electronics

Review
A Critical Review on Battery Aging and State Estimation
Technologies of Lithium-Ion Batteries: Prospects and Issues
Probir Kumar Roy 1 , Mohammad Shahjalal 2 , Tamanna Shams 3 , Ashley Fly 4 , Stoyan Stoyanov 2 ,
Mominul Ahsan 5, * and Julfikar Haider 6

1 Department of Electronics and Electrical Engineering, Chittagong University of Engineering and Technology,
Chattogram 4349, Bangladesh; [email protected]
2 Old Royal Naval College, University of Greenwich, Park Row, London SE10 9LS, UK;
[email protected] (M.S.); [email protected] (S.S.)
3 Department of Physics, University of Dhaka, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh; [email protected]
4 Department of Aeronautical and Automotive Engineering, Loughborough University,
Loughborough LE11 3TU, UK; [email protected]
5 Department of Computer Science, University of York, Deramore Lane, York YO10 5GH, UK
6 Department of Engineering, Manchester Metropolitan University, John Dalton Building, Chester Street,
Manchester M1 5GD, UK; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Electric vehicles (EVs) have had a meteoric rise in acceptance in recent decades due to
mounting worries about greenhouse gas emissions, global warming, and the depletion of fossil
resource supplies because of their superior efficiency and performance. EVs have now gained
widespread acceptance in the automobile industry as the most viable alternative for decreasing CO2
production. The battery is an integral ingredient of electric vehicles, and the battery management
system (BMS) acts as a bridge between them. The goal of this work is to give a brief review of certain
key BMS technologies, including state estimation, aging characterization methodologies, and the
aging process. The consequences of battery aging limit its capacity and arise whether the battery is
used or not, which is a significant downside in real-world operation. That is why this paper presents
Citation: Roy, P.K.; Shahjalal, M.; a wide range of recent research on Li-ion battery aging processes, including estimations from multiple
Shams, T.; Fly, A.; Stoyanov, S.; areas. Afterward, various battery state indicators are thoroughly explained. This work will assist
Ahsan, M.; Haider, J. A Critical in defining new relevant domains and constructing commercial models and play a critical role in
Review on Battery Aging and State future research in this expanding area by providing a clear picture of the present status of estimating
Estimation Technologies of techniques of the major state indicators of Li-ion batteries.
Lithium-Ion Batteries: Prospects and
Issues. Electronics 2023, 12, 4105.
Keywords: battery management system (BMS); state estimation; aging characterization methodology;
https://doi.org/10.3390/
battery aging; Li-ion battery; state of function (SOF); state of power (SOP); state of health (SOH); state
electronics12194105
of charge (SOC)
Academic Editor: Yi-Hua Liu

Received: 14 August 2023

Revised: 24 September 2023
Accepted: 27 September 2023
1. Introduction
Published: 30 September 2023 In the contemporary context of global decarbonization efforts, the robust advance-
ment and integration of renewable energy sources emerge as an inexorable trajectory.
Nonetheless, the inherent intermittency of many renewables introduces temporal and
spatial disparities between energy generation and end-user consumption. To effectively
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. bridge these gaps, the imperative arises to cultivate tailored energy storage systems opti-
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. mized for the demands of the modern power grid [1]. During the 1980s, the development
This article is an open access article
of lithium-ion batteries (LIBs), as documented in references [2–4], marked a significant
distributed under the terms and
milestone in electrochemical energy storage systems. LIBs distinguished themselves from
conditions of the Creative Commons
other commercially available battery types by offering substantial advantages, including
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
extended cycle life, elevated working voltage, and impressive specific energy [5]. Battery
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
management systems (BMSs) are required to meet more stringent requirements in order to
4.0/).

Electronics 2023, 12, 4105. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12194105 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/electronics

Electronics 2023, 12, 4105 2 of 30

improve LIB utilization. These requirements include all-climate, electric scopes, full life-
times, and high-precision battery state estimates such as safety status, fault, state of health
(SOH), and state of charge (SOC). For the development of new high-energy vehicles, as well
as energy conservation and emission reduction strategies, comprehensive investigations
are a must. As a result, it is critical to take advantage of a more mature and comprehensive
BMS [6–9]. The BMS should minimize the total cost of a vehicle by not only ensuring the
battery pack’s safe functioning [10,11] but also fully using the pack’s available energy and
extending durability [12]. However, the current charging strategies for Li-ion batteries
in EVs have severely limited their widespread adoption [13,14]. To solve this problem,
research into providing an optimum charging method for Li-ion batteries has arisen as a
new paradigm for a smarter BMS [15,16]. The SOH of each cell in the system is strongly
related to the creation of the optimal charging technique for a Li-ion battery pack in an
EV [17–19], which poses substantial challenges [12,20,21].
It is necessary to investigate the battery aging process and deterioration model at the
cell level, particularly how battery essential factors affect battery life and other important
characteristic metrics like power and energy density. The aging process and deterioration
model are also crucial at the battery system level. In terms of battery management for
estimating battery health based on history, optimizing current working conditions, and
estimating future performance, Vetter et al. [22] provide an in-depth analysis of the aging
mechanisms of LIBs with lithium metal oxide cathodes (lithium nickel cobalt mixed ox-
ides [Li(Ni,Co)O2 ] and lithium manganese oxides [LiMn2 O4 ]) and carbonaceous anodes.
Han et al. [23] offer a thorough examination of the fundamental problems surrounding
battery degradation during its entire life cycle. Li et al. [24] provide a thorough examination
of one common aging mechanism: lithium deposition. Santhanagopalan et al. [25] provide
an overview of models for forecasting LIB cycling performance. Wang et al. [26] discuss the
modeling of solid electrolyte interface (SEI) films in detail. Different approaches are outlined
in [27], ranging from an electrochemical perspective to research that is specifically focused
on data processing, to comprehend the effects of aging mechanisms on a battery’s life. In
reference [28], a rapid identification methodology is introduced for assessing micro-health
parameters that characterize the performance of LiFePO4 negative electrode materials and
electrolytes. This approach is rooted in the reduced P2D model and employs Páde ap-
proximation techniques. To facilitate micro-health parameter determination, the diffusion
processes within the P2D model’s liquid phase and solid phase are individually simplified
using the Páde approximation method. Farmann et al. [29] and Berecibar et al. [30] provide
crucial assessments of the battery SOH estimate techniques, with an emphasis on the man-
agement method. In battery behavior analysis, battery state tracking, real-time controller
design, and thermal management, a good battery model is essential. Furthermore, certain
internal battery states, such as the state of charge (SOC), state of health (SOH), and internal
temperature, cannot be directly evaluated despite the fact that these states play critical
roles in maintaining battery operation and must be controlled using appropriate estimating
techniques. Various methods are reported in the literature in this respect. A review of the
strengths and weaknesses of SOC estimating methods for LiBs in electric and hybrid electric
vehicles (HEVs) was published in reference [31], with 65 percent of references dating from
2011 or earlier. In reference [32], an innovative approach is presented for jointly estimating
the state of charge (SOC) and temperature of a lithium iron phosphate battery. This method
utilizes ultrasonic reflection waves, employing a piezoelectric transducer affixed to the
battery’s surface for ultrasonic-to-electric transduction. Ultrasonic signals are generated at
the transducer, traverse through the battery, and return to the transducer after reaching
the battery’s underside. The intervals for extracting feature indicators of the battery’s
state are determined through sliding-window matching correlation analysis. Experimental
results demonstrate that the root mean square error (RMSE) for estimating the lithium-ion
battery’s SOC is 7.42%, while the temperature estimation yields an RMSE of 0.40 ◦ C. Refer-
ence [33] provides a review of management systems and electric vehicle applications, with
an emphasis on the estimation method of the state of charge rather than the estimation
 Electronics 2023, 12, 4105 3 of 30

methods of the state of health and state of function. More than half of the citations in this
literature date from 2012 or earlier. Many key methods are not explained in reference [12],
such as the genetic-algorithm-based method, adaptive unscented Kalman filter (AUKF),
sigma-point Kalman filter (SPKF), and so on. Furthermore, the state-of-function technique
discussed in this literature is solely based on the SOC and SOH.
In contrast to references [34–36], which predominantly focus on specific aspects such
as the state of health (SOH) or battery performance measurement, this paper offers a
comprehensive review that encompasses a wider array of topics. It delves into battery
aging mechanisms, their origins, techniques for battery state estimation, and various related
subjects. Our paper offers a unique perspective by concurrently reviewing state estimation
parameters such as the state of charge, state of health, state of function, state of temperature,
and state of power, alongside an in-depth exploration of battery aging mechanisms. This
comprehensive approach distinguishes our work from other review papers and provides
valuable insights to assist battery management system designers in their endeavors. The
rest of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 details the aging process of LIBs.
Section 3 depicts the state estimation procedure. In Section 4, the future research path is
stated. Section 5 contains the conclusion.

2. Aging Mechanism
2.1. General Aspects
How effectively the battery aging mechanisms and their consequences are studied and
analytically expressed determines the performance of health estimates and the accuracy of
predictions [37]. A metal oxide cathode, a carbonaceous anode, a lithium salt electrolyte,
and a separator are the principal components of a LIB. The main cause of battery aging is
the physiochemical transformation that takes place within the electrolyte, electrode, and
the interfaces between them. The origins of aging mechanisms are heavily influenced by
the composition of the electrodes. Aging causes cell component degradation. This may
lead to structural modifications, alterations in the electrolyte’s chemical makeup, or a loss
Electronics 2023, 12, 4105 4 of 30
of active material as a result of materials dissolving in the electrolyte [22]. Figure 1 [38]
depicts the various kinds of aging mechanisms that occur in LIBs.

Figure
Figure 1.
1. The
The most
most significant Li-ion battery
significant Li-ion ba ery degrading
degradingmechanism
mechanismisissummarized
summarized graphically
graphically
(adapted
(adapted from
from [38]).
[38]).

2.1.1. There
Mechanisms
are threeofdifferent
Anode modes
Material Aging
of the main degradation mechanisms in Li-ion batteries:
the loss of anode/cathode active material (LAM) in the electrodes, loss of lithium inventory
Carbonaceous anodes, which are primarily graphite-based materials, are presently
used in the majority of commercial LIBs. The primary mechanism for graphite electrodes
to age over time is the development of a passivation protective layer interface, also known
as the SEI, on the surfaces of the anode electrode during the discharging/charging opera-
tion [40] at voltages below the electrolyte’s electrochemical stability window. This causes
Electronics 2023, 12, 4105 4 of 30

(LLI), and growth in cell internal resistance. LLI groups the side reactions that limit how
much cyclable lithium is available to transfer between electrodes, for instance, the surface
of the negative electrode developing a solid electrolyte interface (SEI), lithium plating, or
electrolyte decomposing reactions [27]. Such reactions degrade Li ions in an irreversible
manner, rendering them unavailable for further discharge/charge. The LAM refers to a
group of mechanisms that reduce the amount of material accessible for electrochemical
activities in both anode and cathode electrodes. The LAM usually occurs for several
different reasons. One of the reasons is the structural degradation of electrodes caused by
active material volume changes during cycling. These cause particles to crack and lower
the density of lithium storage sites by causing mechanical stress. Chemical breakdown and
dissolving processes of transition metals into the electrolyte, as well as SEI alteration, are
other viable reasons [27,39]. At the junction of the two electrodes, there is an electrolyte
loss (LE), because of parasitic phases such as SEI formation, and various mechanisms such
as lithium plating, high temperature, and high voltages, with moisture intrusion leading to
the production of hydrofluoric acid (HF), can cause the cell’s resistance to increase [38].

2.1.1. Mechanisms of Anode Material Aging

Carbonaceous anodes, which are primarily graphite-based materials, are presently
used in the majority of commercial LIBs. The primary mechanism for graphite electrodes
to age over time is the development of a passivation protective layer interface, also known
as the SEI, on the surfaces of the anode electrode during the discharging/charging opera-
tion [40] at voltages below the electrolyte’s electrochemical stability window. This causes
irreversible redox reactions to break down the electrolyte, resulting in electrolyte losses.
The SEI layer develops on its own during the first cycle, leading to ca. 10% loss in capacity,
but it then functions to block additional electrolyte reactivity at the negative electrode
(NE). The SEI obstructs the reactions that occur between the electrolyte and the electrode
in general. However, as the cell ages, the thickness of the SEI layer grows (mostly on the
graphite NE) because of a volume change of the graphite anode material of around 10% for
lithium ions intercalation and deintercalation during battery charging/discharging. An
SEI is created by the reaction of the electrolyte and side reaction products, such as plated
lithium ions and transition metal (TM) ions dissolved from the positive electrode (PE), with
solvent molecules passing through the already-existing SEI, and newly exposed electrode
surfaces as a result of cracking and deposition of these products could contribute to the
thickening of the SEI layer [38]. This causes the battery’s usable capacity to decrease with
time, as well as the internal resistance of the battery to rise [23,37,41]. One of the key causes
of LIB aging is the development and continuing thickening of the SEI layer on the surface
of the graphite anode [42]. The SEI grows at a rate roughly proportional to the square root
of time, and as the SEI gets thicker, the rate at which solvent molecules diffuse into the SEI
decreases [38].
The formation of the SEI in a Li-ion battery involves several steps. When compared to
the Li+ /Li reduction potential, the first stage happens at voltages greater than 0.25 V [43].
In the first step, electrolyte decomposition begins through a series of reduction reactions, as
well as the formation of insoluble compounds (Li2 O, LiF, and Li2 CO3 ) [43]. The second stage
begins between 0.25 and 0.04 V where the graphite electrode has intercalated Li ions [43].
Storage and operation at high temperatures can cause the SEI layer to dissolve, resulting in
the formation of salts that are less permeable to Li+ ions [27]. At low temperatures, lithium
plating, higher impedance, and more cyclable lithium losses might arise from lower lithium
diffusion inside the SEI and graphite [27]. Exfoliation and gas evolution are caused by the
interaction of solvents that disperse through the SEI and the graphite electrode, which can
damage the SEI [39]. Increased impedance and capacity loss can also be caused by cracks
in the SEI [41]. This kind of depreciation can be reduced by keeping batteries at lower
voltages [27]. The high-voltage-induced SEI layer on the cathode is responsible for the
formation of an SEI, electrolyte degradation, electrolyte oxidation, and active mass wear,
which is difficult to detect [44].
 tion are caused by the interaction of solvents that disperse through the SEI and the graph-
ite electrode, which can damage the SEI [39]. Increased impedance and capacity loss can
also be caused by cracks in the SEI [41]. This kind of depreciation can be reduced by keep-
ing ba eries at lower voltages [27]. The high-voltage-induced SEI layer on the cathode is
Electronics 2023, 12, 4105 responsible for the formation of an SEI, electrolyte degradation, electrolyte oxidation,5 of and30
active mass wear, which is difficult to detect [44].
When metallic Li develops on the NE’s surface rather than intercalating into it, a phe-
nomenon
Whenknown
metallic as Li
“Lidevelops
plating” ontakestheplace,
NE’s which
surfaceisrather
another cause
than of ba ery into
intercalating degrada-
it, a
tion. This can be caused by quick charge, when the side reaction rate
phenomenon known as “Li plating” takes place, which is another cause of battery degrada- is raised compared
to theThis
tion. main canintercalation
be caused by reaction
quick (kinetic
charge, plating)
when thefor high
side electrolyte
reaction rate potential [45], or by
is raised compared
thethe
to NEmain
surface becoming reaction
intercalation fully lithiated,
(kineticin plating)
which case forthe
high Li has nowhere
electrolyte else to go
potential (ther-
[45], or
modynamic
by plating)
the NE surface [38,46]. There
becoming are several
fully lithiated, in causes
which of caselithium
the Liplating, such aselse
has nowhere hightocell
go
voltage, high (charge)
(thermodynamic plating) current,
[38,46].high
There SOC, low temperatures,
are several causes of lithiumand aplating,
lack of such
NE mass
as high or
electrochemically active surface area. Furthermore, plating for
cell voltage, high (charge) current, high SOC, low temperatures, and a lack of NE masslocal faults is caused by
manufacturing
or electrochemicallydefects [47]surface
active or application errors [48]. The
area. Furthermore, platingplated
for metallic Li immediately
local faults is caused by
reacts with the defects
manufacturing electrolyte
[47]to ordevelop
applicationthe SEI shown
errors [48]. in
TheFigure
plated2 [38], resulting
metallic in the iso-
Li immediately
lation with
reacts of thethe
remaining
electrolyte Li and the development
to develop the SEI shown of “dead lithium”
in Figure [38,49–51].
2 [38], resultingAs inathe
result,
iso-
pore blockage
lation causes conductivity
of the remaining reduction [49].
Li and the development Puncturing
of “dead the [38,49–51].
lithium” separator for Asdendrite
a result,
formation
pore owing
blockage to an
causes internal short
conductivity circuit[49].
reduction mayPuncturing
result fromthe metallic
separator lithium plating
for dendrite
[38,52].
formation owing to an internal short circuit may result from metallic lithium plating [38,52].

