Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
ScienceDirect

Energy Reports 8 (2022) 774–784

www.elsevier.com/locate/egyr

2021 International Conference on New Energy and Power Engineering (ICNEPE 2021)
November 19 to 21, 2021, Sanya, China

Performance evaluation strategy for battery pack of electric vehicles:

Online estimation and offline evaluation
Lin Hua , Yao Yea , Ying Bob , Jing Huangc , Qingtao Tiana , Xiaojian Yia , Qiqi Lia ,∗
a School of Automotive and Mechanical Engineering, Changsha University of Science and Technology, Changsha, China
b China Society of Automotive Engineers, Beijing, China
c State Key Laboratory of Advanced Design and Manufacture for Vehicle Body, Hunan University, Changsha, China

Received 30 December 2021; accepted 3 February 2022

Available online 17 February 2022

Abstract
Electric vehicles are powered by battery packs, which are usually composed of hundreds of units in series or in parallel. For
power battery pack performance evaluation, many literatures have been published, including online performance assessment,
life prediction and offline performance evaluation. Nevertheless, performance evaluation strategies that include both online and
offline have not attracted sufficient attention. In this paper, we propose a performance evaluation method based on MCPE-DEKF,
which can solve the problem of consistency analysis and sort of battery cells offline, as well as, implementing battery pack state
estimation online. MCPE-DEKF is designed to enhanced the accuracy and adaptability for power battery pack SOC estimation.
The pack SOC online estimation value from cells means model and the standard deviation of SOC estimation are combined
with MCPE to determine their aggregation weights. An offline evaluation framework for cells grading and sorting problem is
solved by MCPE methods. As the results show that, the RMSE of the online estimation for the battery pack is less than 2%
and 7 mV for the SOC and the terminal voltage, respectively. The RMSE of the cell estimation is less than 0.3% and 6 mV,
respectively. In terms of offline evaluation approaches for cells, we propose an approach with a fusion method to improve the
reliability of sorting by integrating method 1 and method 4 (the second-best sorting method).
© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 2021 International Conference on New Energy and Power Engineering, ICNEPE
2021.

Keywords: Battery pack evaluation strategy; SOC estimation; Cells sorting

1. Introduction
Lithium-ion batteries have high energy density, low self-discharge rate, long cycle life and environmental
protection, etc., which are widely applied in the field of electric vehicle power supply and energy storage system.
Whether it is electric vehicle power supply and energy storage system, precise SOC estimation of battery is required
to ensure reliability in service and economic viability [1,2]. Currently, the typical SOC estimation methods are the
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hdliqiqi@163.com (Q. Li).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.02.026
2352-4847/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http:
//creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 2021 International Conference on New Energy and Power Engineering,
ICNEPE 2021.
L. Hu, Y. Ye, Y. Bo et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 774–784

Nomenclature
UO Open circuit voltage
R0 Ohm resistance
η Column efficiency
Up The voltage of the RC
RP Polarization resistance
Cp Polarization capacitance
I Loop current
τ Time constant
Ut Terminal voltage
Et Indirect voltage parameter
x State value
y Output matrix
i The battery cell order
k Sampling time
m Mean cell
pack Battery pack
C Capacity
µ, σ Parameters for the weight
Abbreviations
SOC State of charge
SOH State of health
BMS Battery management system
DEKF Dual extend Kalman filter
MCPE Multi-criteria performance evaluation
OCV Open circuit voltage
CMM Cell mean model
RMSE Root mean square error
CNN Convolutional neural network
Ah Ampere-hour
SVM Support vector machine
RLS Recursive least squares
DST Dynamic stress test
FUDS Federated urban driving schedule
HPPC Hybrid Pulse Power Characteristic
UDDS Urban dynamometer driving schedule
SB/LB Smaller/Larger-the-better
RTE Required testing effort

