 Original Article
 Open access
 Published:
Online Identification of Lithiumion Battery Model Parameters with Initial Value Uncertainty and Measurement Noise
Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering volume 36, Article number: 7 (2023)
Abstract
Online parameter identification is essential for the accuracy of the battery equivalent circuit model (ECM). The traditional recursive least squares (RLS) method is easily biased with the noise disturbances from sensors, which degrades the modeling accuracy in practice. Meanwhile, the recursive total least squares (RTLS) method can deal with the noise interferences, but the parameter slowly converges to the reference with initial value uncertainty. To alleviate the above issues, this paper proposes a coestimation framework utilizing the advantages of RLS and RTLS for a higher parameter identification performance of the battery ECM. RLS converges quickly by updating the parameters along the gradient of the cost function. RTLS is applied to attenuate the noise effect once the parameters have converged. Both simulation and experimental results prove that the proposed method has good accuracy, a fast convergence rate, and also robustness against noise corruption.
1 Introduction
Lithiumion (Liion) batteries are widely used in electric vehicles (EVs) and stationary energy storage because of their high charge/discharge efficiency, low selfdischarge rate, and long lifespan [1,2,3,4]. To extend the service life of the batteries and ensure their safe operation, a welldesigned battery management system (BMS) is required to monitor the state of health (SOH) and state of charge (SOC) [5,6,7,8]. Modelbased estimation approaches, such as Kalman filters and particle filters, have been proposed to realize these functionalities. The modelbased methods generally require an accurate battery model to ensure their performance [9].
The commonly used battery models include electrochemical models and ECMs. Electrochemical models describe the partial differential equations of the electrochemical reactions inside the battery [10]. As such, great efforts are required in parameterization and dealing with the computational burden. In contrast, ECMs only use resistance and capacitance (RC) elements to express the external characteristics of the batteries, which can balance the contradiction between the modeling accuracy and the complexity [11]. In this way, ECMs are considered more suitable for online state estimation of the batteries in a BMS [12].
The characteristics of the Liion battery usually change with external factors such as temperature, current rate, aging, etc. It is easily realized that the RC parameters in the battery ECM vary with those external factors in real applications [13]. Thus, the suitability and accuracy of ECMs for a specific battery are closely related to the parameter identification method. If the parameters of ECM deviate from the reasonable ranges, the performance of the battery model will be questionable [14]. Both offline and online methods can be used for parameter identification of the ECM. Offline parameter identification methods require sufficient laboratorial labor, to collect enough measurement data for parameter extraction [15]. But we cannot test the Liion battery covering all its working conditions. Online methods are not highly relying on additional tests, which can identify the parameters of a battery ECM from the current and voltage measurement of the sensors. In this regard, a large amount of online parameter identification methods have been proposed in the literature, which can be briefly divided into nonlinear filterbased methods [16, 17] and leastsquares (LS) [9, 18,19,20,21] based methods. Nonlinear filters, such as the Kalman filter [16], Hinfinity filter [22], and Particle filter [17], normally need to tune the covariance matrixes for an acceptable accuracy, which are difficult to be adjusted in realtime applications. LSbased methods have the advantages of easy tuning and a lower computational cost [20] and are further investigated in this paper.
RLS is the most widely used method for online parameter identification. Xiong et al. [18] employed the RLS method to track the realtime characteristics of 32 Ah Liion batteries. Many efforts have been found to improve the accuracy of RLS. Duong et al. [19] proposed a multiple adaptive forgetting factors based RLS (MAFFRLS) method to capture the variations and different dynamics of the parameters in ECM. Ouyang et al. [9] used a robust RLS algorithm coping with the outliers of battery measurement.
One drawback of the RLSbased methods is that they are sensitive to measurement noises. Unexpected noises always exist and cannot be eliminated easily, which inevitably leads to biased parameter identification results in practice. As an alternative choice, the total least square (TLS) method can effectively deal with the measurement noises from sensors [23]. Wei et al. [24, 25] have employed an RQbased RTLS method for the online parameter identification of the ECM, which alleviates the model identification bias caused by noise disturbances. Although the method shows good accuracy and robustness against noise corruption, the convergence speed has not been fairly discussed in their work. Considering the parameters of the battery model change with the battery stats, an ideal parameter identification method should have good accuracy as well as a superior convergence speed.
