Method of calibrating impedance measurements of a battery

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 11709219
  • Patent Number
    11,709,219
  • Date Filed
    Monday, March 1, 2021
    3 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, July 25, 2023
    a year ago
Abstract
A method of calibration is described that simplifies the measurement of battery impedance conducted in-situ while determining battery state-of-health. A single shunt measurement with a known Sum of Sines (SOS) current, at the desired frequency spread and known root mean squared (RMS) current is used to create a calibration archive. A calibration selected from this archive is used to calibrate an impedance measurement made on the battery.
Description
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Batteries and other electrical energy storage devices have become widely used in not only military, space, and commercial applications but also in domestic applications. Therefore, it has become even more important to be able to efficiently and effectively obtain an accurate estimation of the battery's state-of-health. While voltage, current, and temperature may be used to gauge the remaining capacity of a battery, in critical applications it is also necessary to know impedance and power capability to get an accurate picture of battery health. Ideally, any measurement of battery health is done in-situ and has minimal impact on the battery. A great deal of work has been conducted to test battery impedance without effecting battery status. This work is documented in, for example, U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,688,036; 7,395,163 B1; 7,675,293 B2; 8,150,643 B1; 8,352,204 B2; 8,762,109 B2; 8,868,363 B2; and 9,244,130 B2, and U.S. Published Patent Application Nos. 2011/0270559 A1; 2014/0358462 A1; and 2017/0003354 A1. Each variation of the methods described in these documents improve the process of assessing battery health by, for example, increasing resolution. Recently, a method for testing battery impedance has been described that increases the resolution of a known system by a factor of ten. Key features of this high resolution method involve a new algorithm, auto-ranging to obtain the optimum level of excitation current, and increased preamplifier gain. The method also required an additional measurement channel that captures time records of the Sum-Of-Sines (SOS) current in addition to the SOS voltage from the test battery.


Although the above-methods have refined this important process, an improved method for calibration that will greatly simplify the calibration process and eliminate the extra measurement channel needed for some methods is still needed.


All patents, patent applications, provisional patent applications and publications referred to or cited herein, are incorporated by reference in their entirety to the extent they are not inconsistent with the teachings of the specification.


SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The invention involves an improved method of calibrating impedance measurements of a battery. The method needs only a single measurement with a known Sum of Sines (SOS) current, at the desired frequency spread and known root mean squared (RMS) current.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWINGS


FIG. 1 shows the single shunt calibration of a test cell at 500 mA using the method of the subject invention.



FIG. 2 shows the single shunt calibration of a test cell with RMS current scale 500 mA down to 250 mA using the method of the subject invention.



FIG. 3 shows the single shunt calibration of a test cell with RMS current scale 500 mA down to 125 mA using the method of the subject invention.



FIG. 4 shows the single shunt calibration of a test cell with RMS current scale 500 mA down to 62.5 mA using the method of the subject invention.



FIG. 5 shows a single shunt calibration with Solatron EIS of a test cell using the method of the subject invention.



FIG. 6 shows a single shunt calibration with Solatron EIS of a test cell using the method of the subject invention.



FIG. 7 shows a single shunt calibration with Solatron EIS of a test cell using the method of the subject invention).



FIG. 8 shows a lead acid battery measured at 62.5 mA and 15 frequency SOS showing 18 to 15 frequency and 500 mA to 62.5 mA RMS current and frequency scaling.



FIG. 9 shows a lead acid battery measured at 125 mA RMS SOS showing 18 to 15 frequency and 500 mA to 125 mA RMS current scaling and frequency scaling.



FIG. 10 shows splining the calibration 14 frequencies in octaves downward from 1000 Hz calibrated with 15 frequencies in octaves from 0.1 Hz to 1638.4 Hz.



FIG. 11A demonstrates saturation tolerance time CTC algorithm with a 12 V lead acid car battery and shows the unclipped battery time record.



FIG. 11B demonstrates saturation tolerance time CTC algorithm with a 12 V lead acid car battery and shows the unclipped TCTC with baseline HCSD spectrum.



FIG. 11C demonstrates saturation tolerance time CTC algorithm with a 12 V lead acid car battery and shows the clipped battery time record.



FIG. 11D demonstrates saturation tolerance time CTC algorithm with a 12 V lead acid car battery and shows the clipped spectrum with baseline HCSD spectrum.



FIG. 12A demonstrates saturation tolerance TCTC algorithm with a Lithium ion battery and shows the unclipped battery time record.



FIG. 12B demonstrates saturation tolerance TCTC algorithm with a Lithium ion battery and shows the unclipped TCTC with baseline HCSD spectrum.



FIG. 12C demonstrates saturation tolerance TCTC algorithm with a Lithium ion battery and shows the clipped battery time record.



FIG. 12D demonstrates saturation tolerance TCTC algorithm with a Lithium ion battery and shows the clipped spectrum with baseline HCSD spectrum.



FIG. 13 is a block flow diagram of a method for generating a measure of impedance of a test device.





DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS OF THE INVENTION

The method of the subject invention is involves single shunt calibration (SSC) that applies to all generations of (Impedance Measurement Box) IMB. The subject method simplifies use of the IMB to assess battery health. The Idaho National Laboratory (INL) has described the design and construction of the IMB in numerous patent documents (see, for example, U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,688,036; 7,395,163 B1; 7,675,293 B2; 8,150,643 B1; 8,352,204 B2; 8,762,109 B2; 8,868,363 B2; and 9,244,130 B2, and U.S. Published Patent Application Nos. 2011/0270559 A1; 2014/0358462 A1; and 2017/0003354 A1). Spectrum algorithms used in the implementation are also described in the above patent documents and include, but are not limited to, harmonic compensated synchronous detection (HCSD), fast summation transformation (FST), generalized fast summation transformation (GFST), frequency cross talk compensation (FCTC), time cross talk compensation (TCTC), harmonic orthogonal synchronous transformation (HOST). Each of these spectrum algorithms are special cases of a rapid Fourier Transform that bring the measurement time record captured by the IMB measurement into the frequency domain at only the frequencies that were part of the IMB excitation signal to the test battery. The calibration in the present generation 50V IMB (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0358462) is accomplished by a complicated measurement scheme which uses 3 different shunts to generate calibration constants that yield a very accurate measurement of the impedance spectra from a test battery (Morrison, William. H., thesis, 2012). In contrast, the claimed method requires only a single measurement with a known Sum Of Sines (SOS) current, at the desired frequency spread and known RMS current.


As an example consider application to the 50V IMB (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0358462). With the present 50V IMB HCSD algorithm system (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0358462), the calibration for a given SOS frequency spread (octave harmonic short 0.1 Hz to 1638.4 Hz or long 0.0125 Hz to 1638.4 Hz) and a given SOS RMS current, the measurement time record that is processed into the frequency domain is typically one period of the lowest frequency. As part of the calibration the SOS current output is pre-emphasized to mitigate the IMB system frequency response. Additionally, the 3 shunt calibration scheme computes gain and offset constants for both magnitude and phase at each frequency. Equation 1 represents the time record captured by the IMB from a measurement on a test battery.

