1

Identifiability and Parameter Estimation of the
Single Particle Lithium-Ion Battery Model

arXiv:1702.02471v2 [cs.SY] 24 Jan 2018

Adrien M. Bizeray, Jin–Ho Kim, Stephen R. Duncan, Member, IEEE, and David A. Howey, Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract—This paper investigates the identifiability and estimation of the parameters of the single particle model (SPM) for
lithium-ion battery simulation. Identifiability is addressed both
in principle and in practice. The approach begins by grouping
parameters and partially non-dimensionalising the SPM to determine the maximum expected degrees of freedom in the problem.
We discover that, excluding open circuit voltage, there are only
six independent parameters. We then examine the structural
identifiability by considering whether the transfer function of the
linearised SPM is unique. It is found that the model is unique
provided that the electrode open circuit voltage functions have
a known non-zero gradient, the parameters are ordered, and
the electrode kinetics are lumped into a single charge transfer
resistance parameter. We then demonstrate the practical estimation of model parameters from measured frequency-domain
experimental electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) data,
and show additionally that the parametrised model provides good
predictive capabilities in the time domain, exhibiting a maximum
voltage error of 20 mV between model and experiment over a 10
minute dynamic discharge.

Q
Qth
i
R
0
Rct
Ri
ri
r̄
T
t
Ui
ūi
V
V̄ 0
Vi
x0
xi
x0i
xsi
x̄i
Zj

Charge/discharge capacity, C
Theoretical electrode capacity, C.
Gas constant, J mol−1 K−1
Charge-transfer resistance, Ω
Active material particle radius, m
Particle radial coordinates, m
Particle dimensionless radial coordinates
Temperature, K
Time, s
Open-circuit voltage, V
Change of variable r̄x̄i
Cell terminal voltage, V
Voltage deviation from equilibrium, V
Volume of electrode active material, m3
Linearisation reference point
Lithium stoichiometry (active material)
Initial lithium stoichiometry
Surface lithium stoichiometry
Change of variable xi − x0i
Measured cell impedance, Ω

Greek
αi
αi0
βi0
δi
i
ηi
θj
θ
θ̃
θ id
τid
τik
ω

Anodic charge-transfer coefficient
OCV gradient w.r.t stoichiometry, V
OCV gradient w.r.t capacity, V/(A s)
Electrode thickness, m
Solid-phase volume fraction
Overpotential, V
Grouped parameter
Vector of grouped parameters, θ ∈ R6
Vector of identifiable parameters, θ̃ ∈ R3
Vector of identified parameters
Diffusion time constant, s
Kinetic time constant, s
Angular frequency, rad s−1

N OMENCLATURE
Roman
A
ai
ce
ci
c0i
cmax
i
csi
Di
F
H0
Hid
I
i0,i
ji
ki
Lj
L
Nω
NDoD

Electrode surface area, m2
Specific active surface area, m−1
Electrolyte lithium concentration, mol m−3
Lithium concentration (active material), mol m−3
Initial lithium concentration, mol m−3
Maximum lithium concentration, mol m−3
Surface lithium concentration, mol m−3
Electrode active material diffusivity, m2 s−1
Faraday’s constant, C mol−1
SPM transfer function, Ω
Diffusion model transfer function, A−1
Applied current, A
Exchange current density, A m−2
Reaction rate, mol m−2 s−1
Reaction rate constant, m2.5 mol−0.5 s−1
Single DoD loss function, Ω2
Combined DoDs loss function, Ω2
Number of data points per EIS measurement
Number of EIS datasets at different DoDs

J–H Kim is with the Energy Lab, Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology, Samsung Electronics, 130 Samsung-ro, Suwon-si, 443-803, Korea (email: jh527.kim@samsung.com).
A. M. Bizeray, S. R. Duncan and D. A. Howey are with the Energy and Power Group, Department of Engineering Science, University
of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3PJ, U.K. (e-mail: adrien.bizeray@eng.ox.ac.uk;
stephen.duncan@eng.ox.ac.uk; david.howey@eng.ox.ac.uk).
Manuscript received XXXX; revised XXXX.

I. I NTRODUCTION
In addition to their widespread use in consumer electronics,
the importance of lithium-ion batteries is increasing in largescale energy storage applications, such as automotive, off-grid
and grid applications. Such large-scale battery energy storage
systems are required to operate for a decade or more. Battery
degradation, which results in capacity and power fade over
time, becomes a particularly important issue in applications
with such long service life. However, battery management
system (BMS) technologies, currently used in commercial
applications for monitoring and controlling batteries to ensure
their safety, have very limited insights into battery degradation.

2

Two important functions of a conventional BMS are (i)
to monitor the battery voltage, current and temperature and
ensure that these remain within their region of safe operation,
and (ii) to estimate unmeasurable metrics such as State-ofCharge (SoC) and State-of-Health (SoH). The SoC denotes the
remaining energy in the cell compared to a fully charged cell,
while the SoH is usually defined as the capacity or resistance of
an aged cell compared to that of a pristine cell. A mathematical
model of a battery is required to infer SoC and SoH from the
available measurements of voltage, current and temperature.
Conventional BMSs commonly employ electrical equivalent
circuit models (ECMs) consisting of a voltage source and a
network of resistors and capacitors whose current-voltage response mimics that of a battery. The parameters of such ECMs
may vary with SoC, SoH, current and temperature and must
therefore be identified from experimental data under a large
range of operating conditions. However, the battery behaviour
predicted by ECMs cannot credibly be extrapolated outside
the range of validity over which they have been parametrised.
Also, accounting for battery degradation is challenging due to
the lack of physical significance of the model parameters [1].

Motivations
In order to improve the lifetime performance of battery
packs, researchers are investigating the application of physicsbased electrochemical models instead of ECMs in the BMS,
for example to enable electrochemical control of fast charging
[2]–[4]. Due to their physical basis, such first-principle models
can provide insights into battery ageing because they can more
easily be coupled to degradation models. Physics-based models
could be solved online in next-generation BMSs to enable
health-aware management and control algorithms that use
internal electrochemical safety limits (e.g. local overpotential
or lithium concentration) instead of the commonly employed
terminal voltage and current safety limits [5], [6].
However, this is a challenging research area from both the
modelling and numerical solution perspective, and also the
application perspective. One key challenge is whether such
models are observable and can be used reliably for state estimation. Recent promising results indicate that electrochemical
models could indeed be used in this way [1], [7]–[13]. Another
important condition for the use of an electrochemical model in
a BMS is that the parameters of the model must be credible,
not just to recreate the measured voltage accurately, but so
that internal states, such as overpotential, are also accurate.
In general, parameters in these models are obtained from the
literature (for example [1], [14]), and whilst this is useful for
initial design studies of cell performance, for use in a BMS,
the model must be parametrised specifically for the cells used
in the pack. Relatively few authors have tackled this parameter
estimation problem [15]–[19] although it has been investigated
in the context of ECMs of battery dynamics [20]–[23]. The
present work is therefore motivated by the need to obtain
meaningful model parameters for using electrochemical battery
models for control and estimation purposes.

Contributions
In this paper we investigate the parameter estimation challenge in a simplified version of the ‘Doyle-Fuller-Newman’
pseudo-two-dimensional (P2D) lithium-ion battery model [24],
the so-called single particle model (SPM) [25], [26], first to
see whether groups of parameters are identifiable in principle, and then to investigate whether in practice they can be
identified from simulated and experimental frequency-domain
Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy (EIS) data [27].
The main contribution of our work is to show the importance
of considering the structural and practical identifiability of
model parameters before undertaking any parameter estimation. Attempting the identification of all model parameters simultaneously without considering their identifiability is likely
to lead to ill-conditioned optimisation problems. An electrochemical model identified in such a way may indeed fit the
battery voltage and current response well, but the estimated
parameters will have no physical significance and therefore
the internal states cannot be reliably used for control. We
also demonstrate parameter estimation of an electrochemical
battery model from frequency-domain data obtained from
commercial cells, and this is a relatively new and unexplored
research topic [28], [29].
Our first key result is that the parameter identifiability of
any lithium-ion battery model, whether ECM or first-principle
electrochemical model, is largely conditional on the slope of
each electrodes’ open-circuit voltage (OCV) as a function of
SoC. A flat OCV curve overshadows all dynamics and results
in parameter unidentifiability. A second key message from this
work is that physics-based models for lithium-ion batteries are
over-parametrised and therefore one must try to identify the
minimum number of identifiable grouped parameters prior to
attempting any parameter estimation.
II.