Regarding convergence speed, RLS updates the parameters along the gradient of the cost function, which has a rather fast convergence rate [26]. Although the RQbased RTLS method [23] adopts a similar form of the gradient search strategy as RLS, the convergence rate of the RTLS decreases significantly with unknown initial parameter values. It’s worth mentioning that the convergence rate has a great influence on whole system stability [9].
Therefore, RLS converges the parameters quickly with low computational cost, while the identification results are biased with measurement noises. Although RTLS can deal with noise corruption, the convergence speed is slow. In order to cope with the above issues, this paper proposes a novel coestimation framework, where the RLS is applied to converge the parameter quickly without any prior knowledge of initial values and the RTLS method is further applied to update the converged parameters to deal with the noise disturbances. The simulation and experimental results show the proposed method has good estimation accuracy and robustness under different circumstances.
The key contributions of this paper are in the following aspects.

(1)
A comprehensive study is constructed to analyze the advantages and deficiencies of RLS and RTLS for online parameter identification.

(2)
A convergence indicator is synthesized based on the residual errors of parameter identification to determine the convergence of the parameters within a predefined time scale.

(3)
A novel coestimation framework is, for the first time, designed for identifying ECM parameters, which effectively deals with the initial value uncertainty and measurement noise.

(4)
The proposed method is validated under various dynamic driving cycles in both simulation and experimental tests compared with RLS and RTLS.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces the modeling strategy for the battery. Section 3 compares the performances of RLS and RTLS, and presents the motivation for the proposed coestimation method. Simulation and experimental results are carried out in Sections 4 and 5, respectively. The main conclusions are given in Section 6.
2 Battery Modeling
Considering a balance of modeling accuracy and simplicity, ECM is preferred and investigated in this paper. Among all the ECMs, the Thevenin model has a relatively simple structure, which can capture the primary dynamics of the battery without taking much computing resources.
As shown in Figure 1, the Thevenin model consists of a series resistor and a parallel RC network. R_{0} represents the Ohmic resistance, which is used to describe the instantaneous voltage drop when a current excitation is applied to the battery. The RC network aims at describing the dynamic characteristics of the battery, such as kinetic effect and ion diffusing.
The battery open circuit voltage (OCV) U_{oc} is expressed as
where S is the battery SOC; k_{i} (i = 1, 2, …, m) are the polynomial coefficient of the OCVSOC curve; m is the order of the function.
The terminal voltage and current of the battery are expressed as U_{t} and I_{t}, respectively. U_{t} represents the voltage of the RC network. The transfer function of the Thevenin model is established as
where s is the Laplace operator.
By applying the bilinear transform in Eq. (3), the discrete form of the Thevenin model in Eq. (2) can be expressed as Eq. (4).
where z is the discretization operator, a_{1}, b_{1}, and b_{2} are the coefficients defined as Eq. (5).
where T_{s} is the sampling interval.
Applying the linear regression method, Eq. (4) can be rewritten as a linear equation
In Eq. (6), the output y_{k}, the estimated parameters θ_{k,} and the input x_{k} at time k are defined as
Once θ_{k} is obtained, the parameters of the Thevenin model can be deduced as
3 Online Parameter Identification
3.1 Least Squares
LS performs the parameter identification by minimizing the squares of the errors between the terminal voltage and the output of the battery model [27]. As shown in Figure 2, LS assumes that the measured output \(\tilde {y}\) is noisy while the input x is accurate.
For LS, the parameter vector θ_{k} can be solved by minimizing the cost function as
where \(\Delta {y_i}\) is the measurement error, \({\tilde {y}_i}\) is the noisy output. It can be defined that the gradient of the cost function \(J({\varvec{\theta}_k})\) is equal to zero
Then, the analytical solution of the parameter vector θ_{k} can be obtained as
where \({{\varvec{X}}_k}={[{{\varvec{x}}_1},{{\varvec{x}}_2},\ldots,{{\varvec{x}}_k}]^{\text{T}}}\), \({{\varvec{Y}}_k}={[{y_1},{y_2},\ldots,{y_k}]^{\text{T}}}\).
The recursive form of the LS can be further expressed as
where K_{k} denotes the gain matrix; P_{k} is the covariance matrix; \({e_k}\) is the residual error, and λ (0.95 < λ < 1) is a userdefined forgetting factor.
