(Digital Presentation) Thermal Behaviour Prediction of Commercial Lithium-Ion Cells Under Different C-Rate and Ambient Conditions Using Surrogate Modelling
Raghvendra Gupta,Rohit Mehta,Supreet Singh Bahga,Amit Gupta
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1149/ma2022-012389mtgabs
2022-07-15
ECS Meeting Abstracts
Abstract:Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) have found widespread application in energy storage due to their high energy density, low self-discharge and low maintenance characteristics. However, the stability and longevity of the batteries under extreme operating conditions is yet to be fully understood. Numerous experimental and simulation studies have been performed to elucidate the effect of temperature, current, depth of discharge, and the number of cycles [1,2,3] on the performance of LIBs. These studies show that the solid-electrolyte interface (SEI) layer and gas formation accelerate at high C-rates due to increased electrolyte decomposition [4,5]. Consequently, the cell's internal resistance increases, resulting in ever-increasing irreversible heat generation inside the cell [6]. This heat generation leads to high internal temperature and a corresponding reduction in cell capacity. The data of cell temperature for a wide range of ambient temperatures and cycling rates is limited because cell performance is typically reported at room temperature. The design of battery packs for electric vehicles(EVs) is also based on test data taken at room conditions. Given that the cell's capacity, specific energy, maximum power output is bound to depend on C-rate and ambient temperature, it is necessary to test and design battery packs based on these parameters. The thermal characteristics of a lithium-ion cell can be predicted using a physics-based thermal model or data-driven methods (DDM) relying on empirical data. Experimental determination of internal cell parameters required in physics-based thermal models is challenging and time-consuming for commercial cells. On the other hand, DDM requires only cell cycling data at specific operating conditions, thereby eliminating the need for internal parameter estimation. This model predicts the experimental input and output data pattern and fits the response surface to estimate the unknown output. In this study, surrogate modelling has been employed to estimate the surface temperature, capacity, energy, and average power of commercial lithium-ion cells for different discharge currents and ambient temperatures. Surrogate modelling, a popular data analysis and reduced-order modelling technique, aims to find a global minimum of a particular objective function using a few objective function evaluations [7]. The surrogate-based model divides experimental data into training and test data sets. The training data set is employed to train the algorithm. After that, the testing data set is used to validate the model's accuracy. Experiments were performed to develop a surrogate model, with the number of experiments decided using the design of experiments[8] for a current range of 0.5C to 3C-rate and ambient temperature range of 0°C to 45°C . The cycling of cells was performed using a high current battery cycler (Arbin), and the ambient temperature was maintained using a thermal chamber (Cincinnati). The surface temperature of commercial 18650 (NMC811) lithium-ion cells was recorded using T-type thermocouples and a National Instruments DAQ module. A polynomial response surface was fitted using surrogate modelling on experimentally obtained data. The response surface shown in figure 1. contains nine data points for the preliminary study, sub-divided into a set of seven training and two testing data. The prediction error sum of squares (PRESS) is currently bounded within 10% due to the limited training data set availability and is expected to be within a band of 1% after adding data from ongoing experiments. The estimation of temperature, capacity, and specific energy can be used to optimize and develop an improved thermal management system for electric vehicles that works under various operating conditions. References Waldmann, T., Wilka, M., Kasper, M., Fleischhammer, M., & Wohlfahrt-Mehrens, M. (2014). Journal of Power Sources, 262, 129-135. Guan, T., Sun, S., Yu, F., Gao, Y., Fan, P., Zuo, P., Du,C., & Yin, G. (2018). Electrochimica Acta, 279, 204-212. Simolka, M., Heger, J. F., Traub, N., Kaess, H., & Friedrich, K. A. (2020). Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 167(11), 110502. Xu, B., Diao, W., Wen, G., Choe, S. Y., Kim, J., & Pecht, M. (2021). Journal of Power Sources, 510, 230390. Rashid, M., & Gupta, A. (2017). Electrochimica Acta, 231, 171-184. Leng, F., Tan, C. M., & Pecht, M. (2015). Scientific reports, 5(1), 1-12. Queipo, N. V., Haftka, R. T., Shyy, W., Goel, T., Vaidyanathan, R., & Tucker, P. K. (2005). Progress in aerospace sciences, 41(1), 1-28. Li, W., Xiao, M., Peng, X., Garg, A., & Gao, L. (2019). Applied Thermal Engineering, 147, 90-100. Figure 1