T HE SINGLE - PARTICLE MODEL

The single particle model (SPM) was first introduced by
[25] and later extended to lithium-ion batteries by [26].
The SPM is an electrochemical battery model describing the
cell thermodynamics, the diffusion of lithium in the active
material of the electrodes, and the interfacial kinetics of
the lithium intercalation/de-intercalation reaction at the electrode/electrolyte interface. In contrast with the more complex
P2D model [24], electrolyte dynamics are neglected in the
SPM and therefore the reaction rate is assumed uniform for
each electrode. We chose the SPM in this paper because it is
the ‘simplest’ electrochemical lithium-ion model and a good
starting point for parameter identification studies. We anticipate that our methodology could be extended to other electrochemical models suitable for higher C-rates. Importantly,
we do not anticipate that our main conclusions will change
with respect to more complex models: the electrode OCV
functions will remain key in paramaterisation, and the overparametrisation issue will become more challenging. Although
the validity range of the SPM may vary depending on the
physico-chemical properties of the cell (e.g. electrolyte conductivity, porosity), it is commonly accepted in the literature

3

that the SPM is valid at currents below 1C to 2C1 , where
concentration gradients in the electrolyte are negligible [5],
[15], [30]. For many applications, including electric vehicles
and grid storage, average C-rates are lower than 1C and this
limitation is not particularly restrictive. In fact, we demonstrate
later in this paper that reasonable voltage errors may be
obtained with the linearised SPM on data including peaks in
current of up to 6C. Finally, for the purpose of parameter
estimation, in our work we used frequency-domain linear
response EIS experimental data. Linear EIS data are recorded
by applying a small AC current signal (with zero DC offset)
to the cell with an amplitude much lower than 1C (typically
around C/10) to ensure that the cell voltage response remains
linear. It is therefore reasonable to use the SPM for modelling
the battery impedance from linear EIS data with such low
amplitude currents.
A. Spherical particle diffusion model
In the SPM, the diffusion of lithium in the active material
of each battery electrode i (anode or cathode) is governed by
the Fickian diffusion equation in spherical coordinates
∂ci Di ∂
∂ci
= 2
(ri2
),
∂t
ri ∂ri
∂ri

(1)

where ri denotes the radial coordinates, ci the lithium concentration profile and Di the lithium diffusion coefficient
(assumed uniform and constant) in electrode i. The subscript
i either takes the value + or − to refer to the cathode or
anode domain respectively. The diffusion equation is subject
to Neumann boundary conditions at the particle centre ri = 0
and surface ri = Ri ,
∂ci
∣
=0
∂ri ri =0

and Di

∂ci
∣
= −ji ,
∂ri r=Ri

(2)

and the initial condition equation,
ci (0, ri ) = c0i ,

(3)

where c0i is the initial concentration profile in each particle. The molar flux ji in (2) expresses the rate of the
lithium intercalation/de-intercalation reaction. In contrast to the
Doyle–Fuller–Newman model [24] where algebraic equations
must be solved to obtain the molar flux for each particle, the
molar fluxes in the SPM can be directly related to the applied
battery current I through the relationships,
j− =

+I
a− δ− FA

and

j+ =

−I
,
a+ δ+ FA

(4)

where ai = 3i /Ri is the specific active surface area in
electrode i, i is the volume fraction of active material in an
electrode, F is Faraday’s constant, A is the electrode surface
area which is assumed equal for both electrodes, and δi is the
thickness of the electrode i. By convention, the battery discharge current is positive and the charging current is negative.
1 In the battery literature the electrical current is commonly expressed as a
C-rate, which is a value of current normalised by the cell capacity so that a
current amplitude of 1C will discharge the cell in one hour.

The anode is the negative electrode upon discharge and the
cathode is the positive electrode. Although strictly speaking
these swap upon charging, we will in this paper use the widely
accepted abuse of terminology that the ‘anode’ is the negative
electrode and the ‘cathode’ is the positive electrode. The above
molar flux expressions assume an electrochemical reaction
involving a single electron transfer, which is the case for the
lithium intercalation/de-intercalation reaction.
B. Voltage measurement equation
The initial-boundary value problems (1-3) for each electrode
constitute the dynamic part of the single-particle model. The
battery terminal voltage V is given by the nonlinear measurement equation,
V = U+ (xs+ ) − U− (xs− ) + η+ − η− .

(5)

The anode and cathode OCV U− and U+ respectively are
empirical nonlinear functions of the surface stoichiometry xsi
of each particle defined according to,
xsi = csi /cmax
.
i

(6)

The overpotential ηi is the voltage drop due to the departure
from equilibrium potential associated with the intercalation/deintercalation reaction in each electrode. The relationship between the reaction rate ji and the overpotential ηi is given by
the Butler-Volmer kinetics equation [24]
ji =

i0,i
αi F
− (1 − αi ) F
[exp (
ηi ) − exp (
ηi )] .
F
RT
RT

(7)

The exchange current density i0,i depends on the reaction
rate constant ki and the reactants and products concentrations,
i.e. the electrolyte concentration ce (assumed constant in this
model), and the lithium solid-phase concentration csi at the
surface of the particle, through the relation
√ √ √
− csi .
(8)
i0,i = ki F ce csi cmax
i
By assuming that the anodic charge transfer coefficients in (7)
are αi = 0.5, i.e. anodic and cathodic charge transfer coefficients are equal, the overpotential ηi can be expressed as a
function of the reaction rate ji by
ηi =

ji F
2RT
sinh−1 (
).
F
2i0,i

(9)

C. Identification of grouped parameters
First-principle models, such as the SPM, are usually overparametrised in the sense that only a subset of parameters
can be estimated from measured input-output data. A first
necessary step towards credible parameter estimation is to
reformulate the model in terms of the minimum number of
parameter groups. In order to identify such groups of parameters, we first introduce the dimensionless radial coordinates
r̄ = ri /Ri , and the stoichiometry xi = ci /cmax
, instead of
i
the concentration in the governing equations. In addition,
the change of variable x̄i = xi − x0i is introduced, with
x0i = c0i /cmax
being the initial stoichiometry in each particle,
i

4

in order to set the initial condition to zero in the governing
equations. Note that the time independent variable t is kept
dimensional for simplicity because the diffusion time constants
are different in each electrode. Introducing these dimensionless
variables, the initial-boundary value problem (1-3) can be
written as
∂ x̄i Di 1 ∂
∂ x̄i
= 2 2
(r̄2
),
(10)
∂t
Ri r̄ ∂ r̄
∂ r̄

subject to the boundary conditions
∂ x̄i
∣
=0
∂ r̄ r̄=0

and

∂ x̄i
−Ri
∣
=
ji ,
∂ r̄ r̄=1 Di cmax
i

x̄i (0, r̄) = 0.
V = U+ (xs+ ) − U− (xs− ) + η+ − η− ,

(11)

(13)
(14)

Similarly using relation (4) the expression for the overpotential
in each electrode (9) becomes
η+ =

⎛
⎞
2RT
R+
I
1
√
sinh−1 −
√
max
F
⎝ 2k+ ce 3+ δ+ c+ FA xs+ (1 − xs+ ) ⎠
(15)

⎞
⎛
2RT
R−
I
1
√
η− =
sinh−1 +
√
max
F
⎝ 2k− ce 3− δ− c− FA xs− (1 − xs− ) ⎠
(16)
with the voltage measurement (5) expression unchanged. Six
physically meaningful groups of parameters naturally arise
in these equations. Indeed one can identify three groups of
parameters for each electrode: a diffusion time constant τid ,
kinetics time constant τik and the maximum theoretical electrode capacity Qth
i . The expressions for these six physically
meaningful groups of parameters are defined as follows
R+2
D+
R+
k
τ+ =
√
2k+ ce
τ+d =

max
Qth
FA
+ = −+ δ+ c+

R−2
D−
R−
k
τ− =
√
2k− ce
τ−d =

max
Qth
FA
− = +− δ− c−

(17)
(18)
(19)

Note that for convenience the cathode theoretical capacity
Qth
+ is defined negative by convention and without loss of
generality, to yield the same model structure in both the anode
and cathode. Substituting these grouped parameters into the
governing equations results in the following diffusion equation
for both the cathode and anode:
1 1 ∂
∂ x̄i
∂ x̄i
= d 2
(r̄2
)
(20)
∂t
∂ r̄
τi r̄ ∂ r̄

(23)

with the cathode and anode overpotentials given by
η+ =

⎞
⎛ τ+k
I
2RT
√
sinh−1
th
s
s
F
⎝ 3Q+
x+ (1 − x+ ) ⎠

(24)

η− =

⎛ τ−k
⎞
I
2RT
√
sinh−1
.
th
s
s
F
⎝ 3Q−
x− (1 − x− ) ⎠

(25)

(12)

The boundary condition at the surface of the particle in each
electrode can also be written in terms of the input current I
instead of the fluxes ji using relations (4) according to
∂ x̄+
R2
I
∣
=+ +
∂ r̄ r̄=1
D+ 3+ δ+ cmax
FA
+
2
∂ x̄−
R
I
∣
=− −
.
∂ r̄ r̄=1
D− 3− δ− cmax
FA
−

(22)

The voltage measurement equation remains

with initial conditions
x̄i (0, r̄) = 0.

(21)

with initial condition

subject to the boundary conditions
∂ x̄i
∣
=0
∂ r̄ r̄=0

τd
∂ x̄i
∣
= − ith I,
∂ r̄ r̄=1
3Qi

and

Inspecting (20) through (25), one can identify six groups of
parameters θj that fully parametrise the SPM given by the
parameter vector θ ∈ R6 :
θ=

[τ+d

τ+d
3Qth
+

τ+k
3Qth
+

τ−d

τ−d
3Qth
−

τ−k
3Qth
−

T

] .

