energies

Article
Adaptive Smooth Variable Structure Filter Strategy for State
Estimation of Electric Vehicle Batteries
Sara Rahimifard 1, * , Saeid Habibi 1 , Gillian Goward 2 and Jimi Tjong 1

1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada;

habibi@mcmaster.ca (S.H.); tjongj@mcmaster.ca (J.T.)
2 Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada;
goward@mcmaster.ca
* Correspondence: rahimifs@mcmaster.ca

Abstract: Battery Management Systems (BMSs) are used to manage the utilization of batteries and
their operation in Electric and Hybrid Vehicles. It is imperative for efficient and safe operation of
batteries to be able to accurately estimate the State of Charge (SoC), State of Health (SoH) and State
of Power (SoP). The SoC and SoH estimation must remain robust and accurate despite aging and
in presence of noise, uncertainties and sensor biases. This paper introduces a robust adaptive filter
referred to as the Adaptive Smooth Variable Structure Filter with a time-varying Boundary Layer
(ASVSF-VBL) for the estimation of the SoC and SoH in electrified vehicles. The internal model of
the filter is a third-order equivalent circuit model (ECM) and its state vector is augmented to enable
estimation of the internal resistance and current bias. It is shown that system and measurement noise
covariance adaptation for the SVSF-VBL approach improves the performance in state estimation of a




battery. The estimated internal resistance is then utilized to improve determination of the battery’s

 SoH. The effectiveness of the proposed method is validated using experimental data from tests on
Citation: Rahimifard, S.; Habibi, S.; Lithium Polymer automotive batteries. The results indicate that the SoC estimation error can remain
Goward, G.; Tjong, J. Adaptive within less than 2% over the full operating range of SoC along with an accurate estimation of SoH.
Smooth Variable Structure Filter
Strategy for State Estimation of Keywords: electric vehicle; lithium-ion battery; battery management system; adaptive smooth
Electric Vehicle Batteries. Energies variable structure filter; state of charge; state of health
2021, 14, 8560. https://doi.org/
10.3390/en14248560

Academic Editor: Haifeng Dai 1. Introduction

Lithium-ion Batteries are extensively used for energy storage in Electric (EVs) and
Received: 29 November 2021
Accepted: 16 December 2021
Hybrid Electric (HEVs) Vehicles due to their high energy and high power densities. The per-
Published: 19 December 2021
formance and efficiency of EVs and HEVs are largely affected by their Battery Management
Systems (BMSs) that need to ensure a safe, stable and reliable operation for the battery pack.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
State of Charge (SoC), State of Health (SoH), and State of Power (SoP) are key operational
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
parameters of the battery that need to be estimated and managed. These elements together
published maps and institutional affil- provide a comprehensive view of the battery and the pack’s capabilities [1–3].
iations. The battery SoC represents remaining charge in a battery which is similar to the
gas-gauge in fossil-fuel vehicles. The SoC is a short-term indicator of the battery ability,
however, it cannot provide valuable information about the health of the battery. The
battery SoH is an indicator of the remaining battery capacity and life. The battery SoC and
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
SoH need to be estimated as there are no sensors for their direct measurement. Accurate
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
estimation of SoC and SoH are required to ensure an equal distribution of load among cells
This article is an open access article
in the pack and to determine where a cell is in its life cycle. A wide range of strategies
distributed under the terms and have been presented for both SoC and SoH estimation. The SoC estimation methods are
conditions of the Creative Commons categorized into direct and indirect methods [4,5].
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// Measurements of the terminal voltage, current and impedance are commonly em-
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ ployed in direct methods to calculate the battery SoC. Methods based on the open circuit
4.0/). voltage, terminal voltage, internal resistance and Coulomb Counting (CC) are commonly

Energies 2021, 14, 8560. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14248560 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2021, 14, 8560 2 of 19

used. However, these methods require regular calibration due to error propagation related
to changes in the internal characteristics of the battery due to aging, inaccuracies in the
assumed initial conditions, and measurement biases [6]. Temperature and mechanical
measurements of a cell have also been taken into consideration to improve the battery
management and therefore states estimation [7]. However, indirect methods have been
proven to be highly beneficial especially in uncertain conditions. Indirect methods include
fuzzy logic-based estimation, artificial neural networks, and filter/observer-based tech-
niques. Model-based strategies provide an insight into the internal dynamics of a battery
and therefore could be more practical to use onboard of a BMS [8–10].
The battery SoH estimation has to take into account the battery capacity fade and
impedance changes. SoH estimation methods are generally categorized into experimental
or model-based techniques. Experimental-based techniques rely on characterization of
batteries using cycling data. These methods involve measurement of internal resistance,
impedance measurement, coulomb counting and regression analysis. Model-based strate-
gies use filters and observers in conjunction with battery models to provide a real-time
indicator for SoH estimation [11,12].
Battery models used in BMSs have included electrochemical and equivalent circuit
models (ECMs). Electrochemical models are structured to represent the physical reactions
inside a battery and therefore are suitable for degradation analysis. However, they have not
been proven to be more accurate in SoC and SoH estimation and due to their complexity,
are not commonly used onboard of a BMS. ECMs, on the other hand, provide a simple
model which can be easily parameterized using experimental data, and provide sufficient
accuracy for real-time parameter and state estimation. Additionally, in their modified forms
provide thermal modeling or a measure of SoH [13]. For better accuracy, the parameters of
ECMs require to be adjusted according to the battery’s SoH, temperature, and current (or
C-rate). Different strategies have been reported for model adjustment including look-up
tables as well as parameter estimation and multiple model strategies. Online parameter
estimation is commonly considered to improve the performance by adapting the model for
different conditions [14]. Multiple model strategies can also increase the adaptation of a
battery by considering a range of scenarios [15,16]. Once a model is chosen to determine the
dynamics of the battery, a robust filter is needed to estimate the states of the battery [17–19].
The Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) is the most commonly used filter for parameter
estimation. Other methods include the Unscented KF (UKF), Quadrature KF (QKF), Sigma
Point KF (SPKF), Cubature KF (CKF) and Particle Filter (PF) [20–22]. These strategies have
been applied to lithium-ion batteries for state and parameter estimation [2,23–25]. Robust
filtering strategies such as the Robust Kalman Filters, H∞ Filtering and the Smooth Variable
Structure Filter (SVSF) have also been employed to deal with uncertainties [21,26,27].
In [28], SVSF with a Variable Boundary Layer (SVSF-VBL) is introduced to improve the
performance of SVSF in presence of noise and uncertainties. More advancements on
SVSF strategy have also been presented to boost the efficiency of the SVSF including the
second-order SVSF, square-root SVSF, its combination with different filters such as KF, EKF,
UKF, CKF, PF and more [29–31]. Although these methods enhance the accuracy of state
estimation, they do not consider adaptability. Additionally, these algorithms can only be
employed if the system is observable [32].
In the above filters, knowledge of the system’s model is an essential requirement for
reliable state and parameter estimation. Characterization of noise statistics is needed as
well as the dynamic model and affect the filter’s stability and performance. When this
information is not correct, the performance of the designed filter may worsen significantly
and could lead to divergence. Model-based filters such as the EKF assume that the system
model is largely known together with the input functions and the noise statistics. However,
this may not be the case in all applications and may need to be remedied through adaptive
filters [33,34].
Two types of adaptation are considered in this paper, including filter tuning and
multiple model (MM) methods. MM methods consider switching between a finite number
Energies 2021, 14, 8560 3 of 19