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Correlation
Correlationbetween
betweenthe
thesolid electrolyte
solid interface
electrolyte (SEI)
interface andand
(SEI) lithium plating
lithium (adapted
plating from
(adapted
[38]).[38]).
from

Particle fracture
Particle fractureoccurs
occurs in
in both
both electrodes
electrodes asas aa result
result of
of the
the significant
significant volume
volume change
change
in the
in the electrode
electrode materials
materials and
and thethe resulting
resulting stress
stress during
during electrochemical
electrochemical operation
operation [53].
[53].
Particle breakage
Particle breakage isisparticularly
particularlyproblematic
problematic forfor
active
activematerials
materialslikelike
silicon that that
silicon havehave
high
theoretical
high specific
theoretical capacitance.
specific In addition
capacitance. to permito ing
In addition side reactions
permitting to occur, electrode
side reactions to occur,
particle cracks
electrode reveal
particle extra
cracks electron-conductive
reveal surfaces to surfaces
extra electron-conductive liquid electrolytes, trapping Li
to liquid electrolytes,
that would
trapping otherwise
Li that wouldbe cyclable be
otherwise [54] inside [54]
cyclable of the enlarged
inside of theSEI layer. Particle
enlarged SEI layer.fracturing
Particle
and the related
fracturing and theprotracted SEI expansion
related protracted are more possible
SEI expansion are moreinpossible
NEs with in aNEs
highwith
Si concen-
a high
tration
Si because they
concentration are they
because subjected to more to
are subjected dramatic volume volume
more dramatic fluctuations during cycling
fluctuations during
[55]. The
cycling cracking
[55]. of particles
The cracking has a multitude
of particles of repercussions.
has a multitude Active particles
of repercussions. Active lose elec-
particles
trical
lose contact contact
electrical with thewith
current collector,
the current conductive
collector, additives,
conductive and current
additives, collector.
and current As a
collector.
result,
As electronic/ionic
a result, conductivity
electronic/ionic declines,
conductivity and capacity
declines, fades fades
and capacity [38,54,56]. The rate
[38,54,56]. The ofrate
SEI
development has also risen, contributing to capacity fading. Electrode pulverization is the
of SEI development has also risen, contributing to capacity fading. Electrode pulverization
isprocess by which
the process some of
by which the active
some of the material separates
active material from the
separates remainder
from of the particle
the remainder of the
particle when microscopic cracks in the electrode join together [38]. As a result, there is a
loss of active material, which causes capacity fading [38].

2.1.2. Mechanisms of Anode Material Aging

The main challenges related to battery aging for metal oxide cathodes are electrode
material dissolution, electrode structural deterioration, and phase shift. As a result, cathode
dissolution can exacerbate electrolyte deterioration, resulting in the passive layer at the
Electronics 2023, 12, 4105 6 of 30

cathode/electrolyte interface expanding continuously. Depending on the electrode material,

the degree of dissolution varies [57]. In general, Mn-based cathode dissolution is expected
to be the most intense [58,59], whereas Ni-based cathode dissolution is considered to be the
least intense [60]. For Mn-based cathodes, Jahn–Teller distortion and manganese dissolving
are the two main aging processes that cause structural deformation [23,61,62]. Manganese is
often found in two oxidation states: Mn4+ and Mn3+ . During the discharged state, trivalent
manganese ions are disproportionately converted to tetravalent and divalent manganese
ions in this process [22,63] which is shown in Equation (1).

2Mn( I I I ) → Mn( IV ) + Mn( I I )(solv) (1)

When discharging at a high current, Li ions diffuse much more quickly in the elec-
trolyte than in LMO particles, resulting in Li ions building up on the surface of the LMO par-
ticles. LMO spinel may also saturate with additional lithium, which results in Jahn–Teller
distortion and a phase transition from cubic to tetragonal. Since the cathode material’s
structure is disrupted and the volume of the LMO cathode material fluctuates significantly
(by around 16%), the active material is lost [23,64,65]. Reference [58] identified two aging
processes for Mn-based cathodes: low potential Mn disproportionation and medium and
high potential Mn dissolution affected by H+ with the co-product of LiF, a passive film,
known as the cathode electrolyte interface (CEI) film and generally thinner than the SEI film,
can form as the electrolyte oxidizes and LiPF6 decomposes during the initial and successive
charging. With more battery cycles, the cathode/electrolyte interface’s CEI layer thickens,
increasing interface resistance and deepening cathode polarization. Therefore, it can affect
the battery’s rate capacity and reversible capacity [66]. Lithium vacancies and cation mix-
ing contribute to the structural deterioration of the cathode material. The cation mixing
frequently happens at the transition metal cathode because various transition metal ions
(Ni2+ , Mn3+ , Fe2+ ) and Li ions have similar radii. It can limit battery capacity by preventing
certain Li ions from intercalating, as well as widen the interlayer gap of the transition metal
layer, preventing Li ion diffusion and raising battery polarization. Lithium vacancies would
arise in LiCoO2 cathodes due to the smaller radius of Co2+ , making structures unstable.
Particle breaking on the PE, similar to the behavior witnessed at the NE, might expose new
surfaces to electrolytes, thus increasing the degrading processes. Dissolved TM ions can
move to the NE through the electrolyte [67–69], producing deposits that can promote the
creation of thicker, layered SEI structures, thereby raising NE impedance [12,38,66].

2.2. Origins of Aging

The two forms of battery aging are cycle aging and calendar aging [70]. Calendar
aging is the term for the harm that happens as a result of battery storage over time [71]. As
a result, depending on the storage conditions, battery activities may be sped up or slowed
down. The impact of the battery operation interval known as a cycle is connected to cycle
aging (discharge or charge).
The storage temperature [72] is the most important factor when it comes to self-discharge
and calendar aging. High temperatures accelerate secondary processes like corrosion, and
lithium loss is higher than at low temperatures, which causes capacity fading [72,73]. Low
temperatures prevent these processes from happening as quickly, but they also generate
problems because of material loss and chemical alterations [11]. The amount of the SOC during
storage [27,74] is another important element in calendar aging. According to Bashash et al. [75],
there is an exponential relationship between an increased SOC and a higher rate of calendar
aging. As a result, if the battery is stored at high SOCs, it will degrade faster. The power law
connection between time t and the loss of calendar aging capacity is weighted by the effects of
storage SOC and temperature t, which may be caused by a stress factor kcal [76].

Qcal
loss ( t ) = Q ( t ) − Q (0) = k cal ( T, SOC ) t
zcal
(2)
Electronics 2023, 12, 4105 7 of 30

where Qcal
loss (t) is a measure of the capacity loss that occurs during calendar aging. The cell
capacity at time t and at its beginning of life (BOL), respectively, is represented by Q (t) and
Q (0). The constant exponent Zcal has no dimensions. Temperature T and SOC have an
impact on the value of kcal .
When the battery is in charge/discharge, cycle aging occurs as a direct result of the
average SOC, temperature, cycling voltage range, charge/discharge current rate, and cycle
number/time, when cycling. The battery consumption mode determines the parameters
that contribute to cycle aging. The ∆SOC, which indicates SOC fluctuation during a cycle,
is a common factor in the literature. Bloom et al. tested identical lithium-ion cells for varied
∆SOC cycling at similar temperatures and beginning SOCs. The results reveal power loss
increasing with ∆SOC. Such effects are primarily caused by positive electrode deterioration
and the growth of the SEI, both of which are induced by high charge or discharge. The
charging/discharging voltage during the life of a LIB has an influence on its aging and the
operation of the usage mode. As a result, a high charging voltage indicates a faster aging
process [77]. Cycle-based capacity loss can be expressed as a power law relationship with
throughput in a commonly used cycle aging model [41].
cyc
Qloss ( L) = Q( L) − Q(0) = k cyc ( T, I, DOD )· Lzcyc (3)
cyc
where Qloss is a measure of the capacity loss that occurs during cyclic aging and represents
the total capacity variation over time/cycles. The cycle number or Ah-throughput are
both acceptable values for L [43]. I represents the cycling current, while kcyc reflects the
impact of aging variables on the deterioration process. DOD stands for the depth of
discharge while cycling. Once more, the exponent zcyc is a constant that was obtained
via fitting experimental data [43]. At high SOC values, electrolyte decomposition at the
electrode contact surface induces an increase in lithium consumption and the formation
of insulating layers on the electrode particle surface, resulting in capacity loss and a rise
in impedance [78]. Furthermore, at low SOC values, corrosion of the current collector,
which has been recognized as the primary harmful impact, occurs [40]. High charging and
discharging rates will reduce the capacity of the cell and increase internal resistance [78].
The high current generates a localized temperature capable of modifying and disrupting
the electrode surface layers [22,79,80]. The effects of storage temperature on calendar
aging are described in [22,27]. At high temperatures, side reactions increase, resulting in
capacity loss [27]. The rate of fading increases as the temperature rises. While the Li-ion
diffusion rate in the electrolyte decreases with low-temperature storage, the rate of plating
of metallic lithium on the anode increases. That is why capability is depleted. [27]. Table 1
shows external factors influencing battery aging during cycling, as well as their related
degradation modes [39].

Table 1. External factors affecting battery aging and degradation modes.

Aging Stress Factors Degradation Mode

Degradation High Increase
High Low High Low High Effect
Mechanism Time Current LLI LAM in
Temperature Temperature SOC/Voltage SOC/Voltage Pressure
Rate Impedance
√ √ √ √ √ √ √ Capacity
SEI growth — — —
fade
SEI √ √ √ √ Capacity
— — — — — —
decomposition fade
Electrolyte √ √ √ √ √ Capacity
— — — — —
decomposition fade
Capacity
Graphite √ √ √
— — — — — — — fade
exfoliation
Power fade
Lithium
√ √ √ √ √ Capacity
plating/Dendrite — — — — —
fade
formation
Electronics 2023, 12, 4105 8 of 30

Table 1. Cont.

Aging Stress Factors Degradation Mode

Degradation High Increase
High Low High Low High Effect
Mechanism Time Current LLI LAM in
Temperature Temperature SOC/Voltage SOC/Voltage Pressure
Rate Impedance
Capacity
Loss of electric √ √ √
— — — — — — — fade,
contract
Power fade
Capacity
Electrode √ √ √
— — — — — — — fade,
particle cracking
Power fade
Capacity
Transition metal √ √
— — — — — — — — fade,
dissolution
Power fade
Capacity
Corrosion of √ √ √
— — — — — — — fade, Power
current collectors
fade

3. Battery State Estimation

One of a BMS’s most significant features that aid with the interpretation of battery
activity is the assessment of the battery’s status. A number of metrics or conceptions are
developed to measure the battery’s state of functioning to assess the aging described below.

3.1. SOC Estimation

The SOC is a measure of how much capacity remains available compared to the
battery’s full capacity, and it can be calculated using the following formula [81].

Cp
SOC (t) = × 100% (4)
Cm

where Cp denotes the remaining capacity that may be used to power electronics equip-
ment. The maximum accessible capacity that the cell can hold, as defined by the battery’s
electrochemical properties, is represented as Cm. The SOC is one of the most critical states
that must be controlled to maximize performance and prolong battery life. SOC evaluation
is complexly impeded by substantial battery characteristic changes during its lifespan
owing to deterioration and distinguished non-linear behavior. As a result, researchers
were motivated to suggest numerous approaches that specifically increased difficulties
in building a connection between efficiency and procedure robustness. The following
are some prominent approaches with features that may be used to identify appropriate
evolution techniques and assist researchers in selecting the optimal method for their needs.

3.1.1. Conventional Method

The most common conventional SOC estimation technique is using the battery’s OCV.
As the SOC is connected with lithiation in a LIB’s active material, the OCV may be used
to determine the SOC after ample rest for the battery to achieve equilibrium [82]. This
approach is simple to use and highly accurate. Under controlled situations (ambient tem-
perature, specified discharge rate), the discharge test was performed, and it was found to be
the most accurate way to evaluate the battery SOC [12]. This is a time-consuming process
and is only applicable in laboratories. The coulomb counting (CC) technique, which relies
on battery current integration throughout time when the battery is charged or discharged,
is another method for calculating the SOC. It is a highly effective and easy method, but
it is not preferable as a sole estimation method for very complex conditions as current
measurement errors will accumulate over time, leading to inaccurate SOC estimation.
Systems utilize battery current and voltage to measure the internal resistance. During a
short duration (<10 ms) [33], the variation of the current transition determines the voltage.
The current and voltage difference ratio causes direct current (DC) resistance reflecting the
DC power of a battery. In terms of achieving an understanding, electrochemical impedance
 Electronics 2023, 12, 4105 9 of 30

spectroscopy (EIS) has been employed extensively inside the batteries for diagnostics and
SOC estimation. EIS uses inductances and capacitances to measure the battery impedance
along with a broad frequency range [83]. A battery model is required to obtain the OCV
online for estimating the SOC while the vehicle is in use. In the literature, equivalent circuit
models (ECMs) [84] and electrochemical models (EChMs) [85–87] are frequently utilized
onboard battery models. For simulating battery output, ECMs are commonly used. The
Thevenin model (Figure 3a) is one of many ECMs that have been implemented. Due to its
RC network form, the Thevenin model has non-linear properties, thereby considering the
polarization of the battery’s internal electrochemical reaction. Polarization resistance Rp,
equivalent capacitance Cp, ohmic resistance R0, and OCV are the elements that make up
this model. The equations of this model are given below [88].

UL = UOCV − IR0 − UP (5)

Electronics 2023, 12, 4105 10 of 3

1 1
UP = − UP + I (6)
CP R P CP

Figure
Figure3.3.Schematic diagramofof
Schematic diagram equivalent
equivalent circuit
circuit models
models (ECMs)
(ECMs) of ba(a) ery:
of battery: (a) the Thevenin
the Thevenin model, mode
(b)
(b)PNGV
PNGV model, (c)DP
model, (c) DPmodel,
model, and
and (d) (d) source-dependent
source-dependent ECM. ECM.