VB(t)=ISOS(t)*AS(t)*ZB(t)  (1)


Where: ISOS(t) is the SOS current time record

    • AS(t) is the measurement system impulse response
    • ZB(t) is the test battery impedance impulse response


The * in Equation 1 is a convolution operation. Because of the calibration pre-emphasis, ISOS(t) is given by:











I
SOS

(
t
)

=

R

M

S



2
m







i
=
1

m


sin

(


ω
i


t

)







(
2
)







Where: RMS is the RMS of the SOS current

    • m is the number of frequencies in the SOS
    • ωi is the ith radian frequency


      Note that the RMS of a SOS signal is:








R

M

S

=






i
=
1

m


(


1

T
i







T
i






(


V
P



sin

(


ω
i


t

)


)

2


dt



)



=


V
P




m
2









V
P

=

R

M

S



2
m









Equations 1 and 2 brought into the frequency domain via the 50V IMB HCSD algorithm (Morrison, William H., thesis, 2012) becomes:











V


Bi

=

RMS



2
m




(


A
Si



▯ϕ
Si


)



(


Z
Bi



▯ϕ
Bi


)






(
3
)







Where: ASi□ ϕSi is the measurement system frequency response at the ith frequency

    • ZBi□ ϕBi is the desired battery impedance at the ith frequency


      The effect of calibration is to multiply Equation 3 by a calibration constant given by:










CAL
i

=


(

RMS



2
m




(


A
Si



▯ϕ
Si


)


)


-
1






(
4
)







Clearly the calibration applied to Equation 3 results in the desired battery impedance and the 50V IMB has demonstrated this with great success via the 3 shunt magnitude calibration and the stepped phase shift calibration both yielding gain offset calibration constants that represent Equation 4 (Morrison, William H. thesis, 2012). Observe that Equation 4 is a calibration constant that is a combination of SOS current pre-emphasis and magnitude phase calibration at each frequency. The subject method does everything in a single measurement with a single shunt, single shunt calibration (SSC).


For the 50V IMB system the concept is very simple. The system will perform a spectrum measurement on a known non-inductive shunt for example a 50 mOhm non-inductive calibration shunt (as shown in FIG. 13, Block B1). The SOS current is set to the high level, 500 mA RMS (as shown in FIG. 13, Block B2). The system must be configured for no pre-emphasis and no calibration (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0358462). As the 50V IMB uses the HCSD algorithm, either 18 frequencies are selected, 0.0125 Hz to 1638.4 Hz or 15 frequencies 0.1 Hz to 1638.4 Hz both in octave steps (as shown in FIG. 13, Block B3). The measurement is performed and processed via the HCSD algorithm to convert the captured time record into the frequency domain (as shown in FIG. 13, Blocks B4 and B5 respectively). Then the complex results at each frequency are normalized to the measurement shunt value and the SOS RMS current (as shown in FIG. 13, Block B6). These results are in fact Equation 6 and are stored in a calibration file that when recalled can be used to calibrate a battery impedance measurement with the same frequency spread and different RMS current (as per Equation 9)(as shown in FIG. 13, Block B7).


For the single shunt calibration (SSC), we assume that single shunt used is constant and independent of frequency over the frequency range of the IMB. Additionally, all measurements are made without any pre-emphasis. Thus as a function of time the IMB measurement of that shunt VSHUNT(RMS,iΔt) is given by Equation 5.

VSHUNT(RMS,iΔt)=VSOS(RMS,iΔt)*HOUT(t)*RSHUNT*HIN(iΔt)  (5)

Where *: indicates the convolution operation

    • VSOS(RMS,iΔt): is the computer generated signal to IMB current drivers
    • HOUT(t): is the current driver system response in time
    • iΔt: is the computer discrete time
    • RSHUNT: is the calibration shunt, ohms
    • HIN(iΔt): is the IMB system input response in discrete time


      Also as a function of time the IMB measurement of a test battery is given by Equation 6.

      VMeas(RMS,iΔt)=VSOS(RMS,iΔt)*HOUT(t)*ZBAT(t)*HIN(iΔt)  (6)


Where: ZBAT(t) is the impedance impulse response of the battery as a function of time.


For the SSC the time record of the shunt (Equation 5) is processed by the HCSD algorithm of the IMB, normalized by RSHUNT and stored as calibration. Equation 7 illustrated the shunt time record brought into the frequency domain at one of the SOS frequencies ωi.

VSHUNTi)=VSOS(RMS,ωi)HOUTi)RSHUNTHINi)  (7)


Where: ωi is radians/sec


Note that the convolution operation in Equation 5 goes to multiplication in Equation 7. The time record of the battery given by Equation 6 when brought into the frequency domain at one of the SOS frequencies ωi is given by Equation 8.

VMeasi)=VSOS(RMS,ωi)HOUTi)ZBATi)HINi)  (8)


Performing division in the frequency domain the essence of calibration is given by Equation 9.











Z
BAT

(

ω
i

)

=


R
SHUNT






V
SOS

(

RMS
,

ω
i


)




H
OUT

(

ω
i

)




Z
BAT

(

ω
i

)




H
IN

(

ω
i

)





V
SOS

(

RMS
,

ω
i


)




H
OUT

(

ω
i

)



R
SHUNT




H
IN

(
iΔt
)








(
9
)








Thus the SSC is a collection of measurements of RSHUNT at standardized RMS currents and SOS frequency spreads brought into the frequency domain by the HCSD algorithm. For the IMB there are 2 standardized frequency ranges and 4 standardized RMS currents. To calibrate for this, results in 8 measurements with the single shunt for SSC which are performed fully automated with a single shunt hook-up. A vast improvement over the original manual 3 shunt calibration process.


Observe Equation 7, if in addition to being normalized to the shunt if it were normalized also to the calibration RMS current it can be used as a calibration for any battery measurement RMS current by scaling it to that measurement RMS current.


Example 1—Validation Using 50V IMB and RMS Current Scaling

The 50V IMB at Montana Tech of the University of Montana (Butte, Mont.) was used for initial testing. A long run frequency (0.0125 Hz to 1638.4 Hz) domain calibration file was generated (via HCSD) with-out any calibration or pre-emphasis at an SOS current of 500 mA and a 50 mOhm shunt (as shown in FIG. 13, Blocks B1-B7). It was normalized to the 50 mOhm shunt and the RMS current. Time records of measurements (long runs, 0.0125 Hz to 1638.4 Hz) were made and captured for Test Cell (TC) #3 (Morrison, William H., thesis, 2012) at RMS currents of 500 mA, 250 mA, 125 mA and 62.5 mA again without any pre-emphasis (as shown in FIG. 13, Blocks B8 and B9). All those Test Cell time records were post processed into the frequency domain with the HCSD algorithm ((as shown in FIG. 13, Block B10). The frequency domain calibration was scaled to each measurement current RMS ((as shown in FIG. 13, Block B11). Test cell measurements were made at all the different currents (of 62.5 mA, 125 mA, 250 mA and 500 mA) and calibrated per Equation 9. The results are shown in FIGS. 1-4. The detected TC #3 spectra are plotted with Electro-chemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) (Solartron Analytical, 2012) data by INL on TC #3. The validity of the subject method is realized by the degree of coincidence of the two plots. Like results were achieved when the subject method was applied to Test Cells #3, #5, and #7. Results demonstrating SSC with these test cells are plotted and shown in FIGS. 5-7.


