Applied Energy 161 (2016) 330–336

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

State-space model with non-integer order derivatives for lithium-ion

battery
Yuan Zou a,⇑, Shengbo Eben Li b, Bing Shao a, Baojin Wang c
a
Beijing Collaborative Innovation Center for Electric Vehicles, School of Mechanical Engineering, Beijing Institute of Technology, 100081, China
b
State Key Lab of Automotive Safety and Energy, Department of Automotive Engineering, Tsinghua University, 100084, China
c
Department of Control Science and Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150001, China

h i g h l i g h t s

We use fractional order model to describe lithium-ion battery behavior.

We use Oustaloup approximation to obtain the state-space equation.

Particle swarm optimization is employed to identify model parameters.

Good accuracy and robustness is obtained when cycles, aging levels and cells vary.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Lithium ion batteries have attracted wide attention due to their high energy density, long cycle life, and
Received 19 July 2015 environmental friendliness and are widely used in electrical vehicles. An accurate and reliable battery
Received in revised form 28 September 2015 model is needed in battery management systems (BMS) to monitor battery operating conditions, includ-
Accepted 1 October 2015
ing state of charge (SOC), state of health (SOH), etc. This paper presents a state-space model with non-
integer order derivatives for electrochemical batteries with a constant phase element (CPE) in order to
accurately describe battery dynamics. The proposed model is a combination of electrochemical impe-
Keywords:
dance spectroscopy and the 1-RC model. The Oustaloup recursive approximation was selected for model
Fractional-order model
Battery
parametric identification and potential implementation. A particle-swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm
Non-integer order derivative was used to identify three model parameters by using time-domain test data. The model accuracy and
Oustaloup recursive approximation robustness were validated by using datasets from different driving cycles, aging levels and cells of the
Particle swarm optimization same chemistry. The proposed FOM showed good accuracy and robustness. It is suitable for research
on battery reliability, including issues like SOC estimation, SOH prediction, and charging control.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction because of the large number of model parameters needed, highly

Chemistry-based energy storage systems are critical for sustain-
able road transportation. Today, lithium ion batteries have
attracted wide attention due to their high energy density, long
cycle life, and environmental friendliness [1]. To ensure safety
and extend battery life, accurate and reliable battery models
should be used in battery management systems (BMS) to monitor
conditions such as state of charge (SOC) [2], and state of health
(SOH) [3].
Electrochemical models are generally more accurate than
equivalent circuit-based models in describing battery dynamics.
However, electrochemical models are less practical in applications
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +86 10 68944115.
E-mail address: zouyuan@bit.edu.cn (Y. Zou).
complex structure, and common over-fitting issue [4]. Moreover,
partial differential equations (PDEs) associated with electrochemi-
cal models may require heavy storage and computation resources
[4–7]. As an alternative, equivalent circuit models (ECMs) are gain-
ing popularity in BMS design because of their relatively simple
structure and model parameters. ECMs are composed of electric
components such as resistors, inductors, and capacitors [8,9]. Plett
et al. provided a detailed introduction to various types of ECMs
evolved from a primitive model, including a simple model with
only SOC as a state, and a one-state hysteresis model adding an
additional ‘‘hysteresis state” to the model state equation [10].
Resistance–capacitance (RC) networks have been widely used to
construct ECMs, which leads to many commonly used models,
e.g., 1-RC model [11], 2-RC model [12], and 1-RC with hysteresis
[13], etc. In these models, the variation of dynamics caused by

