1

Global sensitivity analysis of battery equivalent
circuit model parameters

arXiv:1604.01293v1 [cs.SY] 5 Apr 2016

Shi Zhao and David A. Howey
Department of Engineering Science
University of Oxford
Oxford, United Kingdom
shi.zhao@eng.ox.ac.uk; david.howey@eng.ox.ac.uk

Abstract—This paper considers one of the most commonly used
equivalent circuit models (ECMs) for lithium-ion batteries and
investigates the sensitivity of the model output to changes of
model parameters using the Morris method. Experiments are
carried out on a lithium-ion cell with nickel manganese cobalt
oxide (NMC) electrode and parameters of the model are identified
in the state of charge (SOC) range [100%, 10%]. Although all the
model parameters do vary with SOC, global sensitivity analysis
reveals that the uncertainties of some of the parameters generate
very little uncertainty in the voltage output, implying that those
parameters can be taken as constants without compromising the
accuracy of the model. This is further confirmed by experimental
validation.
Index Terms—battery, equivalent circuit model, sensitivity
analysis, Morris method, Monte Carlo method.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Equivalent circuit models (ECMs) for lithium-ion batteries
are widely used for state of charge (SOC) and state of health
(SOH) estimation in battery management systems (BMSs) [1].
Compared to electrochemical models which are derived from
electrochemical principles and are characterised by partial differential equations coupled with algebraic equations (PDAEs),
ECMs are low order models parameterised from time-domain
or frequency domain experimental data and are computationally more efficient. In the system identification step, the
parameters of the ECMs are adjusted so that the model output
matches the experimental measurements as closely as possible.
It is recognised in the literature that the model parameters vary
with SOC (and temperature1 ). Therefore in order to improve
the model accuracy, they are often taken as functions of SOC
[2]. Alternatively, the parameters are set to be constants so
that the complexity of the model is reduced [3].
The choice of whether the ECM parameters should be SOC
dependent is a tradeoff between model accuracy and efficiency.
And this seems to be a binary choice from the literature:
either we vary all the parameters with SOC or we set all the
parameters to constants. Such a dilemma, which is implicitly
based on the assumption that all the parameters are equally
important to the model output, is probably unnecessary as the
output may be more sensitive to changes of some parameters
This work is funded through the RCUK Energy Programme’s STABLENET project (ref. EP/L014343/1).
1 In this paper we will focus on the isothermal scenario, thus will not discuss
the temperature dependence.

than the others. This problem can be resolved by a parameter
sensitivity analysis, in which the relative importance of the
parameters can be quantified.
Sensitivity analysis also has valuable implications for parameter estimation as it reveals which parameters we have
to make the most efforts to estimate. On the other hand,
the less important parameters may only need to be estimated
roughly since their uncertainties have little impact on the
output. This is particularly important for complex models with
many parameters.
In this paper, we apply the Morris method, which is a
technique for global sensitivity analysis, to the second order
RC model for batteries. Experiments are carried out on a
lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NMC) battery cell and
the experimental data is used to identify the model parameters.
It can be seen that some of the parameters change significantly
when the cell is discharged from 100% to 10% SOC. However,
large change of a parameter in terms of magnitude does not
necessarily mean that it has to be taken as a function of the
SOC, as demonstrated by the sensitivity analysis.
II. M ORRIS METHOD
Consider a general dynamical system described by the state
space model
ẋ =

f (x, u; θ)

(1a)

y

g(x, u; θ)

(1b)

=

where x ∈ Rn is the state vector, u ∈ Rp is the input, y ∈ R is
the output2 and θ ∈ Rq is the parameter set. The objective of
parameter sensitivity analysis is to determine how the output y
is affected by changes in the parameters θ. Suppose the initial
condition x0 and the input u(t) are both fixed, with a slight
abuse of notation, we will omit u in the following analysis
when there is no risk of confusion. Therefore the output y at
time t can be written as y(t; θ) and the aim is to analyse the
sensitivity of y(t; θ) with respect to θ.
A common mistake for sensitivity analysis is to simply
calculate the partial derivative of y(t; θ) with respect to the ith
∂y
around a particular point. This approach
parameter θi , i.e., ∂θ
i
is problematic because it does not take the variance of the
2 There is no loss of generality by considering a single-output system since
the analysis in the paper can be readily applied to multiple-output systems.