These results show that 500 mA shunt data can reach all the way down the 62.5 mA to capture the spectra of TC #3 and the results match closely with INL EIS (Solartron Analytical, 2012) data for TC #3 (as shown in FIG. 13, Block B12). This means that for calibration all that is needed is frequency domain files of known shunt, known frequencies and that file will work on measurements with the same frequencies and different known current with good results. This is a significant enhancement to the existing 50V IMB.


As stated previously, with the single shunt calibration, with standard RMS currents and standard frequency ranges, a calibration is fully automated with as few as 8 measurements. Never the less, that can be reduced to a single calibration measurement with frequency scaling and RMS current scaling. In examining Equation 5 for calibration it would be normalized to the calibration RMS current and the shunt value. Then for a calibration it would be scaled by the measurement RMS. Consider the RMS of an SOS:










R

M


S

(

S

O

S

)


=



(



M



V
P
2

2


)


=


V
P




M
2







(10)






Where: M is the number of frequencies

    • VP is the peak voltage of the sine waves in the SOS


      Thus given that a measurement frequency range is an octave harmonic subset of a calibration frequency range the frequency domain the subset of real and imaginary constants are selected out and scaled per:










(
Calibration
)

×



M

C

A

L



M
MEAS



×


R

M


S
MEAS



R

M


S
CAL







(
11
)







Example 2—Validation Test of Frequency and RMS Calibration Scaling

Small lead acid battery measured by IMB with 62.5 mA and 15 frequency SOS. IMB spectrum obtained with normal IMB calibration. Uncalibrated time record post processed to the frequency domain and calibrated by an 18 frequency 500 mA shunt time record brought to the frequency domain and scaled to 15 frequency and 62.5 mA RMS. Both spectra are given in FIG. 8. FIG. 9 shows the battery measured by IMB at 125 mA RMS SOS (as shown in FIG. 13, Block B13). These results support frequency and RMS current scaling for SSC.


Example 3—Negative Time to Reinforce the Assumption of Steady State

The fundamental assumption of all IMB data processing algorithms is that the system being measured is in steady state relative to all excitation frequencies. Clearly this is in contradiction to the requirement of performing a rapid measurement. The IMB measurement technique is to excite the test article with a sum of sinusoids with an excitation time record of no more than one period of the lowest frequency. Some researchers using the IMB measurement concept (Waligo, A., 2016) have resorted to using multiple periods of the lowest frequency in order to re-inforce this assumption. A better solution is “Negative Time” (NT), whereby the sum of sinusoids starting at time zero would all be zero but if one goes backwards in time for a fraction of the period of the lowest frequency, then start the excitation there, this has been shown to work very well to establish the steady state approximation (10% is typical) (as shown in FIG. 13, Block B14). This NT portion is either ignored or discarded from the captured voltage response (as shown in FIG. 13, Block B15). Additionally, NT is also needed for shunt calibration as smoothing filter in the IMB will need to be brought to steady state.


When a calibration is scaled the objective is to make VP of a measurement and calibration the same thus the frequency range could be kept standardized as subsets of the calibration frequency range. Never the less, for non-standard subsets, even non-octave harmonic subsets processed via time or frequency CTC (U.S. Pat. No. 8,762,109) the technique of “cubic spline” (U.S. Pat. No. 8,868,363) will select out the calibration constants and they will scale exactly as the above relationship (as shown in FIG. 13, Block B16). FIG. 10 shows splining the calibration of 14 frequencies in octaves downward from 1000 Hz calibrated with 15 frequencies in octaves from 0.1 Hz to 1638.4 Hz (as shown in FIG. 13, Block B17).


Example 4—Application to Saturation Tolerant Time and Frequency CTC

A critical feature of the concept for a High Resolution Impedance Measurement Box (HRIMB) is its ability to digitize signals where the voltage level of the signal is near and occasionally beyond the saturation level of the digitizer within the Data Acquisition system (DAQ). This capability of the HRIMB is realized by replacing the data processing algorithm (HCSD Morrison, W. H., thesis, 2012)) with a variation of time or frequency CTC (U.S. Pat. No. 8,762,109) (TCTC, FCTC). This feature for these 2 algorithms is achieved by examining the captured voltage time record for saturation points (as shown in FIG. 13, Block B18), noting the exact times of saturation, deleting those points from the voltage time record (as shown in FIG. 13, Block B19), and computing the algorithm correction matrices at only the times for non-saturation. This technique works for both TCTC and FCTC. These algorithms will bring the time domain voltage measurements (with occasional saturation) into the frequency domain but they must be calibrated to become impedance. This is achieved by retrieving an archived time record of a single shunt measurement that has the exact frequencies of the “to be calibrated voltage” measurement, has been normalized to the measurement shunt and its RMS current. That time record is scaled to the RMS current of the “to be calibrated voltage” and the exact points of the saturation in “to be calibrated voltage” time record are deleted from this time record (as shown in FIG. 13, Block B20). It is then processed with the same correction matrices used with the “to be calibrated voltage” time record (as shown in FIG. 13, Block B21). The impedance at each frequency is the ratio of the “to be calibrated voltage” phasor to the calibration phasor. Note that if decimation was used on the time records in the application of TCTC or FCTC the same decimation must be applied to the calibration time record. Decimation is a technique of uniformly discarding data points from time records to speed up data processing for TCTC or FCTC. Depending on the type of battery being tested it should be kept below X16 and should be applied prior to deletion of saturated data points.


Demonstration of saturation tolerance Time CTC algorithm with a 12V lead acid car battery, 500 mA RMS SOS current, 15 frequencies (0.1 Hz to 1638.4 Hz) plotted with the IMB HCSD measurement response is shown in FIG. 11. Simulated clipping was done by discarding all points in the time record of the response above or below 0.17V. The algorithm was calibrated by a time record of 15 frequencies and 500 mA RMS applied to a shunt. FIG. 11A is the battery voltage time record. FIG. 11B is the spectrum plotted without clipping plotted with the IMB HCSD spectrum. FIG. 11C shows the clipped at +/−0.17V battery voltage time record. FIG. 11D shows the Time CTC clipped spectrum plotted with the baseline HCSD spectrum.



FIG. 12 shows a similar demonstration of time CTC clipping Li Ion battery. An 18 frequency (0.0125 Hz to 1638.4 Hz) 500 mA RMS SOS measurement was made on an Li Ion battery and a 50.27 mOhm shunt. Clipping tolerance was demonstrated by the battery voltage response at +/−0.2V. The Time CTC results are plotted with the baseline HCSD IMB spectrum. FIG. 12A gives the unclipped battery voltage time record. FIG. 12B gives the time CTC processing of FIG. 12A calibrated with the shunt time record plotted with the HCSD baseline spectrum. FIG. 12C gives the +/−0.2V clipped battery voltage time record plotted with the clipping adjusted shunt time record. FIG. 12D gives the time CTC clipped spectrum plotted with the baseline HCSD spectrum. All time CTC processing was done with a X16 decimation.