It should be noted that LS has not considered the errors from the input x. Thus, the estimation results are easily biased owing to the noise corruption.
3.2 Total Least Squares
Different from LS, TLS assumes that both output \(\tilde {y}\) and input \(\tilde {x}\) are noisy. As we can see from Figure 3, TLS employs the orthogonal regression to minimize the sum of the squared orthogonal distances from the sampling points to the fitting line.
Similarly, TLS solves the parameter vector θ_{k} by minimizing the cost function as
where \(\Delta {{\varvec{X}}_k}={[\Delta {{\varvec{x}}_1},\Delta {{\varvec{x}}_2},\ldots,\Delta {{\varvec{x}}_k}]^\text{T}}\), \(\Delta {{\varvec{Y}}_k}={[\Delta {y_1},\Delta {y_2},\ldots,\Delta {y_k}]^\text{T}}\).
The recursive form of the TLS is expressed as
where the gain factor \({\alpha _k}\) is obtained by using the gradient search approach in Ref. [24].
where \({\tilde {{\varvec{x}}}_k}\) is the noisy input vector.
As shown in Eq. (14), RTLS updates the parameters along the direction of \({\tilde {{\varvec{x}}}_k}\) rather than the gradient of the cost function. Only one gain factor \({\alpha _k}\) can be obtained at each iteration, which largely limits the convergence rate when multiple parameters are needed to be identified.
3.3 A Comparison Between RLS and RTLS
A comparative study is carried out in this subsection to evaluate the performances of RLS and RTLS for online parameter identification.
As shown in Figure 4, RLS and RTLS have some merits in a specific area. On one hand, RTLS takes into account the disturbances from both the input and output, which has a better performance in dealing with noise interferences. On the other hand, RLS updates the parameters along the gradient of the cost function, which owns a very fast computing speed and a higher convergence rate.
However, RLS is biased with measurement noises, while RTLS converges slowly with initial value uncertainty. Therefore, to design a superior approach to dealing with the above issues, this paper integrates the RLS and RTLS for better parameter identification of the ECM.
3.4 The Proposed Coestimation Method
This work proposes a coestimation algorithm for superior performances of online parameter identification, which has fast convergence speed and robustness against noise corruption. Meanwhile, the proposed method does not require much computational effort and is suitable for online implementation. The flowchart of the proposed method is as follows.
The variables in Figure 5 are described as follows: (i) e_{i} (i = k − T_{L}, k − T_{L} +1, ..., k) is the residual error of the parameter identification, (ii) e_{0} is set as a threshold to decide the convergence of the parameters, (iii) T_{l} is the time scale for determining the convergence of the parameters, (iv) \({E_k}\) is designed as a convergence indicator, which is expressed as the root mean square error (RMSE) of e_{i},
The strategy of the proposed coestimation method can be summarized in the following three parts.

Part I. Given the initial parameter values are unavailable, \({\varvec{\theta}_k}\) is randomly initialized and updated by RLS using Eq. (12) until the parameters are converged to their references.

Part II. To determine whether the parameters have converged, \({E_k}\) is calculated using Eq. (16) once l reaches T_{L}.

Part III. When \({E_k}\) is less than the preset threshold e_{0}, the flag is set to 1, indicating that convergence has been completed. The parameters are updated by RTLS using Eq. (14) and Eq. (15) afterwards.
It can be seen that the proposed coestimation method combines the merits of RLS and RTLS. RLS can converge to the reference values of the parameters quickly without any prior knowledge of initial values, while RTLS has good accuracy and robustness against the noise disturbances, which can be applied to update the already converged parameters.
4 Simulation Validation
A simulated battery model is used in this section to verify the performance of the proposed coestimation method. The simulation is carried out on the software of MATLAB R2020a. It is noteworthy that the Ohmic resistance R_{0} is stable during the discharging process while R_{p} and C_{p} tend to vary with SOC and current rate [28]. Therefore, the model parameter R_{0} is defined as a constant, while that of R_{p} and C_{p} are timevarying. The OCV is obtained by the OCVSOC relationship as in Eq. (1). The sampling frequency of voltage and current is set to 1 Hz.