2

parameter θi into account. As a simple example, consider the
linear function
y = θ1 + 5θ2
(2)
where θ1 ∼ N (0, 10), θ2 ∼ N (0, 1) and Cov(θ1 , θ2 ) = 0.
∂y
∂y
< ∂θ
, y is in fact more sensitive to change in
Although ∂θ
1
2
θ1 . In other words, the uncertainty of θ1 contributes more to
the uncertainty of y.
∂y
Therefore a more appropriate way is to compute σθi · ∂θ
i
where σθi is the standard deviation of θi . This is known
as “one-factor-at-a-time” (OAT) method [4]. Although this
method can deal with strictly linear systems well, it is still
problematic for nonlinear systems since effectively the nonlinear function y(t; θ) is linearised. Therefore the OAT method is
local in nature. Many systems of interest, including the battery
ECM we will study in the next section, are highly nonlinear
with respect to the parameters.
Based on the OAT approach, the Morris method achieves
its global nature by repeating the local sensitivity analysis
multiple times with randomly sampled linearisation points [5].
In the first step of each run, a starting point θ is obtained by
sampling each of the components θ i from the normal distribution θi ∼ N (µi , σi ) where µi and σi are the mean value and
the standard deviation of the ith parameter, respectively3 . In
the following steps, the sensitivity of the output to the change
of the ith parameter can then be calculated by
y(t; θ) − y(t; θ̂i )
ξi =
∆

(3)

where ∆ is a constant, the varied parameter θ̂i is obtained by
changing the ith entry of θ to θ i + ∆σi and keeping all the
other parameters unchanged, that is, θ̂i = [θ 1 , · · · , θ i−1 , θ i +
∆σi , θ i+1 , · · · , θ q ]. It is clear so far such a single run is still a
local analysis. In the Morris method, the process is repeated N
times and the effect of θi can then be seen from the distribution
of ξi in the N runs. We are usually interested in its mean value.
Sometimes, in order to avoid that ξi in different runs cancels
each other out due to opposite signs, its absolute value is taken
instead and this is called the enhanced Morris method [6].
In essence, the Morris method is a Monte Carlo method that
aims to find the probability distribution of the sensitivity of
model output to changes of the parameters. The local analysis
using the OAT approach in each run gives only a sample of
the probability distribution.
We note that there are other techniques for global sensitivity
analysis, but it is beyond the scope of this paper to give
a comprehensive review. We refer interested reader to [4]
for more details. It should also noted that the analytical
form of y(t; θ) is usually not available and has to be solved
numerically.
III. BATTERY ECM PARAMETERISATION
A. Battery ECM
The ECM under consideration here is the second-order
RC model shown in Fig. 1. This standard model has been
3 A more rigorous way is to sample the vector θ directly if the covariance
matrix of the parameters is known.

Fig. 1.

Schematic diagram of the ECM.

studied extensively for the purposes of state and/or parameter
estimation in the literature. However, to the best of our
knowledge, global sensitivity analysis of the parameters in this
model, and in other battery models in general, has not been
studied before. It is therefore our intention to carry out such
an analysis in this paper.
Apart from the open circuit voltage (OCV) VOC , which is a
nonlinear function of the SOC, there are five parameters in the
model: R1 , R2 , C1 , C2 and Rs . The state space representation
of the model in the continuous form is given by
   1 

 
0
0
− R11C1
V̇1
V1
C1
V̇2  =  0
− R21C2 0 V2  +  C12  I
1
Z
−Q
0
0
0
Ż
(4a)
V

= VOC (Z) − V1 − V2 − IRs

(4b)