It is understood that the foregoing examples are merely illustrative of the present invention. Certain modifications of the articles and/or methods may be made and still achieve the objectives of the invention. Such modifications are contemplated as within the scope of the claimed invention.

Claims
  • 1. An impedance measurement apparatus, comprising: a current driver configured to generate an excitation current signal to be applied to a device;a processor communicatively coupled to a non-transitory computer readable media containing a program code, said program code executed under control of said processor to:excite said device using said excitation signal including a root mean squared current or a root mean squared voltage having a plurality of frequencies in a frequency range;record a response time record of said device excited using said excitation signal;discard said response time record of said device corresponding to a fraction of a period of lowest frequency of said plurality of frequencies in said excitation signal;apply a calibration record to said response time record of said device; andperform a single calculation of impedance of said device based on said calibration record applied to said response time record.
  • 2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said computer readable code further executable to: transform said response time record of said device to a frequency domain; andnormalize said response time record of said device transformed to said frequency domain.
  • 3. The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: excite one non-inductive shunt having one non-inductive shunt value using said excitation signal including said root mean squared current or said root mean squared voltage having said plurality of frequencies in said frequency range;record a response time record of said one non-inductive shunt; andgenerate said calibration record based on said response time record of said one non-inductive shunt.
  • 4. The apparatus of claim 3, further comprising: transform each said response time record of said non-inductive shunt to said frequency domain; andnormalize said response time record of said non-inductive shunt transformed to said frequency domain to said non-inductive shunt value.
  • 5. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said response time record includes a negative time portion corresponding to said fraction of said period of said lowest frequency of said plurality of frequencies in said excitation signal; and wherein discard of said response time record corresponds to said negative time portion of said response time record.
  • 6. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said computer code further executed to: determine time periods in said response time record where a voltage level exceeds a saturation level of a digitizer within a data acquisition system;discard said time periods in said response time record;discard said time periods in said calibration record;apply said calibration record having said time periods discarded to said time response record having said time periods discarded; andcalculate impedance of said device.
  • 7. A method of operating an impedance measurement apparatus, comprising: configuring a current driver to generate an excitation current signal to be applied to a device;executing a program code contained in a non-transitory computer readable media under control of a processor to actuate said current driver;exciting said device using said excitation signal including a root mean squared current or a root mean squared voltage having a plurality of frequencies in a frequency range;recording a response time record of said device excited with said excitation signal;discarding said response time record of said device corresponding to a fraction of a period of lowest frequency of said plurality of frequencies in said excitation signal;applying a calibration record to said response time record of said device; andperforming a single calculation of impedance of said device based on said calibration record applied to said response time record.
  • 8. The method of claim 7, further comprising: exciting one non-inductive shunt having one non-inductive shunt value using an excitation signal including said root mean squared current or root mean squared voltage having said plurality of frequencies in said frequency range;recording a response time record of said one non-inductive shunt; andgenerating said calibration record based on said response time record of said one non-inductive shunt.
  • 9. The method of claim 8, further comprising: transforming said response time record of said one non-inductive shunt to a frequency domain; andnormalizing said response time record of said one non-inductive shunt to said one non-inductive shunt value and said excitation signal including said root mean square current or said root mean squared voltage having said plurality of frequencies in said frequency range.
  • 10. The method of claim 7, wherein said response time record includes a negative time portion corresponding to said fraction of said period of said lowest frequency of said plurality of frequencies in said excitation signal, wherein discard of said response time record corresponds to said negative time portion of said response time record.
  • 11. The method of claim 7, further comprising: analyzing said response time record of said device;determining time periods in said response time record of said device where a voltage level exceeds a saturation level of a digitizer within a data acquisition system;discarding said time periods in said response time record of said device where said voltage level exceeds said saturation level of said digitizer;discarding said time periods in said calibration record which correspond to said time periods discarded in said response time record of said device;applying said calibration record having said time periods discarded to said time response record of said device having said time periods discarded; andcalculating said impedance of said device.
Parent Case Info

This United States patent application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/852,231, filed Apr. 17, 2020, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,942,240, issued Mar. 9, 2021, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/432,822, filed Jun. 5, 2019, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,656,233, issued May 19, 2020, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/497,142, filed Apr. 25, 2017, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,436,873, issued Oct. 8, 2019, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/331,730, filed May 4, 2016, and U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/326,923, filed Apr. 25, 201, the disclosures of which are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety including all figures, tables and drawings.