Ah-integration, OCV, CNN, SVM, and KF [3]. The Ah integration method can implement the automatic estimation
of SOC in a short time, but the accumulated error of the integration process cannot be eliminated, resulting in
unreliable estimation; The OCV method requires a period of resting after the end of charging and discharging
to obtain more accurate values, which cannot be applied to the online estimation of SOC and not applicable to
the driving process of electric vehicles; Due to the hardware limitation, SVM has some limitations in practical
application at this stage; The CNN method involves a large amount of data for training. The training data and
method have a significant impact on the estimation accuracy; The KF algorithm based on the equivalent circuit
775
L. Hu, Y. Ye, Y. Bo et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 774–784

model has been widely used for SOC estimation due to its low computational complexity and accurate modeling, it
has been widely used in SOC estimation and obtained better prediction performance [4–6]. Xiong et al. [7] adopted a
multi-timescale DEKF for capacity estimation of batteries at different aging stages, but only based on the first-order
RC battery model. Guo et al. [8,9] proposed DEKF for SOC and battery parameters estimation at different dynamic
load and SOH stages, and the accuracy of SOC estimation was improved to some extent compared with the simple
EKF. In the paper, we investigate the accurate online estimation of SOC for Li(Ni0.8Co0.1Mn0.1)O2 battery pack
with four cells. The 2-RC equivalent circuit model is established, the DEKF algorithm is used to estimate the SOC
and the model parameters simultaneously. The corresponding SOH values are obtained from the real-time internal
resistance parameter values, and the accuracy of DEKF is verified under UDDS conditions. The estimation accuracy
of the DEKF algorithm is verified under UDDS conditions. Besides, we developed an offline evaluation approach
based MCPE to maintain tradeoff between sorting reliability and simplicity, and a case study is conducted.

2. Battery modeling and DEKF estimation algorithm

2.1. Battery modeling

The lithium-ion battery is a dynamic, time-varying electrochemical system with nonlinear behavior and a complex
internal mechanism. For state estimation, the battery model determines the SOC estimation accuracy, due to the lack
of accuracy of the 1-RC model, PNGV model and DP model, the 2- RC equivalent circuit model is used considering
the complexity and accuracy of the battery model [10,11], shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. Battery 2- RC equivalent circuit model.

The 2-RC implies that it has two resistor-capacity banks. R1, R2 and C1, C2 are the resistors and capacity of
each branch, respectively. The OCV in this model is an energy source that scales with the SOC of the cell which
can be considered as a function of SOC. As a function of SOC, in the model, Ut is the terminal voltage, which
represents the voltage measured at the terminal of the battery, and R0 represents the ohmic resistance. I considered
to be the load current. The direction of the arrow in the figure represents the direction of the positive current.
According to this definition, when the battery is charging, the current value is positive. Likewise, when the battery
is discharging, the current value is negative. Based on the described battery model, Kirchhoff’s rule can be used to
formulate the battery model as a state space model, as follows:
⎧
1 1
⎪
⎪ dU1 = − U1 + I
R1 C 1 C1
⎪
⎪
⎨
1 1 (1)
dU2 = − U2 + I
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ R 2 C 2 C 2
Ut = Uocv − U1 − U2 − I R0
⎩

The cell SOC formulation is given by:

ηI ∆t
∫
S OCt = S OC0 − dt (2)
Cr
776
L. Hu, Y. Ye, Y. Bo et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 774–784

where, Coulomb efficiency η = 1; S OC0 is the initial value and Cr is the real battery capacity. The equation of
state is obtained by discretizing Eqs. (1) and (2):
∆t
⎡ ⎤
⎡ ⎤ −
1 0 0 ⎢ ( Cr
⎢ )⎥
⎥
− ∆t − R∆tC
xk+1 = f (xk , θk , Ik ) = ⎣0 e
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ R1 C 1 R
0 ⎦ xk + ⎢ 1
⎥ ⎢ 1 − e 1 1 ⎥ Ik + Vk (3)
⎥
∆t
−R C ⎢ ( )⎥
0 0 e 2 2 ⎣ − ∆t ⎦
R 2 1 − e R2 C 2

Ut,k = Uocv (S OCk ) − U1,k − U2,k − Ik R0 (4)

where, Ut,k , S OCk , Vk representing the k sampling time of terminal voltage and SOC, Uocv represents OCV, obser-
vation noise, respectively. The relationship between OCV and SOC can be fitted with a polynomial function [12]:

Uocv = P1 S OC 8 + P2 S OC 7 + P3 S OC 6 + P4 S OC 5 + P5 S OC 4 + P6 S OC 3 + P7 S OC 2 + P8 S OC + P9 (5)
where, Pi is the fitting coefficients.