where V1 , V2 are the voltages across the first and the second
RC pairs, respectively, Z ∈ [0 %, 100 %] is the normalised
SOC, Q is the battery capacity, I is the current, whose sign
is taken to be positive when the battery is discharging and
negative during charging, and V is the terminal voltage.
It is common to define τ1 = R1 C1 and τ2 = R2 C2
where τ1 and τ2 are the time constants of the two RC pairs,
respectively. In the parameter estimation step, one can choose
to identify either the set {R1 , R2 , C1 , C2 , Rs } or the set
{τ1 , τ2 , C1 , C2 , Rs }. In this paper, we choose the latter set
since it is easier to interpret the physical meanings of time
constants.
B. Battery test
To conduct parameter sensitivity analysis of the model, it
is necessary to first determine the ranges of variations of the
parameters. This is achieved by experimental investigations
and a Kokam NMC lithium-ion pouch cell (SLPB533459) with
a nominal capacity 740 mAh was studied. A BioLogic SP-150
potentiostat was used to collect the data with the temperature
being fixed at 20 ◦C using a thermal chamber.
The relationship between the OCV and SOC was determined by charging and discharging the cell at 1/25C
(29.6 mA). Due to hysteresis, there is a discrepancy between
the charge and discharge curves, as shown in Fig. 2. The
average of these two curves is taken as the OCV-SOC
P10functionk
and is approximated by a polynomial VOC =
k=0 ak Z
where the coefficients are given in Table I. The maximal
approximation error of this polynomial in the SOC range
[10%, 100%] compared to the averaged OCV-SOC curve is
3.92 mV and the root-mean-square error (RMSE) is 1.47 mV.

3

(a)

4.2

2

current[A]

4

OCV [V]

3.8

1
0

3.6

-1
0

3.4

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

600

700

800

900

time[S]
(b)

3.2

2.8
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

voltage[V]

4.2
charge
discharge
average

3

4.1

SOC

0

OCV as a function of SOC.

200

300

400

500

value
2.82
1.95 × 101
−2.49 × 102
1.78 × 103
−7.47 × 103
1.96 × 104
−3.31 × 104
3.63 × 104
−2.50 × 104
9.77 × 103
−1.66 × 103

Fig. 3. (a): The FUDS current profile used to discharge the cell; (b): The
terminal voltage of the battery cell.

0.1

Rs

TABLE I
T HE VALUES OF THE OCV POLYNOMIAL COEFFICIENTS .
coefficient
a0
a1
a2
a3
a4
a5
a6
a7
a8
a9
a10

100

time[S]

0.08
0.06
0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

15

τ1

Fig. 2.

4

10
5
0.1

C. Parameter estimation
The model parameters are identified using MATLABr ’s
System Identification Toolbox. The first step is to subtract the
OCV, which is calculated using the fitted polynomial VOC ,
from the terminal voltage. This gives a linear state space model
where the input is I and the output is V − VOC . The initial
values of the state vector [V1 , V2 ]T are set to [0, 0]T as the
battery has been rested for one hour before the current is
applied. Since the model structure is known, we use MATLAB
functions idgrey and greyest to estimate the parameter
set {τ1 , τ2 , C1 , C2 , Rs }.

500
400
300
0.1

τ2

500

0
0.1
3500

C2

After the OCV-SOC test, the battery cell was fully charged
to 100% SOC using a standard constant current constant
voltage (CCCV) procedure. Specifically, the cell was charged
using a 1C current (740 mA) until the voltage reached 4.2 V
and was then charged with the voltage kept at 4.2 V until the
current dropped to 1/25C (29.6 mA). The fully charged cell
was rested for one hour.
The federal urban driving schedule (FUDS) current profile
[7] was then applied to the cell until it was discharged by
roughly 10% SOC. Fig. 3 shows the experimental measurements of the input (current) and the output (voltage). After
discharging, the cell had about 90% SOC and it was rested
for one hour. The same discharging and resting procedure was
then repeated until the SOC dropped to about 10%. We note
that the SOC was calculated by Coulomb couting using the
accurate laboratory equipment.

C1

600

3000
2500
0.1

SOC

Fig. 4. ECM parameters obtained by system identification in different SOC
intervals.

Using the experimental data, we identify the
parameters when the SOC is in the intervals
[100%, 90%), [90%, 80%), · · · , [20%, 10%). The parameters
are set to be constants in each SOC interval. However, they
are allowed to vary in different intervals. Therefore we obtain
9 sets of parameters, which are shown in Fig. 4, where the
midpoints of the intervals are used in the horizontal axis. It
can be seen from Fig. 4 that all the parameters do vary with
SOC. It is common to use polynomials to fit the parameters
as functions of SOC. Sometimes, piecewise linear functions
are used instead.

4

(a)

30

(a)
τ2
C1
C2

10
0

current[A]

20

voltage[mV]

3

Rs
τ1

2
1
0

-10
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

-1

900

0

30

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

6000

7000

time[S]
(b)
Rs
τ1

40

τ2

20

C1
C2

10

error[mV]

voltage[mV]

1000

time[S]
(b)

case 1
case 2
case 3

30
20
10

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

time[S]

Fig. 5. Parameter sensitivity analysis results obtained by (a) the Morris
method and (b) the enhanced Morris method.

