Battery Degradation Maps for Power System
Optimization and as a Benchmark Reference
Philipp Fortenbacher
Göran Andersson

arXiv:1703.03690v1 [] 10 Mar 2017

Power Systems Laboratory
ETH Zurich
Zurich, Switzerland
{fortenbacher,andersson}@eeh.ee.ethz.ch

Abstract—This paper presents a novel method to describe
battery degradation. We use the concept of degradation maps
to model the incremental charge capacity loss as a function
of discrete battery control actions and state of charge. The
maps can be scaled to represent any battery system in size and
power. Their convex piece-wise affine representations allow for
tractable optimal control formulations and can be used in power
system simulations to incorporate battery degradation. The
map parameters for different battery technologies are published
making them an useful basis to benchmark different battery
technologies in case studies.
Index Terms—battery degradation, optimal control, battery
management systems

framework to achieve tractable formulations of the control
problem. Also they can be used for carrying out case studies
that assess the impact on battery degradation for different
battery technologies and different usage pattern. In this paper
we publish the map parameters for three battery technologies
namely LiCoO2, LiMnNiCo/LiMn2O4, and LiFePO4. It is
projected that those battery technologies will have a significant
market share in Lithium-based battery applications. In 2025,
it is forecasted that these technologies will have a share of
86% (LiFePO4 (LFP) 26%, LiCoO2 (LCO) 26%, LiMn2O4
(LMO) 9% and LiMnNiCo (NMC) 25%) [5] of the available
Lithium cathode materials.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Battery degradation depends on battery operation and can
thus be influenced by the operational management. To enhance economic profitability it is crucial to have suitable
and functional degradation models, which can be used in
battery applications that take battery life time into account.
Degradation processes are very hard to model, and even in
the electrochemical domain there does not exist a complete
understanding of the phenomenon [1].
There has been significant recent research focused on the
development of battery life cycle and calendar life models
[2]–[4]. These models are semi-empirical that fit experimental
data to analytic functions that take as inputs Ah or cycle
throughput, Depth of Discharge (DoD), temperature, current
rates and calculate the remaining charge capacity. However,
such representations are not applicable in control applications,
since cost functions are needed in such a framework that
map an individual control action to an incremental capacity
loss. Moreover, these models are also not able to account
for arbitrary usage pattern that are present in power system
applications.
The main contribution of this paper is the development
of degradation maps derived from various sources for Li-ion
batteries comprising different cathode materials. By means of
degradation maps we can associate an discrete individual control action to an incremental capacity loss. We show that the
maps can be scaled to represent any battery system in size and
power. The maps can be generically incorporated as convex
piecewise affine (PWA) cost functions into an optimal control

II. D EGRADATION M ODELING
Degradation or capacity fade has various physical phenomena. A comprehensive overview on fading mechanisms
is given in [6] for Li-ion batteries. According to the authors
anode, cathode, and electrolyte aging mechanisms attribute to
capacity fade. A more quantitative study on these mechanisms
is reported by Arora et al. [7], where they identified various
processes contributing to degradation. The most relevant are
overcharge, and interfacial film formation. All processes can
be characterized by chemical side reactions that irreversibly
transform cyclable ions into solid components and lead to
active material loss and consequently to charge capacity loss.
In general, chemical side reactions are activated by voltage potentials, temperature, and current rates. Not all side
reactions and mechanisms are understood in detail making
them a relevant topic for research. Since degradation is very
hard to model and can only be formulated properly in the
complex electrochemical domain, research also concentrates
on finding of macroscopic semi-empirical models. Importantly,
only such functional models can be integrated in power system
applications that make use of optimization techniques.
As shown in Fig. 1, a procedure has been developed to
convert available models into degradation maps. For their
determination three cases are distinguished:
System Identification An online Identification (ID) method
is presented in [8] that maps the lost charge capacity
associated with each discrete control action to the State

Ibat

Cycle Test Data
[3]
Calendar and
Cycle Life Models
[2]–[4]

Pattern
Reconstruction

SoC

Piecewice
Affine (PWA)
Convex
Degradation
Map

Degradation
Map

Online System
Identification [8]

Qs

Degradation Is
Process

+


Qs,m

M Is

Convexification
Empirical
Degradation
Function [9], [10]

Fig. 2. Block diagram of the online degradation system ID process to obtain
degradation maps.