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.10.025
0306-2619/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 Y. Zou et al. / Applied Energy 161 (2016) 330–336
temperature and SOC are modeled as parametric functions [14,15].
Recently ECMs have been widely used in battery management,
including SOC estimation [16], SOH prediction [17], and charging
control [15].
One major shortcoming of ECMs is their structural mismatch
with the electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) measure-
ment. The EIS measured in small-voltage excitation can provide
important details about battery internal states and degradation.
For example, in a lithium ion battery the EIS is often composed
of two sections in the operating frequency range: (1) a straight line
in low frequency and (2) a semi-ellipse in middle frequency. The
low-frequency straight tail is generally believed to be caused by
mass diffusion of lithium ions, while the middle frequency semi-
ellipse is caused by dynamics such as charge-transfer reaction
and double-layer effect [18]. An ECM with 1-RC network has an
ideal semi-circle in the EIS diagram, which obviously does not
agree with measured data. High-order RC networks can improve
EIS accuracy, but this inevitably results in a large number of model
parameters. Fractional-order models (FOM) can address the dis-
crepancy between the complexity and accuracy in ECMs, which
uses non-integer derivatives instead of integer derivatives for
states. Existing studies have demonstrated that batteries inher-
ently possess fractional-order properties because of mass trans-
port, diffusion dynamics, and memory hysteresis [19,20]. With
better accuracy and fewer parameters, FOMs are attracting the
attention of battery researchers. For example, Xu et al. proposed
a fractional Kalman filter for SOC estimation [20], where the model
was structured with a Warburg element and a parallel circuit con-
sisting of a constant phase element (CPE) with resistance. The frac-
tional order of the Warburg element was fixed at 0.5 and the other
model parameters were identified using the least-squares method
in the time domain. Sabatier et al. proposed a fractional-order
model using a Warburg element to estimate the crankability of
lead–acid batteries with a fractional order fixed at 0.5 [21]. How-
ever, some researchers have demonstrated that optimal fractional
order is not 0.5 and that fixing the fractional order may decrease
model accuracy [22].
The main contribution of this paper is to take advantage of frac-
tional order modeling method to describe an electrochemistry-
based system and to derive a state-space model with non-integer
derivative using a structure similar to the commonly used
resistor–capacitor model for batteries. This modeling method has
the potential to mimic the input–output behavior of complex
electrochemical dynamics inside a battery with fewer model
parameters than a physics-based model. The proposed FOM is
structured with an ohmic resistor and a parallel circuit consisting
of a CPE and a resistor. The ohmic resistor is used to depict the resis-
tive impedance, and the parallel circuit is mainly used to describe
the diffusion dynamics. The high complexity of electrochemical
models and the structural mismatch of ECMs could be mitigated.
The fractional order is optimized as the variant value with the
respect to the different SOC ranges to maintain the model accuracy.
The performance of the FOM has been validated by the battery test-
ing data at the different aging levels. The remainder of the paper is
organized as follows: Section 2 reviews the fractional-order
calculus; Section 3 derives the fractional-order model for lithium
ion batteries and introduces the Oustaloup recursive approxima-
tion process of fractional-order operator; Section 4 identifies the
model parameters using time-domain test data; and Section 5
discusses the model accuracy and robustness, followed by the
conclusion in Section 6.
2. Fractional-order calculus
The introduction of fractional-order calculus (FOC) is usually
associated with Leibniz and L’Hospital in the late of the 17th
331
century [23]. Many real-world physical systems, such as electro-
chemical, biological, material, and viscoelastic systems display
fractional-order dynamics, because their behavior is governed by
fractional-order differential equations. For example, in electricity,
if at least one of the electrodes has a rough surface, the current
through a capacitor is proportional to the non-integer derivative
of the voltage [24]. To describe and model a real object more
accurately than the classical ‘‘integer” methods, fractional calculus
has been widely used in physical systems in which mass transport,
diffusion, or memory phenomena appear [25]. For a battery
system, FOC is a good way to describe the electrical dynamics
including mass transport in the electrolyte and diffusion in solid
electrodes.
2.1. Definitions of fractional-order derivative
The fractional-order calculus is given as [20]:
8 a
> d
< dta a>0
a
Dt ¼ 1
>
a¼0 ð1Þ
:Rt a
a ðdtÞ a<0
where a e R is an arbitrary number and denotes the order of deriva-
tive or integral. In this paper, a > 0 is considered. In application,
there are different types of definitions of fractional derivatives such
as Riemann–Liouville, Grünwald–Letnikov, and Caputo [23,25]. The
Laplace transformation of the Caputo definition is more concise, and
is therefore used here [26]. It is defined as:
Z t
1 d
Da f ðtÞ ¼ ðt  sÞa f ðsÞds ð2Þ
Cð1  aÞ 0 dt
where f(t) is the function to be differentiated, C() is the Euler’s
gamma function:
Z 1
CðaÞ ¼ t a1 et dt ð3Þ
0
2.2. Approximation methods of fractional-order model
Since the fractional-order model itself is an infinite dimensional
system, proper numerical approximation should be done to imple-
ment a band limit of the fractional-order system [27–29]. The key
to approximate FOM is to obtain approximated integer order mod-
els for fractional-order systems, or finite dimensional models for
infinite dimensional systems [28]. Vinagre et al. discussed several
approximations for both continuous and discrete models [28].
One approximation method for continuous models is to obtain a
rational approximation of irrational transfer function using contin-
ued fraction expansions and interpolation techniques [30]. The
advantage is that it frequently converges much more rapidly than
power series expansions and converges in a much larger domain in
the complex plane. Another method for continuous models is using
curve fitting or identification techniques based on the approxima-
tion of a fractional-order transfer function by a rational function
[24,31]. For discrete models, approximations using numerical inte-
gration and power series expansion are often used to discrete
transfer functions in the form of polynomials [32,33]. In this paper
we selected the Oustaloup recursive approximation. This algorithm
is widely used where a frequency band of interest is considered
within which the frequency domain responses should be fit by a
bank of integer-order filters to the fractional-order derivative
[24]. In addition, it is simple and easy to implement, approximates
fractional-order operator using a rational transfer function [34],
and has been proven that very good continuous approximations
can be obtained by using this method [28].
332 Y. Zou et al. / Applied Energy 161 (2016) 330–336