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

time[S]

Fig. 6. Experimental validation. (a): The UDC current profile; (b): Model
error in case 1: all the parameters vary with SOC; case 2: C1 , C2 and τ1 are
fixed; case 3: all the parameters are fixed.

IV. S ENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
A. Main results
The Morris method is used to study the sensitivity of
the model output to changes of the parameters. The mean
values and standard deviations of the parameters in different
SOC intervals are calculated from the results of system
identification. All the parameters are considered to be mutually
independent. We run N = 1024 Monte Carlo simulations
using randomly sampled starting points and in each simulation,
an OAT analysis is carried out. The averages of the results
from the N runs are illustrated in Fig. 5(a), which shows how
much the model output changes when a particular parameter is
changed by one standard deviation. Fig. 5(b) shows the results
given by the enhanced Morris method. A comparison between
Fig. 5(a) and Fig. 5(b) implies that the cancellation effects are
not severe.
It can be seen from Fig. 5 that the model output is most
sensitive to the variation of the series resistance Rs . This
is not surprising as the output is directly related to Rs in
(4b). In fact, the sensitivity analysis of the output to Rs can
be conducted using the OAT method because V is a linear
function of Rs when all the other parameters are fixed. The
time constant τ2 is the second most important parameter in
terms of sensitivity. Changing τ2 by a standard deviation will
result in a difference of about 10 mV in the output. The
remaining three parameters, C1 , C2 and τ1 contribute little to
the uncertainty of the output, therefore we expect that these
parameters can be set to constants if the model complexity
needs to be reduced.
B. Experimental validation
The conclusion of the analysis still needs to be validated and
we are especially interested if it still holds when the input is
different. The ARTEMIS European urban driving cycle (UDC)
[8] shown in Fig. 6(a) was applied to the same fully charged
cell until its SOC dropped to less than 20%. We compare
the experimental voltage measurements to the output of the

model in which all the parameters vary with SOC. The error
is shown by the blue line in Fig. 6(b) (case 1). The maximum
error is 21.48 mV and the RMSE is 5.67 mV. If C1 , C2 and τ1
are fixed at their mean values (case 2), the maximum error is
25.91 mV and the RMSE is 7.12 mV. This confirms that these
parameters can be set to constants without affecting the model
accuracy much. By contrast, the maximum error is 45.52 mV
and the RMSE is 15.35 mV if all the parameters are fixed at
their mean values (case 3).
V. C ONCLUSION
Sensitivity analysis demonstrates that the output of the
second order RC model is most sensitive to Rs and τ2 ,
while the other three parameters C1 , C2 and τ1 can be set
to constants. Future work includes taking temperature effects
into account and extending the analysis into more complex
battery models.
R EFERENCES
[1] X. Hu, S. Li, and H. Peng, “A comparative study of equivalent circuit
models for li-ion batteries,” J. Power Sources, vol. 198, pp. 359–367,
2012.
[2] X. Hu, S. Li, H. Peng, and F. Sun, “Robustness analysis of state-of-charge
estimation methods for two types of li-ion batteries,” Journal of Power
Sources, vol. 217, pp. 209–219, 2012.
[3] S. Zhao, S. R. Duncan, and D. A. Howey, “Observability analysis and
state estimation of lithium-ion batteries in the presence of sensor biases,”
IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, in press 2016.
[4] A. Saltelli, M. Ratto, S. Tarantola, and F. Campolongo, “Sensitivity
analysis practices: Strategies for model-based inference,” Reliability
Engineering & System Safety, vol. 91, no. 10, pp. 1109–1125, 2006.
[5] M. D. Morris, “Factorial sampling plans for preliminary computational
experiments,” Technometrics, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 161–174, 1991.
[6] F. Campolongo, J. Cariboni, A. Saltelli, and W. Schoutens, “Enhancing
the Morris method,” in Sensitivity Analysis of Model Output. Proceedings
of the 4th International Conference on Sensitivity Analysis of Model
Output (SAMO 2004), 2005, pp. 369–379.
[7] Electric vehicle battery test procedures manual, Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID, USA, 1996.
[8] M. André, “The ARTEMIS European driving cycles for measuring car
pollutant emissions,” Sci. Total Environ., vol. 334-335, pp. 73–84, 2004.