of models to provide adaptability against changes and uncertainties. Different forms

of multiple model methods have been proposed for state and parameter estimation of
batteries [15,16,35]. Filter tuning methods, on the other hands, are used to adjust filter
and model parameters as the system changes. Filter tuning methods can be categorized
into noise adaptation, parameter tuning and joint filtering of parameters and states. Dual
and joint estimation methods have been proposed in recent research for estimating both
parameters and states of a battery simultaneously [36,37].
Noise statistics need to be captured for model-based filters. However, most filters
usually assume that the noise is white, Gaussian and zero mean. If this assumption is
not satisfied, the filter performance degrades. This has generated a great deal of interest
in noise adjustments in a variety of applications. A wide range of studies have been
performed concerning the properties, advantages, and disadvantages of different methods.
In [38] different approaches for noise adaptations have been proposed for a KF. In [39], the
maximum likelihood method is used in an adaptive KF (AKF) for an INS/GPS integration
algorithm. A comparison of different strategies for noise covariance adaptation is presented
in [40]. In [41], noise covariance adaptation is employed to a KF. Zhang proposed an
adaptive KF for joint polarization tracking [34]. In [42], a comparison between different
adaptive strategies for EKF is presented. In [43], sufficient conditions for noise covariance
identification of a KF have been introduced.
Noise covariance estimation techniques can be broadly divided into two groups
including feedback methods and feedback-free methods [40]. Simultaneous estimation
of the states as well as the noise covariance matrices is performed in feedback methods.
These methods include the covariance matching and the Bayesian methods. For feedback-
free methods, on the other hand, estimated noise covariances are not required for state
estimation. Examples are the correlation and the maximum-likelihood methods [38,40].
In battery states estimation, the current supplied by the battery and the terminal
voltage are measured. Measurement uncertainties include sensor noise, drift, and bias.
The disturbances in current and voltage sensors affect the performance of a BMS, so they
need to be taken into account. Adaptive methods boost the performance of the estimation
methods in presence of noise, sensor drift and bias. However, sensor drift and bias should
still be identified, as well as noise, for calibration purposes and to ensure an efficient and
safe operation [17]. Different strategies are employed for sensor calibration which often
require operation of specific instruments irregularly. Online estimation of sensor bias is
a widely used technique in real-time applications. In [32], the observability of a battery
model is investigated in the presence of sensor bias. The effect of sensor bias and drift
estimation on SoC estimation is considered in [17].
This work considers adaptation for both sensor bias as well as modeling uncertainties.
An adaptive SVSF-VBL based strategy is proposed to reduce state estimation errors of a
battery. The contributions of this paper are as follows:
• An equivalent circuit model formulation augmented with internal resistance and
sensor bias is used as the model. The estimated internal resistance is employed as an
indicator of SoH while the estimated bias is to improve estimation accuracy.
• The Adaptive Smooth Variable Structure Filter with Variable Boundary Layer (ASVSF-
VBL) strategy is introduced for state estimation (SoC and SoH) in presence of changing
statics of noise and uncertainties. The proposed strategy provides noise adaptation
which improves estimation robustness and accuracy.
• The performance of the ASVSF-VBL is then compared to conventional SVSF-VBL and
EKF using experimental data.
Section 2 of this paper presents the model of the battery. The proposed ASVSF-VBL
estimation strategy is introduced in Section 3. In Section 4, the proposed method is tested
and validated using experimental data and its performance is comparatively analyzed.
Section 5 concludes the paper.
Energies 2021, 14, 8560 4 of 19

2. Modeling
Equivalent Circuit Model (ECM) provides a simple and effective approach for battery
characterization. Although, higher order models can be used to improve the battery
model’s performance, a trade-off between complexity and accuracy should be considered
to avoid over-parametrization that could affect estimation of the internal resistance. This
study employs a third-order ECM to provide enough accuracy for a battery model especially
when the battery ages while retaining the influence of aging on the internal resistance.
Figure 1 shows a circuit diagram of a third-order ECM. The model contains different
elements including a series resistance defined as internal resistance (Rin ) and the Open
Circuit Voltage (OCV) of the battery which relates to its SoC. The battery model also has
multiple Resistance-Capacitance (RC) branches that describe the transients of the battery
including the diffusion, the solid electrolyte interface (SEI) dynamics and the charge transfer
kinetics. The structure of the model should reflects the dynamic complexity of the battery
as it ages [44].

R1 R2 R3
Rin

I VT
Vocv C1 C2 C3

Figure 1. Third-order equivalent circuit battery model.