2.2. Parameter identification and DEKF estimation algorithm

DEKF estimation algorithm enables the simultaneous online estimation of battery model parameters and SOC
to improve the estimation accuracy, with dual EKFs used to anticipate the battery parameter θ values and estimate
the SOC values, respectively. The system is shown schematically in Fig. 2, as well as, the algorithm of the DEKF
for the system described is summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. System parameter identification and DEKF algorithm.

Parameter identification methods by RLS
(i) Initialization: ∅k , θk , K k , Pk , ϕk
(ii) Calculate algorithm gain: K k = (Pk ∅k ) /( ϕk + ∅kT PK −1 ∅ K
( )

(iii) Calculate error covariance matrix: Pk= PK( −1 − K k ∅TK −1 Pk−1 ) /ϕk
)

(iv) Update parameter matrix: θk = θk−1 + K k Ut,k − θk−1 ∅k−1

DEKF estimation algorithm process for pack
(1) SOC estimation for cell (2) SOC estimation for pack
(i) Initialization:X 0 , θ0 , R0 ,∑
∑ P0 ∑ (i) Initialization:X i,0 , θi,0 , Ri,0 , Pi,0
θ̂k− = θ̂k−1 , θk− = θk−1 + Vk−1 (ii) State estimation: for k = 1,2,3. . . n, i = 1,2,3. . . n
X̂ k− = Ak X k−1 + Bk Uk−1 CMM model
n
Pk− = Ak Pk−1 AkT + Vk
∑ Ut,k
Input measured parameters: Ut,k,m = , Ik
(ii) The parameter update formulations are: n
i=1
State estimation: S OCk,m , Pk,m
⎧ ( )T [ θ − ( θ )T ]−1
⎪ K kθ = Pθ−K Ckθ Ck Pθk Ck + Rk
CDM model:
⎪
⎪
⎨
− Ut,k,m , Ik
[ ( )] i i
θ Input measured parameters: ∆Ut,k
⎪ θ̂k = θ̂k + K k Yk − U X̂ k , θ̂k , Ik
− − = Ut,k
⎪ State estimation: S OCk,i = ∆S OCi,k + S OCk,m , Pk,i
Pθk = Pθ−k − Pθ−k K kθ Ckθ
⎪
⎩
Pack state estimation:
(iii) The state ( update formulations
) are: S OCk, pack = S OCk−1, pack − ηI/C pack
X̂ k− = f x̂k−1 , θ̂k−1−
, Ik−1 , Px−k = Ak−1 Pxk−1 Ak−1
T + Vkx (iii) DEKF weight distribute: for k = 1,2,3. . . n, i = 1,2,3. . . n
⎧ ( )T [ ( )T ] −1 Calculate weightparameters: µ, σ
⎪ K x = Px−K Ckx Ckx Px−k Ckx + Rk
⎨ k
⎪
⎪  n
∑ ( )2
σ S OC,k,i = √ S OCk,i − S OCk,m
[ ( )]
X̂ k = X̂ k− + K kx Yk − U X̂ k , θ̂k− , Ik
i=1
⎪
⎪
σ S OC,k,i
⎪
Pxk = Px−k − Px−k K kx Ckx C Vi
⎩
Calculate weight: Wk,i = ∑ , C Vi =
Where: ( )⏐ C Vi ∑ µ S OC,k,i
d f (xk , θk , Ik ) ⏐⏐
⏐ dU X̂ k , θ̂k− , Ik ⏐⏐ (iv) Pack state estimation: S OCk, pack = Wk,i S OCk,i
Ak−1 ≜ , C Kθ k−1 ≜ ⏐
k = k + 1, skip to rule (ii)
dx ⏐
x=x̂k−1 dθ ⏐
θ =θ̂k
⏐

777
L. Hu, Y. Ye, Y. Bo et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 774–784

Fig. 2. DEKF estimation system for pack.