3. Fractional-order model for a lithium ion battery V 0 ¼ V OCV  u1  IR0 ð7Þ

The electrode process of a lithium ion battery is not a simple
chemical reaction, but rather a series of processes with different
phenomenon. Typical battery dynamics include charge-transfer
reaction on electrode/electrolyte interface, lithium ion diffusion
in electrodes, double-layer effects, and resistance/capacitance
growth of the anode-insulating film, etc. [22,18]. Therefore, acquir-
ing an accurate mathematical model to describe the working
behaviors of the battery is of critical importance to the research
on battery reliability including issues such as SOC estimation,
SOH prediction, and charging control.
3.1. Derivation of FOM
where I, V0, Cn and z are the current, output voltage, nominal capac-
ity, and SOC, respectively; g is the Coulombic efficiency, VOCV is the
open-circuit voltage (OCV), R0 is the ohmic resistance, and u1 and
s = R1C1 are the voltage and time constant of the RC network.
Eq. (6) is the state differential equation, which captures the system
dynamics, and Eq. (7) is the output function, which is a combination
of the state variable u1, VOCV, implicitly determined by state variable
z, and input I. The initial voltage across the RC network is u1(0) = 0.
3.2. Approximation of fractional-order operator
According to Oustaloup recursive approximation, for zero initial
conditions, the Laplace transform of Eq. (2) is [25,27,37]:

ECMs have been widely researched and used in battery man- C ¼ ½ C N1 C N2    C1 C0 
agement systems. Hu et al. compared 12 commonly used equiva- ai ði ¼ 0; 1; . . . N  1Þ
lent circuit models and concluded that the first-order RC model cj ðj ¼ 0; 1; . . . ; N  1Þ
(1-RC) is most useful in terms of complexity, accuracy, and robust- 8 dup
ness [14]. However, the impedance results for a solid electrode/- < dt ¼ A0 up þ B0 f ðu1 ðtÞ; IðtÞ
> ð8Þ
electrolyte interface often reveal a frequency dispersion that > up ð0Þ ¼ ð1; 0; 0; . . .ÞT
:
cannot be described by simple elements such as resistance, capac- u1 ¼ C 0 up þ D0 f ðu1 ðtÞ; IðtÞÞ
itance, and inductance [35]. The frequency dispersion is generally
Pi ¼ ½V i1 ; V i2 ; . . . ; V im ; Rio ; Ri1 ; si T
attributed to a ‘‘capacitance dispersion” expressed in terms of a
CPE, which is often used to describe this behavior instead of an The approximation is given by:
ideal capacitor. From the analysis above, the structure of FOM is PN
ai Si
derived as shown in Fig. 1. An ohmic resistor (R0) is used to repre- Sa ¼ PNi¼0 j ð9Þ
sent resistive impedance, a parallel circuit consisting of a constant j¼0 bj S
phase element (CPE), and a resistor (R1) is used to depict the diffu-
The resulting approximation is valid within the frequency range
sion dynamics.
(xlow, xhigh). The number of poles and zeros N has to be deter-
The CPE is a component that traduces a partially capacitive and
mined beforehand. The choice N is not considered here as we use
resistive behavior [36]. The model of its impedance is expressed as:
the rule of thumb N = log(xhigh  xlow). Note that a smaller value
1 of N causes lower order and simpler approximation. The coeffi-
ZðsÞ ¼ ð4Þ
C 1 Sa cients are obtained given a, N, xlow, and xhigh.