Another model is “The partnership for a new generation of vehicles (PNGV) model”
An 3b)
(Figure EChM, developed
that is based
acquired based onon
thechemical
Theveninand electrodynamic
model thermodynamics,
by adding an equivalent capaci- mas
transfer,
tance Cb and various batheery
to characterize factors
stored [12],
charge is applied
capacity to evaluate
and explain theOCV
how the efficiency of the ba ery
of the battery
Domenico
varies overet al. [89].
time [86] The
suggested
model isan estimated
also EChM by
called a first-order considering
ECM. multiple
The Cb value parameters
represents
for
theexample, microscopic
battery power level. Thecurrent density,
model follows thesubstrate
equationsconcentration,
[88] below. and electrolyte concen
tration. A model with four sub-models was proposed by Zou et al. [91] to capture th
SUL = UOCV − IR0 − UP − UCb (7)
electrical, thermal, electrochemical, and aging dynamics using a set of partial differentia
equations. Since the SOC is one of the model’s outcomes, this may be computed by com
. 1 1
puting the equation of the system
UP =directly.
− UFor
P + various
I Li-ion chemistries, Bartle
(8) et a
CP R P CP
[92] introduced a reduced-order EChM estimating cyclable lithium loss and the SOC usin
dual non-linear observers.
Reference [93] focuses on the analysis of cyclic stresses linked to varying Li-ion con
centration gradients. Utilizing a perfectly elastic-plastic model, the stress field induced b
diffusion is adjusted within a hollow core structure. Additionally, critical values, depend
Electronics 2023, 12, 4105 10 of 30

. 1
U Cb = I (9)
Cb
To simulate concentration and electrochemical polarization, the dual-polarization (DP)
model (Figure 3c) or second-order ECM is obtained by including a second RC network into
the Thevenin model for improving the estimation of dynamic battery response accuracy.
The model can be expressed as below [88].

UL = UOCV − IR0 − UP1 − UP2 (10)

. 1 1
UP1 = − UP1 + I (11)
CP1 R P1 CP1
. 1 1
UP2 = − U + I (12)
CP2 R P2 P1 CP2
The fourth model type, shown in Figure 3d, is a source-dependent ECM introduced
in [90]. This model is very reliable and could improve the battery’s ability to identify
non-linear dynamic activity. A self-discharge model of the battery’s OCV–SOC activity
is considered by resister Rd , and battery capacity is modeled by Cc. The voltage–current
characteristics are still modeled as a second-order ECM to link the SOC to OCV, but a
“voltage-dependent voltage source” is used in lieu of the source of voltage. The work
presented in [86,89,90] introduced the complex mathematical voltage–current equations
and the ECM, and the input is Ib , the state variables are VP1 and VP2 , and the output is UL .
An EChM, developed based on chemical and electrodynamic thermodynamics, mass
transfer, and various battery factors [12], is applied to evaluate the efficiency of the battery.
Domenico et al. [86] suggested an estimated EChM by considering multiple parameters, for
example, microscopic current density, substrate concentration, and electrolyte concentration.
A model with four sub-models was proposed by Zou et al. [91] to capture the electrical,
thermal, electrochemical, and aging dynamics using a set of partial differential equations.
Since the SOC is one of the model’s outcomes, this may be computed by computing
the equation of the system directly. For various Li-ion chemistries, Bartlett et al. [92]
introduced a reduced-order EChM estimating cyclable lithium loss and the SOC using dual
non-linear observers.
Reference [93] focuses on the analysis of cyclic stresses linked to varying Li-ion con-
centration gradients. Utilizing a perfectly elastic-plastic model, the stress field induced
by diffusion is adjusted within a hollow core structure. Additionally, critical values, de-
pendent on factors like the outer and inner radii ratio, core radius, and shell thickness,
are determined based on the perspective of strain energy release rate. Furthermore, a
correlation is established between the critical outer and inner radii ratio and the state of
charge, specifically when a hollow core reaches full lithiation. Lastly, a three-dimensional
phase diagram is developed to illustrate the interplay between shell thickness, the core’s
outer radius, and the ratio of outer and inner radii. In accordance with the electrochemical-
thermal coupled model described in Reference [94], a coupled three-dimensional battery
thermal management system (BTMS) has been developed. This innovative system seam-
lessly integrates composite boards and heat pipes to optimize its thermal performance. The
primary objective of this research is to evaluate the thermal characteristics of various BTMS
configurations employing different combinations of boards and pipes. The outcomes of
this study unequivocally demonstrate that the BTMS configuration incorporating both heat
pipes and a composite board exhibits superior effectiveness in enhancing heat performance,
compared to a BTMS configuration utilizing only a single composite board. In this study,
as a means of elucidating the intricate interplay among electrochemical processes, ther-
mal dynamics, and diffusion-induced mechanical stresses, the authors in Reference [95]
introduce a coupled electrochemical–thermal–mechanical model tailored for spiral-wound
lithium-ion batteries. This model harmoniously integrates principles governing mass con-
Electronics 2023, 12, 4105 11 of 30

servation, charge conservation, energy conservation, and mechanical conservation, along

with considerations of electrochemical kinetics. A meticulous exploration is undertaken,
involving a range of temperature and lithium concentration parameters, to scrutinize their
collective impact on reaction rates and the transport of Li+ ions within the battery. The
results obtained from this model are meticulously validated through finite element sim-
ulations, revealing its robust suitability in accurately capturing both the electrochemical
performance characteristics and thermal behaviors of the battery, even under conditions
of constant discharge current. This reference [96] investigates the influence of irradiation
temperature, dose, and diffusion-induced stress on the mechanical responses of cylindrical
lithium-ion batteries (LIBs). A novel electrochemical-irradiated plasticity model is intro-
duced to describe the behavior of electrodes within these LIBs, taking into account the
effects of diffusion-induced stress. To ascertain the model’s accuracy, a rigorous validation
is conducted by comparing its numerical predictions with experimental data.

3.1.2. Adaptive Filter Algorithm

In the Kalman filter (KF) approach, the state-space form is used to solve a number of
mathematical equations [83]. By comparing the computed input and output data using
the KF approach, it is possible to establish the minimum mean square deviation of the
true state [33]. Robust and fixed-lag smoothing is of paramount significance within the
context of the Kalman filter, offering the dual benefits of computational burden reduction
and mitigation of numerical instabilities. In reference [97], an innovative robust fixed-
lag smoother is introduced, specifically tailored to situations where the actual model
diverges from the nominal one. This approach is characterized by a minimax game,
involving two key players: one is tasked with selecting the most challenging model from
a predefined ambiguity set, while the other devises the optimal estimator based on this
challenging model. Furthermore, the paper presents an efficient implementation of the
robust fixed-lag smoother, strategically designed to minimize computational overhead
and eliminate concerns related to numerical instabilities. But the KF cannot handle the
non-linear characteristics of several battery kinds. For non-linear applications, this is why
an extended Kalman filter (EKF) approach is commonly applied. To linearize the battery
model, the EKF applies first-order Taylor series expansion and partial derivatives. Despite
the batteries’ highly non-linear thermal and electrochemical models, the EKF is utilized to
approximate their properties, followed by the SOC [98,99]. In [100], an enhanced Thevenin
battery model is used in conjunction with an adaptive extended Kalman filter (AEKF) to
provide an accurate and robust SOC. This approach decreased SOC error from 3.16 to
1.06% and showed that the AEKF is superior to the EKF. The Taylor series expansion’s
first or second order terms are used in the EKF linearization approach for approximating a
non-linear model [89]. The unscented Kalman filter (UKF) extracts the non-linear system
statistical distribution features utilizing a sequence of sigma points to solve this problem
instead of employing local linearization [101]. In addition to eliminating the requirement
to build a Jacobian matrix, the UKF based on unscented transform estimates noise statistics
more precisely than the EKF [102]. For UKF-based SOC calculation, through coulomb
counting, He et al. [103] found voltage and the SOC. The UKF is applied to change the
model factors automatically to reduce the error of the SOC induced as a result of changes in
the environment and battery self-discharge. For SOC online calculation on the basis of an
adaptive unscented Kalman filter (AUKF), Sun et al. [104] suggested a model of zero-state
hysteresis that adaptively corrects measurement state and the noise covariances in the
system. Moreover, it is easy to apply this strategy and needs less energy because of the
easy zero-state hysteresis model system. In [105], an extreme learning machine (ELM) was
applied to evaluate the AUKF-dependent SOC for a LIB, which needs less computing load
to change the model factors based on experimental results. The sigma-point Kalman filter
(SPKF), which uses a limited set of functions in terms of mean and covariance, is used to
estimate states in the non-linear scheme and yields more accurate results than the EKF. The
method selects sets of sigma points that are precisely close to the mean value and covariance
Electronics 2023, 12, 4105 12 of 30

of the model being built. SOC estimation based on the SPKF is proposed in [106], where
SOC estimation is performed by taking the connection between the SOC and OCV into
account. In [107], three model-based methods, including the SPKF, EKF, and Luenberger
observers, are used to compare SOC estimates for LiFePO4 batteries. The findings of this
experiment show that considering the impact on battery tracking precision and reliability,
the SPKF increases the accuracy of the SOC estimate and provides consistency in numerical
computations compared to measuring Jacobian matrices. However, it is a complex method
and therefore requires heavy calculations [33]. The H∞ filter is another method that takes
into account time-varying battery factors and requires no knowledge of process noise
requirements or noise measurement features [33]. To achieve the OCV–SOC relationship,
Xiong et al. [108] introduced a time-saving approach by applying the H∞ filter via some
established current and voltage measurements. Yu et al. [109] used the H∞ method to
map the factors online in accordance with the operational conditions and used the UKF to
calculate the SOC. An adaptive model-based SOC estimate is proposed in [110] that uses
a recurrent neural network (RNN). With the support of the forgetting element, the RLS
algorithm was applied to approximate the model parameters. This model compared the
error, which was under 5%, between expected and actual capacity.

3.1.3. Learning Algorithm

Using objective criteria, the problem-solving method of fuzzy logic (FL) determines
the precise values of the input data that are noisy, ambiguous, and uncertain. A fuzzy-rule-
based system is utilized in [111] to figure out a KF’s non-linear gain for SOC calculation. A
merged fuzzy neural network (FNN) is presented in [112] for predicting the SOC of a LIB
using a reduced-form genetic algorithm (RGA). To estimate the SOC, adaptive neuro-fuzzy
inference systems (ANFISs) are more effective [113,114]. ANFISs can be implemented
for cell characteristics modeling [115], for online correction of other SOC measurement
processes to develop high accuracy [116], or for directly estimating the SOC [117]. An
offline power system application model is presented in [115] for SOC measuring in LIBs.
Here, the ANFIS battery model is learned offline on the basis of the manufacturer data
on LIBs and improved to grow the cell’s SOC and OCV within the learning range at any
temperature. A regression technique is used to turn a lower-dimensional non-linear model
into a linear higher-dimensional model using the kernel-function-based support vector
machine (SVM) [33]. The SVR algorithm was applied in [118], for estimating a high-capacity
LIB’s SOC where independent factors, for example, current, voltage, and temperature,
were necessary for determining the factors of the model during the discharging/charging
condition. Having a 0.97 expected coefficient of determination, this model offered a good
degree of SOC accuracy. Least-squares support vector machine (LS-SVM)-based SOC
approximation was introduced in [119] that involved the relationship of temperature,
current, and voltage for SOC estimation which indicates high accuracy, quickness, and
noise-tolerant ability in predicting the SOC. The self-learning and adaptability of a neural
network (NN) allow it to explain a complicated non-linear model. This method applies
learned data for estimating the SOC from unknown battery internal structure and the initial
SOC. For the creation of an NN network, three layers are used: a hidden layer or layers,
an output layer, and an input layer, as depicted in Figure 4 [120–122]. The inputs of the
NN network structure are discharge current, terminal voltage, and temperature, while the
output is the SOC. Considering the impact of OCV hysteresis, Chen et al. [121] proposed an
EKF-based model. After that, the NN and EKF were integrated for the SOC estimate. The
combined model suggested offers the highest value in predicting precision, whose margin
of error is less than 1%.

3.1.4. Non-Linear Observers

The non-linear observer (NLO) is applied with non-linear observation equations in a
linear system. Xia et al. [123] recommended applying an RC equivalent circuit of the first
order for the NLO-based SOC estimation of a LIB. Applying the ninth-order polynomial
 Electronics 2023, 12, 4105 13 of 30

and the state space equations, the SOC was estimated from OCV. Validation of this model
was conducted by discharge testing. The findings revealed that, in terms of precision,
convergence speed, and computational cost, the recommended approach is superior to the
EKF and sliding mode observer (SMO). To account for the battery’s non-linear dynamic
features, Kim et al. [81] developed an SMO-based SOC estimation technique applying a
Electronics 2023, 12, 4105 simple RC circuit. The time of convergence might be controlled by using the suggested 13
method even at high charge/discharge levels. Huanchun et al. [124] recommended an
approach for SOC estimation depending on second-order SMO.

Figure
Figure 4. 4.
TheThe entire
entire structure
structure of NNoffor
NN for
SOC SOC estimation.
estimation.

3.1.5. Others
3.1.4. Non-Linear Observers
A statistical learning methodology was proposed called multivariate adaptive regres-
The non-linear
sion splines (MARS), inobserver (NLO)factors
which optimum is applied
werewith non-linear
determined observation
by using the particleequation
linearoptimization
swarm system. Xia(PSO)-based
et al. [123]SOC
recommended applying
measuring technique anThe
[125]. RCmethod
equivalent circuit of the
has a draw-
order
back for the
which NLO-based
is that SOCand
at the beginning estimation
end of theofSOCa LIB. Applying
cycle, the disperses.
the precision ninth-order To polyno
compare a linear time-invariant (LTI) device’s output to a random output, infrared (IR) is
and the state space equations, the SOC was estimated from OCV. Validation of this m
applied. Ranjbar et al. [126] used the method for online SOC calculation. The expected
was conducted
value calculated bybyIR discharge testing.
is ideally matched to The findings
the actual SOC revealed
value. SOCthat, in terms
prediction of on
based precision
vergence
linear speed,can
interpolation andbecomputational
performed using thecost, the recommended
charging/discharging approach is
characteristics superior t
of the
EKF and
battery [33].sliding mode
A scalable observer
approach (SMO).based
was created To account for theofba
on a derivation ery’s boosting
gradient non-linear dyn
features, Kim et al. [81] developed an SMO-based SOC estimation technique
called XGBoost “eXtreme gradient boosting” as in 2015 which is applied for measuring the apply
SOC under complex working situations based on discharge test results, and the calcula-
simple RC circuit. The time of convergence might be controlled by using the sugg
tion has a 98.81% coefficient of determination. Liye et al. [127] recommended a bi-linear
method even at high charge/discharge levels. Huanchun et al. [124] recommended a
interpolation algorithm to apply a 3D look-up table to an approximate SOC. Initially, the
proach forcharging
steady-state SOC estimation depending
and discharging current’son second-order
linear interpolationSMO.
was investigated. Then,
by applying the current and voltage value, the bi-linear interpolation technique was created
3.1.5.a Others
using 3D SOC look-up table. This method ensures stability in execution. Table 2 [128,129]
provides an overview of the evaluation results from several techniques.
A statistical learning methodology was proposed called multivariate adaptive re
sion splines (MARS), in which optimum factors were determined by using the pa
swarm optimization (PSO)-based SOC measuring technique [125]. The method
drawback which is that at the beginning and end of the SOC cycle, the precision disp
To compare a linear time-invariant (LTI) device’s output to a random output, infrared
is applied. Ranjbar et al. [126] used the method for online SOC calculation. The exp
value calculated by IR is ideally matched to the actual SOC value. SOC prediction b
on linear interpolation can be performed using the charging/discharging characterist
the ba ery [33]. A scalable approach was created based on a derivation of gradient b
ing called XGBoost “eXtreme gradient boosting” as in 2015 which is applied for meas
Electronics 2023, 12, 4105 14 of 30

Table 2. The outcomes of various methods for estimating SOC.