The battery model in Figure 1 is formulated with discrete-time state equations as

follows,

∆T ∆T
V1,k+1 = (1 − )V + i ,
R1 C1 1,k C1 k
∆T ∆T
V2,k+1 = (1 − )V + i ,
R2 C2 2,k C2 k
∆T ∆T
V3,k+1 = (1 − )V + i ,
R3 C3 3,k C3 k
η∆T
SOC k+1 = SOC k − i (1)
Cn k

where Vj , j = 1, 2, 3 are voltage across the RC branches, Cj , j = 1, 2, 3 are capacitor and

R j , j = 1, 2, 3 are resistance of the RC branches, i is the actual current flowing across the cell,
Cn is nominal capacity of the battery, η is the cell Coulombic Efficiency, ∆T is the sampling
period, and k is a time sample.
The output of the model is terminal voltage of the battery and is described as,

VT,k = Vocv (SOCk ) − V1,k − V2,k − V3,k − Rin ik (2)

where VT is the cell terminal voltage, Vocv is the open circuit voltage (nonlinear function of
SoC), and Rin is the cell internal resistance.
The parameters of the model change with SoC and temperature. Therefore, parameters
are constant within a small range of SoC, temperature and current level [45]. Updates of
the model parameters or possibly its structure are needed for determining the battery SoH.
The model can be modified using two approaches including model switching or parameter
updating or estimation [15,46]. Parameter estimation can be employed if observability
Energies 2021, 14, 8560 5 of 19

condition is satisfied. Here, the internal resistance is considered as a state that indicates the
battery SoH and power capability [47].

Rin,k+1 = Rin,k + wrk (3)

where wrk is white noise.

A bias may exist in the measured current of the battery due to sensor error [17,32].
Here, the current sensor bias is considered as an augmented state to the battery model to
be estimated. This modification could optimize the estimation performance. The sensor
bias is defined as follows,

Ib,k+1 = Ib,k + wbk (4)

where ib is the bias from the current sensor and wbk is white noise. The measured current
flowing across the cell (im ) includes this bias and is defined as follows,

Im,k = Ik + Ib,k (5)

The modification is then applied to the model. Therefore, the state-space form of the
proposed model is described as,

x k +1 = f ( x k ) + g ( x k ) u k , (6)
yk = h( xk , uk ) (7)

where x ∈ X is the state vector, u ∈ R is the input to the system, y ∈ Rm is the measurement
vector, f : X → Rn is the nonlinear system function, g : X → Rn is the input gain and h :
X → Rm is the nonlinear measurement function where they are all differentiable functions.
 T
The state and measurement vectors are xk = V1,k V2,k V3,k SOCk Ib,k Rin,k and
yk = VT,k , respectively. Note that in this model f ( xk ) is linear and f ( xk ) = Axk and
g( xk ) = B are given as,

1− ∆T − ∆T
 
0 0 0 0
 1 
 R1 C1 C1 C1
 0 1−R∆T 0 0 − ∆T 0  1 

2 C2 C2  C2 
1−R∆T − ∆T

 0
  1 
0 0 0
3 C3 C3 B=∆T  −
 C3 
A= , (8)
 η
η∆T 
 0 0 0 1 0
 
 Cn   Cn 
 0 0 0 0 1 0  0 
0 0 0 0 0 1 0

The output equation is a nonlinear function that can be specified as follows,

VT,k = Vocv (SOCk ) − V1,k − V2,k − V3,k + Rin ib,k − Rin im,k (9)

The observability of this battery model can be guaranteed if R1 C1 6= R2 C2 6= R3 C3

∂V k
and there exists a k ∈ Z such that ∂SOC
ocv
k 6 = 0 [15]. Therefore, estimation strategies can be
used here for state and parameter estimation.

3. Adaptive Smooth Variable Structure Filter with Variable Boundary Layer

The Adaptive Smooth Variable Structure Filter with Variable Boundary Layer (ASVSF-
VBL) strategy is a method that adapt to the changes in the noise statistics. The approach
improves the performance of the original SVSF-VBL and provides better accuracy and
robustness in presence of noise and uncertainties. It is particularly applicable to battery
SoC estimation as current bias is estimated and this increases the speed of noise statistic
estimation. This section provides details on the proposed approach for state estimation.
Energies 2021, 14, 8560 6 of 19

3.1. Smooth Variable Structure Filter with Variable Boundary Layer

The Variable Structure filter (VSF) approach was first presented in [26]. A revised
version of it named SVSF was then introduced in [27] that is a predictor-corrector strategy
based on the sliding mode concept. The method is applicable to linear and nonlinear
systems with the assumption that the system under consideration is observable. The
method provides stability and robustness to modeling uncertainties and noise with a given
upper bound for the level of noise and unmodeled dynamics. Assuming a typical model is
represented as follows,

x k +1 = f ( x k , u k , w k ), (10)
z k = h ( x k , u k , υk ) (11)

where υk is the measurement noise and wk is the system noise and they are uncorrelated
white noise with the following mean and covariance,
E[wk ] = 0, E[wk wkT ] = Qk (12)
E[υk ] = 0, E[υk υkT ] = Rk (13)

The discontinuous corrective action of the SVSF method leads to chattering as shown
in Figure 2. This chattering can be removed by using a smoothing boundary layer. The
smoothing boundary layer will be inefficient if the disturbance exceeds the assumed upper
bound [27]. A time-varying smoothing boundary layer eliminates chattering and excessive
switching as presented in [48]. More advancement to the SVSF have also been proposed,
including but not limited to covariance formulation, second-order SVSF, and combination
of SVSF with other filters such as KF, EKF, UKF, PF, Square-Root SVSF and Two-pass
SVSF [21,28,30,49]. The SVSF-VBL estimation is formulated as follows,

Figure 2. Effect of smoothing boundary layer (a) ψ > β, (b) ψ < β ( β is the upper boundary of existence subspace).

• Prediction: An estimated filter model is used to obtain the a-priori state estimates.

x̂k+1|k = Â x̂k|k + B̂uk , (14)

ẑk+1|k = Ĥ x̂k+1|k (15)
ek+1|k = zk+1 − ẑk+1|k (16)
Pk+1|k = ÂPk|k  T + Qk (17)

where P is the state vector covariance matrix, H is the jacobian matrix of H, and ek+1|k
is called the filter innovation measurement sequence.
Energies 2021, 14, 8560 7 of 19

• Correction: The correction gain is obtained and, the estimated states are then updated
from their a-priori into their a-posteriori by using this gain.