Discretization

Fig. 1. Procedure to convert existing degradation models into degradation
maps. Those maps associate an incremental capacity loss to an individual
control action. For convex optimization the degradation maps have to be
convexified or approximated to convex functions.

of Charge (SoC) and current, allowing to create a battery
degradation map.
Pattern Reconstruction Using the aforementioned approach,
a battery usage pattern can be reconstructed from either
cycle test data or life cycle and calendar life models.
Disrectization Empirical analytic degradation functions as
reported in [9], [10] can also be represented in the
proposed framework by discretization.
Following sections detail the procedure in all steps.
A. Degradation Maps
The concept of degradation maps is not novel. Moura et
al. [11] used such concept to approximate the film growth
rate as a function of the SoC and battery current. Since they
developed the map to describe only the Surface Electrolyte
Interface (SEI) layer decomposition, this work adopts this
idea to generalize this approach also describing hidden and
unknown chemical side reactions as a black box model. A
stationary degradation process is assumed. Side reactions are
activated by 1) potential differences between the interfaces
of electrolyte and electrodes, 2) temperature θ, and 3) the
applied battery current Ibat [1]. The reaction rate Is , defined
as the number of ions converted into solid material per time,
is related to the side current
Is = −ĊQ = ḣ(Voc , Ibat , θ) ,

(1)

where Voc is the open-circuit voltage and is a proxy for
the SoC. CQ denotes the battery charge capacity. Since this
generalized process takes place internally, this current cannot be measured directly. Also, measurement of the internal resistance is not sufficient for determining the complete
degradation process because it is affected by only the anode
layer decomposition. The aim of the two following sections
is to identify the unknown process (1) by using a system
identification method, taking calendar and cycle life models
from existing literature or cycle test data into account.
B. System Identification
First, we shortly review the system ID method from [8] to
show the extensions for the pattern reconstruction case. The

lost charge Qs can only be measured over long observation
periods [12]. Hence, it cannot be directly associated with
individual control actions. However, if there are many charge
capacity measurements, it is possible to estimate the charge
lost from discrete types of control actions and project the lost
charge with M p to the involved usage pattern in a system ID
process as depicted in Fig. 2.
A control action is defined by the applied battery current and
the battery’s SoC, and so these two values are discretized into
nbd SoC ‘bands’ and mbd current ‘intervals’. It is assumed
that the side current is a function of these values (note that
isothermal battery operation is assumed such that the direct
effect of temperature is neglected). For nm capacity loss
measurements (Qs,1 , ..., Qs,nm ) and arbitrary stimuli patterns,
the unknown discretized side current values can be arranged
into a system of linear equations
 mP


bd n
bd
P
2l−1 ¯
,
I
p1,(nbd (j−1)+l) Tb,j Is 2n
bat,j
bd
 j=1 l=1


..

.
 m n


bd P
bd
 P
2l−1 ¯
,
I
pnm ,(n(j−1)+l) Tb,j Is 2n
bat,j
bd
j=1 l=1

|

{z

M pIs




Qs,1

 
..
=
.


Qs,nm
|
{z
Qs
}



,
}

(2)
where p counts the control actions associated with each SoC
band and current interval. The variable Tb,j is the time for
traversing the corresponding SoC band. To avoid an underdetermined system, it follows that nm ≥ nbd mbd . The unknown
vector I s can be estimated with Least Squares (LS)
I s = arg minkM I s − Qs k22
Is

s.t. I s > 0

,
(3)

.