The equation of state and observation equation for individual cell of the battery can be expressed by the DEKF
equation of state and observation equation. DEKF can estimate the SOC state value of each cell, and the SOC state
value of the battery pack is obtained by aggregating the CMM and CDM models of each through weighting [13,14],
as shown in Table 1.

3. Offline evaluation strategy for pack

3.1. Sorting for cells of battery pack

The pack provide power for EVs through hundreds of battery cells connected in series and parallel. As a rule, the
EVs pack employ the pattern of series followed by parallel. When the individual cells constitute a battery pack, there
are discrepancies in their characteristics and OCV. These discrepancies cause inconsistency issues when utilized in
conjunction, currently, there are two most basic approaches to address these issues, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Inconsistency issues of cells and Basic address approaches [15].

Inconsistency issues
• Incomplete charge of the cells, which caused less
available capacity of the pack.
• Incomplete utilization of battery energy until the end
time of the discharge process is determined by the cell
with the lowest voltage.
• Potential safety issues until over charge and over
discharge may cause explosion.
Address approaches
• Offline sorting approaches to ensure the consistency
of battery cells that form the battery pack.
• On-board approaches through equalization
techniques supported by BMS.

The offline evaluation approach is a simple and effective way to ensure the consistency of cells, compared to on-
board approach. Based on the quantity of signature parameters used for sorting, sorting approaches can be broadly
classified into two categories: mono-parametric approaches, where the sorting parameters are capacity or voltage,
and multi-parametric approaches [16–18]. Due to the inferior sorting reliability of mono-parametric approaches,
multi-parametric approaches have been widely applied. Five alternative methods of sequencing Li-ion batteries are
summarized and compared in Table 3. The sorting parameters, the desired time and reliability of the approaches
are listed. As can be seen from the paper, resistive or impedance parameters are used directly or indirectly in four
of the five approaches, which means that impedance parameters play an important role in battery sorting.
778
L. Hu, Y. Ye, Y. Bo et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 774–784

Table 3. Five alternative typical sorting approaches.

Approach Description Parameters Desired time Reliability
1 Capacity-resistance-based Capacity, ∆C, internal resistance Short Bad
2 EIS Resistance (bulk, charge-transfer and diffusion resistances) Long Good
3 Voltage-based γ (correlation coefficient),d (distance measure) Medium Poor
4 HPPC test OCV, R0 + R p Medium Better
5 Thermal behavior ∆T Medium Poor

3.2. MCPE approach for cells sorting

MCPE approach is applied to aggregate several performance parameters into a comprehensive indicator used
for sorting; a distance measure is developed to evaluate the sorting reliability of the five alternative approaches
considered in Table 3, and two approaches with good comprehensive performances are identified. A fusion sorting
approach that combines the two good approaches is proposed to achieve a good tradeoff between reliability and
simplicity of sorting. Specific detail algorithm is outlined as follows in Table 4. The MCPE sorting approach
considered two steps. In the first, the evaluation model is adopted to aggregate multiple performance parameters
into a comprehensive indicator, which measures the overall performance of a cell. In an additional step, the cells
are ranked according to the combined index values.

Table 4. MCPE sorting algorithm for cells.

Cells sorting methods by MCPE
(i) Calculate the sample µ and σ
(ii) Calculate the coefficient of variation cv: cv = σ/µ
(iii) Calculate the weights of the performance parameters: wi = cvi/ i=1 cvi , i = 1, 2, 3, . . . , n
∑n

n (xi −µi )2
∑ − 2
(iv) The overall performance of a cell: y = wi vi , vi = e 2σi

i=1
⎡ ⎤1
n 2
1 ∑ )2
si j − µs, j ⎦
(
(v) The evaluate of the sorting method: di = ⎣
n
j=1
(vi) The aggregate the values of evaluate parameters: y = wi [wi1 vi1 + (1 − wi1 ) vik ] + w j w j1 v j1 + 1 − w j1 v jl
[ ( ) ]

Where: wi + w j = 1

4. Experiments and results discussion

The verification the accuracy and reliability of the proposed performance evaluation strategy approaches for the
pack of EVs, simulations are designed to simulate the initial SOC of the pack real charge–discharge experiments
for the online SOC estimation. At the same time, we illustrate the offline evaluation approach using a numerical
data [10].