US Referenced Citations (192)
Number Name Date Kind
4498044 Horn Feb 1985 A
4697134 Burkum et al. Sep 1987 A
5061890 Longini Oct 1991 A
5261007 Hirsch Nov 1993 A
5281920 Wurst Jan 1994 A
5349535 Gupta Sep 1994 A
5406496 Quinn Apr 1995 A
5457377 Jonsson Oct 1995 A
5512832 Russel et al. Apr 1996 A
5747456 Chorev et al. May 1998 A
5773978 Becker Jun 1998 A
5821757 Alvarez et al. Oct 1998 A
5946482 Barford et al. Aug 1999 A
5969625 Russo Oct 1999 A
6002238 Champlin Dec 1999 A
6072299 Kurle et al. Jun 2000 A
6160382 Yoon et al. Dec 2000 A
6208147 Yoon et al. Mar 2001 B1
6222369 Champlin Apr 2001 B1
6249186 Ebihara et al. Jun 2001 B1
6262563 Champlin Jul 2001 B1
6307378 Kozlowski Oct 2001 B1
6313607 Champlin Nov 2001 B1
6330933 Boeckman et al. Dec 2001 B1
6340889 Sakurai Jan 2002 B1
6359419 Verbrugge et al. Mar 2002 B1
6417669 Champlin Jul 2002 B1
6472847 Lundberg Oct 2002 B2
6481289 Dixon et al. Nov 2002 B2
6519539 Freeman et al. Feb 2003 B1
6532425 Boost et al. Mar 2003 B1
6542077 Joao Apr 2003 B2
6556001 Wiegand et al. Apr 2003 B1
6639385 Verbrugge et al. Oct 2003 B2
6646419 Uing Nov 2003 B1
6653817 Tate, Jr. et al. Nov 2003 B2
6691095 Singh et al. Feb 2004 B2
6693439 Liu et al. Feb 2004 B1
6778913 Tinnemeyer Aug 2004 B2
6816797 Freeman et al. Nov 2004 B2
6832171 Barsoukov et al. Dec 2004 B2
6839597 Hattori et al. Jan 2005 B2
6876174 Samittier Marti et al. Apr 2005 B1
6922058 Potempa Jun 2005 B2
7019542 Tinnemeyer Mar 2006 B2
7051008 Singh et al. May 2006 B2
7065474 Petchenev et al. Jun 2006 B2
7072871 Tinnemeyer Jul 2006 B1
7113853 Hecklinger Sep 2006 B2
7259572 Houldsworth et al. Aug 2007 B2
7349816 Quint et al. Mar 2008 B2
7395163 Morrison Jul 2008 B1
7567057 Elder et al. Jul 2009 B2
7598700 Elder et al. Oct 2009 B2
7616003 Satoh et al. Nov 2009 B2
7675293 Christophersen et al. Mar 2010 B2
7688036 Yarger et al. Mar 2010 B2
7688074 Cox et al. Mar 2010 B2
7698078 Kelty et al. Apr 2010 B2
7898263 Ishida et al. Mar 2011 B2
7928735 Huang et al. Apr 2011 B2
8035396 Kim Oct 2011 B2
8150643 Morrison Apr 2012 B1
8193771 Coccio Jun 2012 B2
8332342 Saha et al. Dec 2012 B1
8352204 Morrison et al. Jan 2013 B2
8368357 Ghantous et al. Feb 2013 B2
8410783 Staton Apr 2013 B2
8415926 Bhardwaj et al. Apr 2013 B2
8427112 Ghantous et al. Apr 2013 B2
8447544 Hsu et al. May 2013 B2
8467984 Gering Jun 2013 B2
8487628 Sciarretta et al. Jul 2013 B2
8513921 Berkowitz et al. Aug 2013 B2
8521497 Gering Aug 2013 B2
8532945 Sciarretta et al. Sep 2013 B2
8548762 Prada et al. Oct 2013 B2
8582675 Harris Nov 2013 B1
8598849 Bhardwaj et al. Dec 2013 B2
8638070 Maluf et al. Jan 2014 B2
8648602 van Lammeren Feb 2014 B2
8680868 van Lammeren et al. Mar 2014 B2
8710847 Marvin et al. Apr 2014 B2
8725456 Saha et al. May 2014 B1
8738310 Swanton May 2014 B2
8738311 Wu May 2014 B2
8762109 Christophersen et al. Jun 2014 B2
8773145 Phlippoteau et al. Jul 2014 B2
8791669 Ghantous et al. Jul 2014 B2
8831897 McHardy Sep 2014 B2
8838401 Kelly Sep 2014 B2
8849598 Mingant et al. Sep 2014 B2
8868363 Morrison et al. Oct 2014 B2
8878549 Nakanishi et al. Nov 2014 B2
8889309 Manabe et al. Nov 2014 B2
8901886 Berkowitz et al. Dec 2014 B2
8907631 Gurries et al. Dec 2014 B1
8907675 Phlippoteau et al. Dec 2014 B2
8952823 Xie et al. Feb 2015 B2
8970178 Berkowitz et al. Mar 2015 B2
8975874 Berkowitz et al. Mar 2015 B2
9030173 McHardy et al. May 2015 B2
9035621 Berkowitz et al. May 2015 B2
9035623 Berkowitz et al. May 2015 B1
9063018 Ghantous et al. Jun 2015 B1
9121910 Maluf et al. Sep 2015 B2
9142994 Berkowitz et al. Sep 2015 B2
9207285 Swanton et al. Dec 2015 B1
9244130 Morrison et al. Jan 2016 B2
9252465 Hariharan Feb 2016 B2
9312577 Jamison Apr 2016 B2
9373972 Ghantous et al. Jun 2016 B2
9385555 Ghantous et al. Jul 2016 B2
9461492 Berkowitz et al. Oct 2016 B1
9465077 Love et al. Oct 2016 B2
9519031 Jamison Dec 2016 B2
9669723 Sugeno et al. Jun 2017 B2
9851414 Morrison et al. Dec 2017 B2
10189354 Brochhaus Jan 2019 B2
10345384 Christophersen et al. Jul 2019 B2
10379168 Christophersen et al. Aug 2019 B2
10436873 Morrison et al. Oct 2019 B1
10656233 Morrison et al. May 2020 B2
10942240 Morrison et al. Mar 2021 B2
20010035756 Kozlowski Nov 2001 A1
20020065621 Jungerman May 2002 A1
20030184307 Kozlowski et al. Oct 2003 A1
20030206021 Laletin et al. Nov 2003 A1
20040095249 Zaccaria May 2004 A1
20040162683 Verbrugge et al. Aug 2004 A1
20050086070 Engelman Apr 2005 A1
20050127908 Schlicker et al. Jun 2005 A1
20050182584 Plusquellic Aug 2005 A1
20060111854 Plett May 2006 A1
20060111870 Plett May 2006 A1
20060170397 Srinivasan et al. Aug 2006 A1
20060186890 Iwane et al. Aug 2006 A1
20060284617 Kozlowski et al. Dec 2006 A1
20060284618 Cho et al. Dec 2006 A1
20070172708 Takebe et al. Jul 2007 A1
20070182371 Boebel Aug 2007 A1
20070182576 Proska et al. Aug 2007 A1
20070257681 Christophersen et al. Nov 2007 A1
20080303528 Kim Dec 2008 A1
20090076752 Wang et al. Mar 2009 A1
20090278037 Grothe, Jr. Nov 2009 A1
20100010762 Seki Jan 2010 A1
20100121588 Elder et al. May 2010 A1
20100201320 Coe et al. Aug 2010 A1
20100207772 Yamamoto Aug 2010 A1
20100274510 Morrison Oct 2010 A1
20100332165 Morrison et al. Dec 2010 A1
20110018543 Bos et al. Jan 2011 A1
20110077879 Paryani Mar 2011 A1
20110077880 Gering Mar 2011 A1
20110082621 Berkobin et al. Apr 2011 A1
20110169452 Cooper et al. Jul 2011 A1
20110270559 Christophersen et al. Nov 2011 A1
20110301931 Gering Dec 2011 A1
20120019253 Ziegler et al. Jan 2012 A1
20120032688 Christophersen et al. Feb 2012 A1
20120038452 Phlippoteau et al. Feb 2012 A1
20120078552 Mingant et al. Mar 2012 A1
20120105070 van Lammeren et al. May 2012 A1
20120188086 Xie et al. Jul 2012 A1
20120217985 Amanuma Aug 2012 A1
20120262186 Morrison et al. Oct 2012 A1
20120316815 Morigaki Dec 2012 A1
20130002267 Kothandaraman et al. Jan 2013 A1
20130069660 Bernard et al. Mar 2013 A1
20130135110 Xie et al. May 2013 A1
20130141109 Love et al. Jun 2013 A1
20130229156 Brandon et al. Sep 2013 A1
20130245973 Ross, Jr. et al. Sep 2013 A1
20130267943 Hancock Oct 2013 A1
20140125284 Qahouq May 2014 A1
20140188414 Jeong et al. Jul 2014 A1
20140358462 Christophersen Dec 2014 A1
20140372054 Wang et al. Dec 2014 A1
20140372055 Wang et al. Dec 2014 A1
20150002105 Kelly Jan 2015 A1
20150165921 Paryani Jun 2015 A1
20150168500 Jamison Jun 2015 A1
20150197159 Lee Jul 2015 A1
20150280290 Saha et al. Oct 2015 A1
20160157014 Van Schyndel et al. Jun 2016 A1
20160157015 Van Schyndel Jun 2016 A1
20160274060 Denenberg et al. Sep 2016 A1
20170003354 Morrison et al. Jan 2017 A1
20170254859 Christophersen et al. Sep 2017 A1
20180143257 Garcia et al. May 2018 A1