Since the resulted degradation map is nonconvex the map
has to be further processed to obtain a convex representation
that can be used in a convex optimization framework. Note
also that M p has to consist of linearly independent rows,
which means full rank, to find an unique solution of I s in
(3).
C. Pattern Reconstruction for Determining Degradation Maps
The system ID approach from previous Section II-B can
be used to determine degradation maps for (i) life cycle and

calendar life models and (ii) cycle test data. References [2]–
[4] represent (i) where the total capacity loss for a battery cell
is defined as the sum of life cycle and calendar life wear and
is calculated from full cycle achievement, temperature, and
current data. Case (ii) could be cycling test data provided by
battery manufactures that correlates the full cycle achievement
ncyc with different DoDs. For case (ii), the involved current
pattern can be reconstructed from this information that has
caused the capacity loss. For each individual DoDi , we need
the number of full cycles that are achieved for a resulting
capacity loss value Qs,i . Assuming that the DoD swing is
centered at an SoC level of 0.5, the following system of linear
equations can be derived:
Is ( 2n1bd , Ibat )

..

.


2k−1
  Is ( 2nbd , Ibat )

..

.
}
bd −1
Is ( 2n2n
, Ibat )
bd
|
{z






0
.
..

Tb p1
..
.

0
..
.

Tb pnm

...
{z

Tb pnm

|

M p (Tb )

I s (Ibat )

 
Qs,1

 
..
=
.


Qs,nm

|
{z



,

Qs (Ibat )

}

M p (Tb,1 )

(6)



0



 

I s (Ibat,1 )
Qs (Ibat,1 )

 

..
..
..

=

.
.
.
M p (Tb,mm )
I s (Ibat,mm )
Qs (Ibat,mm )
0

Is = ḣ(Ibat , Voc ) =β1 + β2 |Ibat | + β3 Voc + β4 |Ibat |2
2
β5 Voc

+ β6 |Ibat |Voc +

3
β7 Voc

(8)
,

where β1 , . . . , β7 are fitting parameters. The function ḣ describes the capacity loss per time in Ah/sec, is nonconvex
and represents the side current. By using [13] the open circuit
voltage can be substituted by the SoC to obtain an analytical
degradation map that can be discretized as shown in Fig. 3.
E. Transformation to Individual Sized Battery Systems

The map can also be generated for different current rates
(Ibat,1 , . . . , Ibat,mm ), where mm denotes the number of current rates. By applying


they use nonlinear regressors for the battery current and the
open-circuit potential in the following analytic expression:

+

}

(4)
where nm ≥ nbd . Note that the matrix M p is full rank and the
pattern number pi of each SoC band contribution is calculated
as follows
ncyc,i
pi = 2
,
(5)
DoDi
and the time to traverse one SoC band is
CQ
.
Tb =
Ibat nbd

Fig. 3. Nonconvex analatytic capacity fade function as a function of the SoC
and the battery current from [9] after SoC substitution.



(7)
the same degradation map (3) can be obtained as stated
in Section II-B. The life cycle models for case (i) can be
incorporated in the same way. The only difference is that
the degradation values need to be replaced by evaluating the
corresponding model functions for the given stimuli pattern
M p.
D. Empirical Degradation Functions
The authors in [9], [10] developed empirical degradation
functions that already associate degradation with individual
control actions. Hence, those approaches represent another
form of degradation maps that can also be included in the
presented framework. This can be done by discretizing the map
to obtain the same representation specified in Sections II-B
and II-C. As an example, this procedure is presented for the
results of [9] for a LiFePO4 cell. The authors in [9] derive
an analytic expression for capacity loss that maps the control
action to capacity loss. In contrast to Sections II-B and II-C

The degradation maps presented in Sections II-B – II-D
refer to fixed cell charge capacities. To assess the impact
for arbitrarily sized battery systems, the results from cell
level need to be transferred to represent any battery system
in size and power. In addition, it is important to transfer
the maps from the current domain to the power domain to
comply with the power system requirements. On cell level
the degradation map from II-B – II-D represents a map
c
ḣ (Qc , Ibat
) that describes the charge loss per time associated
c
with the battery cell current Ibat
and the cell’s absolute SoC
c
Q . By multiplying this map with the cell’s averaged open
c
c
circuit potential V̄oc
the cell degradation Jdeg
can be expressed
in terms of energy per time as
c
c
c
Jdeg
= ḣ (Qc , Ibat
) V̄oc

.