(26)

Unlike the parameters defined in (17-19), these parameters θj
appear only once and not as a product of each other in the
model equations. Moreover, one can show that there is a oneto-one mapping between the six parameters θj and the six
parameters (17)–(18)–(19) defined by:
⎧
τ+d
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
τ+k
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪Qth
⎨ d+
⎪
τ−
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
τ−k
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
th
⎪
⎩Q−

= θ1
= (θ1 θ3 )/θ2
= θ1 /(3θ2 )
= θ4
= (θ4 θ6 )/θ5
= θ4 /(3θ5 )

(27)

Therefore, assuming that the initial electrode stoichiometries
x0i (i.e. state-of-charge) are known and that the OCVs are
known functions of the surface stoichiometry for each electrode, the six parameters contained in θ, or equivalently
the six parameters defined in (17–19), are sufficient to fully
parametrise the SPM.
III. S TRUCTURAL IDENTIFIABILITY
Six grouped parameters have been identified as sufficient
to fully parametrise the SPM. However, this does not imply
that these six parameters can be identified from the battery
current-voltage response. Several approaches can be used to
investigate the parameter identifiability of a dynamical model
from input-output data. In this section, the so-called structural identifiability [31] of the SPM is discussed. Structural
identifiability investigates the mathematical identifiability of
the model irrespective of the identification data considered
(which are also assumed noise-free). A definition of structural
identifiability for linear time-invariant dynamic models that

5

can be cast into a transfer function H(s, θ) parametrised by a
vector of parameters θ is given as follows [32], [33]:

remains finite. By introducing this change of variable the initial
condition (22) conveniently becomes

Definition 1. Consider a model structure M with the transfer
function H(s, θ) parametrised by θ ∈ D ⊂ Rn where n denotes
the number of parameters of the model. The identifiability
equation for M is given by

ūi (0, r̄) = 0.

H(s, θ) = H(s, θ ∗ )

for almost all s,

(28)

where θ, θ ∗ ∈ D. The model structure M is said to be
● globally identifiable if (28) has a unique solution in D,
● locally identifiable if (28) has a finite number of solutions in D,
● unidentifiable if (28) has a infinite number of solutions
in D.
The SPM is not a linear dynamical model because of its
voltage measurement equation (23) incorporating nonlinear
Butler-Volmer kinetics (24,25), and nonlinear OCV functions.
Therefore Definition 1 cannot directly be used to investigate
the SPM structural identifiability unless we first linearise the
model by assuming a small perturbation around a fixed depthof-discharge (DoD) point. Since we assume the nonlinear OCV
functions are measured and known a priori (for example using
the techniques described in [34], [35]), linearisation is a valid
approach to obtain the parameters of the diffusion sub-models,
which are linear, and to obtain a linearised approximation
of the kinetics. The subject of identifiability and parameter
estimation of the nonlinear kinetics term in the output equation
would be an interesting topic for further research.

Since the initial-boundary value diffusion problem (29)–
(30)–(31) is linear, an equivalent transfer function can be
determined without loss of generality. Taking the Laplace
transform of (29) yields
d2 Ūi (s, r̄)
− sτid Ūi (s, r̄) = 0
dr̄2

and its general solution is therefore
Ūi (s, r̄) = Ai (s)e+r̄

(29)

and the boundary conditions (21) become
ūi (r̄ = 0) = 0

and

−τid
∂ ūi
∣ − ūi (r̄ = 1) =
I.
∂ r̄ r̄=1
3Qth
i

(30)

Note that the homogeneous Neumann boundary condition at
the centre of the particle can be reduced to a simpler homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition so that limri →0 ci (ri )

√

sτid

+ Bi (s)e−r̄

√

sτid

(34)

with Ai (s), Bi (s) two constants (with respect to r̄) to be determined using the boundary conditions (30). Substituting (34)
into the particle centre boundary condition (30) at r̄ = 0 yields
Bi (s) = −Ai (s).

(35)

And substituting (34) and (35) into the surface boundary
conditions (30) at r̄ = 1 yields

A. Diffusion model transcendental transfer function

∂ ūi
1 ∂ 2 ūi
= d
,
∂t
τi ∂ r̄2

(32)

where s is the frequency-domain Laplace variable. The characteristic equation for this differential equation is
√
(33)
λ2 − sτid = 0 ⇒ λ = ± sτid ,

Ai (s) =

Definition 1 requires the model transfer function; we therefore first derive this for the spherical particle diffusion model
and then combine it in subsequent sections with the transfer
function of the linearised voltage measurement equation to
derive the transfer function for the linearised SPM. The transfer
function for the spherical diffusion model has previously been
derived in the literature for determining the diffusion coefficient of various electrode materials in a laboratory experimental setup [36], [37] and studying the cell frequency response
analytically [38], but is included here for completeness. In
order to simplify the derivation, the change of variable ūi = r̄x̄i
is introduced into the initial-boundary value problem (20-22)
describing the diffusion in a spherical particle. Under this
change of variable (20) can be equivalently written

(31)

τid
I(s)/2
√
√
√
d
3Qth
sτid cosh ( sτid )
i sinh ( sτi ) −

(36)

Substituting (36)–(35) into (34) yields the general solution
√
sinh (r̄ sτid )
τid
√
√
√
I(s).
Ūi (s, r̄) =
d
3Qth
sτid cosh ( sτid )
i sinh ( sτi ) −
(37)
The variable of interest is the surface stoichiometry X̄is (s),
rather than Ūi (s, r̄), since this is the variable involved in
the voltage measurement equation. By substituting ūi = r̄x̄i
into (37), evaluating at r̄ = 1 and dividing by the input current
I(s), the transfer function Hid (s) from current to surface
stoichiometry for the spherical diffusion model is given by
√
tanh ( sτid )
X̄is (s)
τid
d
√
√
Hi (s) =
=
.
(38)
d
I(s)
3Qth
sτid
i tanh ( sτi ) −
The cathode and anode diffusion transfer functions expressed
in terms of the parameter vector θ are therefore respectively
√
θ2 tanh ( sθ1 )
√
H+d (s, θ) =
,
(39)
√
tanh ( sθ1 ) − sθ1
and
H−d (s, θ)

√
θ5 tanh ( sθ4 )
√
.
=
√
tanh ( sθ4 ) − sθ4

(40)

6

B. Linearisation of the voltage measurement equation
The voltage measurement equation is a nonlinear function
of the anode and cathode surface stoichiometry xs− and xs+
respectively, and the input current I. Assuming that the input
current amplitude I remains small and the battery is operated
close to its initial DoD, i.e. the stoichiometry in both electrodes
remains close to the initial value x0i , the voltage equation can
be linearised using a first-order Taylor series approximation
about the reference point x0 = (x0+ , x0− , I0 = 0) according to
V̄ 0 ≈

∂V
∂V
∂V
∣ x̄s+ +
∣ x̄s− +
∣ I,
s
s
∂x+ x0
∂x− x0
∂I x0

(41)

where V̄ 0 = V − V (x0 ) denotes the deviation of the voltage
from the equilibrium voltage at the linearisation point,
V (x0 ) =

U+ (x0+ ) − U− (x0− ).

(42)

The partial derivative of the voltage V with respect to the
input current I evaluated at the reference point is given by
2RT ⎛
θ3
∂V
⎜
∣ =
√
∂I x0
F ⎝ √(1 − x0 )x0 1 + (θ I )2
3 0
+
+
−√

(43)

which simplifies to
⎞
θ3
2RT ⎛
θ6
∂V
√
∣ =
−√
0
0
∂I x0
F ⎝ (1 − x0+ )x0+
(1 − x− )x− ⎠

(44)

when substituting for I0 = 0. The partial derivative with respect
to the surface stoichiometry in the cathode and anode are given
respectively by
∂V
dU+
∣ = +
∣
s
∂x+ x0
dxs+ xs =x0
+

+

θ3 (1 − 2x0+ )
(θ3 I0 )2
(1−x0+ )x0+

(45)

((1 − x0+ )x0+ )

3/2

and
∂V
dU−
∣ = −
∣
s
∂x− x0
dxs− xs =x0
−

RT
+I0
√
F

−

θ6 (1 − 2x0− )
1+

(θ6 I0 )2
(1−x0− )x0−

((1 − x0− )x0− )

.

(46)

3/2

Substituting for I0 = 0 yields the simple expressions
∂V
dU+
∣ =+
∣
= α+0
s
∂x+ x0
dxs+ xs =x0

(47)

∂V
dU−
∣ =−
∣
= −α−0
∂xs− x0
dxs− xs =x0

(48)

+

−

+

−

0
V̄ 0 (t) = α+0 x̄s+ (t) − α−0 x̄s− (t) − Rct
(θ)I(t).

(49)

0
Rct
(θ)

where
denotes the charge transfer resistance arising
from the intercalation/de-intercalation reaction kinetics and
defined according to
0
Rct
(θ) = −

⎞
2RT ⎛
θ6
θ3
√
−√
.
0
0
0
0
F ⎝ (1 − x+ )x+
(1 − x− )x− ⎠

(50)

C. Transfer function of the linearised SPM
Taking the Laplace transform of the linearised voltage
equation (49) and dividing by the input current I yields the
transfer function H 0 (s, θ) = V̄ 0 (s)/I(s) of the linearised
SPM about the equilibrium point x0 = (x0+ , x0− , I0 = 0):
0
H 0 (s, θ) = α+0 H+d (s, θ) − α−0 H−d (s, θ) − Rct
(θ).