Sk+1 = ĤPk+1|k Ĥ T + Rk+1 (18)

Ek+1 = |ek+1|k | + γ|ek|k | (19)
−1
ψk+1 = ( Ēk−+11 ĤPk+1|k Ĥ T SkT+1 ) (20)

where S is the innovation covariance matrix, E is the combination of measurement

error vector, γ is the SVSF convergence parameter and ψk+1 is the SVSF smoothing
boundary layer width.
The SVSF is a predictor-corrector method and its gain is employed to update the
a-priori estimated states. The gain ψk+1 < ψlim is as follows,

Kk+1 = Ĥ −1 Ēk+1 ψk−+11 (21)

where ψlim is upper limit for the boundary layer. For the case when ψk+1 > ψlim the
SVSF gain is:

Kk+1 = Ĥ −1 Ēk+1 sat(ek+1|k ψk−+11 )ēk−+11|k (22)

Finally, the a posteriori parameters are calculated as:

x̂k+1|k+1 = x̂k+1|k + Kk+1 ek+1|k (23)

T
Pk+1|k+1 = ( I − Kk+1 Ĥ ) Pk+1|k ( I − Kk+1 Ĥ )
+ Kk+1 Rk+1 KkT+1 (24)
ẑk+1|k+1 = Ĥ x̂k+1|k+1 (25)
ek+1|k+1 = zk+1 − ẑk+1|k+1 (26)

where ek+1|k+1 is called the filter measurement residual sequence. Equations (14) to
(26) summarize the SVSF-VBL strategy.

3.2. Noise Adaptation for Smooth Variable Structure Filter

This paper proposes a novel form of SVSF-VBL that incorporates adaptation to noise
statistics. Although the stability and estimation convergence of the SVSF-VBL method is
proven with the time-varying boundary layer, its performance is significantly enhanced
with adaptation to noise statistics variation and by including bias estimation in measure-
ments. Figure 3 offers a brief overview of the ASVSF-VBL strategy that is explained on this
section.

if  vbl   lim ASVSF-VBL

Prediction Time-Varying smoothing boundary Update

Stage layer calculation Stage

if  vbl   lim Standard SVSF gain

Figure 3. Overview of ASVSF-VBL strategy.

Different strategies have been proposed for noise adaptation including covariance
matching, Bayesian, Maximum likelihood and correlation method. These methods have
Energies 2021, 14, 8560 8 of 19

been tested in different applications to improve estimation performance. In the ASVSF-

VBL, the system and measurement noise covariance matrices (Q and R) are adapted in time
using the covariance matching method. The covariance matching technique employs the
innovation and the residual defined in Equations (16) and (26) to adapt the estimated value
of the system and measurement noise covariance matrices. Maximization of likelihood
functions is used here to derive innovation-based adaptation for the measurement noise
covariance matrix (R) using the SVSF-VBL method. The likelihood maximization estimation
provides a unique and consistent value for measurement noise covariance matrix (R)
estimation. The system noise covariance matrix (Q) is then estimated using the difference
between a-posteriori and a-priori states. The optimization is performed in real-time for
each time instant [41–43,50]. The assumptions for the ASVSF-VBL are as follows,
• The states are independent of the adaptive parameters.
• The system and measurement matrices are time variant within a piece-wise limit and
independent of adaptive parameters.
• The innovation sequence is white and ergodic within the estimation window.
For Gaussian distribution, the probability density function of the measurements
conditioned on an adaptive parameter at a specific epoch of k + 1 is defined as,

1 − 21 ekT+1 Ce−1 ek+1

P ( z | α ) k +1 = q e k +1 (27)
(2π )m |Cek+1 |

where ek+1 = zk+1 − zk+1|k is the innovation sequence, Cvk+1 is the innovation sequence
covariance matrix, m is the number of measurements, and α is the adaptive parameter. The
zk+1|k is obtained from Equation (15). The logarithmic form of the above equation is

1
ln ( P(z|α)k+1 ) = − {m ln (2π ) + ln (|Cek+1 |) + ln (ekT+1 Ce−k+1 1 ek+1 )} (28)
2
For a fixed-length memory filter, the innovation matrix will only be considered inside
a window of size N. Therefore, the ML optimization problem is defined as follows,

k +1 k +1
min
α
∑ ln |Cei | + ∑ (eiT Ce−i 1 ei ) (29)
i = i0 i = i0

where i0 = k − N + 2 is the first epoch inside the estimation. The above formula defines
the best estimate as it has the maximum likelihood based on the adaptive parameters. This
optimization problem can be simplified using matrix differential calculus as,

k +1  ∂Cei ∂Cei −1 
∑ tr Ce−i 1 − eiT Ce−i 1

C e =0 (30)
i = i0
∂αk+1 ∂αk+1 ei i

The partial derivative of Equation (18) with respect to α is,

∂Cek ∂Rk+1 ∂Pk+1|k T

= +H H (31)
∂αk+1 ∂αk+1 ∂αk+1

And taking partial derivative from Equation (17) with respect to α gives,

∂Pk+1|k ∂Pk|k ∂Qk

=A AT + (32)
∂αk+1 ∂αk+1 ∂αk+1
Energies 2021, 14, 8560 9 of 19

Assuming that the process inside the estimation window is in steady state, Equation
(32) can be written as,

∂Pk+1|k ∂Qk
= (33)
∂αk+1 ∂αk+1

By substituting Equation (33) into (31) and applying it into (30) the maximum likeli-
hood equation for the adaptive SVSF-VBL is as follows,

k +1  ∂Ri ∂Q
∑ tr Ce−i 1 − Ce−i 1 ei eiT Ce−i 1 + H i −1 H T = 0
 
(34)
i = i0
∂αk+1 ∂αk+1

Both system and measurement noise covariance matrices (Q and R) can be adapted
based on α from the computed equation. To achieve an expression for R, αii = Rii is
considered where the adaptive parameters are the variance of the updated measurement.
Therefore, Equation (34) is modified as follows,

k +1
∑ tr Ce−i 1 Cei − ei eiT Ce−i 1 = 0
  
(35)
i = i0

This equation is solved by defining the innovation sequence as,

k +1
1
Cek+1 =
N ∑ ei eiT (36)
i = i0

Replacing Equation (36) into (18),

Rk+1 = Cek+1 − ĤPk+1|k Ĥ T (37)

Since the measurement noise covariance should be positive definite, a more stable
expression is required. For the case with ψk+1 < ψlim , it can be shown that the adaptation
rule for R is,

Rk+1 = Ĉε k+1 + ĤPk+1|k+1 Ĥ T (38)

where the residual sequence is ε = zk+1 − zk+1|k+1 and residual covariance matrix Ĉε k+1
can be calculated as,
k +1
1
Ĉε k+1 =
N ∑ ε i εTi (39)
i = i0

A forgetting factor is then employed to provide a smoother estimation of R,

Rk+1 = λ R Rk + (1 − λ R )(Ĉε k+1 + ĤPk+1|k+1 Ĥ T ) (40)

where 0 ≤ λ R ≤ 1.
The process noise covariance (Q) can be achieved using the SVSF-VBL formulation.
Considering the system Equation (10) as,

wk = xk+1 − f ( xk , uk) (41)

