Comparing experimental designs for parameterizing semi-empirical and deep learning-based lithium-ion battery aging models

IF 8.9 2区 工程技术 Q1 ENERGY & FUELS
Thomas Kröger , Sven Maisel , Georg Jank , Kareem Abo Gamra , Tobias Brehler , Markus Lienkamp
{"title":"Comparing experimental designs for parameterizing semi-empirical and deep learning-based lithium-ion battery aging models","authors":"Thomas Kröger ,&nbsp;Sven Maisel ,&nbsp;Georg Jank ,&nbsp;Kareem Abo Gamra ,&nbsp;Tobias Brehler ,&nbsp;Markus Lienkamp","doi":"10.1016/j.est.2024.114702","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Design of Experiment (DOE) methods can be applied to optimize test plans of cycle life aging studies with the aim to efficiently parameterize lithium-ion battery aging models. Since different DOEs exist and their effect on the prediction performance of battery aging models has not yet been investigated, we conducted a cycle life aging study with six commonly used DOEs (One-factor-at-a-time, Taguchi, Box–Behnken, Central Composite, Full Factorial, and D-optimal) and compare their influence on the prediction performance of a semi-empirical and a deep learning-based battery aging model. The results show that the semi-empirical model benefits the most from statistically optimized test plans. Compared to randomly selecting test plans, applying DOE methods helps to consistently achieve one of the lowest possible prediction errors for a given number of test points. Furthermore, it is shown that a D-optimal test plan and the test plans obtained from response surface methods (Box–Behnken and Central Composite) require only half as many test points as a Full Factorial test design, but still result in semi-empirical models with a high prediction accuracy that is similar to the Full Factorial test design. In contrast, deep learning-based battery aging models benefit significantly less from statistically optimized test plans. The highest prediction accuracy is achieved by the Full Factorial test plan and all other DOEs result in higher prediction errors and are even outperformed by several randomly defined test plans. Instead of using static designs, deep-learning-based models profit from a dynamic test optimization, which reduces the number of tested batteries during cycle life testing based on their information gain. We demonstrate that with our proposed dynamic test reduction algorithm, which analyzes the information gain based on aging features extracted after 100 EFC of cycling, up to 50% of all tested batteries of a Full Factorial test plan can be excluded from the cycle life study without deteriorating the prediction accuracy of the resulting deep learning-based battery aging model.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15942,"journal":{"name":"Journal of energy storage","volume":"106 ","pages":"Article 114702"},"PeriodicalIF":8.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of energy storage","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352152X24042889","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Design of Experiment (DOE) methods can be applied to optimize test plans of cycle life aging studies with the aim to efficiently parameterize lithium-ion battery aging models. Since different DOEs exist and their effect on the prediction performance of battery aging models has not yet been investigated, we conducted a cycle life aging study with six commonly used DOEs (One-factor-at-a-time, Taguchi, Box–Behnken, Central Composite, Full Factorial, and D-optimal) and compare their influence on the prediction performance of a semi-empirical and a deep learning-based battery aging model. The results show that the semi-empirical model benefits the most from statistically optimized test plans. Compared to randomly selecting test plans, applying DOE methods helps to consistently achieve one of the lowest possible prediction errors for a given number of test points. Furthermore, it is shown that a D-optimal test plan and the test plans obtained from response surface methods (Box–Behnken and Central Composite) require only half as many test points as a Full Factorial test design, but still result in semi-empirical models with a high prediction accuracy that is similar to the Full Factorial test design. In contrast, deep learning-based battery aging models benefit significantly less from statistically optimized test plans. The highest prediction accuracy is achieved by the Full Factorial test plan and all other DOEs result in higher prediction errors and are even outperformed by several randomly defined test plans. Instead of using static designs, deep-learning-based models profit from a dynamic test optimization, which reduces the number of tested batteries during cycle life testing based on their information gain. We demonstrate that with our proposed dynamic test reduction algorithm, which analyzes the information gain based on aging features extracted after 100 EFC of cycling, up to 50% of all tested batteries of a Full Factorial test plan can be excluded from the cycle life study without deteriorating the prediction accuracy of the resulting deep learning-based battery aging model.

Abstract Image

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of energy storage
Journal of energy storage Energy-Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment
CiteScore
11.80
自引率
24.50%
发文量
2262
审稿时长
69 days
期刊介绍: Journal of energy storage focusses on all aspects of energy storage, in particular systems integration, electric grid integration, modelling and analysis, novel energy storage technologies, sizing and management strategies, business models for operation of storage systems and energy storage developments worldwide.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信