where C1 is a capacitance-like parameter and a is the differentiation X

N Y
K
1
ai ¼
order to describe capacitance dispersion (a e R+, 0 < a < 1). When xðz; nÞ
K¼j n¼0
a = 1, the CPE behaves like an ideal capacitor; when a = 0, it
becomes an ideal resistor. The transfer function of the circuit in
X
N Y
K
1
Fig. 1 is derived as: bi ¼
K¼j n¼0
xðp; nÞ
V OCV ðsÞ  V 0 ðsÞ R1
¼ R0 þ ð5Þ
IðsÞ 1 þ R1 C 1 sa 8 pffiffiffi
< xðz; nÞ ¼ xlow g; n ¼ 1
>
According to Eq. (5), the dynamic system can be expressed in xðp; nÞ ¼ xðz; nÞe; n ¼ 1; . . . ; N
the state-space representation as follows: >
:
xðz; nÞ ¼ xðp; n  1Þg; n ¼ 2; . . . ; N
8 dz g
< dt ¼  3600C n IðtÞ
>  a=N  ð1aÞ=N
Da u1 ¼  us1 þ R1aIðtÞ ð6Þ xlow xlow
> e¼ ; g¼ ð10Þ
: xhigh xhigh
Then
Form the whole circuit shown in Fig. 1, the following relation-
PN1
ship can be obtained:
a i¼0 ðai  baNN bi ÞSi aN
S ¼ PN j
þ ð11Þ
j¼0 bj S
bN
R1 Eq. (11) can be further adjusted to satisfy the following
definition:
R0
PN i PN1
j¼0 bj S c j Si
Sa ¼ PN
j¼0
CPE ¼ PN þd ð12Þ
+ i i
i¼0 ai S i¼0 ai S

VOCV V0 with aN = 1. It is finally possible to approximate the operator sa

+ -
u1 using a state-space definition:
8
I - < z_ ¼ Az þ Bf ðxðtÞ; uðtÞÞ
>
Da xðtÞ  x ¼ Cz þ Df ðxðtÞ; uðtÞÞ ð13Þ
>
:
Fig. 1. Structure of the fractional-order model.
 Y. Zou et al. / Applied Energy 161 (2016) 330–336 333

with machine interface, and a switchboard for cable connection. The

2 3 voltage, current, and temperature of each cell is recorded at the
aN1 aN2    a1 a0
61 7 sampling time of 10 Hz. The tested batteries were 8 LiFePO4 bat-
6 0  0 0 7 tery cells with 1.1 A h nominal capacity, 3.3 V nominal voltage.
6 7
60 1  0 0 7 The battery test bench can generate the typical current load cycle,
6 7
A ¼ 6. .. .. .. .. 7
6 .. . . . . 7 including the static capacity test, a Hybrid Pulse Power Cycle test
6 7
6 7 (HPPC), a DC resistance test, a dynamic stress test (DST), and a Fed-
40 0  1 0 5
eral Urban Driving Schedule (FUDS) test at the specific tempera-
tures and records the voltage response. More details are available
in a previous work [14].
 T
1 0 0  0 The parameters of FOM were identified by using the multiple
B¼ particle swarm optimization (MPSO) algorithm [38,39], which is
based on the battery dynamic testing data. For this research, the
  swarm P consists of the model parameter vectors:
C N1 C N2    C1 C0
C¼
P ¼ ½p1 ; p2 ; . . . pn 
D¼d
pi ¼ ½V i1 ; V i2 ; . . . ; V im ; Rio ; Ri1 ; si T
in which ai(i = 0, 1, . . ., N  1), cj(j = 0, 1, . . ., N  1), d are the ele-
ments in sa.
where pi, i = 1, 2, . . ., n is the ith particle of the swarm.
The second function of Eq. (9) is then approximated as:
Vij, i = 1, 2, . . ., m is used to represent the jth optimization variable
8 du
> for describing VOCV, which is modeled as a function of SOC. In
> dt ¼ A0 up þ B0 f ðu1 ðtÞ; IðtÞÞ
p
>
>
< practice, the value of VOCV is interpolated by the look-up table con-
up ð0Þ ¼ ð1; 0; 0; . . .ÞT
ð14Þ sisting of VOCV and SOC. Ri0 is the internal ohmic resistance; Ri1 is
>
> u1 ¼ C 0 up þ D0 f ðu1 ðtÞ; IðtÞÞ
>
> the diffusion resistance; and si is the time constant. The final
:
optimization problem is expressed as follows