(9)

As shown in Fig. 4, a battery system consists of Npar cell
strings. Each string has Nser cells connected in series. We
can transform (9) to obtain the total capacity loss Jdeg of an
arbitrarily sized battery system in terms of energy


Q Ibat
c
,
Nser V̄oc
,
(10)
Jdeg = Npar ḣ
Npar Npar
where Q is the absolute state of charge of the individual
sized battery. The energy capacity CE of a battery sysc
c
tem is CE = Npar CQ
Nser V̄oc
. The total battery power is
c
Pbat ≈ Ibat Nser V̄oc , the absolute State of Energy (SoE)
is E ≈ QNser V̄oc , and the normalized SoE is defined as

Npar

TABLE I
C YCLE TEST RESULTS FROM [3] AND PARAMETERS FOR PATTERN
RECONSTRUCTION MATRIX M AND Tb .

Ibat
c
Ibat
...

#

c
Voc

Nser

Ibat (A)

Tb (h)

ncyc

DoD
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.7
0.9

p11
p12
p13
p14
p15

66.6e3
20.4e3
10.0e3
5.7e3
1.4e3

Q11
Q12
Q13
Q14
Q15

0.33
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.18

0.3
0.5
0.7

p21
p22
p23

2.22e4
11.2e3
6.6e3

Q21
Q22
Q23

0.40
0.45
0.45

1

5.25

0.057

3333
3067
2500
2000
666

2

3

0.160

3333
2800
2500

...

p

Qs (Ah)

...

...

...

G. Incorporation into an Optimal Control Framework
Fig. 4. Battery system consisting of Npar cell strings. Each string has Nser
cells connected in series.

En = E/CE . By substituting these definitions into (10), we
get


c Pbat c
, CE CQ
ḣ En CQ
Jdeg
,
(11)
=
c
CE
CQ
which is a normalized function that describes any battery
system in size and battery power. This result shows us that
the degradation map on cell level can be scaled by a linear
coordinate transformation to any other battery system in size.
The shape of the degradation map is invariant under scaling,
which means that the transformation preserves the shape of
the map.
F. Convexification of Degradation Maps
Unfortunately, degradation maps are in general nonconvex
(see Sections II-B,II-D), such that efficient convex solvers
cannot be applied for power optimization purposes. However,
one can compute the convex hull of the degradation map (11)
using Delaunay triangulation [14]. By evaluating the plane
parameters a1 , a2 , a3 of the triangles from the convex hull,
following piecewise affine mapping for the degradation Jdeg
is stated:


Jdeg
Pbat
= max a1
+ a2 En + a3
(12)
CE
CE
To calculate the total capacity fade per time (kWh/h) of a
battery with energy capacity CE in dependence of the absolute
SoE E and battery power Pbat , one needs to transform (12)
to



Pbat
Jdeg = max [a1 a2 a3 ]  E  .
(13)
CE
Again this is a linear transformation, such that the shape of
the map remains unchanged.

In [15], [16] it is shown, how the PWA representation can
be incorporated in an optimal control formulation and in an
optimal battery sizing and placement problem. This can be
achieved by incorporating an epigraph formulation of the PWA
map in the constraints.
III. E XAMPLE FOR D EGRADATION M AP C ALCULATION
In this section we aim to show how degradation maps can be
calculated using cycle test data. As explained in Section II-C,
we construct a pattern matrix that has caused the capacity
loss for different test cycles. The authors in [3] recorded the
capacity loss for a LiMnNiCo/LiMn2O4 system for different
DoDs and battery currents in an experimental setup. The
charge capacity is CQ = 1.5 Ah. Table I lists the cycle test
results of [3] in terms of achieved full cycles, lost charge,
and battery current. Also the resulting pattern numbers p
and time intervals Tb calculated with (5) and (6) are shown.
Since the tests have different discretization levels, we need
to define a non-uniform grid for I s . For the test #1 we need
to define nbd = 5 SoC bands (0.10,0.30,0.50,0.70,0.90). The
corresponding pattern matrix M p,1 and right hand side vector
Qs,1 is constructed as