Estimation
Approach Computational Complexity Evaluation Index Refs.
Precision
Hybrid pulse power characteristic test and
Coulomb counting model-based dynamic Estimation error 4% [130]
multi-parameter method
Non-linear estimation algorithm,
logarithmic function, exponential function,
Open-circuit voltage Estimation error 0.5% [131]
linear function, and
electrochemical processes
Impedance measurement Function expressions and model Absolute error Less than 15% [132]
Pulse charging process, stochastic
Kalman filtering state-space model, and Riccati Error 1.76% [133]
differential equations
Hardware-loop test and matrix Mean square
Extended Kalman filtering 3% [134]
operation, model state error
Root mean
Adaptive extended Kalman filter Matrix operation, model Less than 2% [135]
square error
Linear averaging method, capacitance
Unscented Kalman filter correction factor, resistance, correction Maximum error 4.12% [101]
factor, and model
Root mean square
Sigma-point Kalman filter Non-linear function 0.49% [136]
(RMS) error
Current time constant expression and
Equivalent circuit model Estimation error <2.5% [137]
logarithmic function
Root mean square
Moving-window filter and
Electrochemical model (RMS) 12% [138]
transfer function
error
A variant—long short-term memory Average root mean 2.16% (SOH),
[139]
(AST-LSTM) and matrix operation square error 2.02% (RUL)
Artificial neural network (ANN) Long short-term memory (LSTM),
recurrent neural network (RNN), and Mean absolute error N/A [140]
matrix operation
Supervised and unsupervised learning
Fuzzy logic techniques, Mamdani, and the first-order Maximum error 5% [141]
Sugeno approach
Differential of the voltage, SOC difference,
Recursive least squares (RLS) Estimation error Less than 2.7% [142]
capacitance, and ohmic resistance
Root mean square
Relevance vector machine (RVM) Matrix operation and RVM (RMS) <0.4% [143]
error
Support vector machine (SVM) Matrix operation, SVM Mean absolute error 0.0223 Ah [144]
Online identification algorithm and
Genetic algorithm Estimation error Less than 1% [145]
coulomb counting method
H∞ Filter Matrix operation, model Estimation error 2.49% [146]
Root mean square
Model-based + Particle filter (PF), Brownian motion (BM), Less than 4%
(RMS) [147]
Data-driven and matrix operation (SOH)
error
Hybrid
model Direct
measurement + Forgetting factor recursive least squares
Error 3% [148]
Model-based (FFRLS) and double polarization model
method
Electronics 2023, 12, 4105 15 of 30

3.2. SOH Estimation

A battery cell’s current health relative to its ideal conditions is measured by its state of
health (SOH) [149]. There is no one term that best describes the battery SOH. Battery SOH
may be explained generally as follows [150]:
Z t
SOH (t) = SOH (t0 ) + δ f unc ( I, T, SOC, others)dτ (13)
t = t0

where the original SOH battery is SOH(t0 ), and δfunc is an aging rate feature that signifi-
cantly depends on several factors, including the current, temperature, SOC, and a number
of additional stressors, including over-potential and mechanical vibrations [150]. The
SOH can be derived from capacity and internal resistance, as well as additional battery
characteristics including power density, self-discharge intensity, and AC impendence [12].
A battery cell’s SOH decrease is often caused by the aging and deterioration of the battery,
specifically, longevity issues. That means that the battery capacity would decrease with the
usage or storage of the battery cells, and there would be more internal resistance [12]. The
battery cells’ SOH gets worse as a result. This is why a precise assessment of the SOH is
required, which may be performed using a multitude of methods.
Model-based approaches are one of the most widely utilized online methods for
SOH prediction. One of them is empirical models (EMs), which are produced by fitting
experimental data gathered under established experimental settings and utilized to connect
deterioration variables to battery SOH. Battery cycle testing, where capacity fading is
shown as a function of time or of the number of cycles, is used to suit the specific empirical
equivalence [151–153]. Table 3 summarizes the fitting models that have been built based on
the cycle testing and have shown to be efficient in SOH estimation [152]. When the batteries
are exposed to similar operating circumstances to the modeling scenario, they often have
high computational performance and may obtain satisfactory estimation precision [154].
However, modern EMs still have a lot of limitations when it comes to estimating battery
SOH [154]. Comprehensive aging tests must be undertaken in order to produce an empirical
SOH model. These procedures are frequently time-consuming and tedious. Furthermore,
the developed model’s resistance to unknown operating circumstances is inadequate, and
it lacks sufficient generality to other battery chemistries or even different quantities of the
same chemistry [152].

Table 3. An overview of empirical models for estimating SOH.

Empirical Models Estimation Factors Estimation Precision Model Formula Refs.

Capacity R-square: 0.9778 f (k, I) = β1 (k) + β2 (k) · I + ε(k) [155]
Linear models
Capacity root mean square (RMS) error: 0.67% ck = γ − βk [156]
Exponential models Capacity R-square: 0.9844 In f 1 (n, t) = (η1 + η2 n) exp(η3 T ) + ε 1 (n) [155]
  
m
OCV and capacity Relative error: less than 0.45% OCV (SOC, T ) = exp RE T 1 − T1 . ∑ ak.re f SOC k [157]
re f
Hybrid model k =0

Capacity Root mean square (RMS) error: 0.67 ck = 1 − α[1 − exp(−λk )] − βk [156]

Electrochemical models (EChMs) and electrical equivalent circuit models (ECMs),

both of which are primarily physical-based models, are two more model-based methods.
The ECM is the simplest model that applies particular elements including a voltage, ca-
pacitor, and resistor source for describing the extremely dynamic behavior of LIBs [152].
ECM-based techniques consider the battery’s electrical properties, making it simple to
implement and extract the deterioration feature [152]. Some adaptively filtering algorithms,
such as the PF [158], EKF [159], and AEKF [160], are used to identify electrical variables in-
cluding capacity and resistance for the battery SOH prediction based on established ECMs,
such as the RC model [161] and fractional-order model (FOM) [162]. Another important
method is the EChM. Depending on the chemical processes occurring inside the battery,
the EChM [163] predicts the behavior of the battery. The EChM-based technique may more
Electronics 2023, 12, 4105 16 of 30

accurately estimate the SOH by reflecting the complex electrochemical process, such as the
creation of the SEI.
To get sensitive SOH-related properties, based on the differentiation of curves, differen-
tial analysis (DA) in the context of batteries incorporates electrical, thermal, or mechanical
data obtained during galvanostatic charge or discharge. The IC/DV (incremental capac-
ity/differential voltage) method of cell characterization is non-destructive. By dividing the
modification of battery capacity by the modification of terminal voltage (dQ/dV), incre-
mental capacity (IC) is calculated over a sufficiently short time span, whereas by dividing
the battery voltage by the capacity (dV/dQ), DV is calculated, which may be applied for
differentiating the aging procedures taking place in batteries. With fading battery capacity,
the peak amplitudes drop [164], and the reported peak locations alter [165] in the IC/DV
curve [152]. For a precise SOH computation, the partial dQ/dV information was addition-
ally analyzed using gray relational analyses and the entropy weight technique, depending
on the unambiguous peak properties in the voltage zones [166]. Additionally, a useful
technique for calculating the SOH online is IC/DV analysis [165] which can be readily
implemented in a BMS by monitoring only two parameters (voltage and discharge/charge
capacity) and also is applicable for all types of Li-ion cells, regardless of battery chemistry,
size, or design. This approach is only useful for determining the SOH of a battery at
modest charge/discharge rates. The over-potential induced by the cell’s impedance, which
depends more on temperature than on age [154,167,168], offsets the peaks at high current
rates. To provide a more precise measurement of the SOH, IC/DV is usually stimulated at
a low current rate. In several practical applications, however, ensuring a low discharging
current rate may not be feasible [169]. Furthermore, because of the evident impedance
shift at high current rates, the peak is prone to being offset [168]. These restrictions have a
significant impact on online SOH estimate accuracy. As a result, it is critical to use proper
filtering and smoothing procedures to decrease measurement noise [167]. The first and
most important step in SOH analysis is smoothing, and a multitude of filtering techniques
may be used to achieve it, including the moving average [170], Gaussian filter [165], and
Savitzky Golay filter [171,172]. In any practical application of IC/DV curves, temperature
can induce considerable inaccuracies [154].
Furthermore, differential thermal voltammetry (DTV) may be used in SOH estimate
complemental analysis. It uses temperature information and the idea of IC analysis to de-
duce the thermodynamic properties of the electrode material [152,172]. This approach takes
into account temperature changes with dT/dV and adds further entropic characteristics to
IC/DV methods [41] to obtain a more precise evaluation at high current rates [173]. The
entropy characteristics that represent the fluctuation of peak amplitude and locations are
utilized to signify the growth of LIB deterioration and impedance in the dT/dV curve [172].
Even though the DTV analysis is simple, swings in the ambient temperature can add a lot
of noise, and the measurement temperature setting has a lot of influence, making it difficult
to extract relevant data and analyze them further [41]. Furthermore, several mechanical
characteristics are linked to cell SOH, including strain (ε) and stress [174], and load sensors
positioned on the battery surface may be used to detect the SOH because the stress caused
by electrode expansions is linearly connected to the SOH. A few research studies on the
first derivative of strain to voltage (dε/dV) [175] and capacity (dε/dQ) [171] have served
as the foundation for the SOH calculation, as well as the second derivative of strain to
capacity (dε2 /dQ2 ) [176]. The negative electrode’s phase changes are identified using the
dε/dQ curves. At some voltages, phase transitions are responsible for the rise in strain
seen in the dε/dV graphs as a function of voltage. Phase transitions in electrode mate-
rials were discovered using the dε2/ dQ2 curves, which allowed for higher current rates
than the DV analysis [41]. The phase transitions in both negative and positive electrode
materials may be seen in these curves, which are equivalent to IC/DV analysis. Based on
the expansion identification, the differential mechanical parameter (DMP) analysis can be
utilized to estimate the SOH at low or high current rates. In reality, a battery pack’s space is
constrained by the number of batteries it can hold [152].
Electronics 2023, 12, 4105 17 of 30

Instead of applying complex battery concepts, data-driven techniques calculate the

SOH based on the physical relationship between battery health and other feature variables
using optimization algorithms, machine learning, empirical fitting, and sample entropy.
The SOH estimate using data-driven approaches cannot accurately capture the battery’s
physical characteristics of a battery. As a result, data-driven procedures are frequently
integrated with the above-mentioned experimental methods. Specialized battery tests are
first performed in the corporate setting to identify all SOH-influencing elements, and then
using data-driven approaches, a battery SOH model is developed by connecting these
impacting elements with the battery SOH. On the other hand, the quality and quantity of
test data have a substantial impact on these approaches’ performance, and the resulting
model is often subject to high computational intensity [41,154]. In terms of significant
benefits and downsides, SOH estimation approaches are mentioned in Table 4 [152,154].

Table 4. Methodologies for SOH estimate in terms of important advantages and disadvantages.

Method Benefits Drawback

Heavy computational load, difficult
Physics-based model High accuracy, clear meanings
model parameterization
Model-based method
Simple structure,
Empirically based model Poor robustness, relatively low accuracy
easy implementation
Unguaranteed precise online SOH
Simple structure,
Differential analysis method estimation under different
easy implementation
working conditions
No requirement for the
Sensitive to quality and quantity of data.
Data-driven method knowledge of
Potential over-fitting problems
underlying mechanisms

3.3. Others
How the battery output complies with the actual standards is explained using the state
of function (SOF) [12] when the battery is used. Some of the factors include temperature,
the battery’s terminal voltage, the state of power (SOP), the SOH, the SOC, and, more
influential, the SOF of the battery. The SOF of a single cell may easily be obtained if the
SOH and SOC of the cell are known. The SOF could be represented as the logical variable
yes/no [177]. If the value of both the SOC and SOH is low, then the SOF value would be 0.
The SOF would be 1, for both the high value of the SOH and SOC. If the SOC and SOH
values are different, then either 1 or 0 [178] can be the SOF. If the SOF is equal to 1, the
battery could fulfill the specifications, and if the SOF is equal to 0, then it cannot fulfill
the specifications. But practically, because of the battery uniformity issues, the battery
module’s SOF is more significant and challenging to calculate. It would be more desirable,
however, to describe the SOF as the following equation [12,179].

P(t) = Pmax .SOC (t).SOH (t) (14)

P(t) − Pdemands
SOF = (15)
Pmax − Pdemands
where P implies the instantaneous power the battery might provide, the Pdemands implies
the power specifications, and the Pmax implies the overall possible battery power supply.
The SOC and SOH’s rates of change are different as the temperature increases, and it can be
concluded that the SOC, SOH, and battery operating temperature are all directly connected
to the SOF [180].
It is difficult to accurately assess the battery’s internal temperature without causing any
damage because battery packs are complicated electrochemical systems [31]. Furthermore,
battery recyclability, reliability, power, and energy performance are all influenced by operat-
Electronics 2023, 12, 4105 18 of 30

ing temperatures [181]. As a result, an accurate state of temperature (SOT) estimate becomes
essential and critical. The specific meaning of the SOT is still to be determined [182]. The
battery temperature distribution may be estimated online using a variety of observers,
along with simple thermal models or empirical impedance models, and based on ob-
servable temperature (such as the ambient temperature and surface temperature) [154].
Li et al. [183] studied the thermal properties of overcharging at 30 and 60 degrees Celsius
using an impedance-based electro-thermal model. To detect overcharging, an electrother-
mal model was proposed, which decreased estimation errors considerably at 0.9 ◦ C. A
monotonic relationship between battery internal temperature and impedance was estab-
lished by Zhang et al. [184], based on a simple thermoelectric model to predict the internal
temperature. Battery internal temperature and impedance phase change were linked at
10 Hz, according to Zhu et al. [185]. However, because of the intricate interconnections
of nearby cells and heat conductions, a battery module or pack’s SOT calculation is still
lacking [154]. Furthermore, additional research and inquiries into how to construct a better
thermal model that achieves the necessary balance between effectiveness and computing
effectiveness are required [154].
The amount of power a battery is capable of providing to or drawing from a device
across a time horizon is known as the state of power (SOP) [186]. It is a measure of the
battery’s instantaneous power output capability and is affected by various factors such
as the battery’s internal resistance, temperature, and aging. This may be regarded as
a function of threshold voltage and current, with different functional restrictions to be
explicitly examined and followed [154]. The reference values of the SOP are often derived
under simulation circumstances using a high-fidelity battery model that takes into account
numerous limitations [187]. The SOP may be determined using characteristic map (CM)-
based approaches and model-based methods. Model-based approaches, for example, the
least-squares-based method [187], particle filter [188], the Kalman filter [189], and others,
have been effectively used to provide appropriate SOP estimates [154]. Model-based
methods are simple and extensive. However, the use of this estimation method is still
scarce in the literature. The past and present information on batteries, on the other hand,
is hard to consider using CM-based methods, which are straightforward to apply. The
precision of the SOP estimate would be substantially compromised since battery power is
very dependent on operational conditions [154].