⎞
θ6
⎟.
√
2
(1 − x0− )x0− 1 + (θ6 I0 ) ⎠

RT
−I0
√
F
1+

where αi0 denotes the gradients of the OCV functions in each
electrode, with respect to stoichiometry, at the linearisation
point. Substituting the partial derivatives in (41) by their
respective expression given by (44), (47) and (48) therefore
yields the linearised voltage measurement equation

(51)

Substituting for the anode and cathode diffusion transfer function H+d and H−d with their respective expressions (39) and (40)
gives
√
α+0 θ2 tanh ( sθ1 )
0
√
H (s, θ) =
√
tanh ( sθ1 ) − sθ1
√
α0 θ5 tanh ( sθ4 )
0
− − √
− Rct
(θ)
(52)
√
tanh ( sθ4 ) − sθ4
One can see that only the difference between the parameters
θ3 and θ6 describing the cathode and anode kinetics appears in
the charge transfer resistance term Rct (θ) given by (50). As
a result, there are an infinite number of pairs (θ3 , θ6 ) that will
yield the same transfer function and only the lumped parameter
Rct can be estimated using the linearised model at a given
DoD. We have therefore reduced the parameter space to five
parameters by combining the cathode and anode kinetics into
the charge-transfer resistance term Rct .
This assumes that the OCV slopes α+0 and α−0 are known
parameters, but these are not directly measurable, since in
practice, OCV can only be measured with respect to capacity
(units Ah or Coulombs), not against stoichiometry (which is
non-dimensional). By recognising that the theoretical capacity
max
of an electrode is given by Qth
FVi with Vi = Aδi
i = ci
(the volume of active material in the electrode), one can easily
show that a variation of stoichiometry δxi is proportional to a
variation of charge/discharge capacity δQ according to
δci FVi δQ
δci
= th .
(53)
δxi = max =
ci
Qth
Qi
i
Therefore the derivative of the OCV with respect to xi can
be related to its derivative with respect to charge/discharge
capacity Q, denoted βi0 , according to
βi0 =

αi0
1 dUi
dUi
=
= th
∣
∣
.
s
dx
dQ xs,0
Qth
Q
s,0
i x
i
i
i
i

(54)

7

(55)

120

where the function f defined as

is only parametrised by the electrode diffusion time constant θ1
or θ4 in the cathode or anode respectively. The coefficients β+0
and β−0 are the measurable and assumed known OCV gradients
with respect to capacity in the cathode and anode respectively.
This requires access to half-cell or reference electrode cell
data, which may be obtained from commercially available cells
as we have recently demonstrated [34], [35]. In the absence of
individual electrode OCV data, it is not possible to parametrise
the SPM directly, although it may be reasonable to use a 2electrode OCV measurement combined with available OCV
data from the literature for the graphite negative electrode to
infer the positive electrode OCV function.
We have thus reduced the parameter estimation problem
of the linearised SPM to three independent parameters: the
cathode diffusion time constant θ1 = τ+d , the anode diffusion
time constant θ4 = τ−d and the charge-transfer resistance Rct .
We will subsequently define the vector θ̃ ∈ R3 of identifiable
parameters as
0 T
] .
θ̃ = [τ+d τ−d Rct
(57)
The transfer function of the linearised SPM expressed in terms
of the three parameters defined in θ̃ is given by
0
.
H 0 (s, θ̃) = β+0 f (s, τ+d ) − β−0 f (s, τ−d ) − Rct

100

(56)

(58)

Fig. 1 shows a Nyquist plot of the SPM frequency response
predicted by (58) at 25 % DoD for the LCO cell parameters
given in Table I. At low frequencies, the response features a
45° slope which is representative of semi-infinite linear diffusion. This 45° slope is commonly referred to as the ‘diffusion
tail’ in the battery electrochemical impedance spectroscopy
(EIS) community and is usually modelled using a so-called
Warburg constant-phase element [27], [39]. The cell frequency
response tends towards a capacitive behaviour with decreasing
frequency as exhibited by the vertical asymptote on the Nyquist
plot. This capacitive behaviour arises from the variation of the
average particle concentration at low frequencies, as opposed
to the surface concentration variation only, due to the finitelength nature of the diffusion problem. Although the low
frequencies giving rise to this capacitive behaviour are usually
avoided in the lithium-ion battery EIS literature, we argue
that the departure from the semi-infinite diffusion 45° tail
actually provides a more informative dataset for the parameter
estimation of the SPM. Fig. 1 also shows the effect of varying
the diffusion time constants τ+d and τ−d in the cathode and anode
respectively by ±50 % from their nominal values. Generally, a
larger diffusion time constant (slower diffusion) yields higher
cell impedance as expected. Moreover a smaller diffusion time
constant (faster diffusion) results in the capacitive behaviour

-Z" (m )

√
1 θj tanh ( sθj )
√
√
f (s, θj ) =
3 tanh ( sθj ) − sθj

d
-

sensitivity

increasing

0
H 0 (s, θ) = β+0 f (s, θ1 ) − β−0 f (s, θ4 ) − Rct
,

d
+

120
100

80

80

60

60

40

40

20

20

0
40

sensitivity

increasing

Substituting αi0 for βi0 using (54) in (52) and recalling the
expressions of Qth
i in terms of θj in (27) yields the transfer
function

0
+

0
-

= +0.248 V/(Ah)
0
60

80

100

40

= -0.036 V/(Ah)
60

Z' (m )

80

100

Z' (m )

+50%

reference

-50%

Fig. 1. Comparison of the Nyquist frequency response predicted by the
transfer function (58) using the reference parameters given in table I with
(left) the cathode diffusion time constant τ+d and (right) the anode diffusion
time constant τ−d varied by ±50 % from their nominal values. The OCV slope
values βi0 corresponding to the chosen linearisation point (DoD = 25 %) are
indicated on the graph for each electrode.

occurring at higher frequencies; this is because faster diffusion
results in easier variations of the average particle concentration.
Finally, the frequency response is much more sensitive to the
cathode diffusion than the anode diffusion at this DoD because
of the flat anode OCV curve here, as shown by the low value
of the anode OCV slope β−0 compared to β+0 . This behaviour
will be explained in more detail in the subsequent sections.
D. Structural identifiability analysis
Definition 1 can now be applied to the SPM transfer function
(58). To check the structural identifiability of the linearised
model, we need to show that
0
β+0 f (s, τ+d ) − β−0 f (s, τ−d ) − Rct
=
0∗
β+0 f (s, τ+d∗ ) − β−0 f (s, τ−d∗ ) − Rct

(59)

for almost all s, implies the parameters equality,
[τ+d

τ−d

T

0
] = [τ+d∗
Rct

τ−d∗

T

0∗
] .
Rct

(60)

Because the charge transfer resistance is the only additive
parameter independent of s on both sides of the equation,

8

0
0∗
we clearly have Rct
= Rct
, and the structural identifiability
equation reduces to

β+0 f (s, τ+d ) − β−0 f (s, τ−d ) =

The optimal parameter estimate in the least-squares (maximum likelihood) sense is given by the estimator θ̂ id which
minimises the loss function Lj (θ id ) according to
θ̂ id = arg min Lj (θ id ) ,

β+0 f (s, τ+d∗ ) − β−0 f (s, τ−d∗ ) , (61)
for almost all s. Since f is a non-trivial function of s, this
equality holds in the general case for most values of s, if and
only if τ+d = τ+d∗ and τ−d = τid∗ , and so the linearised SPM is
structurally identifiable. There are however a few cases where
other solutions exist:
● If β+0 = 0 (resp. β−0 = 0), then any pair (τ+d , τ+d∗ )
(resp. (τ−d , τ−d∗ )) satisfy the identifiability equation and
the linearised SPM becomes unidentifiable. This makes
sense because a ‘flat’ OCV function hides any diffusion
dynamics effect of that electrode as shown in Fig. 1 for
the anode diffusion when ∣ β−0 ∣≪∣ β+0 ∣ .
● If the magnitudes of the OCV function in each electrode
are equal β+0 = −β−0 = β 0 , then interchanging the
diffusion time constants τ+d = τ−d∗ and τ−d = τ+d∗ satisfies
the structural identifiability equation, and the linearised
SPM is structurally identifiable provided the diffusion
time constants are ordered.
In conclusion, the linearised SPM is structurally identifiable in
the general case. In practice, the fact that a ‘flat’ OCV function
results in unidentifiable parameters is not problematic since
identification may be performed using data at several DoDs,
ensuring the OCV functions have a significant slope in each
electrode.

(62)

θ id

where the loss function is the sum over Nω chosen frequencies
of the squared magnitude of the error between predicted and
measured complex impedance according to
Nω

2

Lj (θ id ) = ∑ ∣Zj (ωi ) − Hj (ωi , θ id )∣ .

(63)

i=1

This is also equal to the sum of the squared real and imaginary
part errors according to
Lj (θ id ) =

2

∑i=1ω (Zj′ (ωi ) − Hj′ (ωi , θ id ))
N

2

′′
′′
ω
+ ∑N
i=1 (Zj (ωi ) − Hj (ωi , θ id )) .

B. Combined DoDs parameter estimation
As mentioned in section III-D and shown in section V, the
estimation of the parameter θ̃ based on the impedance data
at a single DoD may be unidentifiable in practice due to the
flatness of one of the electrode OCV functions. Therefore, the
parameter estimation must be performed against impedance
measured at several DoDs. As before, the optimal parameter
estimate is given by the argument θ̂ id minimising the loss
function according to
θ̂ id = arg min L (θ id ) ,

IV. F REQUENCY- DOMAIN PARAMETER ESTIMATION
This section discusses the implementation of the estimation
algorithm for the transfer function of the linearised SPM from
frequency-domain EIS experimental data. The experimental
methodology is discussed in section V. We define the vector
θ id of parameters identified by the estimation algorithm in the
general sense, where θ id could be equal to the full vector of
parameters θ given by (26) or a subset of parameters such
as θ̃ given by (57). The estimation is performed by finding
the best fit in the least-squares sense, i.e. by minimising the
sum of squared errors between both the real and imaginary
parts of the experimental and predicted impedances over a
number of frequencies [32]. First, the loss function for the
estimation at a single DoD is presented and extended to
simultaneous estimation at several DoDs. Then, we show how
all combined purely resistive parameters, including chargetransfer resistance Rct , can be estimated separately by simple
linear regression at a given DoD.
A. Single DoD parameter estimation
The measured impedance of a cell at a given frequency ωi is
denoted by the complex number Zj (ωi ) = Zj′ (ωi ) + iZj′′ (ωi ),
where Z ′ and Z ′′ denote the real and imaginary part respectively, and the subscript j denotes the DoD. Similarly, the
impedance predicted by the SPM will be denoted Hj (ωi , θ id )
in the subsequent sections.

