Sliding mode
observer for state of charge estimation based on battery equivalent
circuit in electric vehicles," Australian Journal of Electrical & Electronic
Engineering, vol. 9, 2012.
F. Zhang, G.J. Liu and L.J. Fang, "A battery state of charge estimation
method using sliding mode observer," 7th World Congress on Intelligent
Control and Automation, 2008. WCICA, pp. 989-994.
X.P. Chen, W.X. Shen, Z.W. Cao, and A. Kapoor, "A comparative study
of observer design techniques for state of charge estimation in electric
vehicles," Industrial Electronics and Applications (ICIEA), 2012, pp.
102-107.
X.P. Chen, W.X. Shen, Z.W. Cao, and A. Kapoor, "A novel approach
for state of charge estimation based on adaptive switching gain sliding
mode observer in electric vehicles," Journal of Power Sources, vol. 246,
pp. 667-678, 2014.
X.P. Chen, W.X. Shen, Z.W. Cao, A. Kapoor, and I. Hijazin, "Adaptive
gain sliding mode observer for state of charge estimation based on
combined battery equivalent circuit model in electric vehicles," 8th
IEEE Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications (ICIEA),
2013, pp. 601-606.
B. S. Bhangu, P. Bentley, D. A. Stone, and C. M. Bingham, "Nonlinear
observers for predicting state-of-charge and state-of-health of lead-acid
batteries for hybrid-electric vehicles," IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol.
54, pp. 783-794, 2005.
F. Plestan, Y. Shtessel, V. Bregeault, and A. Poznyak, "New
methodologies for adaptive sliding mode control," Int. J. Control, vol.
83, pp. 1907-1919, 2010.

2015 IEEE 10th Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications (ICIEA)