For the approximation, different xlow, xhigh and a will result X

N
2
in different A0, B0, C0, and D0. The dimension of up is lim f ðpÞ ¼ ½V 0 ðjÞ  V sim ðj; pÞ ð17Þ
p
N(N = log(xhigh  xlow)). j¼1
Eq. (14) can be further formulated as:
8     where f is the fitness function, N is the length of test data, V0(j) is the
> dup B0 C 0 R1 B0 R1 B0 D 0
> dt ¼ A0  sþD0 up þ s  s2 þsD0 IðtÞ
>
< tested battery voltage, and Vsim(j, p) is the estimated battery voltage.
T ð15Þ MPSO incorporated the swarm-splitting features and enhance glo-
> up ð0Þ ¼ ð1; 0; 0; :::Þ
>
> bal search capability better than classical PSO did.
: u ¼ sC 0 u þ R1 D0 IðtÞ
1 sþD0 p sþD0

The system is discretized using the forward finite-difference 4.2. Results and discussions
method.
8 The model accuracy is measured by the average root-mean-
> u ðk þ 1Þ ¼ GðTÞup ðkÞ þ HðTÞIðkÞ
< p squared error (RMSE) between battery test data and model output.
up ð0Þ ¼ ð1; 0; 0; :::ÞT ð16Þ In this section, the identification results are given and the robust-
>
:
u1 ðk þ 1Þ ¼ ssþD
C0
0
up ðk þ 1Þ þ sRþD
1 D0
0
Iðk þ 1Þ ness of FOM is validated.

with
  4.2.1. Pre-determination of non-integer order
B0 C 0
GðTÞ ¼ DT A0  Iðk þ 1Þ The non-integer order a affects model accuracy. For this
s þ D0 research, a is selected to be from 0.1 to 0.9 with 0.1 as the step
  length. At each value of a, the identification process is performed,
R1 B0 R1 B0 D0 and the results are shown in Fig. 2. The black line represents the
HðTÞ ¼ DT 
s s2 þ sD0 average RMSE of the model optimized for training datasets HPPC,
where I is unit matrix, DT is the sampling time. The smaller the and the yellow line is the results evaluated using the DST datasets.
sampling time, the more accurate the approximation. A balance As can be seen from Fig. 2, the RMSE of FOM varies as the fractional
between approximation accuracy and computation efficiency must order changes. When a = 0.7 the model achieves the best perfor-
be balanced considering that rather small sampling time can lead to mance under both test cycles. Therefore, the fractional order 0.7
heavy computation load. is adopted in this paper.

4. Model parameter identification and discussion
This section discusses the battery model parameters based on
the testing data and discusses the results.
4.1. Battery testing systems and model identification method
The battery test data is generated in the test bench consisting of
an Arbin BT2000 tester, a thermal chamber, a computer for user-
4.2.2. Discussion of model parameter results
Table 1 gives the identified parameters of FOM for the battery
cell. The parameters are the functions of SOC. As SOC decreases,
both resistance R0 and R1 tend to increase, while the capacitance-
like parameter C1 appears to be a parabola tendency.
The validation result for the HPPC test is shown in Fig. 3. There
is good agreement between the model and the test data. The max-
imum relative error is less than 1% and the average root-mean-
squared error is 4.9 mV.
334 Y. Zou et al. / Applied Energy 161 (2016) 330–336