Q11
0 0 p11 0 0
 Q12 
 0 p12 p12 0 0 







0
p
p
p
0
Q
=
M p,1 = Tb,1 
13 13 13
 s,1  Q13  . (14)

 Q14 
 p14 p14 p14 p14 0 
p15 p15 p15 p15 p15
Q15
and for test # 2 nbd = 3 with SoC bands = (0.16,0.50,0.83) and
the corresponding pattern matrix and right hand side vector




0 p21 0
Q21
M p,2 = Tb,2  p22 p22 0  Qs,2 =  Q22  . (15)
p23 p23 p23
Q23
We arrange the matrices according to (7) and solve (3) to
obtain the degradation map that is depicted in Fig. 5.
IV. D EGRADATION M APS
Next, we present the degradation maps and their PWA
approximations in the Figures 6,7, and 8 for the proposed
technologies. The obtained degradation maps on cell level
are normalized as explained in Section II-E and the convex

Degradation Is (A)

#10!4
#10

6

Jdeg
(1/h)
CE

6

2
0
1

10

0.5
SoC Qn (-)

0
0

-10
Ibat (A)

4

Degradation

4

2
0
1
0.5

Fig. 5. Identified degradation map of LiMnNiCo/LiMn2O4 battery cell using
cycle test data from [3].

6
4

Jdeg
(1/h)
CE

#10!3

2
0
-2

Power

P bat
CE

0
(1/h)

2

0

0.5
SoE En (-)

-4

-2

4

2

0
Power

Pbat
CE

(1/h)

Fig. 7. Normalized degradation map for a LiMnNiCo/LiMn2O4 based
cathode chemistry using the degradation map results from Section III. The
blue surface is the piecewise affine (PWA) convex hull (13) of the normalized
representation of (11) (green surface).

Empirical Degradation Function
PWA Convex Hull

8

0

SoE En (-)

1

Fig. 6. Normalized degradation map using the data of [9] for a LiFePO4 based
cathode chemistry. The blue surface is the piecewise affine (PWA) convex hull
(13) of the normalized representation of (11) (green surface).

Degradation

Degradation

Jdeg
(1/h)
CE

#10!5

Degradation Map
PWA Convex Hull

!4

0.5

0
-1

Power

hulls of the normalized maps are calculated as described
in Section II-F. The corresponding plane parameters of the
convex PWA approximations are listed in the Tables III,IV,
and V in the Appendix A. Comparing the different degradation
maps, we can see that the battery current for LFP (Fig. 6) and
NMC/LMO systems (Fig. 7) is the driving factor for battery
degradation, while the degradation of the LCO system (Fig. 8)
is more sensitive to the SoE.
We also compute the root-mean squared errors (RMSEs) and
normalzized root-mean squared errors (NRMSEs) of the PWA
approximation for each battery technology. The low NRMSEs
(<3%) indicate that the error of the convex hull approximation
related to the original degradation map is rather small. This
means that the original maps are almost convex, such that
the PWA representation is an appropriate proxy for battery
degradation.
V. C ONCLUSION
In this paper we have presented a novel method to efficiently
model battery degradation in power system applications. We
use the concept of degradation maps that associate individual

Identi-ed Degradation Map
PWA Convex Hull

1

Pbat
CE

0
(1/h)

1

0.5

0

1

SoE En (-)

Fig. 8. Normalized degradation map for the DUALFOIL [17] cell comprising
a LiCoO2 based cathode chemistry using the degradation map results from
[8]. The blue surface is the piecewise affine (PWA) convex hull (13) of the
normalized representation of (11) (green surface).
TABLE II
ROOT-M EAN S QUARED E RRORS (RMSE S ) AND NORMALIZED
ROOT-M EAN S QUARED E RRORS (NRMSE S ) OF PWA APPROXIMATION .
Battery Technology

Cathode
Material

RMSE
(1/h)

NRMSE
(%)