From Equations (41) and (14), the estimated system noise can be obtained as,

ŵk = xk+1|k+1 − f ( xk|k , uk ) = xk+1|k+1 − xk+1|k = Kek+1|k (42)

Energies 2021, 14, 8560 10 of 19

Covariance of ŵk can be written as,

E[ŵk ŵkT ] = E[Kek+1|k [Kek+1|k ] T ] = KCek+1 K T (43)

T
Qk = KCek+1 K (44)

A forgetting factor is also considered for Q to update it gradually [41],

Qk+1 = λQ Qk + (1 − λQ )(K Ĉk+1 K T ) (45)

where 0 ≤ λ R ≤ 1.
Figure 4 illustrates an overview of the proposed ASVSF-VBL method specified for
state estimation of electric vehicle batteries. The SVSF filter guarantees stability using
a Lyapunov function. Based on Lyapunov theory, if a Lyapunov function (V) is locally
positive definite and the time derivative of it is locally negative semi-definite, the filter
is stable [27]. The following Lyapunov function is considered based on the a-posteriori
estimation error (residual error),

V = ekT+1|k+1 ek+1|k+1 > 0 (46)

Therefore, the estimation process is stable if the following condition is satisfied,

∆V 6 0 (47)

where ∆V is defined as follows,

∆V = ekT+1|k+1 ek+1|k+1 − ekT+1|k ek+1|k (48)

Therefore, the following condition which is equal to Equation (46) satisfies the stability
condition of the estimation process [27].

|ek|k | Abs > |ek+1|k+1 | Abs (49)

Theorem 1 ([27]). On the stability of the SVSF strategy, if the system is stable, consecutive
bijective (or completely observable and completely controllable in the case of linear systems), then
the SVSF corrective gain Kk+1 that would satisfy the stability condition of (49) is subject to the
following conditions,
|ek+1|k | Abs 6 |Kk+1 | Abs < |ek+1|k | Abs + |ek|k | Abs (50)

The corrective gain Kk+1 of the SVSF as Equation (22) satisfies this condition [27]. The
SVSF gain is not affected by the adaptive scheme outside the boundary layer and hence
BIBO stability of the ASVSF-VBL remains unaffected.
Energies 2021, 14, 8560 11 of 19

Model Re-Calibration ASVSF-VBL

Terminal
Voltage
Prediction

Battery A-priori state and Predicted output and

Augmented Model covariance matrix, innovation sequance, Estimated SoC SoC
Battery
Current + Battery Model, Eq 14 &17. Eq 15 & 16.
- Section 2.

Correction Adaptation law for

Model Parameters
, Eq 40.
SoH Estimation,
A-posteriori states, SoH
Eq 51.
Eq 23. Innovation covariance

ek+1|k+1
matrix and combined

ek+1|k

xk|k , Pk|k , Qk
Look-up Table for error vectors, Eq 18 &
parameters 19.
Estimated output and

K
residual sequence, Eq
25 & 26. Filter Gain
Calculation, Eq 20, Ib Current Bias
21 & 22.
Estimated SoC

A-posteriori covariance
matrix and adaptation law
for , Eq 24 & 45.

Estimated Current Bias

Estimated SoC

Figure 4. An overview of the proposed strategy for battery state estimation.

4. Experimental Results
The ASVSF-VBL was validated and comparatively studied further to experiments
conducted on NMC Lithium Polymer battery cells. Battery cells specifications are presented
in Table 1. The experiments were conducted by using an experimental setup consisting of
an Arbin BT2000 cycler, environmental chambers , an AVL Lynx data acquisition system,
and AVL Lynx software [45]. The characterization tests included static capacity, internal
resistance, OCV-SOC and efficiency tests; these were conducted to obtain a baseline for the
battery cell performance. In addition, cycling tests were done to investigate the impact of
aging on the battery’s performance and dynamics.

Table 1. Battery cells specifications.

Manufacture Batterist
Type NMC Li-ion Polymer
Nominal Capacity (mAh) 5400
Nominal Voltage (V) 3.7
Minimum Voltage (V) 2.8
Maximum Voltage (V) 4.2

Different driving cycles including an Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS);

a light duty drive cycle for high speed and high load (US06); and, a High Fuel Economy
Test (HWFET) drive cycle were used in this study. Figure 5 presents the standard driving
cycles considered in this article. These drive cycles simulate common driving patterns.
The driving patterns of an average driver in the city are illustrated in Figure 5 and were
assumed to be the UDDS 1 cycle. High acceleration driving conditions with aggressive
driving patterns are performed by US06 drive cycle. The HWFET drive cycle represents
highway driving. A mixture of these velocity profiles was used to generate a current profile
for the battery cell as presented in Figure 6. The experimental data was collected for battery
Energies 2021, 14, 8560 12 of 19

cells over time at elevated temperatures ranging from 35◦ to 40◦ to accelerate aging for a
full range of SoCs from 90% to 20% [1,45].

Figure 5. Velocity profiles for the UDDS, US06, and HWFET driving cycles (Data set from [51]).

Figure 6. Voltage, current, and SoC for a cell using a mixed drive cycle.

The battery model should be determined as an essential part of estimation. Battery

model parameters are first identified for different levels of SoC (Figure 6) as well as
SoH [45]. Table 2 provides the parametric bound of the equivalent circuit model presented
in Section 2. The internal resistance of the battery is considered as a parameter to be
estimated in real time. The internal resistance is one of the key factors for determining the
battery’s SoH and reflects the power capability of a battery. The battery’s SoH is estimated
using an indicator as follows,
Energies 2021, 14, 8560 13 of 19

