A comparison of battery testing protocols: Those used by the U.S. advanced battery consortium and those used in China

Robertson, David; Christophersen, Jon P.; Bennett, Taylor L.; Walker, Lee K.; Wang, Fang; Liu, Shiqiang; Fan, Bin; Bloom, Ira

doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2015.12.004

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of the formation tests are not reported often enough. Several strategies are available in the literature from C/3 discharge and 50% SOC resistance test [27] to protocols such as HNEI's initial conditioning characterization test (ICCT) [28][29][30][31]. Lasting less than a week, the ICCT consists only of C/2 and C/5 cycles, Figure 2, and serves two purposes.…”

Section: Formationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The caveat being that this rate must be less aggressive than the rate used in the duty cycling. The RPT protocol is limited to two cycles to minimize its toll on the cell SOH but additional rates or procedures (constant power, electrochemical impedance spectroscopy, full OCV vs. SOC test, different temperatures) [27,38,39] could be added if necessary. This is often done in the literature for the first RPT only.…”

Section: Reference Performance Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Perspective on Commercial Li-ion Battery Testing, Best Practices for Simple and Effective Protocols

Dubarry

Baure

2020

Electronics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Validation is an integral part of any study dealing with modeling or development of new control algorithms for lithium ion batteries. Without proper validation, the impact of a study could be drastically reduced. In a perfect world, validation should involve testing in deployed systems, but it is often unpractical and costly. As a result, validation is more often conducted on single cells under control laboratory conditions. Laboratory testing is a complex task, and improper implementation could lead to fallacious results. Although common practice in open literature, the protocols used are usually too quickly detailed and important details are left out. This work intends to fully describe, explain, and exemplify a simple step-by-step single apparatus methodology for commercial battery testing in order to facilitate and standardize validation studies.

show abstract

Section: Formationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reference Performance Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perspective on Commercial Li-ion Battery Testing, Best Practices for Simple and Effective Protocols

Dubarry

Baure

2020

Electronics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, the identification results of the two fractional orders are shown in Figure 6e,f. The DST test [48] is a widely used dynamic driving profile to evaluate the performance of the vehicle, and is also used to validate model accuracy or algorithm efficiency [13,49]. In the test, the battery goes through several DST cycles with the SOC operational range from 90% to 20%.…”

Section: The Dynamic Stress Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

Battery State-Of-Charge Estimation Based on a Dual Unscented Kalman Filter and Fractional Variable-Order Model

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

State-of-charge (SOC) estimation is essential for the safe and effective utilization of lithium-ion batteries. As the SOC cannot be directly measured by sensors, an accurate battery model and a corresponding estimation method is needed. Compared with electrochemical models, the equivalent circuit models are widely used due to their simplicity and feasibility. However, such integer order-based models are not sufficient to simulate the key behavior of the battery, and therefore, their accuracy is limited. In this paper, a new model with fractional order elements is presented. The fractional order values are adaptively updated over time. For battery SOC estimation, an unscented fractional Kalman filter (UFKF) is employed based on the proposed model. Furthermore, a dual estimation scheme is designed to estimate the variable orders simultaneously. The accuracy of the proposed model is verified under different dynamic profiles, and the experimental results indicate the stability and accuracy of the estimation method.

show abstract

“…Zhang et al (2017) examined the technology differences in patents and found that China has paid more attention to electric vehicle technologies than the USA since 2001. Researchers have also compared test standards and protocols for PEVs; for example, PHEV energy consumption test regulations (Hou et al 2015) and traction battery test protocols (Robertson et al 2016). Gohlke and Zhou (2019) examined properties of PEVs sold in the USA from 2010 to 2018, exploring how vehicle sales, range, efficiency, battery materials, and cost evolved over time.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Plug-in electric vehicles in China and the USA: a technology and market comparison

Hao

Zhou

Wang

et al. 2020

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the top two plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) markets in the world, China and the United States of America (USA) have developed different market structures that are influenced by government policies, test procedures, customer acceptance, and vehicle performance. There are differences in PEV test procedures and vehicle class definitions as well. This paper quantifies such differences and compares PEV characteristics and markets in the two countries using actual data collected over several years. First, although China surpasses the USA in annual PEV production because of generous PEV policies and higher charging infrastructure availability, the USA has a higher PEV adoption rate per capita (2.3 versus 0.81 per 1000 people at the end of 2017). Second, the most popular vehicle classes are A00 battery electric vehicles (BEVs) in China but long-range mid-size BEVs in the USA. Moreover, China's electric and plug-in hybrid sport utility vehicle market is growing quickly. Third, the electricity consumption rated under Chinese test procedures is 20%-40% lower than that rated under US procedures. The sales-weighted electricity consumption of an average BEV in China is 23% lower than that in the USA because of larger proportions of small and micro BEVs in China. Fourth, PEV battery cost in the two countries is currently close to $210-$220 kWh. Finally, China has higher numbers of charging infrastructure, and the ratio of PEVs to public chargers is 9.0 in China versus 17.9 in the USA at the end of 2018.

show abstract

A comparison of battery testing protocols: Those used by the U.S. advanced battery consortium and those used in China

Cited by 13 publications

References 5 publications

Perspective on Commercial Li-ion Battery Testing, Best Practices for Simple and Effective Protocols

Perspective on Commercial Li-ion Battery Testing, Best Practices for Simple and Effective Protocols

Battery State-Of-Charge Estimation Based on a Dual Unscented Kalman Filter and Fractional Variable-Order Model

Plug-in electric vehicles in China and the USA: a technology and market comparison

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About