4.1. Online estimation experiment setup and result

The experimental setup is shown in Fig. 3, which mainly includes Digitron tester and data collector, Chroma
battery voltage simulator, pack with four cells (cathode material is Li(Ni0.8Co0.1Mn0.1)O2), PC (configuration is
Win10 system plus Intel Core(TM) i7-10700 CPU, 16 GB RAM, MATLAB version 2020b) and incubator. The
sampling frequency of the data acquisition instrument was set to 0.1s, and the temperature in the incubator was set
to 25 ◦ C. The simulator has 16 independent channels for charging and discharging individual cells in the battery
pack to set different initial SOC. More detail discussion of the battery testing schedules can be found in Ref. [19].
FUDS is the Automotive Industry Standard Urban Driving Vehicle Time Speed Curve and has been used for many
years for electric vehicle performance testing [20–23]. Fig. 4(a) shows the derived cell 01 current profile, which is
calculated from FUDS and scaled as a percentage of peak discharge power. In this calculation, the peak discharge
779
L. Hu, Y. Ye, Y. Bo et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 774–784

Fig. 3. Pack test schedule from Ref. [10].

Fig. 4. (a) Cell 01 current for FUDS cycle; (b) SOC reference values.

current was set to a 2C rate (36 A). Fig. 4(b) shows the calculated SOC curve. The capacity of cell 01 was 30.4
Ah, which is slightly below the nominal capacity when the data was measured or calculated.
Case cell: S OC0 = 0.8, [R1 , C1 , R2 , C2 ] = [0.0019, 23340, 0.0035, 501270] , T = 0.1 s.
By conducting intermittent constant-current pulse discharge experiments, the OCV data corresponding to the
gradually decreasing SOC of the battery is recorded. In this paper, we adopted RLS to identify parameters of
2-RC model, which is used to consider the complexity and accuracy of the battery model [24] and the eighth-order
polynomial [16] is used to fit the data to obtain the fitting Eq. (6). The voltage and SOC estimation results of cell
01 are shown in Fig. 5.
U OC V = 122.478S OC 8 − 401.472S OC 7 + 485.679S OC 6 − 239.278S OC 5 + 3.729S OC 4 + 44.902S OC 3
− 19.806S OC 2 + 5.093S OC + 2.834 (6)
In this case, the comparison curves of the estimated and measured voltages are shown in Fig. 5(a), the voltage
estimation error is shown in Fig. 5(b), the comparison curves of the estimated SOC and the reference curve are
shown in Fig. 5(c), and the SOC estimation error is shown in Fig. 5(d). Fig. 5. shows that the absolute value of
the voltage estimation error is slightly less than 0.2 V, while the absolute value of the SOC estimation error mean
is 1.11%. Addition, the comparison curves between the estimated and measured capacity for the estimated and
measured capacity, we find that the estimated capacity closely tracks the true capacity, and its estimation error
converges to zero quickly after a certain number of iterations of calculation; moreover, the absolute value of the
780
L. Hu, Y. Ye, Y. Bo et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 774–784

Fig. 5. Cell 01 Voltage and SOC estimation results.

error is less than 1.5 Ah, and a stable capacity estimation is achieved. Estimation results show that the proposed
method can obtain accurate SOC estimation and reliable capacity estimation.
Several computational steps are required to correct incorrect initial estimator states considering that achieving
stable and reliable battery SOC and voltage estimation [25,26], it is meaningless to compare with the initial
estimation results of battery SOC and Voltage, in the paper, so we consider the comparison of battery SOC and
Voltage prognostic accuracy after 60 s. The list of statistical analysis is shown in Table 5.