(64)

(65)

θ id

where the loss function L (θ id ) in this case is simply defined
as the sum of the loss functions Lj defined in (64) over NDoD
levels of DoD, where j denotes the DoD, according to:
NDoD Nω

2

L (θ id ) = ∑ ∑ ∣Zj (ωi ) − Hj (ωi , θ id )∣ .

(66)

j=1 i=1

C. Estimation of purely resistive terms including chargetransfer resistance
Although the simultaneous parameter estimation at several DoDs could in theory improve the identifiability of the
estimation problem (assuming the diffusion parameters are
not a function of DoD), it also adds NDoD charge transfer
0
0
resistances Rct
to identify because of the dependency of Rct
on stoichiometry (or equivalently DoD) in (50). The charge0
transfer resistance Rct
is an additive purely resistive term in
the transfer function describing the cell impedance. Therefore,
its only effect is to shift the impedance response along the
real-axis on the Nyquist plot. In order to reduce the parameter
space to be explored, a purely resistive term denoted R0 ,
0
combining the higher-frequency charge-transfer resistance Rct
,
the ohmic contact resistance of the cell and any resistive
effect due to passivation layers, can be estimated separately by
simple linear regression and subtracted from the experimental
frequency-response data. Recalling from section III-C that the

9

semi-infinite diffusion-driven impedance at lower frequencies
features a characteristic 45° slope, the charge-transfer resistance can be estimated by fitting a 45° straight line to the
experimental response at lower frequencies, and extrapolating
to find the intercept of this with the real axis on the Nyquist
diagram. Although the SPM could be extended to account
for double-layer capacitance effects, this is beyond the scope
of the present study. Therefore, the semi-circle at higher
frequencies on the experimental EIS Nyquist plot, which arises
from the parallel combination of charge-transfer resistance
and double-layer capacitance, is ignored. Any high-frequency
effects are considered as purely resistive and accounted for
in the term R0 estimated by the linear regression described
below. We assume that any experimental high-frequency data
points where charge-transfer processes are dominant (chargetransfer semicircle), have been removed; only data points at
frequencies where diffusion processes are dominant remain.
The linear regression for estimating the purely resistive term
is illustrated in Fig. 5 for EIS data at 10 % DoD.
Denoting xi = Z ′ (ωi ) and yi = −Z ′′ (ωi ), the real part
and negative imaginary part respectively of the experimental
impedance at frequency ωi , the linear regression problem is
y i = β1 x i + β0 .

(67)

The slope is set to 45° to represent the diffusion behaviour
as discussed previously. Therefore β1 = 1 is known and the
regression problem consists of estimating the real intercept
β0 (= −R0 ) only. Defining the variable ȳi = yi − β1 xi , the
regression problem can be written:
ȳi = β0 .

(68)

This therefore constitutes an over-determined system of Nω
equations with the only unknown β0 , which can be written
Ȳ = β0 1,
T

(69)

where Ȳ = [ȳ1, . . ., ȳNω ] ∈ R
is the vector containing the
values of ȳi at the Nω frequencies, and 1 ∈ RNω is a vector of
all ones of length Nω . The value of β0 can easily be determined
in the least-squares sense by computing
Nω

β0 = 1† Ȳ =

1T
Ȳ
Nω

(70)

where the superscript 1† denotes the pseudo-inverse of the
vector 1 which is simply equal to a row vector with all
components equal to 1/Nω . This linear regression must be
performed using only the experimental data points in the frequency range where low-frequency pseudo-capacitive effects
arising from OCV variations are negligible. Therefore, very
low frequency impedance data points must be discarded in the
experimental dataset to perform a meaningful regression. In
practice this was achieved by performing the regression first
on all data points, and then on an iteratively reduced dataset
where the lowest frequency impedance data point was removed
until the goodness-of-fit was satisfactory. The coefficient of
determination R2 was used as an indicator to assess the
goodness-of-fit and a threshold value of 0.98 was chosen to
stop the iterations.

V.

R ESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A. Parameter estimation using synthetic data
The parameter estimation algorithm was first tested against
synthetic data generated using the linearised SPM with a
known set of parameters for an LCO cell from the literature [1],
which are summarised in Table I.
Fig. 2 shows contour plots of the natural logarithm of the
loss function Lj (θ̃), (64), at several DoDs for the synthetic
data. It is assumed that the charge-transfer resistance Rct is
known for each DoD since, as previously explained, it can
be identified separately by straightforward linear regression.
Therefore the two parameters to be identified are the cathode
and anode diffusion time constants τ+d and τ−d . The coordinates
of the minimum values of the natural logarithm of (64) on
these contour plots represent the optimal parameter estimates
in the least-squares sense as defined in (62). The two cases
for which the linearised SPM is structurally unidentifiable,
as discussed in section III-D, can be witnessed by examining
Fig. 2. Firstly, when the absolute value of the OCV functions
are approximately equal in the cathode and anode, β+0 ≈ −β−0 ,
such as 75 % DoD, the loss function clearly shows two minima:
one minimum corresponds to the actual parameters, while the
other minimum happens when the anode and cathode diffusion
time constants are interchanged. Moreover, even if the absolute
values of the electrode OCV slopes β−0 and β+0 are distinct (e.g.
5 %, 25 % and 95 % on Fig. 2), the loss function still features
two local minima, although barely visible due to the narrow
loss function along one axis. Therefore, an ambiguity persists
and the anode and cathode dynamics cannot be distinguished.
A possible explanation for this ambiguity is that the measured
voltage is the difference between the anode and cathode OCV
and not the absolute voltage of the electrode with respect to
a reference electrode. Secondly, in the case where one OCV
slope is an order of magnitude lower in one electrode compared
to the other, the diffusion time constant of this electrode
becomes unidentifiable, e.g. 5 %, 25 % and 95 % DoD in Fig. 2.
For instance at 95 % DoD, the absolute value of the cathode
OCV slope β+0 is small compared to the anode slope, and the
minimum of the loss function is elongated along the τ+d axis,
i.e. provided the value of τ−d is correct, almost any value for
τ+d will result in a minimum value of the loss function.
These results suggest that the anode and cathode diffusion
time constants cannot both be identified from frequency-data at
a single DoD. In the best case, where the OCV slopes are equal
for the chosen DoD, the values τ+d and τ−d can be determined
but cannot be assigned to a specific electrode. Fig. 3 shows the
natural logarithm of the loss function L (θ̃) combining the EIS
data at 5 %, 25 %, 75 % and 95 % DoD as defined in (66). This
loss function shows a single global minimum corresponding to
the actual set of parameters used to generate the synthetic data.
The two time constants of the linearised SPM can therefore
only be estimated unambiguously by considering EIS data at
several DoDs. More specifically, complementary DoD values,
where each electrode in turn presents a large OCV slope
while the other is negligible, should be combined to ensure
better identifiability. For instance, it is clear from Fig. 2 that
combining EIS data at 5 % and 95 % DoD will result in a

10

TABLE I.

PARAMETERS USED FOR GENERATING SYNTHETIC ELECTROCHEMICAL IMPEDANCE DATA FOR AN LCO CELL REPORTED IN [1].
Parameter
Electrode thickness δi
Particle radius Ri
Active material volume fraction i
Li diffusivity in active material Di
Reaction rate constant ki
Max. active material concentration cmax
i
Electrode surface concentration A
Electrolyte concentration ce

Units
µm
µm
m2 s−1
m2.5 mol−0.5 s−1
mol m−3
cm−2
mol m−3

Anode
Cathode
73.5
70.0
12.5
8.5
0.4382
0.3000
−14
5.5 × 10
1.0 × 10−11
1.764 × 10−11
6.667 × 10−11
30 555
51 555
982
982
1000

Fig. 2. Contour plots of ln Lj (θ̃) against (τ+d , τ−d ) at several DoDs assuming the charge-transfer resistance Rct is known. Synthetic EIS data were generated
using the linearised SPM with reference parameters found in the literature [1] for an LCO cell (shown as a red dot on the contour plot).

single minimum at the intersection of the lines of minimum
loss function values for individual DoDs.
B. Parameter estimation using experimental data
This section discusses the results of the parameter estimation
using EIS experimental data measured from a commercial
Kokam NMC cell. First, the experimental procedure used to
measure the cell impedance and the OCV for both electrodes
is discussed. The estimation of the charge-transfer resistance
using linear regression is then briefly considered. Finally, the
practical identifiability of the model diffusion time constants
from the experimental impedance data is examined.
1) Experimental setup: Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) [27] is a widely used technique to measure
the frequency response of electrochemical systems, including

lithium-ion batteries. During a galvanostatic EIS (GEIS) experiment, the battery is excited with a small sinusoidal current and
the associated voltage response is recorded. This is repeated
at a number of frequencies. Potentiostatic EIS is a similar
technique, where the voltage is used as the input sinusoidal
signal and the recorded output is the current. The impedance
of the cell at each frequency is calculated from the gain
and phase shift between the input and output signals. EIS
experimental data were obtained for a Kokam SLPB533459H4
740 mAh NMC cell at several DoDs using a BioLogic SP-150
potentiostat. The cell was kept at a constant 20 ○C temperature
in a Vötsch VT4002 thermal chamber in order to minimise
the possible detrimental effects of temperature variations on
the results of the parameter identification approach. The cell
impedance was measured using single-sine GEIS, averaged
over two periods, with a peak-to-peak AC current amplitude of

11

600
10% DoD
20% DoD
30% DoD
40% DoD
50% DoD
60% DoD
70% DoD
80% DoD
90% DoD

550
500
450

200 μHz

400

ω

300

increasing

Fig. 3. Contour plots of ln L (θ̃) against (τ+d , τ−d ) assuming the chargetransfer resistance Rct is known, based on synthetic EIS data with the
reference parameters from [1] for an LCO cell (shown as a yellow square
on the contour plot). The loss function is the sum of the cost function Lj for
four levels of DoD 5 %, 25 %, 75 % and 95 %.