The urban dynamometer driving schedule (UDDS) is applied to the simulated battery model. The voltage and current profiles are shown in Figure 6.
The unknown initial values of the model parameters are randomly initialized as R_{0} = 20 mΩ, R_{p} = 20 mΩ, C_{p} = 1000 F. Besides, T_{L} and e_{0} in the proposed method are initialized as 100 s and 3 mV, respectively. To verify the performance of the proposed method with noise interference, white Gaussian noises are randomly added to the voltage and current measurements. The standard deviations (SDs) σ_{v} and σ_{i} are set to 4 mV and 4 mA in this validation.
As shown in Figure 7, the estimation of R_{0} is not sensitive to the measurement noises, where the estimated values are close to the true values for all three methods. Regarding R_{p} and C_{p}, the estimated values of RLS are biased from the true values owing to the noise disturbances. As for RTLS, it takes a long time for the parameters to converge, which greatly enlarges the estimation error of the model.
It can be seen from Figure 7(d), the proposed method has the same convergence speed as RLS. Once E_{k} is less than e_{0}, the converged parameters are further updated by RTLS in dealing with noise interferences. Thanks to the welldesigned parameter updates mechanism, the proposed method shows good estimation accuracy and robustness, where the estimated values can well track the true values almost all the time.
To quantitively evaluate the estimation accuracy of the model parameters, the mean square deviation (MSD) is selected as
where e_{k} is the normalized error expressed as
where ΔR_{0,k}, ΔR_{p,k}, and ΔC_{p,k} are the errors between the estimated parameters and the true values at the time step k. The average MSDs of all three methods are presented in Table 1.
It can be seen that the average MSD of the proposed method is merely − 17.07 dB, which represents a higher accuracy of parameter identification under noise interference and initial value uncertainty. The above results coincide with the theoretical analysis in Section 4, the effectiveness of the proposed method is then proved by a battery simulation model.
5 Experimental Validation
Experimental tests are carried out on a LiFePO_{4} battery to validate the proposed method in this subsection. The specifications of the battery are listed in Table 2. In Figure 8, the battery test platform consists of a thermal chamber to control the ambient temperature, a Chroma 17011 test station to charge and discharge the battery, a host computer to program the experiment procedure and store the measurement data. The sampling frequency is set to 1 Hz.
We have tested Cell A under the UDDS, while the ambient temperature is set to 25 °C during the test. The OCVSOC polynomial coefficients of Cell A are listed in Table 3. To verify the proposed method under noise corruption, white Gaussian noises with variances of \({{\upsigma}}_{v}^{2}\) = 8 mV^{2}, \({{\upsigma}}_{i}^{2}\) = 8 mA^{2} are randomly added to the voltage and current measurements. As the initial values of the parameters are unknown, they are randomly initialized as R_{0} = 15 mΩ, R_{p} = 35 mΩ, C_{p} = 400 F. T_{L} and e_{0} are set as 100 s and 3 mV, which are the same as the simulation test.
The parameter identification results of Cell A are presented in Figure 9. Similar to the simulation, the noise effect degrades the estimation accuracy of RLS, where the modeling error is larger than the other two methods. Although the RTLS can deal with the disturbances from measurement noises, the modeling error is still large before the parameters can converge to the references. As expected, the proposed method can alleviate the above issues and maintain a stable performance during the whole driving cycle. The mean absolute error (MAE) and RMSE of the proposed method are only 1.26 mV and 2.26 mV.
To further prove the feasibility of the proposed method under different circumstances, the experimental tests are carried out on Cell B under different driving cycles, new European driving cycle (NEDC) and federal test procedure (FTP). The ambient temperature is set to 10 °C during the tests. According to the experimental results presented in Figure 10, the RLS method converges quickly yet with the drawback of being sensitive to noise disturbances. The RTLS method suffers from slow converging speed. Consequently, the accuracy of these methods is inferior to the proposed coestimation method.
As shown in Table 4, the MAE and RMSE of the proposed method are much lower than the commonly used RLS and RTLS methods. The average RMSE of the proposed method is around 77% of the RLS and 80% of the RTLS, and the average MAE of the proposed method is less than 32% of the RLS and 13% of the RTLS. The advantages of the proposed method are thus proved by experimental validation.