LCO
NMC/LMO

LiCoO2
LiMnNiCo/
LiMn2O4
LiFePO4

7.42e-6
5.37e-6

1.06
1.07

2.01e-6

3.33

LFP

discrete control actions with an incremental capacity loss. In
contrast to calendar and cylce life models, degradation maps
allow to characterize battery degradation for arbitrary usage
pattern. We have shown that degradation maps can be scaled
to represent any battery system in size and power and their

convex hull representations are appropriate approximations. In
this way, we are able to efficiently evaluate battery degradation in power system simulations and to incorporate battery
degradation in optimal control frameworks. With the published degradation parameters, we think that we can provide
a meaningful and transparent database for other researchers
to benchmark different battery technologies in a common
framework.
A PPENDIX A
D EGRADATION M AP PARAMETERS
TABLE III
D EGRADATION MAP FOR THE L I F E PO4 BATTERY FROM [9].
a1 (-)

a2 (1/h)

a3 (1/h)

-3.452e-05
-2.620e-05
-1.595e-05
-1.811e-05
-1.162e-05
-1.064e-05
0.000e+00
0.000e+00
0.000e+00
0.000e+00
0.000e+00
0.000e+00
1.811e-05
3.452e-05
2.620e-05
1.162e-05
1.595e-05
1.064e-05

-7.058e-04
-2.067e-04
-5.485e-06
-6.110e-05
2.548e-06
2.010e-05
-6.110e-05
-6.110e-05
2.548e-06
2.010e-05
2.548e-06
2.010e-05
-6.110e-05
-7.058e-04
-2.067e-04
2.548e-06
-5.485e-06
2.010e-05

-3.291e-07
-1.763e-07
-1.657e-06
-2.774e-08
-1.818e-06
-1.760e-05
3.049e-07
3.049e-07
-1.605e-06
-1.740e-05
-1.605e-06
-1.740e-05
-2.774e-08
-3.291e-07
-1.763e-07
-1.818e-06
-1.657e-06
-1.760e-05

TABLE IV
D EGRADATION MAP FOR THE L I M N N I C O /L I M N 2O4 BATTERY FROM [3].
a1 (-)

a2 (1/h)

a3 (1/h)

-1.608e-04
-1.373e-04
-1.998e-04
0.000e+00
0.000e+00
0.000e+00
0.000e+00
-2.083e-4
1.608e-4
1.373e-4
1.998e-4
2.083e-4

-9.698e-04
-7.065e-04
1.055e-03
1.549e-04
-9.016e-05
-9.016e-05
1.549e-04
1.150e-03
-9.698e-04
-7.065e-04
1.055e-03
1.150e-03

-7.274e-05
-6.940e-05
-1.169e-03
-1.975e-05
1.027e-04
1.027e-04
-1.975e-05
-1.265e-03
-7.274e-05
-6.940e-05
-1.169e-03
-1.265e-03

R EFERENCES
[1] P. Ramadass, B. Haran, P. M. Gomadam, R. White, and B. N. Popov,
“Development of first principles capacity fade model for Li-ion cells,”
Journal of The Electrochemical Society, vol. 151, no. 2, pp. A196–A203,
2004.
[2] A. Millner, “Modeling lithium ion battery degradation in electric vehicles,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Innovative Technologies for an Efficient and
Reliable Electricity Supply (CITRES), 2010, pp. 349–356.
[3] J. Wang, J. Purewal, P. Liu, J. Hicks-Garner, S. Soukazian, E. Sherman,
A. Sorenson, L. Vu, H. Tataria, and M. W. Verbrugge, “Degradation of
lithium ion batteries employing graphite negatives and nickel - cobalt manganese oxide + spinel manganese oxide positives: Part 1, aging
mechanisms and life estimation,” Journal of Power Sources, vol. 269,
pp. 937–948, 2014.