R EOL − Rin
SOH R = × 100% (51)
R EOL − Rnew

where R EOL is the internal resistance of a fully aged battery, Rnew is the internal resistance
of a fresh battery where it can be estimated based on experimental characterization or
obtained from manufacturer’s specifications. The Rin is the estimated internal resistance
provided by the ASVSF-VBL strategy. The end of life for a battery in electric applications is
usually where the nominal capacity is about 80% compared to its value when the battery
is new. Equation (51) indicates a value in range of 0 6 SoH R 6 1 which means that the
battery reached its end of life and should be replaced. The presented value should be
redefined in the range of 0.8 6 SoHR 6 1 which means that Cn,old = 0.8Cn,new [12,52].
The ASVSF-VBL strategy as illustrated in Figure 4 is then employed to estimates the
states of a battery including the internal resistance, the SoC and the current bias. Figure 7
demonstrates the validation data used to investigate the performance of the proposed
method. Data was collected during experiments for a smaller range of SoC based on a
US06 drive cycle for validation. Through the validation cycle, the battery cell’s voltage
is measured and recorded as fast as 10 Hz. These measurements are then employed to
evaluate the proposed strategy. A comparison of the ASVSF-VBL versus the SVSF-VBL
and the EKF methods is provided to investigate the performance of the proposed strategy
under different conditions. All filters use the same models with the same initial parameters
for providing a direct comparison between the performance of the three filters. Optimal
and non-optimal initial parameters are considered to show the effect of Q and R on the
filters as listed in Table 3. In a non-ideal scenario a current bias of Ib = 1A has been added
to the current measurement. In addition, extra noise has been added to measurements to
simulate changing statistics of noise under controlled conditions.

Figure 7. Current and voltage of the validation data.

Energies 2021, 14, 8560 14 of 19

Table 2. Model Parameters bound of a third-order ECM. Example given for 80% SoC and 100% SOH.

Parameters R1 ( Ω ) R2 ( Ω ) R3 ( Ω ) τ1 (s) τ2 (s) τ3 (s)

Upper Bound 0.025 0.0079 0.089 1 27 355
Lower Bound 0.00117 0.000038 0.0012 0.1 8 74
Example 0.0018 0.0028 0.0082 0.5543 11.929 111.57

Table 3. Initial parameters used for the filters.

Parameters R Q P Ib0 ψ γ
Optimal Value 5 0.1I6 I6 0 6 0.23
Non-Optimal Value 50 I6 I6 1 6 0.23

Table 4 provides the root mean square error of the results for two different scenarios.
Firstly, an ideal scenario is considered where there are no added measurement bias and
noise. Secondly, the filters have been tested in the presence of added noise and bias to
the measurements. The results indicate that the proposed method using ASVSF-VBL
provides a more accurate performance especially in the presence of added noise and bias
disturbances. To illustrate the sensitivity of other methods to unknown noise statistics, Q
and R are incorrectly specified as in Table 3. Figure 8a,b show the estimated SoC for both
scenarios. The actual SoCs in these figures are evaluated using coulomb counting method
from the cycler’s data. This is because the initial value of SoC and nominal capacity of a
battery are both known during a laboratory experiment. It can be seen from Figure 8b that
after 1500 s the EKF error increases when the drive cycle C-rate is high as illustrated in
Figure 7. Figure 9a,b display the percentage of SoC estimation error for both scenarios. It
can be observed that the proposed strategy can keep the percentage of SoC error to less
than 2%. It is also shown in Figures 10 and 11 that the proposed strategy is superior in
identifying the current bias and internal resistance compared to the EKF and SVSF-VBL
methods.

Table 4. Root mean square errors of ASVSF-VBL in comparison with SVSF-VBL and EKF for different scenarios.

Different Scenarios Ideal Scenario In Presence of Noise and Current Bias

Optimal Initial Non-Optimal Initial Optimal Initial Non-Optimal Initial
Initial Conditions
Noise Covariance Noise Covariance Noise Covariance Noise Covariance
EKF 1.9735 0.5033 1.2640 2.5416
RMSESOC SVSF-VBL 0.3776 0.3776 0.5207 0.6462
ASVSF-VBL 0.4304 0.4304 0.5386 0.5386
EKF 0.000499 0.000695 0.0005477 0.000441
RMSEVt SVSF-VBL 0.000276 0.000276 0.000241 0.000241
ASVSF-VBL 0.00014 0.00014 0.00032 0.00032
Energies 2021, 14, 8560 15 of 19

(a) (b)

Figure 8. (a) Estimated SoC for an ideal scenario, (b) Estimated SoC in presence of noise and current bias.

(a) (b)

Figure 9. (a) Percentage of estimated SoC error for an ideal scenario, (b) Percentage of estimated SoC error in presence of
noise and current bias.

(a) (b)

Figure 10. (a) Estimated current bias for an ideal scenario, (b) Estimated current bias in presence of noise and current bias.
Energies 2021, 14, 8560 16 of 19

(a) (b)

Figure 11. (a) Estimated internal resistance for an ideal scenario, (b) Estimated internal resistance in presence of noise and
current bias.

5. Conclusions
An adaptive strategy referred to as the Adaptive Smooth Variable Structure Filter
with Variable Boundary Layer (ASVSF-VBL) is proposed to estimate the SoC and SoH
of a battery. The ASVSF-VBL is model-based and, in this study, a third-order Equivalent
Circuit Model (ECM) was used as the filter model. In addition to the SoC and SoH, the
state vector was augmented to estimate the bias in current measurement and the battery’s
internal resistance. The ASVSF-VBL adjusts the unknown system and measurement noise
covariance matrices to provide a better performance under conditions involving noise with
changing statistics. The adaptation scheme does not affect the stability of the estimation
process. The estimated internal resistance of the ASVSF-VBL is used as an indicator of the
battery SoH in addition to SoC. The proposed strategy was comparatively validated using
experimental data and demonstrated a considerable improvement in performance. The
proposed ASVSF-VBL reduced the estimated error of voltage to about 0.14 mV compared
to the SVSF-VBL and EKF. The presented strategy showed the lowest SoC estimation error
that remains within 2% with an RMSE of approximately 0.4.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.R., S.H.; Methodology, S.R.; Software, S.R.; Investigation,
S.R.; Formal analysis, S.R.; Validation, S.R.; Writing—original draft, S.R.; Supervision, S.H., J.T., G.G.;
Writing—review & editing, S.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the
manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the Collaborative Research and Training Experience (CREATE)
Grant through the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada under Grant 482038-
2016.
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.

List of Notations

VT Cell terminal voltage.

Vj Voltage across RC branch, j = 1, 2, 3.
Energies 2021, 14, 8560 17 of 19

Vocv Open circuit voltage (nonlinear function of SoC).