20190214937 Schmidt Jul 2019 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (24)
Number Date Country
2447728 Jun 2013 EP
2000-009817 Jan 2000 JP
2003-090869 Mar 2003 JP
2003-223918 Aug 2003 JP
2007-085772 Apr 2007 JP
2011-174925 Sep 2011 JP
2012-078287 Apr 2012 JP
2013-517755 May 2013 JP
014-106119 Jun 2014 JP
2015-078992 Apr 2015 JP
2004106946 Dec 2004 WO
2010144834 Dec 2010 WO
2010144857 Dec 2010 WO
2011041094 Apr 2011 WO
2011140123 Nov 2011 WO
2011140131 Nov 2011 WO
WO 2012025706 Mar 2012 WO
2013085996 Jun 2013 WO
2014070831 May 2014 WO
2015029647 Mar 2015 WO
2016012922 Jan 2016 WO
WO 2017003917 Jan 2017 WO
2020223630 Nov 2020 WO
2020223651 Nov 2020 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (184)
Entry
Adany et al. Switching algorithms for extending battery life in Electric Vehicles. Journal of Power Sources, Jun. 2013, 231:50-59.
Ahmed et al. Enabling fast charging—A battery technology gap assessment. Journal of Power Sources, Nov. 2017, 367:250-262.
Baert et al. Determination of the State-of-Health of VRLA Batteries by Means of Noise Measurements. Intelec 2001, Nov. 2001, Conference Publication No. 484, pp. 301-306.
Bald et al. Hardware Architecture for Rapid Impedance Measurements of 50V Battery Modules. San Diego: The International Society of Automation, 58th International Instrumentation Symposium, INL/CON-12-24516, Jun. 2012, 18 pages.
Banaei et al. Online Detection of terminal voltage in Li-ion Batteries via Battery Impulse Response. IEEE, Oct. 2009, pp. 194-198.
Barsukov et al. Challenges and Solutions in Battery Fuel Gauging. Power Management Workbook, 2004, 10 pages, Texas Instruments Inc.
Beelen et al. A comparison and accuracy analysis of impedance-based temperature estimation methods for Li-ion batteries. Applied Energy, Aug. 2016, 175:128-140.
Berecibar et al. Critical review of state of health estimation methods of Li-ion batteries for real applications. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Apr. 2016, 56:572-587.
Blanke, et al. Impedance measurements on lead-acid batteries for state-of-charge, state-of-health and cranking capability prognosis in electric and hybrid electric vehicles. Journal of Power Sources, Jun. 2005, 144:418-425.
Blidberg. Correlation between different impedance measurement methods for battery cells. KTH Chemical Science and Engineering, 2012, 42 pages, Stockholm, Sweden.
Bohlen et al. Impedance Based Battery Diagnosis for Automotive Applications. 35th Annual IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conference, Apr. 2004, 4:2192-2797.
Bose et al. Battery state of health estimation through coup de fouet: field experience. INTELEC, Twenty-Second International Telecommunications Energy Conference (Cat. No.00CH37131), 2000, pp. 597-601.
Bose et al. Lessons Learned in Using OHMIC Techniques for Battery Monitoring. IEEE, 2001, pp. 99-104.
Brauer et al. Residential Energy Storage from Repurposed Electric Vehicle Batteries: Market Overview and Development of a Service-Centered Business Model. IEEE 18th Conference on Business Informatics, Aug. 2016, pp. 143-152.
Breugelmans et al. Odd random phase multisine electrochemical impedance spectroscopy to quantify a non-stationary behaviour: Theory and validation by calculating an instantaneous impedance value. Electrochimica Acta, Aug. 2012, 76:375-382.
Burnham et al. Enabling fast charging—Infrastructure and economic considerations. Journal of Power Sources, Nov. 2017, 367:237-249.
Cabrera-Castillo et al. Calculation of the state of safety (SOS) for lithium ion batteries. Journal of Power Sources, Aug. 2016, 324:509-520.
Carkhuff et al. Impedance-Based Battery Management System for Safety Monitoring of Lithium-Ion Batteries. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, Aug. 2018, 65(8):6497-6504.
Chan. Swept Sine Chirps for Measuring Impulse Response. Stanford Research Systems Inc., https://thinksrs.com/downloads/pdfs/applicationnotes/SR1_SweptSine.pdf, 2010, 6 pages.
Cheng et al. Battery-Management System (BMS) and SOC Development for Electrical Vehicles. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, Jan. 2011, 60(1):76-88.
Christensen et al. Using on-board Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy in Battery Management Systems. World Electric Vehicle Journal, Nov. 2013, 6:0793-0799.
Cordioli et al. Development of a Methodology Based on Odd Random Phase Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy to Evaluate Corrosion Protection of Coatings. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Self-Healing Materials, Jun. 2013, pp. 152-155.
Cox et al. Battery State of Health Monitoring, Combining Conductance Technology with other Measurement Parameters for Real-Time Battery Performance Analysis. INTELEC, International Telecommunications Energy Conference (Proceedings), Feb. 2000, 19-2, pp. 342-347.
Crow et al. Integrated Prognostic Health Monitoring of Battery Health in Ground Robots. Penn State Applied Research Laboratory, 32nd Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International Meeting, Jun. 2005, 16 pages.
Damlund. Analysis and Interpretation of AC-measurements on Batteries used to assess State-of-Health and Capacity-condition. IEEE, 1995, pp. 828-833.
Diard et al. Constant load vs constant current EIS study of electrochemical battery discharge. Electrochimica Acta, 1997, 42(23-24):3417-3420.
Diard et al. EIS study of electrochemical battery discharge on constant load. Journal of Power Sources, Jan. 1998, 70(1):78-84.
Diard et al. Impedance measurements of polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells running on constant load. Journal of Power Sources, Aug. 1998, 74(2):244-245.
Dung et al. ILP-Based Algorithm for Lithium-Ion Battery Charging Profile. IEEE, 2010, pp. 2286-2291.
Farmann et al. Critical review of on-board capacity estimation techniques for lithium-ion batteries in electric and hybrid electric vehicles. Journal of Power Sources, May 2015, 281:114-130.
Goebel et al. Prognostics in Battery Health Management. IEEE Instrumentation & Measurement Magazine, Sep. 2008, 11(4):33-40.
Gopalakrishnan et al. Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy characterization and parameterization of lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide pouch cells: dependency analysis of temperature and state of charge. Ionics 25(1), Jan. 2019 (published online Jun. 2018, Springer, Germany), 14 pages.
Gould et al. New Battery Model and State-of-Health Determination Through Subspace Parameter Estimation and State-Observer Techniques. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology. Oct. 2009, 58(8):3905-3916.