Table 5. The statistical error analysis results list.

Cell Parameters Max(abs) Mean(abs) RMSE
Cell 01 SOC (%) 2.23 1.1 0.13
Voltage (mV) 11.51 7.37 4.95
Cell 02 SOC (%) 1.39 0.53 0.16
Voltage (mV) 6.78 3.03 4.28
Cell 03 SOC (%) 2.78 1.32 0.22
Voltage (mV) 11.86 7.89 5.01
Cell 04 SOC (%) 1.36 0.86 0.17
Voltage (mV) 12.27 8.68 5.22
Pack SOC (%) 4.54 3.16 1.43
Voltage (mV) 20.49 13.92 6.53

4.2. Offline evaluation approach case study

The MCPE approaches considered here consists of two steps. In the first step, the evaluation model developed
in Ref. [24], which is adopted to aggregate multiple performance parameters into a comprehensive indicator, which
measures the overall performance of a battery. In the second step, the batteries are sorted based on their values
of the comprehensive indicator. The specific algorithm flow is shown in Table 4, in the study, we illustrate the
approach using a numerical example. Consider the performance parameters of Method 2 in Ref. [7]. The data are
781
L. Hu, Y. Ye, Y. Bo et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 774–784

shown in the upper left corner of Table 6. For a given performance parameter (Rbulk , Rct or Rd ), we calculate the
sample average µ and standard deviation σ . The dispersion of sample of this performance parameter is described
by the coefficient of variation cv = σ/µ. The comprehensive performance values (i.e., y) of the cells are shown in
the upper right corner of Table 6. As seen from the figure, the cells can be divided into two groups with a threshold
value of yc = (y4 +y5 )/2 = 0.755. The sorting results are shown in the last column of Table 4, where “1” means
“consistent” and “0” means “inconsistent”. It is noted that our sorting for C4 is different from the Ref. [15], and
appears more reasonable since its overall performance value is much smaller than the threshold value. This confirms
the advantage to use a mathematical model for sorting. Using the above approach found that the sorting results of
Methods 3 and 5 need revision. The sorting results after revisions are shown in the upper left corner of Table 7.
It is desirable to have a sorting method that has high sorting reliability and low testing effort. These two criteria
are in conflict with each other, so a bicriteria analysis method is needed to evaluate the overall performance of the
sorting method. Sorting reliability can be described by d, which is the SB; and RTE can be quantified as (1, 3,
5) for (short, medium, and long) test times [27]. It is also SB. The overall performance values of the sequencing
methods are shown in the upper left corner of Table 8. The sorting reliability of a sorting method can be evaluated
[ ∑ ( )2 ] 21
by the following distance measure di = n1 nj=1 si j − µs, j .

Table 6. Performance evaluation parameters of sorting approaches by Table 3 method 2 [15].

Cell Rbulk Rct Rd V1 V2 V3 Y Sorting
Cell 01 10.9 8.4 7.6 0.9649 0.8608 0.8626 0.8892 1
Cell 02 12.3 6.8 6.8 0.2108 0.8146 0.4890 0.5896 0
Cell 03 10.4 8.2 7.4 0.9649 0.9235 0.9941 0.9482 1
Cell 04 11.5 6.3 6.9 0.6615 0.5995 0.6195 0.6200 0
Cell 05 9.2 5.7 6.8 0.3005 0.3459 0.4890 0.3611 0
Cell 06 10.1 9.9 8 0.8411 0.2516 0.3682 0.4327 0
Cell 07 10.5 7.7 7.7 0.9872 0.9996 0.7485 0.9481 1
Cell 08 10.3 8.3 7.6 0.9323 0.8940 0.8626 0.8983 1
µ 10.65 7.663 7.350
σ 0.9350 1.347 0.4598
cv 0.0878 0.1758 0.0626
w 0.2692 0.5390 0.1918

Table 7. Sorting results of cells from different methods and reliability [15].
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 di Rank
Method 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0.4123 3
Method 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0.3464 1
Method 3 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0.4950 5
Method 4 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0.3808 2
Method 5 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0.4690 4
Mean µ 0.6 0.2 1 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.4