-Z" (mΩ)

350

250
200

100 mA, and 0 mA DC current. The impedance was measured
at logarithmically-spaced frequencies with six frequencies per
decade ranging from 5 kHz to 200 µHz. A resting time of
3 hours was applied before any EIS measurement to ensure
that the cell was close to equilibrium. The EIS measurement
using this experimental setup took approximately 9 hours for
each DoD because of the low frequencies required. Clearly
this is quite time consuming and ultimately one should aim at
using the minimum number of low-frequency data and/or DoD
linearisation points to accelerate the model parametrisation.
Fig. 4 shows the measured EIS data as a Nyquist plot for
several DoDs ranging from 10 % to 90 %. These impedance
results are typical of lithium-ion batteries, which have smaller
impedance at high frequencies (bottom left), arising from
ohmic resistance and fast charge-transfer processes, and larger
impedance at lower frequencies (top right), arising from slower
diffusion processes and SoC variations. At high frequencies,
the response features a depressed semicircle, which is characteristic of charge-transfer processes. As discussed in section
IV-C, this part of the plot is discarded because charge-transfer
0
processes are approximated by the resistor Rct
only in (58).
As expected, in the medium range of frequencies where semiinfinite diffusion is predominant, the frequency response shows
the familiar 45° diffusion slope. At very low frequencies the
response tends towards a capacitive vertical line due to the
variations of the average particle stoichiometry.
Fig. 7d shows the OCV of the Kokam SLPB533459H4 cell
as a function of discharge capacity Q and DoD measured
experimentally. In order to measure the anode and cathode
potential separately, a minimally invasive reference electrode
consisting of a lithium-coated copper wire was inserted into
the commercial pouch cell using the technique presented in
[35]. The OCV of both electrodes were then measured using
the galvanostatic intermittent titration technique (GITT) [34]
by discharging the cell in 14.8 mA h increments at C/10 and
measuring the cell OCV after a one-hour voltage relaxation

150
100
50

5 kHz
~1 Hz

0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Z' (mΩ)

Fig. 4. Nyquist plot of the electrochemical impedance of a Kokam SLPB
533459H4 740 mAh NMC cell measured at 20 ○C and several DoDs in the
frequency range 5 kHz to 200 µHz.

time to obtain 50 measurements points.
2) Estimation of high-frequency purely resistive terms:
The purely resistive term R0 accounting for high-frequency
effects, including charge-transfer, passivation layer and contact
resistance, which shifts the diffusion-driven impedance to the
right on the experimental EIS Nyquist plot, is estimated using
the linear regression method discussed in section IV-C. Fig. 5
shows the results of the linear regression for the EIS data collected at 10 % DoD. As discussed previously, high frequency
data points corresponding to charge-transfer resistance and
double-layer capacitance are discarded and only data points
at frequencies where diffusion effects are predominant are
considered. The initial linear regression is performed on all low
frequency data points but yields very poor fitting (R2 = 0.525)
due to the the pseudo-capacitive behaviour at very low frequencies arising from DoD variations. By iteratively removing
the lower frequency data points, a good linear fit of the 45°
tail can be achieved (R2 = 0.995). The purely resistive term
R0 is then approximated by finding the intercept of the linear

12

TABLE II.

RMS AND MAXIMUM ERROR BETWEEN THE MEASURED
AND PREDICTED IMPEDANCE AT 10 %, 50 % AND 80 % D O D.

150
selected points for linear regression
removed high-frequency points
removed low-frequency points
initial linear regression
final linear regression
25

Single DoD estimation
RMS Error

Max Error

RMS Error

Max Error

10 %
50 %
80 %

3.28 mΩ
9.56 mΩ
6.48 mΩ

5.60 mΩ
21.36 mΩ
11.32 mΩ

6.66 mΩ
47.88 mΩ
6.84 mΩ

16.73 mΩ
95.16 mΩ
12.82 mΩ

R2
=0

.9
9

-Z" (m )

5

R2
=0

.5

100

Combined DoDs estimation

DoD

50

0

R0

0

50

100

150

Z' (m )
Fig. 5. Linear regression of the purely resistive term R0 from experimental
EIS data at 10 % DoD. The high-frequency data points (crosses) are discarded.
The first linear regression (dashed line) is performed on all data points
(circles). Low-frequency data points (empty circles), corresponding to the
pseudo-capacitive effect arising from DoD variations, are iteratively removed
until the final remaining set of data points (filled circles) enables a linear
regression with a coefficient of determination R2 greater than 0.98 (the three
lowest frequency data points are not shown on this graph for readability).

Purely resistive term R 0 (m )

130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90 100

DoD (%)
Fig. 6. Purely resistive term R0 , accounting for charge-transfer, passivation
layer and contact resistance at high frequencies,against DoD estimated from
experimental data by linear regression.

regession curve with the real axis. The estimated values of R0
as a function of DoD are reported on Fig. 6. Note that the
cell ohmic resistance included in R0 is approximately equal
to 25 mΩ according to the intercept of the experimentally
measured impedance with the real-axis of the Nyquist plot
at high frequencies, Fig. 4. As shown, the resistive term R0
including charge-transfer and contact resistance increases with
DoD, which is consistent with previously reported Kokam
NMC cell EIS data in the literature [40].
3) Parameter estimation performance: Fig. 7 presents practical identifiability and parameter estimation results based
on experimental impedance data at individual DoDs. Three
characteristic values of DoD where chosen, 10 %, 50 % and
80 %, in order to demonstrate the identifiability issues discussed in section III-D. At 10 % DoD, only the cathode OCV
shows a significant slope, at 50 % DoD both the cathode
and anode OCV are flat, and at 80 % DoD both electrodes
feature a significant OCV slope. The experimental and fitted
impedance responses are shown on Fig. 7e, f and g for the
chosen values of DoD. The corresponding root-mean square
(RMS) and maximum (Max) error between the predicted and
measured impedance response for this single DoD parameter
estimation algorithm are presented in Table II. A satisfactory
fit is obtained in all cases with a root-mean square error of
3.28 mΩ, 9.56 mΩ and 6.48 mΩ for 10 %, 50 % and 80 % DoD
respectively.
However, the uncertainties on the parameter estimates are
large as exhibited by the contour plots of the loss function in
Fig. 7a, b and c. At 10 % DoD the loss function is very sensitive to the cathode diffusion dynamics while anode dynamics
have very little impact because of the very small slope of
the anode OCV. Therefore the estimated anode diffusion time
constant τ−d is highly uncertain and cannot be estimated from
this data set alone. In contrast, at 80 % DoD the loss function
is sensitive to both the anode and cathode dynamics because
of the similar magnitude of the OCV slope in both electrodes.
However, the minimum of the loss function is still relatively
elongated along the anode parameter axis, which suggests that
the uncertainty on the anode parameter remains larger than
the cathode one. This confirms that impedance data at several
DoDs must be combined to yield less uncertain parameter
estimates.
At 50 % DoD, where the OCV is flat for both electrodes,
the loss function is completely insensitive to the anode dynamics and somewhat more sensitive to the cathode dynamics.
However, the contour plot of the loss function is actually
shallow along the cathode parameter as well, implying that the
uncertainty on both parameters is very large. Furthermore, the

13

Fig. 7. Natural logarithm of the individual DoD loss function Lj (θ̃) based on experimental EIS data at (a) 10 %, (b) 50 %, and (c) 80 % DoD. (d) Cathode,
anode and cell OCV of the Kokam cell as a function of DoD measured by the GITT technique using a minimally invasive reference electrode. Cell impedance
experimentally measured (circles) and predicted (solid-lines and crosses) by the linearised SPM transfer function model fitted by minimising the individual DoD
loss function Lj (θ̃) at (e) 10 %, (f) 50 %, and (g) 80 % DoD.

minimum of the loss function happens for a cathode diffusion
time constant centred around 60 000 s as shown in Fig. 7b.
This is approximately an order of magnitude higher than the
value of τ+d estimated using the other data sets at 10 % and
80 % DoD. Throughout this work, the implicit assumption
was made that both diffusion time constants do not vary with
DoD. However, Fig. 7b suggests that lithium diffusivity in
the electrode active material could drastically change with
DoD. Experimental measurements of lithium diffusivities in
the active material of a Kokam NMC cell are reported in
[41] and confirm this. More especially, both the anode and

cathode diffusivities are an order of magnitude lower around
50 % DoD compared to high DoDs [41]. Another source of
uncertainty that has been ignored in the model is the error
related to the OCV measurement and the calculation of the
OCV slopes β+0 and β−0 . At 50 % DoD, the OCV slopes in
both electrodes are very small and therefore the relative error
on measurement is large, especially considering that numerical
differentiation is highly sensitive to noise. Finally, because the
OCV slopes are flat, both the anode and cathode diffusion
dynamics have very limited impact on the cell terminal voltage
at 50 % DoD. Therefore, the EIS data at 50 % DoD will be

14

assumed constant with respect to active material lithiation in
the lithium-ion battery electrochemical modelling community,
e.g. [1], [14], [15], [42], [43], this assumption may introduce
additional inaccuracies on the parameter estimate, especially
for NMC cells [41]. All of these challenges provide fruitful
avenues for further exploration.