-3 3.4
x 10
10
Experimental M odel

Voltage/V
HPPC DST 3.3

8
RMSE/V

3.2 3.38
3.34
3.3
3.26
6 0.5 0.55 0.6
3.1
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time/hr
4 (a) Voltage response in DST
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Fractional order

Fig. 2. Relationships between model accuracy and fractional order. 3.35 Experimental M odel

Voltage/V
3.3
3.25
Table 1 3.2 3.35
Parameters of FOM for LiFePO4 cell. 3.15 3.3
0.5 0.55 0.6
SOC range 0.1–0.3 0.3–0.5 0.5–0.7 0.7–0.9
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
R0 (X) 0.0278 0.0251 0.0245 0.0231 Time/hr
R1 (X) 12.4520 11.1385 4.6440 9.2315
C1 32.8413 34.1565 50.2402 45.8910 (b) Voltage response in FUDS
Fig. 4. Validation result in DST and FUDS tests (validation).

3.4 -3
Experimental M odel x 10
12
Voltage/V

3.3 HPPC DST FUDS

10
RMSE (V)

3.2 3.4
3.3 8
3.2
0.6 0.7 0.8
3.1
0.2 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 2.7 6
Time/hr
(a) Voltage response in HPPC 4
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Cycle Number
1
Relative Error M ean Value Fig. 5. RMSEs of the model at different cell aging levels.
Error/%

0.5 life, which is a great advantage in applications in electrical

0 istry and tested under the same conditions. The model parameters
0.5 1 1.5
Time/hr
(b) Voltage error in HPPC
Fig. 3. Validation result in HPPC test (training).
4.3. Accuracy and robustness of the FOM
Different cycle tests were conducted to verify the model
accuracy and robustness. Loading profiles under DST and FUDS
cycles are used and the results are shown in Fig. 4. The maximum
relative errors in both tests are less than 1.5% and the average root-
mean-squared errors are 6.5 mV and 7.8 mV in the DST and FUDS
tests, respectively. It is concluded that the FOM maintains good
vehicles.
Fig. 6 shows the RMSEs of the other cells with the same chem-
2 2.5
are identified using the dataset of No. 1 cell and the other seven
cells are validated by the optimal model. The average RMSE of
the eight cells is less than 10 mV, which proves that the optimal
model maintains good accuracy. It can be concluded that the good
accuracy and robustness of the FOM have been maintained for the
different load cycles, aging level, and cells.
To validate the performance of the proposed fractional order
model, the other five typical ECMs for lithium-ion batteries with
0.02
RMSE Mean Value
0.015
RMSE (V)