TABLE V
D EGRADATION MAP FOR THE DUALFOIL [17] L I C O O2 BATTERY.
a1 (-)

a2 (1/h)

a3 (1/h)

-1.156e-04
-1.262e-07
-1.162e-07
-1.162e-07
-3.392e-05
-7.040e-05
7.582e-08
1.299e-06
1.299e-06
-2.114e-04
7.582e-08
4.507e-06
3.081e-07

-1.231e-03
3.849e-08
-6.953e-05
-1.893e-10
-5.953e-04
1.220e-03
1.610e-06
2.063e-05
6.624e-04
3.413e-03
-1.893e-10
-3.357e-05
-9.033e-07

1.354e-04
-1.826e-08
1.490e-05
1.081e-09
9.002e-05
-8.624e-04
-8.038e-07
-1.167e-05
-4.243e-04
-2.742e-03
1.081e-09
7.194e-06
1.946e-07

[4] B. Xu, A. Oudalov, J. Poland, A. Ulbig, and G. Andersson, “BESS
control strategies for participating in grid frequency regulation,” IFAC
Proceedings Volumes (IFAC-PapersOnline), vol. 19, pp. 4024–4029,
2014.
[5] C. Pillot, “Battery market development for consumer electronics,
automotive, and industrial: Materials requirements and trends.” [Online].
Available: http://www.avem.fr/docs/pdf/AvicenneDiapoXining.pdf
[6] J. Vetter, P. Novák, M. R. Wagner, C. Veit, K. C. Möller, J. O. Besenhard,
M. Winter, M. Wohlfahrt-Mehrens, C. Vogler, and a. Hammouche,
“Ageing mechanisms in lithium-ion batteries,” Journal of Power Sources,
vol. 147, no. 1-2, pp. 269–281, 2005.
[7] P. Arora, R. E. White, and M. Doyle, “Capacity Fade Mechanisms and
Side Reactions in Lithium- Ion Batteries,” Journal of The Electrochemical Society, vol. 145, no. 10, pp. 3647–3667, 1998.
[8] P. Fortenbacher, J. Mathieu, and G. Andersson, “Modeling, identification, and optimal control of batteries for power system applications,” in
18th Power Systems Computation Conference, Wroclaw, Poland, 2014.
[9] J. C. Forman, S. J. Moura, J. L. Stein, and H. K. Fathy, “Optimal
Experimental Design for Modeling Battery Degradation,” 5th Annual
Dynamic Systems and Control Conference joint with the JSME 11th
Motion and Vibration Conference, vol. 1, pp. 309–318, 2012.
[10] Z. Li, L. Lu, M. Ouyang, and Y. Xiao, “Modeling the capacity degradation of LiFePO4/graphite batteries based on stress coupling analysis,”
Journal of Power Sources, vol. 196, no. 22, pp. 9757–9766, 2011.
[11] S. Moura, J. Stein, and H. Fathy, “Battery-health conscious power
management in plug-in hybrid electric vehicles via electrochemical
modeling and stochastic control,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems
Technology, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 679–694, May 2013.
[12] G. L. Plett, “Recursive approximate weighted total least squares estimation of battery cell total capacity,” Journal of Power Sources, vol. 196,
no. 4, pp. 2319 – 2331, 2011.
[13] C. Weng, J. Sun, and H. Peng, “An Open-Circuit-Voltage Model of
Lithium-Ion Batteries for Effective Incremental Capacity Analysis,” in
VASME 2013 Dynamic Systems and Control Conference, Palo Alto,
USA, 2013.
[14] D. T. Lee and B. J. Schachter, “Two algorithms for constructing a delaunay triangulation,” International Journal of Computer & Information
Sciences, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 219–242.
[15] P. Fortenbacher, J. L. Mathieu, and G. Andersson, “Modeling and
Optimal Operation of Distributed Battery Storage in Low Voltage Grids,”
accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, pp.
1–10, 2016. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.06468
[16] P. Fortenbacher, A. Ulbig, and G. Andersson, “Optimal Placement
and Sizing of Distributed Battery Storage in Low Voltage Grids for
Receding Horizon Control Strategies,” pp. 1–8. [Online]. Available:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.07128
[17] T. F. Fuller, M. Doyle, and J. Newman, “Simulation and optimization
of the dual lithium ion insertion cell,” Journal of The Electrochemical
Society, vol. 141, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 1994.