3.4. Summary of Comparison of Other Review Papers

Unlike many other scholarly reviews that primarily focus on specific aspects such as
the state of charge (SOC), state of health (SOH), or battery performance measurement, this
paper offers a comprehensive examination that spans a wide range of topics. This holistic
approach aims to equip readers with a deep and relevant understanding. Specifically, the
paper delves into the mechanisms of battery aging, their origins, techniques for estimating
battery state, and various interconnected subjects. It is important to acknowledge that
there is no universally applicable method or approach that guarantees effectiveness in all
scenarios. Designers must meticulously evaluate the unique requirements and constraints
of each application to select the most suitable approach. The insights presented in this
paper constitute a valuable resource for both researchers and practitioners engaged in
battery management and electric vehicles. Looking ahead, it is imperative to explore
aging processes and degradation models at the individual cell level, particularly in terms
of how different factors influence battery lifespan, power output, and energy density.
Understanding these aging processes and degradation models is also of great significance at
the battery system level, as it aids in assessing battery health, optimizing current operational
conditions, and forecasting future performance. In this context, Table 5 provides a visual
representation of the relevant data.
Electronics 2023, 12, 4105 19 of 30

Table 5. A comparative analysis of review papers on battery aging and state estimation.

Review of Battery Review of State Estimation

Reference Aging State of Charge (SOC) State of Health (SOH) Others
[4] X X Review on SOH forecast X
Review on state of power
[186] X Brief SOC discussion X
(SOP) prediction
Review on state of function
[182] X Review on SOC prediction Review on SOH prediction (SOF), state of temperature
(SOT) prediction
[152] X Review on SOC estimation Review on SOH prediction X
Review of battery
[150] X X X
degradation
[128] X X Review on SOH estimation X
[89] X Review on SOC estimation X X
Brief discussion
[30] X Review on SOH estimation X
on battery degradation
Review on battery
[26] X X X
aging degradation
Review on battery
[23] X X X
aging degradation
[190] X Review on SOC estimation Review on SOH prediction Review on SOP prediction
[191] X Review on SOC prediction Review on SOH prediction X
[192] X Review on SOC estimation Review on SOH prediction Review on SOP prediction
Review on state of function
This Review on battery
Review on SOC estimation Review on SOH prediction (SOF), state of temperature
paper aging degradation
(SOT) prediction, SOP

4. Future Trends
4.1. Challenges
Battery state estimation is the process of estimating the state of a battery, based on
available sensor measurements and other relevant information. The accurate estimation
of battery states is crucial in various applications, such as electric vehicles, renewable
energy systems, and portable electronics, as it ensures the safe and efficient operation of the
battery system. However, there are several challenges associated with the state estimation
of batteries as mentioned below:
Non-linear behavior of the battery: LIBs exhibit non-linear behavior due to the complex
electrochemical processes involved in the charge and discharge cycles. Accurate SOC
estimation requires models that capture this non-linearity, but such models can be difficult
to develop and computationally expensive to implement in real-time systems.
Thermal effects: Temperature variations within the battery pack can affect the accuracy
of SOC estimation. High temperatures accelerate the battery’s aging process, while low
temperatures reduce the battery’s capacity, making it challenging to accurately estimate
the SOC.
Battery degradation: LIBs degrade over time, reducing their capacity and altering their
behavior. This degradation makes it difficult to accurately estimate the SOC, as the battery’s
characteristics change over time.
Model uncertainty: The accuracy of SOC estimation relies heavily on the quality of
the battery model used. Model uncertainty, arising from errors in the battery model or
inaccurate model parameters, can significantly affect the accuracy of SOC estimation.
Electronics 2023, 12, 4105 20 of 30

Measurement noise: Noise in the battery’s current and voltage measurements can
adversely affect the accuracy of SOC estimation. Accurate measurement of these parameters
is essential for precise SOC estimation.
Battery aging: The aging of a LIB affects its internal resistance and its capacity, leading
to changes in the battery’s behavior. These changes can make it challenging to accurately
estimate the SOC of an aged battery.
Voltage hysteresis: LIBs exhibit hysteresis in their voltage response during charging and
discharging cycles, which can result in inaccuracies in SOC estimation. Accurate modeling
and compensation for voltage hysteresis are crucial for precise SOC estimation.
Limited data availability: In some cases, limited data may be available for developing
battery models, which can make accurate SOC estimation challenging. This problem can be
overcome by using data-driven approaches, such as machine learning, to develop accurate
models of battery behavior.
Overall, accurate SOC estimation for LIBs remains a challenging problem due to the
complexity of the battery behavior and the many factors that can affect it. Nonetheless,
recent research has made significant progress in addressing these challenges and developing
new techniques for accurate SOC estimation which are mentioned below:
Deep-learning-based SOC estimation: Deep learning algorithms, such as neural networks,
have shown promising results in accurately estimating the SOC of LIBs. These algorithms
can learn complex relationships between input data, such as battery voltage and current,
and the SOC, without the need for complex battery models.
Extended Kalman filter with adaptive gain: The extended Kalman filter (EKF) is a popular
method for SOC estimation, but its performance can be sensitive to model uncertainties
and measurement noise. Recent research has proposed an adaptive gain EKF, which
adjusts the EKF’s gain based on the quality of the input data, to improve the accuracy of
SOC estimation.
Hybrid models for aging-aware SOC estimation: Battery aging affects the accuracy of SOC
estimation, and recent research has proposed hybrid models that combine physics-based
models with data-driven models to account for aging effects. These models can accu-
rately estimate the SOC of aged batteries, improving battery management and prolonging
battery life.
Data-driven SOC estimation using big data analytics: Recent research has proposed
data-driven approaches for SOC estimation, which leverage big data analytics to develop
accurate models of battery behavior. These approaches can improve the accuracy of SOC
estimation, even when limited data are available for developing battery models.
However, in the context of estimating the battery condition, thermal runaway is,
nonetheless, a crucial factor, particularly for LIBs. When a battery experiences thermal
runaway, its temperature rises uncontrollably, frequently resulting in catastrophic failure,
fire, or explosion. Particularly in applications where batteries may be subjected to harsh
circumstances or abuse, accurate estimation and prediction of thermal runaway are essential
for maintaining the safety of battery systems. Here are some of the challenges associated
with battery state estimation in the presence of the thermal runaway problem:
Early Detection: The early detection of thermal runaway is one of the main chal-
lenges. It is essential to foresee when a battery may reach a thermal runaway scenario
in order to take preventative action. The requisite thermal models and data may not be
included in conventional state estimate methods in order to effectively predict impending
thermal runaway.
Thermal Model Complexity: The necessity for extremely intricate thermal models is
brought on by thermal runaway. These models must take into consideration a number
of things, including the complex processes involved in heat generation and dissipation,
thermal feedback mechanisms, and the effects of outside variables like ambient temperature.
Such models can be difficult and computationally intensive to develop and apply.
Data Availability: It is necessary to have access to reliable temperature data from the
battery pack in order to estimate the battery’s state accurately, especially when it comes
Electronics 2023, 12, 4105 21 of 30

to thermal runaway. It is crucial to check that temperature sensors are set and calibrated
properly. It may not always be possible to collect precise temperature data, which makes
estimates more difficult.
Real-Time Processing: The computing requirements of precisely calculating the battery
condition in the context of thermal runaway can be a substantial problem for applications
where real-time monitoring and control are essential. Accuracy and the need for real-time
processing must be delicately balanced.
Non-linearity and Uncertainty: The non-linearity and unpredictability that are already
present in battery performance are made worse by thermal runaway. Accurate estimation
becomes increasingly more difficult as a battery approaches thermal runaway because of
behavior that may differ significantly from nominal settings.
Safety Implications: Dealing with thermal runaway is risky since it can result in explo-
sions and flames, both of which pose serious safety risks. Serious repercussions may result
from any errors or lags in state estimates. The utmost level of accuracy and dependability
in estimate methods must therefore be guaranteed.
Integration with Safety Systems: Safety features are usually included in battery man-
agement systems (BMSs) to handle the potential of thermal runaway. A thorough safety
strategy must coordinate the state estimation process with various safety systems, such as
thermal cutoff switches and cooling controllers.
Aging Effects: The state estimate is further complicated by the fact that thermal run-
away can be affected by battery aging. The estimating procedure must take into account
modifications in a battery’s thermal behavior brought on by aging.
Fault Tolerance: Given the critical nature of thermal runaway, fault tolerance should be
considered while designing state estimation algorithms. In the event of algorithmic failures,
redundancy and fail-safe techniques may be required to ensure continuing operation.
Validation and Testing: Due to the possible safety issues involved, it can be difficult to
verify the precision and dependability of state estimate methods under thermal runaway
situations. It is crucial to create precision testing processes and validation protocols.
Overall, recent research has proposed a range of innovative approaches to improve
the accuracy of SOC estimation for LIBs.

4.2. Future Research Direction

The field of state estimation for LIBs is rapidly evolving, and there are several future
trends that are expected to have a significant impact on the field. Here are some of the
trends that are likely to shape the future of SOC estimation for LIBs:
Integration of multiple sensing modalities: The integration of multiple sensing modalities,
such as temperature, pressure, and humidity, with traditional voltage and current measure-
ments, can provide more comprehensive information about the battery state, improving
the accuracy of SOC estimation.
Machine-learning-based approaches: Machine learning algorithms, such as deep neural
networks, have shown promising results in accurately estimating the SOC of LIBs. Future
research is expected to further explore and optimize these approaches to achieve even
higher accuracy and reliability.
Model-based deep reinforcement learning: Model-based deep reinforcement learning
(DRL) combines the advantages of physics-based battery models with the power of deep
learning algorithms. Future research is expected to explore the potential of DRL for SOC
estimation, which can provide more accurate and robust estimates of the battery state.
Hybrid modeling approaches: Hybrid modeling approaches, which combine physics-
based models with data-driven models, can account for the complex and dynamic behavior
of LIBs. Future research is expected to explore and optimize these approaches for more
accurate and reliable SOC estimation.
Advanced data analytics: The use of advanced data analytics techniques, such as big
data analytics and cloud computing, can improve the accuracy and scalability of SOC
Electronics 2023, 12, 4105 22 of 30

estimation for LIBs. Future research is expected to leverage these techniques to develop
more accurate and efficient SOC estimation algorithms.
Overall, the future of SOC estimation for LIBs is expected to be characterized by
the integration of multiple sensing modalities, the use of advanced machine learning
algorithms, and the development of hybrid modeling approaches that can account for the
complex and dynamic behavior of LIBs.

5. Conclusions
In conclusion, the battery management system (BMS) plays a pivotal role in ensur-
ing the safe operation and optimal performance of electric vehicle battery packs. While
numerous studies and technologies have been developed to enhance battery pack moni-
toring and control, they encompass a wide spectrum of approaches, ranging from basic
monitoring techniques to advanced control systems. Nevertheless, a central challenge
in developing an effective BMS lies in identifying and mitigating the diverse aging and
degradation processes that can impact battery performance and longevity. This endeavor
demands a deep understanding of the intricate mechanisms at play, as well as the ability to
accurately measure critical metrics. A multitude of SOC measurement methods have been
proposed, each with its distinct advantages and drawbacks. Conventional methods like
open-circuit voltage (OCV), coulomb counting, and internal resistance testing are relatively
straightforward but may lack the precision offered by more advanced techniques such
as adaptive filter algorithms or non-linear observers. However, these advanced methods
can be computationally intensive and may necessitate significant offline learning phases,
rendering them less suitable for real-time applications in electric vehicles. Hence, the
judicious selection of an appropriate method, contingent upon factors like accuracy, com-
putational requirements, and real-time feasibility, is of paramount importance. In this
context, this paper has furnished a comprehensive review of the myriad methods and
technologies available for battery monitoring and management, elucidating their respective
strengths and limitations. Furthermore, it has underscored other vital characteristics of
battery packs that should inform the development of effective diagnostic parameters for
estimating battery behavior. It is crucial to acknowledge that no single method or approach
can offer universal effectiveness across all scenarios. Designers must meticulously consider
the specific requirements and constraints of each application to select the most suitable
method. The insights presented in this paper serve as a valuable resource for researchers
and practitioners working in the realm of battery management and electric vehicles. Mov-
ing forward, investigating battery aging processes and deterioration models at the cell
level, particularly in terms of how essential factors impact battery life, power, and energy
density, is imperative. The understanding of aging processes and deterioration models also
holds significant importance at the battery system level, aiding in estimating battery health,
optimizing current operational conditions, and forecasting future performance.
The field of state estimation for lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) is undergoing rapid evo-
lution, with several compelling trends poised to shape its future. These include the in-
tegration of multiple sensing modalities, the ongoing exploration and optimization of
machine-learning-based approaches, the potential offered by model-based deep reinforce-
ment learning (DRL) for state estimation, the refinement of hybrid modeling approaches
capable of addressing the dynamic complexities of LIBs, and the leverage of advanced data
analytics techniques like big data analytics and cloud computing. Collectively, these trends
are anticipated to define the future landscape of SOC estimation for LIBs, enhancing accu-
racy and efficiency in understanding and managing the complex and dynamic behavior of
these energy storage systems.

Author Contributions: All authors had an equal contribution in preparing and finalizing the
manuscript. Conceptualization: P.K.R., M.S., T.S. and A.F.; methodology, P.K.R., M.S., T.S. and
A.F.; validation: A.F., S.S., M.A. and J.H.; formal analysis: P.K.R., M.S., T.S., A.F., S.S., M.A. and J.H.;
investigation: P.K.R., M.S., T.S. and A.F.; data curation: P.K.R., M.S., T.S. and A.F.; writing—original
draft preparation: P.K.R., M.S., T.S., A.F., S.S., M.A. and J.H.; writing—review and editing: A.F.,
Electronics 2023, 12, 4105 23 of 30