The sorting process of the data in Table 8 using five typical methods reveals that even though Method 1 has the
best overall performance, his evaluation reliability is insufficient. Using the cv-based approach yields w = 0.2361.
The sixth column of Table 6 shows the values of y and the last column shows the rank numbers of the methods. As
seen, the overall performance of Method 2 [Method 1] is the worst [best]. We propose an approach with a fusion
method to improve the reliability of sorting by integrating method 1 and method 4 (the second-best sorting method).
As a result, we aggregated the values of evaluate parameters:
y = 0.268vc + 0.212vir + 0.272vv + 0.248vr op (7)

5. Conclusion
In the paper, we propose a performance evaluation strategy for battery pack of EVs, including online estimation
of state and offline sorting evaluation. The online state estimation approach establishes the DEKF algorithm based
782
L. Hu, Y. Ye, Y. Bo et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 774–784

Table 8. Overall performances of sorting approaches.

di RTE V1 V2 Y Rank
Type SB SB LB LB LB SB
Method 1 0.4123 1 0.5545 0.9214 0.8347 1
Method 2 0.3464 5 0.8872 0.0787 0.2696 5
Method 3 0.4950 3 0.1128 0.5000 0.4086 4
Method 4 0.3808 3 0.7424 0.5000 0.5572 2
Method 5 0.4690 3 0.2154 0.5000 0.4328 3
µ 0.4207 3
σ 0.0613 1.4142
cv 0.1457 0.4714
w 0.2361 0.7639

on the 2RC equivalent circuit model, and performs SOC estimation in real time by identifying the battery model
parameters. The pack SOC online estimation value from cells means model and the standard deviation of SOC
estimation are combined with MCPE to determine their aggregation weights. An offline evaluation framework
for cells grading and sorting problem is solved by MCPE methods. The packs SOC online estimation RMSE
error is less than 2%, and offline evaluation method achieved a tradeoff between the reliability and simplicity
for sorting. Nevertheless, the downside is that the online estimation has not considered excessive inconsistency
between cells and temperature compensation for working conditions and offline approach has not considered the
performance evaluation in service stage. In the future work, we will consider more practical working conditions and
directions, and improve the current shortages. Online state estimation methods based on the battery ECM concept
can accurately predict the state of the battery under different operating conditions. Nevertheless, it is difficult to
manufacture due to the highly non-linear nature of battery systems. The computational complexity of first-principles
based models also hinders their practical application. The development of highly accurate battery state estimation
with low computational complexity is a major challenge for future research. The rapid development of intelligent
transportation systems and vehicle networking provides opportunities for battery second life. Bringing in cloud
computing for RUL prediction of battery second life can improve computational efficiency and enrich training
data. Finally, in order to promote the utilization of decommissioned lithium-ion batteries, offline sorting algorithms
can be used for the sequential sorting of cells. Battery second life is of significant importance to environmental
management.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could
have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51875049, No. 52172399),
the Key Research and Development Program of Hunan Province, China (No. 2020SK2099). This work was
supported in part by National Key R&D Program of China (2017YFE0118400, 2019YFE0108000)

References
[1] Casals , Canals Lluc, et al. Second life batteries lifespan: Rest of useful life and environmental analysis. J Environ Manag
2019;232:354–63.
[2] Deng Youjun, et al. Operational planning of centralized charging stations utilizing second-life battery energy storage systems. IEEE
Trans Sustain Energy 2021;12:387–99.
[3] Essiet , Okon Ima, Sun Yanxia. Optimal open-circuit voltage (OCV) model for improved electric vehicle battery state-of-charge in
V2G services. Energy Rep 2021;7:4348–59.
[4] Wang Wenliang, He Feng, et al. Research on state of charge estimation of lithium battery based on double extended Kalman filter.
Electron Meas Technol 2020;43(351.19):55–8, in China.
[5] Jiang L, et al. Data-driven fault diagnosis and thermal runaway warning for battery packs using real-world vehicle data. Energy
2021;234:121266.
783
L. Hu, Y. Ye, Y. Bo et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 774–784