6 Conclusions
The traditional RLS method is biased with the measurement noises from sensors, which degrades the parameter identification accuracy. RTLS method can alleviate the noise disturbances, while the parameters converge slowly with initial value uncertainty. In this regard, we have proposed a coestimation method, which integrates the RLS and RTLS for parameter identification. Without any prior knowledge, RLS can identify the parameters with a fast convergence rate. Once the parameters have converged, RTLS is applied to keep updating the parameters in dealing with the noise effect.
Both simulation and experimental tests have verified the validity of the proposed method. The average MSD of the proposed method is merely − 17.07 dB in the simulation test. The MAE and RMSE of the modeling error are only 1.26 mV and 2.26 mV in the experimental test. Future works focus on using the identified parameters for battery SOC and SOH estimation.
References
H Dong, W Zhuang, G Yin, et al. Energyoptimal braking control using a doublelayer scheme for trajectory planning and tracking of connected electric vehicles. Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 2021, 34(1): 1–12.
R Du, X Hu, S Xie, et al. Battery agingand temperatureaware predictive energy management for hybrid electric vehicles. Journal of Power Sources, 2020, 473: 228568.
J Meng, M Ricco, G Luo, et al. An overview and comparison of online implementable SOC estimation methods for lithiumion battery. IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, 2017, 54(2): 1583–1591.
X Du, J Meng, J Peng, et al. Sensorless temperature estimation of lithiumion battery based on broadband impedance measurements. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, 2022, 37(9): 10101–10105.
W Wang, J Wang, J Tian, et al. Application of digital twin in smart battery management systems. Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 2021, 34(1): 1–19.
J Meng, D I Stroe, M Ricco, et al. A simplified modelbased stateofcharge estimation approach for lithiumion battery with dynamic linear model. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 2018, 66(10): 7717–7727.
H A Gabbar, A M Othman, M R Abdussami. Review of battery management systems (BMS) development and industrial standards. Technologies, 2021, 9(2): 28.
X Du, J Meng, J Peng. Hybrid pseudo random sequence for broadband impedance measurements of Lithiumion batteries. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2022.3201347.
Q Ouyang, J Chen, J Zheng. Stateofcharge observer design for batteries with online model parameter identification: A robust approach. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, 2019, 35(6): 5820–5831.
J Tian, R Xiong, W Shen, et al. A comparative study of fractional order models on state of charge estimation for Lithium ion batteries. Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 2020, 33: 51.
X Lai, S Wang, S Ma, et al. Parameter sensitivity analysis and simplification of equivalent circuit model for the state of charge of lithiumion batteries. Electrochimica Acta, 2020, 330: 135239.
R Zhu, B Duan, J Zhang, et al. Coestimation of model parameters and stateofcharge for lithiumion batteries with recursive restricted total least squares and unscented Kalman filter. Applied Energy, 2020, 277: 115494.
B Ren, C Xie, X Sun, et al. Parameter identification of a lithiumion battery based on the improved recursive least square algorithm. IET Power Electronics, 2020, 13(12): 2531–2537.
C Zhang, X Li, W Chen, et al. Robust and adaptive estimation of state of charge for lithiumion batteries. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 2015, 62(8): 4948–4957.
A I Stroe, D I Stroe, M Swierczynski, et al. Lithiumion battery dynamic model for wide range of operating conditions. 2017 International Conference on Optimization of Electrical and Electronic Equipment (OPTIM) & 2017 Intl Aegean Conference on Electrical Machines and Power Electronics (ACEMP). IEEE, 2017: 660–666.
R Xiong, F Sun, Z Chen, et al. A datadriven multiscale extended Kalman filtering based parameter and state estimation approach of lithiumion polymer battery in electric vehicles. Applied Energy, 2014, 113: 463–476.
R Xiong, Y Zhang, H He, et al. A doublescale, particlefiltering, energy state prediction algorithm for lithiumion batteries. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 2017, 65(2): 1526–1538.
R Xiong, F Sun, H He, et al. A datadriven adaptive state of charge and power capability joint estimator of lithiumion polymer battery used in electric vehicles. Energy, 2013, 63: 295–308.
V H Duong, H A Bastawrous, K C Lim, et al. Online state of charge and model parameters estimation of the LiFePO4 battery in electric vehicles using multiple adaptive forgetting factors recursive leastsquares. Journal of Power Sources, 2015, 296: 215–224.