SoC State of Charge.
SoH State of Health.
SoP State of Power.
Cn Cell nominal capacity.
Rin Cell internal resistance.
Rj Resistance of RC branch, j = 1, 2, 3.
Cj Capacitor of RC branch, j = 1, 2, 3.
η Cell Coulombic Efficiency.
∆T Sampling period.
k Time sample.
i Actual current flowing across the cell.
im Measured current flowing across the cell.
ib Bias from the current sensor.
x State vector or values.
u Input to the system.
y Measurement vector or values.
f Nonlinear system function.
g Input gain function.
h Nonlinear measurement function.
X An open subset of Rn .
A State matrix.
B Input matrix.
w System noise vector.
υ Measurement noise vector.
k+1 | k A-priori time step (i.e., before applied gain).
k+1 | k+1 A-posteriori time step (i.e., after update).
Q System noise covariance matrix.
R Measurement noise covariance matrix.
Diag(a) or ā diagonal matrix of some vector a.
γ SVSF “convergence” or memory parameter.
ψ SVSF smoothing boundary layer width.
K SVSF gain matrix.
P State error covariance matrix.
ˆ Estimated vector or values.
S Innovation covariance matrix.
|a| Absolute value of some vector a.
T Transpose of some vector or matrix.
e Measurement (output) error vector.
E Combination of measurement error vectors.
sat( a) Defines a saturation of the term a.
H Jacobian matrix of h.
m Number of measurements.
n Number of states.
ln( a) Defines a natural logarithm of a.
P(z | a) Probability density function of z conditioned to a.
α Adaptive parameter.
tr ( A) Trace of matrix A.
λR Forgetting factor of estimated measurement noise covariance.
λQ Forgetting factor of estimated system noise covariance.
e Innovation Sequence.
ε Residual Sequence.
Ij Identity matrix (Ij ∈ R j× j ).
0j Zero matrix (0 j ∈ R j× j ).
V Lyapunov function.
Energies 2021, 14, 8560 18 of 19

References
1. Ahmed, R.; El Sayed, M.; Arasaratnam, I.; Tjong, J.; Habibi, S. Reduced-order electrochemical model parameters identification
and soc estimation for healthy and aged li-ion batteries part i: Parameterization model development for healthy batteries. IEEE J.
Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron. 2014, 2, 659–677.
2. Wang, Y.; Tian, J.; Sun, Z.; Wang, L.; Xu, R.; Li, M.; Chen, Z. A comprehensive review of battery modeling and state estimation
approaches for advanced battery management systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 131, 110015.
3. 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.
4. Ahmed, R.; Sayed, M.E.; Arasaratnam, I.; Tjong, J.; Habibi, S. Reduced-Order Electrochemical Model Parameters Identification
and State of Charge Estimation for Healthy and Aged Li-Ion Batteries—Part II: Aged Battery Model and State of Charge
Estimation. IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron. 2014, 2, 678–690. doi:10.1109/JESTPE.2014.2331062.
5. Baccouche, I.; Jemmali, S.; Mlayah, A.; Manai, B.; Amara, N.E.B. Implementation of an Improved Coulomb-Counting Algorithm
Based on a Piecewise SOC-OCV Relationship for SOC Estimation of Li-IonBattery. arXiv 2018, arXiv:1803.10654.
6. Movassagh, K.; Raihan, A.; Balasingam, B.; Pattipati, K. A critical look at Coulomb counting approach for state of charge
estimation in batteries. Energies 2021, 14, 4074.
7. Wei, Z.; Zhao, J.; He, H.; Ding, G.; Cui, H.; Liu, L. Future smart battery and management: Advanced sensing from external to
embedded multi-dimensional measurement. J. Power Sources 2021, 489, 229462.
8. Plett, G. Extended Kalman filtering for battery management systems of LiPB-based HEV battery packs-Part 1. Background. J.
Power Sources 2004, 134, 252–261.
9. Piller, S.; Perrin, M.; Jossen, A. Methods for state-of-charge determination and their applications. J. Power Sources 2001, 96, 113–120.
10. Samadani, S.E.; Fraser, R.A.; Fowler, M. A Review Study of Methods for Lithium-Ion Battery Health Monitoring and Remaining Life
Estimation in Hybrid Electric Vehicles; Technical Report, SAE Technical Paper; SAE International: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2012.
Available online: https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/2012-01-0125/ (accessed on 10 October 2021).
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Lin, X.; Perez, H.E.; Siegel, J.B.; Stefanopoulou, A.G. Robust estimation of battery system temperature distribution under sparse
sensing and uncertainty. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 2019, 28, 753–765.
14. Wei, Z.; Zhao, J.; Xiong, R.; Dong, G.; Pou, J.; Tseng, K.J. Online estimation of power capacity with noise effect attenuation for
lithium-ion battery. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2018, 66, 5724–5735.
15. Rahimifard, S.; Ahmed, R.; Habibi, S. Interacting Multiple Model Strategy for Electric Vehicle Batteries State of Charge/Health/
Power Estimation. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 109875–109888. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3102607.
16. Messing, M.; Rahimifard, S.; Shoa, T.; Habibi, S. Low Temperature, Current Dependent Battery State Estimation Using Interacting
Multiple Model Strategy. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 99876–99889.
17. Lin, X. Theoretical analysis of battery SOC estimation errors under sensor bias and variance. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2018,
65, 7138–7148.
18. Smiley, A.; Plett, G.L. An adaptive physics-based reduced-order model of an aged lithium-ion cell, selected using an interacting
multiple-model Kalman filter. J. Energy Storage 2018, 19, 120–134.
19. Farag, M.; Fleckenstein, M.; Habibi, S. Continuous piecewise-linear, reduced-order electrochemical model for lithium-ion batteries
in real-time applications. J. Power Sources 2017, 342, 351–362.
20. Bar-Shalom, Y.; Li, X.R.; Kirubarajan, T. Estimation with Applications to Tracking and Navigation: Theory Algorithms and Software;
John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2004.
21. Afshari, H.H.; Gadsden, S.A.; Habibi, S. Gaussian filters for parameter and state estimation: A general review of theory and
recent trends. Signal Process. 2017, 135, 218–238.
22. Arasaratnam, I.; Haykin, S. Cubature kalman filters. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 2009, 54, 1254–1269.
23. He, Y.; Liu, X.; Zhang, C.; Chen, Z. A new model for State-of-Charge (SOC) estimation for high-power Li-ion batteries. Appl.
Energy 2013, 101, 808–814.
24. Farag, M.S.; Ahmed, R.; Gadsden, S.; Habibi, S.; Tjong, J. A comparative study of Li-ion battery models and nonlinear dual
estimation strategies. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Transportation Electrification Conference and Expo (ITEC), Dearborn, MI,
USA, 18–20 June 2012; pp. 1–8.
25. Wang, W.; Wang, D.; Wang, X.; Li, T.; Ahmed, R.; Habibi, S.; Emadi, A. Comparison of kalman filter-based state of charge
estimation strategies for li-ion batteries. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Transportation Electrification Conference and Expo
(ITEC), Dearborn, MI, USA, 27–29 June 2016; pp. 1–6.
26. Habibi, S.; Burton, R. The variable structure filter. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 2003, 125, 287–293.
27. Habibi, S. The smooth variable structure filter. Proc. IEEE 2007, 95, 1026–1059.
28. Gadsden, S.A.; Habibi, S.R. A new form of the smooth variable structure filter with a covariance derivation. In Proceedings of the
49th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), Atlanta, GA, USA, 15–17 December 2010; pp. 7389–7394.
Energies 2021, 14, 8560 19 of 19