accuracy under different test cycles. Fig. 4 shows the average

0.01
root-mean-squared errors of the model at different cell aging levels
under the three test cycles. It appears the model has better perfor-
mance under DST and FUDS cycles, which have higher frequency 0.005
and are closer to the actual working conditions.
Fig. 5 shows that the average root-mean-squared error
increases slightly as the aging number N increases. The RMSE of 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
the model is less than 10 mV after 3000 cycles, which indicates Cell Number
that FOM has a great adaptability. In addition, Fig. 5 also illustrates
that the lithium–iron phosphate battery has a around 3000 cycle Fig. 6. RMSEs of different cells.
 Y. Zou et al. / Applied Energy 161 (2016) 330–336
Table 2
Validation results under HPPC training datasets.
Model RMSE (mv)
The proposed fractional order model 4.9
The combined model 11.4
The second-order RC model 6.5
The third-order RC model 5.8
The enhanced self-correcting model (two-state low-pass filter) 8.4
The enhanced self-correcting model (four-state low-pass filter) 6.2
the lumped parameters reported in [14] are selected to compare by
examining model accuracy and calculation complexity. The five
models are the combined model, the second order RC model, the
third RC model, the enhanced self-correcting models with two-
states low-pass filter and four-state low-pass filter, respectively
[14]. The same cell datasets and model parameter identification
methods are applied. The validation results in HPPC are chosen
to list as Table 2. Explicitly RMSE of the FOM is the considerably
smaller than the other five ECMs. It may be concluded that the pro-
posed FOM characterizes the lithium-ion batteries more accurately
than the ECMs. However, it is found the computation burden of the
FOM is significantly heavier, normally 10–20 times more than that
of the ECMs due to the appearance of the more parameters when
the FOM transforms into the state-space equation.
5. Conclusion
A fractional-order model structured with an ohmic resistor and
a parallel circuit consisting of a CPE and a resistor was proposed to
describe battery dynamics. The derived model with non-integer
derivative was a combination of the electrochemical impedance
spectroscopy and 1-RC model and adopts similar a structure as
the commonly used resistor–capacitor model. The Oustaloup
recursive approximation characterized by its easy implementation
was introduced to model the fractional differentiation operator in
integer-order state-space form, and the MPSO algorithm, which
is a global optimization method with fewer parameters and more
effective memory utilization, was applied to conduct parameter
optimizations using time-domain test data. To verify the perfor-
mance of the proposed model, battery test data under different
conditions were used. For three different cycles, the maximum rel-
ative errors were all less than 1.5%. For different cell aging levels,
the results showed that the model accuracy decreased slightly as
the aging number N increased. For other cells with same chemistry,
the average RMSE of the eight cells is less than 10 mV, which
proves the optimal model maintains good accuracy. It can be con-
cluded that the good accuracy and robustness of the FOM are
maintained for different load cycles, aging levels, and cells. The
proposed FOM can be used in research on battery reliability includ-
ing SOC estimation, SOH prediction and charging control.
Acknowledgments
This research work is supported by NSF China with Grants
51375044 and 51205228 and University Talent Introduction 111
Project B12022.
References
[1] Monem MA, Trad K, Omar N, Hegazy O, Mantels B, Mulder G, et al. Lithium-ion
batteries: evaluation study of different charging methodologies based on aging
process. Appl Energy 2015;152:143–55.
[2] Xiong R, Sun F, Gong X, Gao C. A data-driven based adaptive state of charge
estimator of lithium-ion polymer battery used in electric vehicles. Appl Energy
2014;113:1421–33.
335
[3] Hu C, Jain G, Tamirisa P, Gorka T. Method for estimating capacity and
predicting remaining useful life of lithium-ion battery. Appl Energy
2014;126:182–9.
[4] Plett GL. Extended Kalman filtering for battery management systems of LiPB-
based HEV battery packs: Part I. Background. J Power Sour 2004;134:252–72.
[5] Zhu L, Sun Z, Dai H, Wei X. A novel modeling methodology of open circuit
voltage hysteresis for LiFePO4 batteries based on an adaptive discrete Preisach
model. Appl Energy 2015;155:91–109.
[6] Zheng Y, Ouyang M, Lu L, Li J, et al. Cell state-of-charge inconsistency
estimation for LiFePO4 battery pack in hybrid electric vehicles using mean-
difference model. Appl Energy 2013;111:571–80.
[7] Waag W, Käbitz S, Sauer DU. Experimental investigation of the lithium-ion
battery impedance characteristic at various conditions and aging states and its
influence on the application. Appl Energy 2013;102:885–97.
[8] 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