Guha et al. Remaining Useful Life Estimation of Lithium-Ion Batteries based on the Internal Resistance Growth Model. Indian Control Conference (ICC), Jan. 2017, pp. 33-38.
Hariprakash et al. Monitoring sealed automotive lead-acid batteries by sparse-impedance spectroscopy. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. (Chem. Sci.), Oct. 2003, 115(5):465-472.
Hariprakash et al. On-line monitoring of lead-acid batteries by galvanostatic non-destructive technique. Journal of Power Sources, Oct. 2004, 137(1):128-133.
Harting et al. State-of-Health Diagnosis of Lithium-Ion Batteries Using Nonlinear Frequency Response Analysis. Journal of The Electrochemical Society, Jan. 2019, 166(2):A277-A285.
Hill et al. Steady State Frequency Response Utilizing an Enhanced Chirp Test Signal. 2019 IEEE Aerospace Conference, Mar. 2019, pp. 1-8.
Hlavac et al. VRLA Battery Monitoring Using Conductance Technology. IEEE, 12-3 (1995) pp. 284-291.
Howey et al. On-line measurement of battery impedance using motor controller excitation. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, Jul. 2014, 63(6):2557-2566.
Huang et al. An Online Battery Impedance Measurement Method Using DC-DC Power Converter Control. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, Nov. 2014, 61(11):5987-5995.
Karden et al. A method for measurement of interpretation of impedance spectra for industrial batteries. Journal of Power Sources, Jan. 2000, 85(1):72-78.
Kolmel et al. Quality-oriented production planning of battery assembly systems for electric mobility. Procedia CIRP 23, Dec. 2014, pp. 149-154.
Kozlowski A Novel Online Measurement Technique for AC Impedance of Batteries and Other Electrochemical Systems. The Sixteenth Annual Battery Conference on Applications and Advances (Proceedings), Jan. 2001, pp. 257-262.
Kozlowski. Electrochemical Cell Prognostics using Online Impedance Measurements and Model-Based Data Fusion Techniques. Aerospace Conference, 2003 Proceedings, vol. 7-3257, Mar. 2003, 14 pages.
Lamb et al. Determination of Battery Stability With Advanced Diagnostics. SAND2017-6959, Unlimited Release, Jul. 2017, 56 pages.
Lamb et al. Determination of Battery Stability With Advanced Diagnostics. (Report No. DOT HS 812 249), Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Mar. 2016, 42 pages.
Le et al. Lithium-ion Battery State of Health Estimation Using Ah-V Characterization. Annual Conference of the Prognostics and Health Management Society, 2011, 3(1), 7 pages.
Li et al. Understanding the molecular mechanism of pulse current charging for stable lithium-metal batteries. Science Advances, Jul. 2017, 3(7), 10 pages.
Love et al. State-of-Health Monitoring of 18650 4S Packs With a Single-Point Impedance Diagnostic. Journal of Power Sources, Oct. 2014, 266:512-519.
Lu et al. A review on the key issues for lithium-ion battery management in electric vehicles. Journal of Power Sources, Mar. 2013, 226:272-288.
Mingant et al. Towards onboard Li-ion battery state-of-health diagnosis by a virtual sensor. World Electric Vehicle Journal, May 2012, 5(2):405-411.
Novak. Developing an advanced, predictive battery health monitoring solution with a low-cost microcontroller solution. Texas Instruments, White Paper, Sep. 2012, 6 pages.
Noworolski et al. Reducing and Utilizing Electrical Noises for Battery Monitoring Purposes. IEEE 32-4 (Sep. 2004), pp. 511-614.
Okoshi et al. Battery condition monitoring (BCM) technologies about lead-acid batteries. Journal of Power Sources, Aug. 2006, 158(2):874-878.
Pastor-Fernandez et al. A Comparison between EIS and IC-DV as Li-ion Diagnostic Techniques to Identify and Quantify the Effects of Degradation Modes within BMS. Journal of Power Sources, Aug. 2017, 360:301-318.
Pastor-Fernandez et al. A Study of Cell-to-Cell Interactions and Degradation in Parallel Strings: Implications for the Battery Management System. Journal of Power Sources, Oct. 2016, 329:574-585.
PEREZ e t al. Guidelines for the characterization of the internal impedance of lithium-ion batteries in PHM algorithms. International Journal of Prognostics and Health Management, Apr. 2018, ISSN 2153-2648, 11 pages.
Piret et al. Tracking of electrochemical impedance of batteries. Journal of Power Sources, Apr. 2016, 312:60-69.
Pop et al. State-of-the-art of battery state-of-charge determination. Measurement Science and Technology, Dec. 2005, 16(4) R93-R110.
Qnovo. Fundamentals of Qnovo Adaptive Charging in Lithium Ion Batteries. http://qnovo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Qvovo_TechWhitePaper_v2.4.pdf, Dec. 2015, 13 pages.
Rahmoun et al. Determination of the Impedance of Lithium-Ion Batteries using Methods of Digital Signal Processing. Energy Procedia, Dec. 2014, 46:204-213.
Raijmakers et al. Crosstalk Interferences on Impedance Measurements in Battery Packs. IFAC-PapersOnline, Jun. 2016, 49(11):042-047.
Saha et al. Comparison of Prognostic Algorithms for Estimating Remaining Useful Life of Batteries. Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control, Jun. 2009, 31(3), 10 pages.
Saha et al. Prognostics Methods for Battery Health Monitoring Using a Bayesian Framework. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, Feb. 2009, 58(2):291-296.
Salehen et al. Development of battery management systems (BMS) for electric vehicles (EVs) in Malaysia. MATEC Web of Conferences, Jan. 2017, 90(11):01001, 8 pages.
Sazhin et al. Enhancing Li-Ion Battery Safety by Early Detection of Nascent Internal Shorts. Journal of The Electrochemical Society, Jan. 2017, 164(1):A6281-A6287.
Schweiger et al. Comparison of Several Methods for Determining the Internal Resistance of Lithium Ion Cells. Sensors, Jun. 2010, 10(6):5604-5625.
Singh et al. Fuzzy logic modeling of EIS measurements on lithium-ion batteries. Electrochimica Acta, Jan. 2006, 51(8):1673-1679.
Socher et al. Improving the functional safety of automotive batteries using in-situ impedance spectroscopy. Transportation Research Procedia, Dec. 2016, 14:3661-3666.
Srivastav et al. State-of-charge indication in Li-ion batteries by simulated impedance spectroscopy. J Appl Electrochem, Feb. 2017, 47(2):229-236.
Sternad et al. Condition monitoring of Lithium-Ion Batteries for electric and hybrid electric vehicles. Elektrotechnik & Informationstechnik, May 2009, 126(5):186-193.
Stroe et al. Diagnosis of Lithium-Ion Batteries State-of-Health based on Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy Technique. Proceedings of the 2014 Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition (ECCE) IEEE Press, Sep. 2014, pp. 1576-4582.