29. Gadsden, S.A.; El Sayed, M.; Habibi, S.R. Derivation of an optimal boundary layer width for the smooth variable structure filter.
In Proceedings of the 2011 American Control Conference, San Francisco, CA, USA, 29 June–1 July 2011; pp. 4922–4927.
30. Gadsden, S.A.; Lee, A.S. Advances of the smooth variable structure filter: square-root and two-pass formulations. J. Appl. Remote
Sens. 2017, 11, 015018.
31. Afshari, H.H.; Gadsden, S.A.; Habibi, S. A nonlinear second-order filtering strategy for state estimation of uncertain systems.
Signal Process. 2019, 155, 182–192.
32. Zhao, S.; Duncan, S.R.; Howey, D.A. Observability analysis and state estimation of lithium-ion batteries in the presence of sensor
biases. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 2016, 25, 326–333.
33. Partovibakhsh, M.; Liu, G. An adaptive unscented Kalman filtering approach for online estimation of model parameters and
state-of-charge of lithium-ion batteries for autonomous mobile robots. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 2014, 23, 357–363.
34. Zhang, Q.; Yang, Y.; Xiang, Q.; He, Q.; Zhou, Z.; Yao, Y. Noise adaptive Kalman filter for joint polarization tracking and channel
equalization using cascaded covariance matching. IEEE Photonics J. 2018, 10, 1–11.
35. Smiley, A.J.; Harrison, W.K.; Plett, G.L. Postprocessing the outputs of an interacting multiple-model Kalman filter using a
Markovian trellis to estimate parameter values of aged Li-ion cells. J. Energy Storage 2020, 27, 101043.
36. Plett, G.L. Dual and joint EKF for simultaneous SOC and SOH estimation. In Proceedings of the 21st Electric Vehicle Symposium
(EVS21), Monte Carlo, Monaco, 2–6 April 2005; pp. 1–12.
37. Dong, G.; Chen, Z.; Wei, J.; Zhang, C.; Wang, P. An online model-based method for state of energy estimation of lithium-ion
batteries using dual filters. J. Power Sources 2016, 301, 277–286.
38. Mehra, R. Approaches to adaptive filtering. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 1972, 17, 693–698.
39. Mohamed, A.; Schwarz, K. Adaptive Kalman filtering for INS/GPS. J. Geod. 1999, 73, 193–203.
40. Duník, J.; Straka, O.; Kost, O.; Havlík, J. Noise covariance matrices in state-space models: A survey and comparison of estimation
methods—Part I. Int. J. Adapt. Control Signal Process. 2017, 31, 1505–1543.
41. Akhlaghi, S.; Zhou, N.; Huang, Z. Adaptive adjustment of noise covariance in Kalman filter for dynamic state estimation. In
Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting, Chicago, IL, USA, 16–20 July 2017; pp. 1–5.
42. Song, M.; Astroza, R.; Ebrahimian, H.; Moaveni, B.; Papadimitriou, C. Adaptive Kalman filters for nonlinear finite element model
updating. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2020, 143, 106837.
43. Zhang, L.; Sidoti, D.; Bienkowski, A.; Pattipati, K.R.; Bar-Shalom, Y.; Kleinman, D.L. On the identification of noise covariances
and adaptive Kalman Filtering: A new look at a 50 year-old problem. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 59362–59388.
44. Nejad, S.; Gladwin, D.; Stone, D. A systematic review of lumped-parameter equivalent circuit models for real-time estimation of
lithium-ion battery states. J. Power Sources 2016, 316, 183–196.
45. Ahmed, R.; Gazzarri, J.; Onori, S.; Habibi, S.; Jackey, R.; Rzemien, K.; Tjong, J.; LeSage, J. Model-based parameter identification of
healthy and aged li-ion batteries for electric vehicle applications. SAE Int. J. Altern. Powertrains 2015, 4, 233–247.
46. Rahimifard, S.; Habibi, S.; Tjong, J. Dual Estimation Strategy for New and Aged Electric Vehicles Batteries. In Proceedings of the
2020 IEEE Transportation Electrification Conference & Expo (ITEC), Chicago, IL, USA, 23–26 June 2020; pp. 579–583.
47. Guha, A.; Patra, A. State of health estimation of lithium-ion batteries using capacity fade and internal resistance growth models.
IEEE Trans. Transp. Electrif. 2017, 4, 135–146.
48. Gadsden, S.; Habibi, S. A new robust filtering strategy for linear systems. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 2013, 135, 014503.
49. Gadsden, S.A.; Habibi, S.R.; Kirubarajan, T. A novel interacting multiple model method for nonlinear target tracking. In
Proceedings of the 2010 13th International Conference on Information Fusion, Edinburgh, UK, 26–29 July 2010; pp. 1–8.
50. Ding, W.; Wang, J.; Rizos, C.; Kinlyside, D. Improving adaptive Kalman estimation in GPS/INS integration. J. Navig. 2007,
60, 517.
51. Dynamometer Drive Schedules. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/vehicle-and-fuel-emissions-testing/dynamometer-
drive-schedules#vehicleDDS (accessed on 10 October 2021).
52. Chen, L.; Lü, Z.; Lin, W.; Li, J.; Pan, H. A new state-of-health estimation method for lithium-ion batteries through the intrinsic
relationship between ohmic internal resistance and capacity. Measurement 2018, 116, 586–595.