X Du, J Meng, Y Zhang, et al. An information appraisal procedure: endows reliable online parameter identification to Lithiumion battery model. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 2021, 69(6): 5889–5899.
X Sun, J Ji, B Ren, et al. Adaptive forgetting factor recursive least square algorithm for online identification of equivalent circuit model parameters of a lithiumion battery. Energies, 2019, 12(12): 2242.
Q Yu, R Xiong, C Lin, et al. Lithiumion battery parameters and stateofcharge joint estimation based on Hinfinity and unscented Kalman filters. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 2017, 66(10): 8693–8701.
T Kim, Y Wang, Z Sahinoglu, et al. A Rayleigh quotientbased recursive totalleastsquares online maximum capacity estimation for lithiumion batteries. IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, 2015, 30(3): 842–851.
Z Wei, C Zou, F Leng, et al. Online model identification and stateofcharge estimate for lithiumion battery with a recursive total least squaresbased observer. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 2017, 65(2): 1336–1346.
Z Wei, G Dong, X Zhang, et al. Noiseimmune model identification and stateofcharge estimation for lithiumion battery using bilinear parameterization. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 2020, 68(1): 312–323.
C EliseiIliescu, C Paleologu, J Benesty, et al. Recursive leastsquares algorithms for the identification of lowrank systems. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 2019, 27(5): 903–918.
M Chen, G A RinconMora. Accurate electrical battery model capable of predicting runtime and IV performance. IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, 2006, 21(2): 504–511.
W Waag, S Käbitz, D U Sauer. Experimental investigation of the lithiumion battery impedance characteristic at various conditions and aging states and its influence on the application. Applied Energy, 2013, 102: 885–897.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Funding
Supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 52107229), the Fund of Robot Technology Used for Special Environment Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province (Grant No. 20KFKT02).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
XD and JM conceived this study. XD, JM, and KL write the manuscript. YZ, SW, JP and TL supervised this study. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Authors’ Information
Xinghao Du, born in 1998, is currently pursuing the M.S. degree with the College of Electrical Engineering, Sichuan University, China. He received his bachelor degree from Civil Aviation Flight University of China, Deyang, China, in 2020. His research interests include lithiumion batteries modeling, stateofcharge estimation and battery management systems.
Jinhao Meng, born in 1988, is currently an associate professor with School of Electrical Engineering, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China. He received the M.S. degree in control theory and control engineering and the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from Northwestern Polytechnical University (NPU), Xi’an, China, in 2013 and 2019, respectively.
Kailong Liu, born in, is currently is a Research Fellow with the Warwick Manufacturing Group, University of Warwick, U.K. He received the B.Eng. degree in electrical engineering and the M.Sc. degree in control theory and control engineering from Shanghai University, China, in 2011 and 2014, respectively, and the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from the Energy, Power and Intelligent Control Group, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, U.K., in 2018.
Yingmin Zhang, born in 1974, is currently a Professor with the College of Electrical Engineering, Sichuan University, China. She received the M.S. and the Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from Sichuan University, Chengdu, China, in 1998 and 2013, respectively.
Shunli Wang, born in 1985, is currently a Professor with the School of Information Engineering, Southwest University of Science and Technology, China. He received the M.S. and the Ph.D. degrees from Southwest University of Science and Technology, China, in 2012 and 2018, respectively.
Jichang Peng, born in 1988, is currently a lecturer in Nanjing Institute of Technology, Nanjing, China. He received the B.S. degree in electrical engineering from North China University of Water Resources and Electric Power, China, in 2010, and the M.S. degree in control theory and control engineering and the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering, both from Northwestern Polytechnical University, China, in 2013 and 2019, respectively.
Tianqi Liu, born in 1962, is currently a Professor with the College of Electrical Engineering, Sichuan University, China. She received the B.S. and the M.S. degrees from Sichuan University, China, in 1982 and 1986, respectively, and the Ph.D. degree from Chongqing University, China, in 1996, all in electrical engineering.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Du, X., Meng, J., Liu, K. et al. Online Identification of Lithiumion Battery Model Parameters with Initial Value Uncertainty and Measurement Noise. Chin. J. Mech. Eng. 36, 7 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s10033023008460
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s10033023008460