Fig. 8. Contour plot of the loss function ln L (θ̃), (66), based on experimental
impedance data at 10 % and 80 % DoD. The yellow square indicates the
parameter estimated by the PE algorithm at τ+d = 2880 s and τ−d = 9033 s.

discarded from the parameter estimation using combined DoDs
discussed subsequently.
Fig. 8 shows the contour plot of the cost function L (θ̃)
combining the experimental impedance data measured at 10 %
and 80 % DoDs. Similarly to the results with synthetic data,
Fig. 3, the loss function presents a single minimum, elongated
along the anode parameter axis suggesting a larger uncertainty
on the anode parameter compared to the cathode one. Although
this suggests a ‘well-behaved’ estimation problem with a single
parameter estimate, these results must be considered with
caution. Indeed, the two combined datasets at 10 % and 80 %
DoDs used to perform the parameter estimation were chosen
somewhat arbitrarily. Although these parameter estimates yield
a good impedance fit for these DoDs, it results in very
approximate fitted impedance at other DoDs, e.g. 50 % DoD.
As shown in Table II, the impedance prediction error is much
higher at 50 % DoD with 47.88 mΩ RMS error compared to
6.66 mΩ and 6.84 mΩ at 10 % and 80 % DoDs respectively.
Firstly, as previously mentioned the OCV slopes βi0 in both
electrodes are assumed fixed and perfectly known for each
DoD. The sensitivity of the predicted impedance response to
the OCV slopes is not negligible. The computation of the
OCV slope is highly sensitive to measurement noise because
the measured voltage variations are relatively small between
each DoD, on the order of a few millivolts. Additionally, the
measured OCV might not reflect closely enough the actual
cell OCV. The OCV measurements were performed on a
different cell (of the same type and size) which was modified
by inserting a reference electrode. Although this technique is
minimally invasive, it nonetheless may slightly modify the cell
behaviour. Finally, electrode OCV is affected by temperature
variation and hysteresis effects [34], which introduce further
uncertainties. Secondly, our parameter estimation algorithm
combining experimental data at several DoDs assumes that
the diffusion time constants in both electrodes remain constant with DoD. Although solid-phase diffusivities are usually

C. Model validation in the time domain
To demonstrate the performance of the linearised SPM
using our frequency domain parameter estimation approach,
we also include here a brief comparison between the modelled
and measured voltage response in the time domain. The
measurements were made on the same Kokam cell type as
previously described, using the same equipment that was used
for EIS measurements. The current demand was specified
based on a dynamic loading profile at 1 Hz derived from an
electric vehicle drive cycle, see [44]. The maximum current
was 4.4 A, which corresponds to a fairly high C-rate (almost
6C). The same current input signal used in the experimental
measurements was provided to the linearised SPM, and the
terminal voltage was calculated by solving the model in
the time domain. This requires solution of (29-31, 49, 54),
which requires knowledge of Qth
i , the theoretical capacity
of each electrode, which relates variations in stoichiometry
x to variations in measured discharge capacity. Unfortunately
Qth
i is unknown, but by introducing two changes of variable,
s
th s
ûi = Qth
i ūi and x̂i = Qi x̄i , this term can be eliminated from
the linearised SPM, similarly to section III-C. This approach
assumes the model is linearised; to run the SPM with nonlinear OCV would require knowledge of Qth
i . The time-domain
linearised SPM was solved in MATLAB® using Chebyshev
orthogonal collocation as in our previous work [1], [45].
The comparison between linearised SPM and measured data
is shown in Fig. 9 over a time period of almost 10 minutes. The
DoD at the beginning of the period was 10 % and at the end of
the period was 20 %. The OCV curves are almost linear over
this range (see Fig. 7) and the variation in R0 is small (Fig. 6).
Initial results using this approach showed a consistent increasingly negative offset in voltage predictions over the time period
examined. This is most likely due to the assumed OCV slope at
this DoD being inaccurate, and was adjusted by multiplying the
linearised cathode OCV slope by a factor of 0.78. Fig. 9 shows
both the initial simulated and the adjusted simulated data in
comparison to the measured data. The voltage errors between
adjusted simulated vs. measured data are maximum 20 mV
and RMS 10 mV. These are satisfyingly reasonable given the
fact the model was parametrised completely separately with
frequency domain data, that different cells were used for OCV
measurements compared to EIS and time domain data, and that
the kinetics were linearised despite current peaks of up to 6C.
VI. S UMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The analysis of parameter identifiability from experimental
data is crucial prior to any attempt at estimating the parameters
of battery first-principle models. We have demonstrated that the
lithium-ion battery single particle model is over-parametrised
and that only six subgroups of parameters are necessary for

15

Current (A)

R EFERENCES
[1]

4
2

[2]

0
0

100

Voltage (V)

4.2

200

300

Experimental

400

Simulated

500

Adjusted

[3]

4

[4]

3.8
3.6

Error (mV)

0

100

200

300

400

500

[5]

20
0
-20

[6]

-40
Simulated

-60
0

100

[7]

Adjusted

200

300

400

500

Time (s)
Fig. 9. Time domain comparison of SPM against measured data. Start point
is 10 % DoD and end point is 20 % DoD.

full parametrisation. Assuming that the OCV vs. discharge
capacity curves for each electrode are known, we have shown
that the estimation of the linearised model parameters at a
given DoD can only identify three parameters among these
six subgroups of parameters, namely the cathode diffusion time
constant τ+d , the anode diffusion time constant τ−d and a chargetransfer resistance Rct . Finally, we have shown the crucial
role of the slope of electrode open-circuit voltage curves on
the parameter uncertainty. This has been investigated through
analysis of the model, as well as through fitting both time and
frequency domain data. A flat electrode OCV curve results
in high uncertainties on the electrode diffusion parameter.
Therefore impedance data at a single DoD cannot, in general,
result in accurate parameter estimation for both electrodes,
and experimental data at multiple DoDs must be considered.
Specifically, complimentary DoDs where in turn the anode
and cathode OCV gradients are significant must be chosen to
yield satisfactory identifiability. Future work could investigate
the effects of temperature on parameter estimation, and the
evolution of cell parameters as a battery ages.

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Financial support is gratefully acknowledged from EPSRC
UK (EP/K002252/1) and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. We
thank Dr Adam Mahdi (University of Oxford) for his valuable
advice on model structural identifiability analysis, and Dr
Christoph Birkl and Dr Shi Zhao (University of Oxford) for
providing the experimental OCV and dynamic test data.

[17]

[18]

A. M. Bizeray, S. Zhao, S. R. Duncan, D. A. Howey, Lithiumion battery thermal-electrochemical model-based state estimation using
orthogonal collocation and a modified extended Kalman filter. J. Power
Sources, 296, 400–412 (2015)
R. Klein, N. A. Chaturvedi, J. Christensen, J. Ahmed, R. Findeisen,
A. Kojic, State estimation of a reduced electrochemical model of a
lithium-ion battery. Proc. Am. Control Conf. ACC 2010, Baltimore,
MD, USA, 6618–6623 (2010)
S. J. Moura, N. A. Chaturvedi, M. Krstic, Constraint Management in
Li-ion Batteries: A Modified Reference Governor Approach. Proc. Am.
Control Conf. ACC 2013, Washington, DC, USA, 5332–5337 (2013)
H. Perez, N. Shahmohammadhamedani, S. Moura, Enhanced Performance of Li-Ion Batteries via Modified Reference Governors and
Electrochemical Models. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics, 1–10
(2014)
N. A. Chaturvedi, R. Klein, J. Christensen, J. Ahmed, A. Kojic, Algorithms for advanced battery-management systems: modeling, estimation,
and control challenges for lithium-ion batteries. IEEE Control Syst.
Mag., 30(3), 49–68 (2010)
S. J. Moura, H. Perez, Better batteries through electrochemistry. ASME
Dyn. Syst. and Control Mag., 15–21 (2014)
S. Santhanagopalan, R. E. White, Online estimation of the state of
charge of a lithium ion cell. J. Electrochem. Soc., 161(2), 1346–1355
(2006)
K. Smith, C. D. Rahn, C-Y Wang, Online estimation of the state of
charge of a lithium ion cell. IEEE International Conference on Control
Applications, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 714–719 (2008)
D. Di Domenico, A. Stefanopoulou, G. Fiengo, Lithium-Ion Battery
State of Charge and Critical Surface Charge Estimation Using an
Electrochemical Model-Based Extended Kalman Filter. J. Dyn. Syst.,
Meas., Control, 132, 061302 (2010)
K. Smith, C. D. Rahn, C-Y Wang, Model-Based Electrochemical
Estimation and Constraint Management for Pulse Operation of Lithium
Ion Batteries. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., 18(3), 654–663
(2010)
S. J. Moura, N. A. Chaturvedi, M. Krstic, Adaptive Partial Differential
Equation Observer for Battery State-of-Charge/State-of-Health Estimation Via an Electrochemical Model. J. Dyn. Syst., Meas., Control, 136,
011015 (2013)
K. D. Stetzel, L. L. Aldrich, M. S. Trimboli, G. L. Plett, Electrochemical
state and internal variables estimation using a reduced-order physicsbased model of a lithium-ion cell and an extended Kalman filter. J.
Power Sources, 278, 490–505 (2015)
S. Zhao, A. M. Bizeray, S. R. Duncan, D. A. Howey, Performance
evaluation of an extended Kalman filter for state estimation of a pseudo2D thermal-electrochemical lithium-ion battery model. ASME Dyn.
Syst. Control Conf., Proc., Columbus, Ohio, USA, 1–5 (2015)
P. W. C. Northrop, V. Ramadesigan, S. De, V. R. Subramanian, Coordinate Transformation, Orthogonal Collocation, Model Reformulation
and Simulation of Electrochemical-Thermal Behavior of Lithium-Ion
Battery Stacks. J. Electrochem. Soc., 158(12), A1461–A1477 (2011)
A. P. Schmidt, M. Bitzer, A. W. Imre, L. Guzzella, Experiment-driven
electrochemical modeling and systematic parameterization for a lithiumion battery cell. J. Power Sources, 195(15), 5071-5080 (2010)
V. Ramadesigan, K. Chen, N. A. Burns, V. Boovaragavan, R. D. Braatz,
V. R. Subramanian, Parameter Estimation and Capacity Fade Analysis
of Lithium-Ion Batteries Using Reformulated Models. J. Electrochem.
Soc., 158(9), A1048-A1054 (2011)
J. C. Forman, S. J. Moura, J. L. Stein, H. K. Fathy, Genetic parameter
identification of the Doyle-Fuller-Newman model from experimental
cycling of a LiFePO4 battery. Proc. Am. Control Conf. ACC 2011, San
Francisco, CA, USA, 362–369 (2011)
J. C. Forman, S. J. Moura, J. L. Stein, H. K. Fathy, Genetic identification
and fisher identifiability analysis of the Doyle-Fuller-Newman model