S.S., M.A. and J.H.; supervision: A.F., S.S., M.A. and J.H. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Sun, C.; Negro, E.; Vezzù, K.; Pagot, G.; Cavinato, G.; Nale, A.; Bang, Y.H.; Di Noto, V. Hybrid inorganic-organic proton-
conducting membranes based on SPEEK doped with WO3 nanoparticles for application in vanadium redox flow batteries.
Electrochim. Acta 2019, 309, 311–325. [CrossRef]
2. Brandt, K. Historical development of secondary lithium batteries. Solid State Ionics 1994, 69, 173–183. [CrossRef]
3. Yoshino, A. The Birth of the Lithium-Ion Battery. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2012, 51, 5798–5800. [CrossRef]
4. von Bülow, F.; Meisen, T. A review on methods for state of health forecasting of lithium-ion batteries applicable in real-world
operational conditions. J. Energy Storage 2023, 57, 105978. [CrossRef]
5. Spanos, C.; Turney, D.E.; Fthenakis, V. Life-cycle analysis of flow-assisted nickel zinc-, manganese dioxide-, and valve-regulated
lead-acid batteries designed for demand-charge reduction. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 43, 478–494. [CrossRef]
6. Hu, X.; Zou, C.; Zhang, C.; Li, Y. Technological Developments in Batteries: A Survey of Principal Roles, Types, and Management
Needs. IEEE Power Energy Mag. 2017, 15, 20–31. [CrossRef]
7. Wang, Q.; Jiang, B.; Li, B.; Yan, Y. A critical review of thermal management models and solutions of lithium-ion batteries for the
development of pure electric vehicles. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 64, 106–128. [CrossRef]
8. Xing, Y.; Ma, E.W.M.; Tsui, K.L.; Pecht, M. Battery management systems in electric and hybrid vehicles. Energies 2011, 4, 1840–1857.
[CrossRef]
9. Song, S.; Zhang, X.; An, Y.; Hu, T.; Sun, C.; Wang, L.; Li, C.; Zhang, X.; Wang, K.; Xu, Z.J.; et al. Floating aging mechanism of
lithium-ion capacitors: Impedance model and post-mortem analysis. J. Power Sources 2023, 557, 232597. [CrossRef]
10. Li, J.; Wang, S.; Fernandez, C.; Wang, N.; Xie, H. The battery management system construction method study for the power
lithium-ion battery pack. In Proceedings of the 2017 2nd International Conference on Robotics and Automation Engineering,
ICRAE 2017, Shanghai, China, 29–31 December 2017; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: Piscataway, NJ, USA,
2018; pp. 285–289. [CrossRef]
11. Zhang, M.; Liu, Y.; Li, D.; Cui, X.; Wang, L.; Li, L.; Wang, K. Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy: A New Chapter in the Fast
and Accurate Estimation of the State of Health for Lithium-Ion Batteries. Energies 2023, 16, 1599. [CrossRef]
12. Lu, L.; Han, X.; Li, J.; Hua, J.; Ouyang, M. A review on the key issues for lithium-ion battery management in electric vehicles. J.
Power Sources 2013, 226, 272–288. [CrossRef]
13. Shen, W.; Vo, T.T.; Kapoor, A. Charging algorithms of lithium-ion batteries: An overview. In Proceedings of the 2012 7th IEEE
Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications, ICIEA 2012, Singapore, 18–20 July 2012; pp. 1567–1572. [CrossRef]
14. Sun, Q. Electric vehicles: The breakthrough of ‘core’ is the key—Talking about three bottlenecks in the development of the Li-ion
battery. Adv. Mater. Ind. 2010, 12, 62–63.
15. Zou, C.; Hu, X.; Wei, Z.; Tang, X. Electrothermal dynamics-conscious lithium-ion battery cell-level charging management via
state-monitored predictive control. Energy 2017, 141, 250–259. [CrossRef]
16. Liu, K.; Li, K.; Yang, Z.; Zhang, C.; Deng, J. An advanced Lithium-ion battery optimal charging strategy based on a coupled
thermoelectric model. Electrochim. Acta 2017, 225, 330–344. [CrossRef]
17. Shahriari, M.; Farrokhi, M. Online state-of-health estimation of VRLA batteries using state of charge. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.
2013, 60, 191–202. [CrossRef]
18. Lin, H.-T.; Liang, T.-J.; Chen, S.-M. Estimation of battery state of health using probabilistic neural network. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform.
2013, 9, 679–685. [CrossRef]
19. Xiong, R.; Li, L.; Tian, J. Towards a smarter battery management system: A critical review on battery state of health monitoring
methods. J. Power Sources 2018, 405, 18–29. [CrossRef]
20. Song, J.; Wang, Y.; Wan, C. Review of gel-type polymer electrolytes for lithium-ion batteries. J. Power Sources 1999, 77, 183–197.
[CrossRef]
21. Sun, F.; Xiong, R. A novel dual-scale cell state-of-charge estimation approach for series-connected battery pack used in electric
vehicles. J. Power Sources 2015, 274, 582–594. [CrossRef]
22. Vetter, J.; Novák, P.; Wagner, M.R.; Veit, C.; Möller, K.-C.; Besenhard, J.O.; Winter, M.; Wohlfahrt-Mehrens, M.; Vogler, C.;
Hammouche, A. Ageing mechanisms in lithium-ion batteries. J. Power Sources 2005, 147, 269–281. [CrossRef]
23. Han, X.; Lu, L.; Zheng, Y.; Feng, X.; Li, Z.; Li, J.; Ouyang, M. A review on the key issues of the lithium ion battery degradation
among the whole life cycle. eTransportation 2019, 1, 100005. [CrossRef]
Electronics 2023, 12, 4105 24 of 30

24. Li, Z.; Huang, J.; Liaw, B.Y.; Metzler, V.; Zhang, J. A review of lithium deposition in lithium-ion and lithium metal secondary
batteries. J. Power Sources 2014, 254, 168–182. [CrossRef]
25. Santhanagopalan, S.; Guo, Q.; Ramadass, P.; White, R.E. Review of models for predicting the cycling performance of lithium ion
batteries. J. Power Sources 2006, 156, 620–628. [CrossRef]
26. Wang, A.; Kadam, S.; Li, H.; Shi, S.; Qi, Y. Review on modeling of the anode solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) for lithium-ion
batteries. NPJ Comput. Mater. 2018, 4, 15. [CrossRef]
27. Barré, A.; Deguilhem, B.; Grolleau, S.; Gérard, M.; Suard, F.; Riu, D. A review on lithium-ion battery ageing mechanisms and
estimations for automotive applications. J. Power Sources 2013, 241, 680–689. [CrossRef]
28. Xu, J.; Sun, C.; Ni, Y.; Lyu, C.; Wu, C.; Zhang, H.; Yang, Q.; Feng, F. Fast Identification of Micro-Health Parameters for Retired
Batteries Based on a Simplified P2D Model by Using Padé Approximation. Batteries 2023, 9, 64. [CrossRef]
29. Farmann, A.; Waag, W.; Marongiu, A.; Sauer, D.U. Critical review of on-board capacity estimation techniques for lithium-ion
batteries in electric and hybrid electric vehicles. J. Power Sources 2015, 281, 114–130. [CrossRef]
30. Berecibar, M.; Gandiaga, I.; Villarreal, I.; Omar, N.; Van Mierlo, J.; Van den Bossche, P. Critical review of state of health estimation
methods of Li-ion batteries for real applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 56, 572–587. [CrossRef]
31. Waag, W.; Fleischer, C.; Sauer, D.U. Critical review of the methods for monitoring of lithium-ion batteries in electric and hybrid
vehicles. J. Power Sources 2014, 258, 321–339. [CrossRef]
32. Zhang, R.; Li, X.; Sun, C.; Yang, S.; Tian, Y.; Tian, J. State of Charge and Temperature Joint Estimation Based on Ultrasonic
Reflection Waves for Lithium-Ion Battery Applications. Batteries 2023, 9, 335. [CrossRef]
33. Hannan, M.A.; Lipu, M.S.H.; Hussain, A.; Mohamed, A. A review of lithium-ion battery state of charge estimation and
management system in electric vehicle applications: Challenges and recommendations. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 78,
834–854. [CrossRef]
34. Dubarry, M.; Baure, G. Perspective on Commercial Li-ion Battery Testing, Best Practices for Simple and Effective Protocols.
Electronics 2020, 9, 152. [CrossRef]
35. Shu, X.; Shen, S.; Shen, J.; Zhang, Y.; Li, G.; Chen, Z.; Liu, Y. State of health prediction of lithium-ion batteries based on machine
learning: Advances and perspectives. iScience 2021, 24, 103265. [CrossRef]
36. Yao, L.; Xu, S.; Tang, A.; Zhou, F.; Hou, J.; Xiao, Y.; Fu, Z. A Review of Lithium-Ion Battery State of Health Estimation and
Prediction Methods. World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 113. [CrossRef]
37. Wenzl, H.; Baring-Gould, I.; Kaiser, R.; Liaw, B.Y.; Lundsager, P.; Manwell, J.; Ruddell, A.; Svoboda, V. Life prediction of batteries
for selecting the technically most suitable and cost effective battery. J. Power Sources 2005, 144, 373–384. [CrossRef]
38. Edge, J.S.; O’kane, S.; Prosser, R.; Kirkaldy, N.D.; Patel, A.N.; Hales, A.; Ghosh, A.; Ai, W.; Chen, J.; Yang, J.; et al. Lithium ion
battery degradation: What you need to know. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2021, 23, 8200–8221. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39. Birkl, C.R.; Roberts, M.R.; McTurk, E.; Bruce, P.G.; Howey, D.A. Degradation diagnostics for lithium ion cells. J. Power Sources
2017, 341, 373–386. [CrossRef]
40. Arora, P.; White, R.E.; Doyle, M. Capacity Fade Mechanisms and Side Reactions in Lithium-Ion Batteries. J. Electrochem. Soc. 1998,
145, 3647–3667. [CrossRef]
41. Li, Y.; Liu, K.; Foley, A.M.; Zülke, A.; Berecibar, M.; Nanini-Maury, E.; Van Mierlo, J.; Hoster, H.E. Data-driven health estimation
and lifetime prediction of lithium-ion batteries: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 113, 109254. [CrossRef]
42. An, S.J.; Li, J.; Daniel, C.; Mohanty, D.; Nagpure, S.; Wood, D.L. The state of understanding of the lithium-ion-battery graphite
solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) and its relationship to formation cycling. Carbon 2016, 105, 52–76. [CrossRef]
43. Zhang, S.; Ding, M.S.; Xu, K.; Allen, J.; Jow, T.R. Understanding solid electrolyte interface film formation on graphite electrodes.
Electrochem. Solid-State Lett. 2001, 4, A206–A208. [CrossRef]
44. Ngo, D.-T.; Scipioni, R.; Simonsen, S.B.; Jørgensen, P.S.; Jensen, S.H. A TEM study of morphological and structural degradation
phenomena in LiFePO4 -CB cathodes. Int. J. Energy Res. 2016, 40, 2022–2032. [CrossRef]
45. Yang, X.-G.; Ge, S.; Liu, T.; Leng, Y.; Wang, C.-Y. A look into the voltage plateau signal for detection and quantification of lithium
plating in lithium-ion cells. J. Power Sources 2018, 395, 251–261. [CrossRef]
46. Dubarry, M.; Beck, D. Big data training data for artificial intelligence-based Li-ion diagnosis and prognosis. J. Power Sources 2020,
479, 228806. [CrossRef]
47. Liu, X.M.; Arnold, C.B. Effects of Current Density on Defect-Induced Capacity Fade through Localized Plating in Lithium-Ion
Batteries. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2020, 167, 130519. [CrossRef]
48. Bach, T.C.; Schuster, S.F.; Fleder, E.; Müller, J.; Brand, M.J.; Lorrmann, H.; Jossen, A.; Sextl, G. Nonlinear aging of cylindrical
lithium-ion cells linked to heterogeneous compression. J. Energy Storage 2016, 5, 212–223. [CrossRef]
49. Yang, X.-G.; Leng, Y.; Zhang, G.; Ge, S.; Wang, C.-Y. Modeling of lithium plating induced aging of lithium-ion batteries: Transition
from linear to nonlinear aging. J. Power Sources 2017, 360, 28–40. [CrossRef]
50. Campbell, I.D.; Marzook, M.; Marinescu, M.; Offer, G.J. How Observable Is Lithium Plating? Differential Voltage Analysis to
Identify and Quantify Lithium Plating Following Fast Charging of Cold Lithium-Ion Batteries. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2019, 166,
A725–A739. [CrossRef]
51. Zhao, X.; Yin, Y.; Hu, Y.; Choe, S.-Y. Electrochemical-thermal modeling of lithium plating/stripping of Li(Ni0.6Mn0.2Co0.2)O2/Carbon
lithium-ion batteries at subzero ambient temperatures. J. Power Sources 2019, 418, 61–73. [CrossRef]
Electronics 2023, 12, 4105 25 of 30

52. Hendricks, C.; Williard, N.; Mathew, S.; Pecht, M. A failure modes, mechanisms, and effects analysis (FMMEA) of lithium-ion
batteries. J. Power Sources 2015, 297, 113–120. [CrossRef]
53. Ebner, M.; Marone, F.; Stampanoni, M.; Wood, V. Visualization and quantification of electrochemical and mechanical degradation
in Li ion batteries. Science 2013, 342, 716–720. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
54. McGrogan, F.P.; Raja, S.N.; Chiang, Y.-M.; Van Vliet, K.J. Electrochemomechanical Fatigue: Decoupling Mechanisms of Fracture-
Induced Performance Degradation in LiX Mn2 O4 . J. Electrochem. Soc. 2018, 165, A2458–A2466. [CrossRef]
55. Müller, S.; Pietsch, P.; Brandt, B.-E.; Baade, P.; De Andrade, V.; De Carlo, F.; Wood, V. Quantification and modeling of mechanical
degradation in lithium-ion batteries based on nanoscale imaging. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 2340. [CrossRef]
56. Xu, R.; Yang, Y.; Yin, F.; Liu, P.; Cloetens, P.; Liu, Y.; Lin, F.; Zhao, K. Heterogeneous damage in Li-ion batteries: Experimental
analysis and theoretical modeling. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 2019, 129, 160–183. [CrossRef]
57. Newman, J.; Thomas, K.E.; Hafezi, H.; Wheeler, D.R. Modeling of lithium-ion batteries. J. Power Sources 2003, 119–121, 838–843.
[CrossRef]
58. Balakrishnan, P.; Ramesh, R.; Kumar, T.P. Safety mechanisms in lithium-ion batteries. J. Power Sources 2006, 155, 401–414.
[CrossRef]
59. du Pasquier, A.; Blyr, A.; Cressent, A.; Lenain, C.; Amatucci, G.; Tarascon, J. An update on the high temperature ageing mechanism
in LiMn2O4-based Li-ion cells. J. Power Sources 1999, 81–82, 54–59. [CrossRef]
60. Buchberger, I.; Seidlmayer, S.; Pokharel, A.; Piana, M.; Hattendorff, J.; Kudejova, P.; Gilles, R.; Gasteiger, H.A. Aging Analysis of
Graphite/LiNi 1/3 Mn 1/3 Co 1/3 O 2 Cells Using XRD, PGAA, and AC Impedance. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2015, 162, A2737–A2746.
[CrossRef]
61. Du Pasquier, A.; Huang, C.; Spitler, T. Nano Li4 Ti5 O12 –LiMn2 O4 batteries with high power capability and improved cycle-life. J.
Power Sources 2009, 186, 508–514. [CrossRef]
62. Wohlfahrt-Mehrens, M.; Vogler, C.; Garche, J. Aging mechanisms of lithium cathode materials. J. Power Sources 2004, 127, 58–64.
[CrossRef]
63. Gummow, R.; de Kock, A.; Thackeray, M. Improved capacity retention in rechargeable 4 V lithium/lithium-manganese oxide
(spinel) cells. Solid State Ionics 1994, 69, 59–67. [CrossRef]
64. Li, X.; Xu, Y.; Wang, C. Suppression of Jahn–Teller distortion of spinel LiMn2 O4 cathode. J. Alloys Compd. 2009, 479, 310–313.
[CrossRef]
65. Chung, K.Y.; Kim, K.-B. Investigations into capacity fading as a result of a Jahn–Teller distortion in 4V LiMn2O4 thin film
electrodes. Electrochim. Acta 2004, 49, 3327–3337. [CrossRef]
66. Li, D.; Li, H.; Danilov, D.; Gao, L.; Zhou, J.; Eichel, R.-A.; Yang, Y.; Notten, P.H. Temperature-dependent cycling performance and
ageing mechanisms of C6/LiNi1/3Mn1/3Co1/3O2 batteries. J. Power Sources 2018, 396, 444–452. [CrossRef]
67. Komaba, S.; Kaplan, B.; Ohtsuka, T.; Kataoka, Y.; Kumagai, N.; Groult, H. Inorganic electrolyte additives to suppress the
degradation of graphite anodes by dissolved Mn(II) for lithium-ion batteries. J. Power Sources 2003, 119–121, 378–382. [CrossRef]
68. Choa, J.; Thackeray, M.M. Structural Changes of LiMn2 O4 Spinel Electrodes during Electrochemical Cycling. J. Electrochem. Soc.
1999, 146, 3577–3581. [CrossRef]
69. Blyr, A.; Sigala, C.; Amatucci, G.; Guyomard, D.; Chabre, Y.; Tarascon, J. Self-Discharge of LiMn2 O4 /C Li-Ion Cells in Their
Discharged State: Understanding by Means of Three-Electrode Measurements. J. Electrochem. Soc. 1998, 145, 194–209. [CrossRef]
70. Meissner, E.; Richter, G. The challenge to the automotive battery industry: The battery has to become an increasingly integrated
component within the vehicle electric power system. J. Power Sources 2005, 144, 438–460. [CrossRef]
71. Erdinc, O.; Vural, B.; Uzunoglu, M. A dynamic lithium-ion battery model considering the effects of temperature and capacity
fading. In Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Clean Electrical Power, ICCEP 2009, Capri, Italy, 9–11 June 2009;
pp. 383–386. [CrossRef]
72. Bögel, W.; Büchel, J.P.; Katz, H. Real-life EV battery cycling on the test bench. J. Power Sources 1998, 72, 37–42. [CrossRef]
73. Wright, R.; Motloch, C.; Belt, J.; Christophersen, J.; Ho, C.; Richardson, R.; Bloom, I.; Jones, S.; Battaglia, V.; Henriksen, G.; et al.
Calendar- and cycle-life studies of advanced technology development program generation 1 lithium-ion batteries. J. Power Sources
2002, 110, 445–470. [CrossRef]
74. Ohue, K.; Utsunomiya, T.; Hatozaki, O.; Yoshimoto, N.; Egashira, M.; Morita, M. Self-discharge behavior of polyacenic semicon-
ductor and graphite negative electrodes for lithium-ion batteries. J. Power Sources 2011, 196, 3604–3610. [CrossRef]
75. Bashash, S.; Moura, S.J.; Forman, J.C.; Fathy, H.K. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle charge pattern optimization for energy cost and
battery longevity. J. Power Sources 2011, 196, 541–549. [CrossRef]
76. Schimpe, M.; von Kuepach, M.E.; Naumann, M.; Hesse, H.C.; Smith, K.; Jossen, A. Comprehensive Modeling of Temperature-
Dependent Degradation Mechanisms in Lithium Iron Phosphate Batteries. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2018, 165, A181–A193. [CrossRef]
77. Kötz, R.; Ruch, P.; Cericola, D. Aging and failure mode of electrochemical double layer capacitors during accelerated constant
load tests. J. Power Sources 2010, 195, 923–928. [CrossRef]
78. Danzer, M.; Liebau, V.; Maglia, F. Aging of lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles. In Advances in Battery Technologies for Electric
Vehicles; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2015; pp. 359–387. [CrossRef]
79. Bloom, I.; Cole, B.; Sohn, J.; Jones, S.; Polzin, E.; Battaglia, V.; Henriksen, G.; Motloch, C.; Richardson, R.; Unkelhaeuser, T.; et al.
An accelerated calendar and cycle life study of Li-ion cells. J. Power Sources 2001, 101, 238–247. [CrossRef]
Electronics 2023, 12, 4105 26 of 30