[6] Zhang Zhiyong, et al. Active cell balancing of lithium-on battery pack based on average state of charge. Int J Energy Res 2020;44(6).
[7] Xiong R, Sun F, Chen Z, He H. A data-driven multi-scale extended Kalman filtering based parameter and state estimation approach
of lithium-ion olymer battery in electric vehicles. Appl Energy 2014;113:463–76.
[8] Guo F, Hu G, Xiang S, Zhou P, Hong R, Xiong N. A multi-scale parameter adaptive method for state of charge and parameter
estimation of lithium-ion batteries using dual Kalman filters. Energy 2019;178:79–88.
[9] Hu X, et al. Cost-optimal energy management of hybrid electric vehicles using fuel cell/battery health-aware predictive control. IEEE
Trans Power Electron 2019;35(99):382–92.
[10] Feng He, et al. Estimation of SOC and SOH of lithium battery pack by double extended Kalman filter. Agric Equip Veh Eng 59(7):5,
in China.
[11] Hu Xiaosong, et al. A control-oriented electrothermal model for pouch-type electric vehicle batteries. IEEE Trans Power Electron
2021;36(5):5530–44.
[12] Hu Xiaosong, et al. Robustness analysis of state-of-charge estimation methods for two types of Li-ion batteries. J Power Sources
2012;217:209–19.
[13] Hu Lin, et al. Reliable state of charge estimation of battery packs using fuzzy adaptive federated filtering. Appl Energy 2020;262:114569.
[14] Pei H, et al. Designing multi-mode power split hybrid electric vehicles using the hierarchical topological graph theory. IEEE Trans
Veh Technol 2020;69(7):7159–71.
[15] Li Xiaoyu, et al. A comparative study of sorting methods for lithium-ion batteries. In: 2014 ieee conference and expo transportation
electrification asia-pacific (itec asia-pacific). 2014, p. 1–6.
[16] Jiang R, Chen Zhigao. A standard-based approach for multi-criteria performance evaluation of engineered systems. Reliab Eng Syst
Saf 2020;202:107001.
[17] Hu L, Ou J, Huang J, Wang F, Wang Y, Ren BN, Peng H, Zhou L. Safety evaluation of pedestrian-vehicle interaction at signalized
intersections in Changsha, China. J Transp Saf Secur 2021.
[18] Deng Z, et al. General discharge voltage information enabled health evaluation for Lithium-Ion batteries. IEEE/ASME Trans
Mechatronics 2020;PP(99).
[19] Rui Xiong, et al. Adaptive state of charge estimator for lithium-ion cells series battery pack in electric vehicles. J Power Sources
2013;242:699–713.
[20] Qiao Zhu, et al. State of charge estimation for lithium-ion battery based on nonlinear observer: An h∞ method. Energies 2017;10:679.
[21] Che Yunhong, et al. Predictive battery health management with transfer learning and online model correction. IEEE Trans Veh Technol
2021;70:1269–77.
[22] Lin Hu, Xingqian Bao, Miao Lin, Chao Yu, Fang Wang. Research on risky driving behavior evaluation model based on CIDAS real
data. Proc Inst Mech Eng D 2021;235(8):2176–87.
[23] Feng F, Hu X, Hu L, Hu F, Li Y, Zhang L. Propagation mechanisms and diagnosis of parameter inconsistency within Li-Ion battery
packs. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019.
[24] Wang Y, Zhang C, Chen Z. On-line battery state-of-charge estimation based on an integrated estimator. Appl Energy 2017;185:2026–32.
[25] Wang Z, Feng G, Zhen D, Gu F, Ball A. A review on online state of charge and state of health estimation for lithium-ion batteries
in electric vehicles. Energy Rep 2021;7:5141–61.
[26] Gerssen-Gondelach SJ, Faaij A. Performance of batteries for electric vehicles on short and longer term. J Power Sources
2012;212:111–29.
[27] Jiang R, Chen Z. A standard-based approach for multi-criteria performance evaluation of engineered systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf
2020;202:107001.

784