polymer battery in electric vehicles. Appl Energy 2014;113:463–76.
[9] Lee S, Kim J, Lee J, Cho BH. State-of-charge and capacity estimation of lithium-
ion battery using a new open-circuit voltage versus state-of-charge. J Power
Sour 2008;185:1367–73.
[10] Plett GL. Extended Kalman filtering for battery management systems of LiPB-
based HEV battery packs: Part 2. Modeling and identification. J Power Sour
2004;134:262–76.
[11] He HW, Xiong R, Guo HQ. Online estimation of model parameters and state-of-
charge of LiFePO4 batteries in electric vehicles. Appl Energy 2012;89:413–20.
[12] Hu Y, Yurkovich S. Linear parameter varying battery model identification using
subspace methods. J Power Sour 2011;196:2913–23.
[13] Verbrugge M. Adaptive, multi-parameter battery state estimator with
optimized time-weighting factors. J Appl Electrochem 2007;37:605–16.
[14] Hu XS, Li SE, Peng H. A comparative study of equivalent circuit models for li-
ion batteries. J Power Sour 2012;198:359–67.
[15] Hu XS, Li SE, Peng H. Charging time and loss optimization for LiNMC and
LiFePO4 batteries based on equivalent circuit models. J Power Sour
2013;239:449–57.
[16] He HW, Xiong R, Fan JX. Evaluation of lithium-ion battery equivalent circuit
models for state of charge estimation by an experimental approach. Energies
2011;4:582–98.
[17] Zou Y, Hu XS, Ma HM, Li SE. Combined state of charge and state of health
estimation over lithium-ion battery cell cycle lifespan for electric vehicles. J
Power Sour 2014;273:793–803.
[18] Jossen A. Fund Battery Dyn. J Power Sour 2006;154:530–8.
[19] Sabatier J, Aoun M, Oustaloup A, Grégoire G, Ragot F, Roy P. Fractional system
identification for lead acid battery state of charge estimation. Signal Process
2006;86:2645–57.
[20] Xu J, Mi CT, Cao BG, Cao JY. A new method to estimate the state of charge of
lithium-ion batteries based on the battery impedance model. J Power Sour
2013;233:277–84.
[21] Sabatier J, Cugnet M, Laruelle S, Grugeon S, Sahut B, Oustaloup A, et al. A
fractional order model for lead–acid battery crankability estimation. Commun
Nonlinear Sci Numer Simulat 2010;15:1308–17.
[22] Li SE, Wang BJ, Peng H, Hu XS. An electrochemical-based impedance model for
lithium-ion batteries. J Power Sour 2014;258:9–18.
[23] Petrás I. Fractional-order nonlinear systems: modeling, analysis and
simulation. Springer; 2011.
[24] Oustaloup A, Levron F, Mathieu B, Nanot FM. Frequency-band complex
noninteger differentiator: characterization and synthesis. IEEE Trans Circ
Syst I: Fund Theory Appl 2000;47:25–39.
[25] Monje CA, Chen YQ, Vinagre BM, Xue DY, Feliu V. Fractional-order systems and
controls: fundamentals and applications. Springer; 2010.
[26] Wang ZB. Fractional order linear system and its
application. Shanghai: Shanghai Jiaotong University; 2004.
[27] Tricaud C, Chen YQ. An approximate method for numerically solving fractional
order optimal control problems of general form. Comput Math Appl
2010;59:1644–55.
[28] Vinagre BM, Podlubny I, Hernandez A, Feliu V. Some approximations of
fractional order operators used in control theory and applications. Fract Calc
Appl Anal 2000;3:945–50.
[29] Ma YP, Wang LF, Meng ZJ. Numerical algorithm to solve fractional integro-
differential equations based on operational matrix of generalized block pulse
functions. Comput Model Eng Sci 2013;96:31–47.
[30] Xue DY, Zhao CN, Chen YQ. A modified approximation method of fractional
order system. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 2006:1043–8.
[31] Charef A, Sun HH, Tsao YY, Onaral B. Fractal system as represented by
singularity function. IEEE Trans Autom Control 1992;37:1465–70.
[32] Press WH, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling WT, Flannery BP. Numerical recipes in C:
the art of scientific computering. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press; 1992.
[33] Ford NJ, Connolly JA. Comparison of numerical methods for fractional
differential equations. Commun Pure Appl Anal 2006;5:289–307.
[34] Vinagre BM, Chen YQ, Petras I. Two direct Tustin discretization methods for
fractional-order differentiation/integrator. J Franklin Inst 2003;340:349–62.
[35] Jorcin JB, Orazem ME, Pébère N. CPE analysis by local electrochemical
impedance spectroscopy. Electrochim Acta 2006;51:1473–9.
[36] Alexander CL, Tribollet B, Orazem ME. Contribution of surface distributions to
constant-phase-element (CPE) Behavior: 1. Influence of roughness. Appl
Energy 2015;173:416–24.
336 Y. Zou et al. / Applied Energy 161 (2016) 330–336

[37] Fang SJ, Wei J. The optimal control for a class of fractional differential [39] Li NJ, Wang WJ, Hsu CCJ. Hybrid particle swarm optimization incorporating
equations. J Biomath 2011;26:17–24. fuzzy reasoning and weighted particle. Appl Energy 2015;89:488–501.
[38] del Valle Y, Venayagamoorthy GK, Mohagheghi S, Hernandez JC, Harley RG.
Particle swarm optimization: basic concepts, variants and applications in
power systems. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 2008;12:171–95.