80. Ramadass, P.; Haran, B.; White, R.; Popov, B.N. Mathematical modeling of the capacity fade of Li-ion cells. J. Power Sources 2003,
123, 230–240. [CrossRef]
81. Kim, I.-S. Nonlinear state of charge estimator for hybrid electric vehicle battery. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2008, 23, 2027–2034.
[CrossRef]
82. Snihir, I.; Rey, W.; Verbitskiy, E.; Belfadhel-Ayeb, A.; Notten, P.H. Battery open-circuit voltage estimation by a method of statistical
analysis. J. Power Sources 2006, 159, 1484–1487. [CrossRef]
83. Li, M. Li-ion dynamics and state of charge estimation. Renew. Energy 2017, 100, 44–52. [CrossRef]
84. Hu, X.; Li, S.; Peng, H. A comparative study of equivalent circuit models for Li-ion batteries. J. Power Sources 2012, 198, 359–367.
[CrossRef]
85. Speltino, C.; Di Domenico, D.; Fiengo, G.; Stefanopoulou, A. Comparison of reduced order lithium-ion battery models for
control applications. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Shanghai, China, 15–18 December 2009;
pp. 3276–3281. [CrossRef]
86. Di Domenico, D.; Fiengo, G.; Stefanopoulou, A. Lithium-ion Battery state of charge estimation with a Kalman filter based on a
electrochemical model. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Control Applications, San Antonio, TX, USA,
3–5 September 2008; pp. 702–707. [CrossRef]
87. Gu, W.B.; Wang, C.Y. Thermal-Electrochemical Modeling of Battery Systems. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2000, 147, 2910–2922. [CrossRef]
88. Wang, Q.; Wang, J.; Zhao, P.; Kang, J.; Yan, F.; Du, C. Correlation between the model accuracy and model-based SOC estimation.
Electrochim. Acta 2017, 228, 146–159. [CrossRef]
89. Rivera-Barrera, J.P.; Muñoz-Galeano, N.; Sarmiento-Maldonado, H.O. SoC Estimation for Lithium-ion Batteries: Review and
Future Challenges. Electronics 2017, 6, 102. [CrossRef]
90. Chaoui, H.; Ibe-Ekeocha, C.C.; Gualous, H. Aging prediction and state of charge estimation of a LiFePO4 battery using input
time-delayed neural networks. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2017, 146, 189–197. [CrossRef]
91. Zou, C.; Manzie, C.; Nesic, D. A Framework for Simplification of PDE-Based Lithium-Ion Battery Models. IEEE Trans. Control
Syst. Technol. 2016, 24, 1594–1609. [CrossRef]
92. Bartlett, A.; Marcicki, J.; Onori, S.; Rizzoni, G.; Yang, X.G.; Miller, T. Electrochemical Model-Based State of Charge and Capacity
Estimation for a Composite Electrode Lithium-Ion Battery. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 2016, 24, 384–399. [CrossRef]
93. Ma, Z.; Xie, Z.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, P.; Pan, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Lu, C. Failure modes of hollow core–shell structural active materials during
the lithiation–delithiation process. J. Power Sources 2015, 290, 114–122. [CrossRef]
94. Jin, X.; Duan, X.; Jiang, W.; Wang, Y.; Zou, Y.; Lei, W.; Sun, L.; Ma, Z. Structural design of a composite board/heat pipe based on
the coupled electro-chemical-thermal model in battery thermal management system. Energy 2021, 216, 119234. [CrossRef]
95. Duan, X.; Jiang, W.; Zou, Y.; Lei, W.; Ma, Z. A coupled electrochemical–thermal–mechanical model for spiral-wound Li-ion
batteries. J. Mater. Sci. 2018, 53, 10987–11001. [CrossRef]
96. Ma, Z.; Wu, H.; Wang, Y.; Pan, Y.; Lu, C. An electrochemical-irradiated plasticity model for metallic electrodes in lithium-ion
batteries. Int. J. Plast. 2017, 88, 188–203. [CrossRef]
97. Yi, S.; Zorzi, M. Robust fixed-lag smoothing under model perturbations. J. Frankl. Inst. 2023, 360, 458–483. [CrossRef]
98. El Mejdoubi, A.; Oukaour, A.; Chaoui, H.; Gualous, H.; Sabor, J.; Slamani, Y. State-of-Charge and State-of-Health Lithium-Ion
Batteries’ Diagnosis According to Surface Temperature Variation. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2016, 63, 2391–2402. [CrossRef]
99. Zhang, C.; Li, K.; Deng, J.; Song, S. Improved Realtime State-of-Charge Estimation of LiFePO4 Battery Based on a Novel
Thermoelectric Model. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2017, 64, 654–663. [CrossRef]
100. He, H.; Xiong, R.; Zhang, X.; Sun, F.; Fan, J. State-of-charge estimation of the lithium-ion battery using an adaptive extended
Kalman filter based on an improved thevenin model. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2011, 60, 1461–1469. [CrossRef]
101. Tian, Y.; Xia, B.; Sun, W.; Xu, Z.; Zheng, W. A modified model based state of charge estimation of power lithium-ion batteries
using unscented Kalman filter. J. Power Sources 2014, 270, 619–626. [CrossRef]
102. Peng, S.; Chen, C.; Shi, H.; Yao, Z. State of charge estimation of battery energy storage systems based on adaptive unscented
Kalman filter with a noise statistics estimator. IEEE Access 2017, 5, 13202–13212. [CrossRef]
103. He, W.; Williard, N.; Chen, C.; Pecht, M. State of charge estimation for electric vehicle batteries using unscented kalman filtering.
Microelectron. Reliab. 2013, 53, 840–847. [CrossRef]
104. Sun, F.; Hu, X.; Zou, Y.; Li, S. Adaptive unscented Kalman filtering for state of charge estimation of a lithium-ion battery for
electric vehicles. Energy 2011, 36, 3531–3540. [CrossRef]
105. Du, J.; Liu, Z.; Wang, Y. State of charge estimation for Li-ion battery based on model from extreme learning machine. Control Eng.
Pract. 2014, 26, 11–19. [CrossRef]
106. He, Z.; Liu, Y.; Gao, M.; Wang, C. A joint model and SOC estimation method for lithium battery based on the sigma point KF. In
Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Transportation Electrification Conference and Expo, ITEC 2012, Dearborn, MI, USA, 18–20 June 2012.
[CrossRef]
107. Barillas, J.K.; Li, J.; Günther, C.; Danzer, M.A. A comparative study and validation of state estimation algorithms for Li-ion
batteries in battery management systems. Appl. Energy 2015, 155, 455–462. [CrossRef]
108. Xiong, R.; Yu, Q.; Wang, L.Y.; Lin, C. A novel method to obtain the open circuit voltage for the state of charge of lithium ion
batteries in electric vehicles by using H infinity filter. Appl. Energy 2017, 207, 346–353. [CrossRef]
Electronics 2023, 12, 4105 27 of 30

109. Yu, Q.; Xiong, R.; Lin, C. Online Estimation of State-of-charge Based on the H infinity and Unscented Kalman Filters for Lithium
Ion Batteries. Energy Procedia 2017, 105, 2791–2796. [CrossRef]
110. Eddahech, A.; Briat, O.; Vinassa, J. Adaptive voltage estimation for EV Li-ion cell based on artificial neural networks state-of-
charge meter. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Electronics, Hangzhou, China, 28–31 May 2012;
pp. 1318–1324. [CrossRef]
111. Sánchez, L.; Couso, I.; Viera, J.C. Online SOC estimation of Li-FePO4 batteries through a new fuzzy rule-based recursive filter
with feedback of the heat flow rate. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference, VPPC 2014,
Coimbra, Portugal, 27–30 October 2014. [CrossRef]
112. Li, I.-H.; Wang, W.-Y.; Su, S.-F.; Lee, Y.-S. A merged fuzzy neural network and its applications in battery state-of-charge estimation.
IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 2007, 22, 697–708. [CrossRef]
113. Chau, K.; Wu, K.; Chan, C. A new battery capacity indicator for lithium-ion battery powered electric vehicles using adaptive
neuro-fuzzy inference system. Energy Convers. Manag. 2004, 45, 1681–1692. [CrossRef]
114. Awadallah, M.A.; Venkatesh, B. Accuracy improvement of SOC estimation in lithium-ion batteries. J. Energy Storage 2016, 6,
95–104. [CrossRef]
115. Yang, F.; Xing, Y.; Wang, D.; Tsui, K.-L. A comparative study of three model-based algorithms for estimating state-of-charge of
lithium-ion batteries under a new combined dynamic loading profile. Appl. Energy 2016, 164, 387–399. [CrossRef]
116. Dai, H.; Guo, P.; Wei, X.; Sun, Z.; Wang, J. ANFIS (adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system) based online SOC (State of Charge)
correction considering cell divergence for the EV (electric vehicle) traction batteries. Energy 2015, 80, 350–360. [CrossRef]
117. Fotouhi, A.; Propp, K.; Auger, D.J. Electric vehicle battery model identification and state of charge estimation in real world
driving cycles. In Proceedings of the 2015 7th Computer Science and Electronic Engineering Conference, CEEC 2015—Conference
Proceedings, Colchester, UK, 24–25 September 2015; pp. 243–248. [CrossRef]
118. Antón, J.C.Á.; Nieto, P.J.G.; de Cos Juez, F.J.; Lasheras, F.S.; Vega, M.G.; Gutiérrez, M.N.R. Battery state-of-charge estimator using
the SVM technique. Appl. Math. Model. 2013, 37, 6244–6253. [CrossRef]
119. Wu, X.; Mi, L.; Tan, W.; Qin, J.L.; Na Zhao, M. State of Charge (SOC) Estimation of Ni-MH Battery Based on Least Square Support
Vector Machines. Adv. Mater. Res. 2011, 211–212, 1204–1209. [CrossRef]
120. He, W.; Williard, N.; Chen, C.; Pecht, M. State of charge estimation for Li-ion batteries using neural network modeling and
unscented Kalman filter-based error cancellation. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2014, 62, 783–791. [CrossRef]
121. Chen, Z.; Qiu, S.; Masrur, M.; Murphey, Y.L. Battery state of charge estimation based on a combined model of extended Kalman
filter and neural networks. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, San Jose, CA, USA,
31 July–5 August 2011; pp. 2156–2163. [CrossRef]
122. Li, Y.; Wang, C.; Gong, J. A combination Kalman filter approach for State of Charge estimation of lithium-ion battery considering
model uncertainty. Energy 2016, 109, 933–946. [CrossRef]
123. Xia, B.; Chen, C.; Tian, Y.; Sun, W.; Xu, Z.; Zheng, W. A novel method for state of charge estimation of lithium-ion batteries using
a nonlinear observer. J. Power Sources 2014, 270, 359–366. [CrossRef]
124. Han, H.; Xu, H.; Yuan, Z.; Zhao, Y. State of Charge estimation of Li-ion battery in EVs based on second-order sliding mode
observer. In Proceedings of the IEEE Transportation Electrification Conference and Expo, ITEC Asia-Pacific 2014—Conference
Proceedings, Beijing, China, 31 August–3 September 2014. [CrossRef]
125. Anton, J.C.A.; Nieto, P.J.G.; Gonzalo, E.G.; Perez, J.C.V.; Vega, M.G.; Viejo, C.B. A New Predictive Model for the State-of-Charge of
a High-Power Lithium-Ion Cell Based on a PSO-Optimized Multivariate Adaptive Regression Spline Approach. IEEE Trans. Veh.
Technol. 2016, 65, 4197–4208. [CrossRef]
126. Ranjbar, A.H.; Banaei, A.; Khoobroo, A.; Fahimi, B. Online estimation of state of charge in li-ion batteries using impulse response
concept. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2012, 3, 360–367. [CrossRef]
127. Wang, L.; Wang, L.; Li, Y. A novel state-of-charge estimation algorithm of EV battery based on bilinear interpolation. In
Proceedings of the 2013 9th IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference, IEEE VPPC 2013, Beijing, China, 15–18 October 2013;
pp. 26–29. [CrossRef]
128. Ge, M.-F.; Liu, Y.; Jiang, X.; Liu, J. A review on state of health estimations and remaining useful life prognostics of lithium-ion
batteries. Measurement 2021, 174, 109057. [CrossRef]
129. Shahjalal, M.; Roy, P.K.; Shams, T.; Fly, A.; Chowdhury, J.I.; Ahmed, R.; Liu, K. A review on second-life of Li-ion batteries:
Prospects, challenges, and issues. Energy 2022, 241, 122881. [CrossRef]
130. Zhang, Y.; Song, W.; Lin, S.; Feng, Z. A novel model of the initial state of charge estimation for LiFePO4 batteries. J. Power Sources
2014, 248, 1028–1033. [CrossRef]
131. Zhang, C.; Jiang, J.; Zhang, L.; Liu, S.; Wang, L.; Loh, P.C. A Generalized SOC-OCV Model for Lithium-Ion Batteries and the SOC
Estimation for LNMCO Battery. Energies 2016, 9, 900. [CrossRef]
132. Wang, X.; Wei, X.; Dai, H. Estimation of state of health of lithium-ion batteries based on charge transfer resistance considering
different temperature and state of charge. J. Energy Storage 2019, 21, 618–631. [CrossRef]
133. Yatsui, M.W.; Bai, H. Kalman filter based state-of-charge estimation for lithium-ion batteries in hybrid electric vehicles using
pulse charging. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference, VPPC 2011, Chicago, IL, USA,
6–9 September 2011. [CrossRef]
Electronics 2023, 12, 4105 28 of 30