16

from experimental cycling of a LiFePO4 cell. J.Power Sources, 210,
263–275 (2012)
[40]

[19]

J. Marcicki, M. Canova, A. T. Conlisk, G. Rizzoni, Design and
parametrization analysis of a reduced-order electrochemical model of
graphite/LiFePO4 cells for SOC/SOH estimation. J. Power Sources,
237, 310–324 (2013)

[20]

S. Jiang, A Parameter Identification Method for a Battery Equivalent
Circuit Model. Soc. Automot. Eng. Tech. Pap. Ser., 1–9 (2011)

[21]

R. A. Nazer, V. Cattin, P. Granjon, M. Montaru, A new optimization
algorithm for a li-ion battery equivalent electrical equivalent circuit
identification. 9th International Conference of Modeling, Optimization
and Simulation - MOSIM12, Bordeaux, France, 1–7 (2012)

[22]

J. Jang, J. Yoo, Equivalent circuit evaluation method of lithium polymer
battery using bode plot and numerical analysis. IEEE Trans. Energy
Convers., 26(1), 290–298 (2011)

[43]

[23]

N. Moubayed, J. Kouta, A. El-Ali, H. Dernayka,R. Outbib, Parameter
identification of the lead-acid battery model. IEEE Photovoltaic Spec.
Conf., 33rd , 1–6 (2008)

[44]

[24]

M. Doyle, T. F. Fuller, J. Newman, Modeling of Galvanostatic Charge
and Discharge of the Lithium/Polymer/Insertion Cell. J. Electrochem.
Soc., 140(6), 1526-1533 (1993)

[25]

S. Atlung, K. West, T. Jacobsen, Dynamic aspects of solid solution
cathodes for electrochemical power sources. J. Electrochem. Soc.,
126(8), 1311–1321 (1979)

[26]

G. Ning, B. N. Popov, Cycle Life Modeling of Lithium-Ion Batteries.
J. Electrochem. Soc., 151(10) A1584-A1591, (2004)

[27]

E. Barsoukov, J. R. Macdonald, Impedance Spectroscopy: Theory,
Experiment, and Applications. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken,
NJ, USA, 1–595 (2005)

[28]

S. Tippmann, D. Walper, L. Balboa, B. Spier,W. G. Bessler, Lowtemperature charging of lithium-ion cells part I: Electrochemical modeling and experimental investigation of degradation behavior. J. Power
Sources, 252, 305–316 (2014)

[29]

M. D. Murbach, V. W. Hu, D. T. Schwartz, The Impedance Analyzer:
An Open-Source, Web-Based Tool for Sophisticated Interrogation of
Experimental EIS Spectra. ECS Meeting Abstracts, 320–320 (2017)

[30]

S. Santhanagopalan, Q. Guo, R. E. White, Parameter Estimation and
Model Discrimination for a Lithium-Ion Cell. J. Electrochem. Soc.,
154(3) (2007) A198–A206

[31]

R. Bellman, K. J. Astrom, On structural identifiability. Math. Biosci.,
7, 329–339 (1970)

[32]

L. Ljung System Identification: Theory for the User. Prentice Hall PTR
(1999)

[33]

S. S. M Alavi, A. Mahdi, , S. J. Payne, D. A. Howey, Identifiability of
Generalized Randles Circuit Models. ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1505.00153
[math.OC] (2016)

[34]

C. R. Birkl, E. McTurk, M. R. Roberts, P. G. Bruce, D. A. Howey, A
Parametric Open Circuit Voltage Model for Lithium Ion Batteries. J.
Electrochem. Soc., 162(12), A2271–A2280 (2015)

[35]

E. McTurk, C. R. Birkl, M. R. Roberts, D. A. Howey, P. G. Bruce,
Minimally Invasive Insertion of Reference Electrodes into Commercial
Lithium-Ion Pouch Cells. ECS Electrochem. Lett., 4(12), A145–A147
(2015)

[36]

B. S. Haran, B. N. Popov, R. E. White, Determination of the hydrogen
diffusion coefficient in metal hydrides by impedance spectroscopy. J.
Power Sources, 75 (1998) 56–63

[37]

Q. Guo, V. R. Subramanian, J. W. Weidner, R. E. White, Estimation
of Diffusion Coefficient of Lithium in Carbon Using AC Impedance
Technique. J. Electrochem. Soc., 149(3) (2002) A307–A318

[38]

G. Sikha, R. E. White, Analytical Expression For the Impedance
Response of an Insertion Electrode Cell. J. Electrochem. Soc., 154(1)
(2007) A43–A54

[39]

S. Buller, M. Thele, E. Karden, R.W. De Doncker, Impedance-based

[41]

[42]

[45]

non-linear dynamic battery modeling for automotive applications. J.
Power Sources, 113(2), 422-430 (2003)
D. A. Howey, P. D. Mitcheson, V. Yufit, G. J. Offer, N. P. Brandon,
Online measurement of battery impedance using motor controller excitation. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., 63(6), 2557–2566 (2014)
M. Ecker, T. K. D. Tran, P. Dechent, S. Kabitz,A. Warnecke,D. U.
Sauer, Parameterization of a Physico-Chemical Model of a Lithium-Ion
Battery: I. Determination of Parameters. J. Electrochem. Soc., 162(9),
A1836–A1848 (2015)
T. F. Fuller, M. Doyle, J. Newman, Simulation and Optimization of the
Dual Lithium Ion Insertion Cell. J. Electrochem. Soc., 141(1), 1–10
(1994)
M. Guo, G. Sikha, R. E. White, Single-Particle Model for a LithiumIon Cell: Thermal Behavior. J. Electrochem. Soc., 158(2), A122–A132
(2011)
S. Zhao, S. R. Duncan, D. A. Howey, Observability Analysis and State
Estimation of Lithium-Ion Batteries in the Presence of Sensor Biases.
IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., 25(1), 326–333 (2017)
A. M. Bizeray, J. Reniers, D. A. Howey, Spectral li-ion SPM. (2016),
http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.212178

Adrien M. Bizeray received the D.Phil degree from
the University of Oxford in 2017. His research interests focus on the mathematical modelling of lithiumion batteries for developing the next-generation of
Battery Management Systems relying on electrochemical model-based state estimation and control
algorithms for improved battery safety and lifetime. Previously, he received the French Engineering
Diploma from Arts et Métiers ParisTech, France, and
the M.Sc. in Advanced Mechanical Engineering from
Imperial College London, U.K.

Stephen R. Duncan is a Professor in the Department
of Engineering Science at the University of Oxford,
where he is a member of the Control group. He is
also a Fellow of St Hughs College. Prior to joining
Oxford, he was Reader in the Control Systems
Centre at the University of Manchester (1993 to
1998) and a Director of Greycon Limited (a spinout company from Imperial College). He has an MA
in Physics from the University of Cambridge and
an MSc and PhD in Control Systems from Imperial
College, London. He is a member of the Editorial
Board of the IET Proceedings Control Theory and Applications.

David A. Howey (M10) received the B.A. and
M.Eng. degrees from Cambridge University, Cambridge, U.K., in 2002, and the Ph.D. degree from the
Imperial College London, London, U.K., in 2010. He
is currently an Associate Professor with the Energy
and Power Group, Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, U.K. He was involved in projects on battery degradation diagnostics
and prognostics, battery modeling, optimal control of
charging and discharging, energy storage and microgrids, thermal management, novel pack designs, and
motor degradation. His current research interests include condition monitoring
and management of electric, and hybrid vehicle components.