134. Chen, Z.; Fu, Y.; Mi, C.C. State of charge estimation of lithium-ion batteries in electric drive vehicles using extended Kalman
filtering. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2012, 62, 1020–1030. [CrossRef]
135. Xiong, R.; He, H.; Sun, F.; Zhao, K. Evaluation on state of charge estimation of batteries with adaptive extended Kalman filter by
experiment approach. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2013, 62, 108–117. [CrossRef]
136. Plett, G.L. Sigma-point Kalman filtering for battery management systems of LiPB-based HEV battery packs. Part 1: Introduction
and state estimation. J. Power Sources 2006, 161, 1356–1368. [CrossRef]
137. Yang, J.; Xia, B.; Huang, W.; Fu, Y.; Mi, C. Online state-of-health estimation for lithium-ion batteries using constant-voltage
charging current analysis. Appl. Energy 2018, 212, 1589–1600. [CrossRef]
138. He, W.; Pecht, M.; Flynn, D.; Dinmohammadi, F. A Physics-Based Electrochemical Model for Lithium-Ion Battery State-of-Charge
Estimation Solved by an Optimised Projection-Based Method and Moving-Window Filtering. Energies 2018, 11, 2120. [CrossRef]
139. Li, P.; Zhang, Z.; Xiong, Q.; Ding, B.; Hou, J.; Luo, D.; Rong, Y.; Li, S. State-of-health estimation and remaining useful life
prediction for the lithium-ion battery based on a variant long short term memory neural network. J. Power Sources 2020,
459, 228069. [CrossRef]
140. Zhang, W.; Li, X.; Li, X. Deep learning-based prognostic approach for lithium-ion batteries with adaptive time-series prediction
and on-line validation. Measurement 2020, 164, 108052. [CrossRef]
141. Salkind, A.J.; Fennie, C.; Singh, P.; Atwater, T.; E Reisner, D. Determination of state-of-charge and state-of-health of batteries by
fuzzy logic methodology. J. Power Sources 1999, 80, 293–300. [CrossRef]
142. Gao, W.; Zheng, Y.; Ouyang, M.; Li, J.; Lai, X.; Hu, X. Micro-short-circuit diagnosis for series-connected lithium-ion battery packs
using mean-difference model. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2019, 66, 2132–2142. [CrossRef]
143. Li, H.; Pan, D.; Chen, C.L.P. Intelligent prognostics for battery health monitoring using the mean entropy and relevance vector
machine. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst. 2014, 44, 851–862. [CrossRef]
144. Meng, J.; Cai, L.; Luo, G.; Stroe, D.-I.; Teodorescu, R. Lithium-ion battery state of health estimation with short-term current pulse
test and support vector machine. Microelectron. Reliab. 2018, 88–90, 1216–1220. [CrossRef]
145. Xu, J.; Cao, B.; Chen, Z.; Zou, Z. An online state of charge estimation method with reduced prior battery testing information. Int.
J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2014, 63, 178–184. [CrossRef]
146. Zhang, Y.; Zhang, C.; Zhang, X. State-of-charge estimation of the lithium-ion battery system with time-varying parameter for
hybrid electric vehicles. IET Control Theory Appl. 2014, 8, 160–167. [CrossRef]
147. Dong, G.; Chen, Z.; Wei, J.; Ling, Q. Battery health prognosis using brownian motion modeling and particle filtering. IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron. 2018, 65, 8646–8655. [CrossRef]
148. Xiong, R.; Tian, J.; Mu, H.; Wang, C. A systematic model-based degradation behavior recognition and health monitoring method
for lithium-ion batteries. Appl. Energy 2017, 207, 372–383. [CrossRef]
149. State of Health—Wikipedia. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_health (accessed on 7 September 2023).
150. Liu, K.; Li, K.; Peng, Q.; Zhang, C. A brief review on key technologies in the battery management system of electric vehicles.
Front. Mech. Eng. 2019, 14, 47–64. [CrossRef]
151. Chiang, Y.-H.; Sean, W.-Y.; Ke, J.-C. Online estimation of internal resistance and open-circuit voltage of lithium-ion batteries in
electric vehicles. J. Power Sources 2011, 196, 3921–3932. [CrossRef]
152. 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, 5141–5161. [CrossRef]
153. Nuhic, A.; Terzimehic, T.; Soczka-Guth, T.; Buchholz, M.; Dietmayer, K. Health diagnosis and remaining useful life prognostics of
lithium-ion batteries using data-driven methods. J. Power Sources 2013, 239, 680–688. [CrossRef]
154. Hu, X.; Feng, F.; Liu, K.; Zhang, L.; Xie, J.; Liu, B. State estimation for advanced battery management: Key challenges and future
trends. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 114, 109334. [CrossRef]
155. Wang, D.; Kong, J.-Z.; Yang, F.; Zhao, Y.; Tsui, K.-L. Battery prognostics at different operating conditions. Measurement 2020,
151, 107182. [CrossRef]
156. Hu, C.; Ye, H.; Jain, G.; Schmidt, C. Remaining useful life assessment of lithium-ion batteries in implantable medical devices. J.
Power Sources 2018, 375, 118–130. [CrossRef]
157. Bian, X.; Liu, L.; Yan, J.; Zou, Z.; Zhao, R. An open circuit voltage-based model for state-of-health estimation of lithium-ion
batteries: Model development and validation. J. Power Sources 2020, 448, 227401. [CrossRef]
158. Xiong, R.; Zhang, Y.; He, H.; Zhou, X.; Pecht, M.G. A double-scale, particle-filtering, energy state prediction algorithm for
lithium-ion batteries. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2017, 65, 1526–1538. [CrossRef]
159. Tan, X.; Zhan, D.; Lyu, P.; Rao, J.; Fan, Y. Online state-of-health estimation of lithium-ion battery based on dynamic parameter
identification at multi timescale and support vector regression. J. Power Sources 2021, 484, 229233. [CrossRef]
160. He, H.; Xiong, R.; Guo, H. Online estimation of model parameters and state-of-charge of LiFePO4 batteries in electric vehicles.
Appl. Energy 2012, 89, 413–420. [CrossRef]
161. Andre, D.; Meiler, M.; Steiner, K.; Wimmer, C.; Soczka-Guth, T.; Sauer, D. Characterization of high-power lithium-ion batteries by
electrochemical impedance spectroscopy. I. Experimental investigation. J. Power Sources 2011, 196, 5334–5341. [CrossRef]
162. Galeotti, M.; Cinà, L.; Giammanco, C.; Cordiner, S.; Di Carlo, A. Performance analysis and SOH (state of health) evaluation of
lithium polymer batteries through electrochemical impedance spectroscopy. Energy 2015, 89, 678–686. [CrossRef]
Electronics 2023, 12, 4105 29 of 30

163. Smith, K.A.; Rahn, C.D.; Wang, C.-Y. Model-based electrochemical estimation and constraint management for pulse operation of
lithium ion batteries. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 2010, 18, 654–663. [CrossRef]
164. Weng, C.; Cui, Y.; Sun, J.; Peng, H. On-board state of health monitoring of lithium-ion batteries using incremental capacity
analysis with support vector regression. J. Power Sources 2013, 235, 36–44. [CrossRef]
165. Li, Y.; Abdel-Monem, M.; Gopalakrishnan, R.; Berecibar, M.; Nanini-Maury, E.; Omar, N.; van den Bossche, P.; Van Mierlo, J. A
quick on-line state of health estimation method for Li-ion battery with incremental capacity curves processed by Gaussian filter. J.
Power Sources 2018, 373, 40–53. [CrossRef]
166. Li, X.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, L.; Zou, C.; Dorrell, D.D. State-of-health estimation for Li-ion batteries by combing the incremental
capacity analysis method with grey relational analysis. J. Power Sources 2019, 410–411, 106–114. [CrossRef]
167. Wang, Z.; Ma, J.; Zhang, L. State-of-Health Estimation for Lithium-Ion Batteries Based on the Multi-Island Genetic Algorithm and
the Gaussian Process Regression. IEEE Access 2017, 5, 21286–21295. [CrossRef]
168. Shibagaki, T.; Merla, Y.; Offer, G.J. Tracking degradation in lithium iron phosphate batteries using differential thermal voltammetry.
J. Power Sources 2018, 374, 188–195. [CrossRef]
169. Xiong, R.; Ma, S.; Li, H.; Sun, F.; Li, J. Toward a Safer Battery Management System: A Critical Review on Diagnosis and Prognosis
of Battery Short Circuit. iScience 2020, 23, 101010. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
170. Bloom, I.; Jansen, A.N.; Abraham, D.P.; Knuth, J.; Jones, S.A.; Battaglia, V.S.; Henriksen, G.L. Differential voltage analyses of
high-power, lithium-ion cells: 1. Technique and application. J. Power Sources 2005, 139, 295–303. [CrossRef]
171. Schiffer, Z.J.; Cannarella, J.; Arnold, C.B. Strain derivatives for practical charge rate characterization of lithium ion electrodes. J.
Electrochem. Soc. 2016, 163, A427–A433. [CrossRef]
172. Merla, Y.; Wu, B.; Yufit, V.; Brandon, N.P.; Martinez-Botas, R.F.; Offer, G.J. Novel application of differential thermal voltammetry
as an in-depth state-of-health diagnosis method for lithium-ion batteries. J. Power Sources 2016, 307, 308–319. [CrossRef]
173. Merla, Y.; Wu, B.; Yufit, V.; Brandon, N.P.; Martinez-Botas, R.F.; Offer, G.J. Extending battery life: A low-cost practical diagnostic
technique for lithium-ion batteries. J. Power Sources 2016, 331, 224–231. [CrossRef]
174. Cannarella, J.; Arnold, C.B. State of health and charge measurements in lithium-ion batteries using mechanical stress. J. Power
Sources 2014, 269, 7–14. [CrossRef]
175. Sommer, L.W.; Raghavan, A.; Kiesel, P.; Saha, B.; Schwartz, J.; Lochbaum, A.; Ganguli, A.; Bae, C.-J.; Alamgir, M. Monitoring of
Intercalation Stages in Lithium-Ion Cells over Charge-Discharge Cycles with Fiber Optic Sensors. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2015, 162,
A2664–A2669. [CrossRef]
176. Oh, K.-Y.; Siegel, J.B.; Secondo, L.; Kim, S.U.; Samad, N.A.; Qin, J.; Anderson, D.; Garikipati, K.; Knobloch, A.; Epureanu, B.I.; et al.
Rate dependence of swelling in lithium-ion cells. J. Power Sources 2014, 267, 197–202. [CrossRef]
177. Juang, L.W. Online Battery Monitoring for State-of-Charge and Power Capability Prediction; University of Wisconsin: Madison, WI,
USA, 2010.
178. Lukic, S.; Emadi, A. Charging ahead. IEEE Ind. Electron. Mag. 2008, 2, 22–31. [CrossRef]
179. Plett, G.L. Battery Management Systems. Volume II, Equivalent-Circuit Methods. Artech: Norwood, MA, USA, 2015.
180. Balagopal, B.; Chow, M.-Y. The state of the art approaches to estimate the state of health (SOH) and state of function (SOF) of
lithium Ion batteries. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Informatics, INDIN 2015, Cambridge,
UK, 22–24 July 2015; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 1302–1307. [CrossRef]
181. Lin, X.; Stefanopoulou, A.G.; Perez, H.E.; Siegel, J.B.; Li, Y.; Anderson, R.D. Quadruple adaptive observer of the core temperature
in cylindrical Li-ion batteries and their health monitoring. In Proceedings of the 2012 American Control Conference (ACC),
Montreal, QC, Canada, 27–29 June 2012; pp. 578–583. [CrossRef]
182. Park, S.; Ahn, J.; Kang, T.; Park, S.; Kim, Y.; Cho, I.; Kim, J. Review of state-of-the-art battery state estimation technologies for
battery management systems of stationary energy storage systems. J. Power Electron. 2020, 20, 1526–1540. [CrossRef]
183. Li, J.; Sun, D.; Jin, X.; Shi, W.; Sun, C. Lithium-ion battery overcharging thermal characteristics analysis and an impedance-based
electro-thermal coupled model simulation. Appl. Energy 2019, 254, 113574. [CrossRef]
184. Zhang, C.; Li, K.; Deng, J. Real-time estimation of battery internal temperature based on a simplified thermoelectric model. J.
Power Sources 2016, 302, 146–154. [CrossRef]
185. Zhu, J.; Sun, Z.; Wei, X.; Dai, H. Battery Internal Temperature Estimation for LiFePO4 Battery Based on Impedance Phase Shift
under Operating Conditions. Energies 2017, 10, 60. [CrossRef]
186. Farmann, A.; Sauer, D.U. A comprehensive review of on-board State-of-Available-Power prediction techniques for lithium-ion
batteries in electric vehicles. J. Power Sources 2016, 329, 123–137. [CrossRef]
187. Feng, T.; Yang, L.; Zhao, X.; Zhang, H.; Qiang, J. Online identification of lithium-ion battery parameters based on an improved
equivalent-circuit model and its implementation on battery state-of-power prediction. J. Power Sources 2015, 281, 192–203.
[CrossRef]
188. Burgos-Mellado, C.; Orchard, M.E.; Kazerani, M.; Cárdenas, R.; Sáez, D. Particle-filtering-based estimation of maximum available
power state in Lithium-Ion batteries. Appl. Energy 2016, 161, 349–363. [CrossRef]
189. Pei, L.; Zhu, C.; Wang, T.; Lu, R.; Chan, C. Online peak power prediction based on a parameter and state estimator for lithium-ion
batteries in electric vehicles. Energy 2014, 66, 766–778. [CrossRef]
190. Zhou, L.; Lai, X.; Li, B.; Yao, Y.; Yuan, M.; Weng, J.; Zheng, Y. State Estimation Models of Lithium-Ion Batteries for Battery
Management System: Status, Challenges, and Future Trends. Batteries 2023, 9, 131. [CrossRef]
Electronics 2023, 12, 4105 30 of 30

191. Zhao, J.; Zhu, Y.; Zhang, B.; Liu, M.; Wang, J.; Liu, C.; Hao, X. Review of State Estimation and Remaining Useful Life Prediction
Methods for Lithium–Ion Batteries. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5014. [CrossRef]
192. Zhao, D.; Li, H.; Zhou, F.; Zhong, Y.; Zhang, G.; Liu, Z.; Hou, J. Research Progress on Data-Driven Methods for Battery States
Estimation of Electric Buses. World Electr. Veh. J. 2023, 14, 145. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.