Jespersen et al. Capacity Measurements of Li-Ion Batteries using AC Impedance Spectroscopy. EVS24 International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium, May 2009, in: 2009 World Electric Vehicle Journal, 3(1):0127-0133.
Jiang et al. Electrochemical impedance spectra for lithium-ion battery ageing considering the rate of discharge ability. Energy Procedia, May 2017, 105:844-849.
Kiel et al. Extensive Validation of A Nonintrusive Continuous Battery Monitoring Device. Battcon 2008, in: Proc. BattCon Conference May 2008, pp. 18-1-18-10.
Mingant et al. Novel state-of-health diagnostic method for Li-ion battery in service. Applied Energy, Elsevier, Dec. 2016, 183:390-398.
Perez et al. Guidelines for the Characterization of the Internal Impedance of Lithium-Ion Batteries in PHM Algorithms. International Journal of Prognostics and Health Management, Apr. 2018, 9, 11 pages.
Remy et al. Qualification and Life Testing of Li-ion VES16 Batteries. E3S Web of Conferences 16, Jan. 2017, 8 pages.
Seo et al. Detection of internal short circuit in Li-ion battery by estimating its resistance. Proceedings of the 4th IIAE International Conference on Intelligent Systems and Image Processing, Jan. 2016, 6 pages.
Taberna et al. Electrochemical Characteristics and Impedance Spectroscopy Studies of Carbon-Carbon Supercapacitors. Journal of the Electrochemical Society, Jan. 2003, 150(3):A292-A300.
Tachibana et al. Development of in situ a.c. impedance measurement system under constant-current conditions and its application to galvanostatic discharge of electrolytic manganese dioxide in alkaline solution. Journal of Power Sources, Jul. 1998, 74(1):29-33.
Tang et al. Temperature Dependent Performance and in Situ AC Impedance of High-Temperature PEM Fuel Cells Using the Nafion-112 Membrane. Journal of The Electrochemical Society, Sep. 2006, 153(11):A2036-A2043.
Varnosfaderani et al. A Comparison of Online Electrochemical Spectroscopy Impedance Estimation of Batteries. IEEE Access, Feb. 2018, vol. 6, pp. 23668-23677.
Verizon. Verizon NEBSTM Compliance: Qualification Requirements for Lithium Ion (Li-ion) Cells Batteries and Battery Strings. Verizon Technical Purchasing Requirements VZ.TPR.9810, Sep. 2015, Issue 1, 29 pages.
Waligo et al. A Comparison of the Different Broadband Impedance Measurement Techniques for Lithium-Ion Batteries. Energy Conversion congress and Exposition (ECCE), IEEE (Sep. 2016), 7 pages.
Waters. Monitoring the state of health of VRLA batteries through ohmic measurements. Proceedings of Power and Energy Systems in Converging Markets, Oct. 1997, 6 pages.
Weng et al. On-board state of health monitoring of lithium-ion batteries using incremental capacity analysis with support vector regression. Journal of Power Sources, Aug. 2013, 235:36-44.
Wu et al. A Review on Fault Mechanisms and Diagnosis Approach for Li-Ion Batteries. Journal of Nanomaterials, Oct. 2015, vol. 2015, Article ID 631263, 10 pages.
Xing et al. Battery Management Systems in Electric and Hybrid Vehicles. Energies, Oct. 2011, 4(11):1840-1857.
Xing et al. Prognostics and Health Monitoring for Lithium-ion Battery. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Intelligence and Security Informatics, Jul. 2011, pp. 242-247.
Yamada et al. The intelligent automotive battery, ‘CYBOX’. Journal of Power Sources, Dec. 2008, 185(2):1478-1483.
Yoo et al. An Electrochemical Impedance Measurement Technique Employing Fourier Transform. Analytical Chemistry, May 2000, 72(9):2035-2041.
Zechang et al. Battery Management Systems in the China-made ‘Start’ series FCHVs. IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference (VPPC) (Sep. 2008) 6 pages.
Zenati et al. Estimation of the SOC and the SOH of li-ion batteries, by combining impedance measurements with the fuzzy logic inference. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of IEEE Industrial Electronics, Nov. 2010, pp. 1767-1772.
Zhai et al. The Application of the EIS in Li-ion Batteries Measurement. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Oct. 2006, 48(1):1157-1161.
Zhang et al. Cycling degradation of an automotive LiFePO4 lithium-ion battery. Journal of Power Sources, Feb. 2011, 196(3):1513-1520.
Zhang et al. Prediction of Lithium-Ion Battery's Remaining Useful Life Based on Relevance Vector Machine. SAE Int. J. All. Power, May 2016, 5(1):30-40.
Zhang et al. Remote Vehicle State of Health Monitoring and Its Application to Vehicle No-Start Prediction. 2009 IEEE Autotestcon, Oct. 2009, pp. 88-93.
Zhu et al. PSpice Simulation via AC Impedance for PEFC at Operational Loads. http://folk.ntnu.no/skoge/prosl/proceedings/aiche-2005/topical/pdffiles/T1/papers/215c.pdf, 2005, 3 pages.
Zhu et al. In-Situ Electrical Characterization of PEM Fuel Cells at Load. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 2007, 5 pages.
Zhu et al. In-Stu Assessment of PEM Fuel Cells via AC Impedance at Operational Loads. http://folk.ntnu.no/skoge/prost/proceedings/aiche-2004/pdffiles/papers/014g.pdf, 2004, 5 pages.
Zou et al. Combined State of Charge and State of Health estimation over lithium-ion battery cell cycle lifespan for electric vehicles. Journal of Power Sources, Jan. 2015, 273:793-803.
Morrison, W.H., Development and Implementation of a Calibration Procedure for Complex Impedance Spectrum Measurements with Applications to Embedded Battery Health Monitoring and Management Systems, University of Connecticut Master's Theses 353, 2012, digitalcommons.uconn.edu/gs_theses/353, Hartford, Connecticut.
Naligo, A., Barendse, P., A comparison of the Different Broadband Impedance Measurement Techniques for Lithium-ion Batteries, IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition (ECCE), Sep. 2016.
Solartron Analytical, 1260A Impedance / Gain-Phase Analyzer (2017); Website, https://www.ameteksi.com, 2 pages, originally downloaded Apr. 19, 2019.
U.S. Appl. No. 15/497,142, filed Apr. 25, 2017.
U.S. Appl. No. 62/331,730, filed May 4, 2016.
U.S. Appl. No. 62/326,923, filed Apr. 25, 2016.
U.S. Department of Energy. Battery Calendar Life Estimator Manual: Modeling and Simulation. U.S. Department of Energy Vehicle Technologies Program, Revision 1, Oct. 2012, INL-EXT-08-15136, 84 pages.
Aglzim et al. Characterization of the Resistance of a Fuel Cell on Load by Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy. Proceedings from the EUROCON Conference, IEEE 2007, pp. 1489-1492.
Albrecht. Battery Complex Impedance Identification with Random Signal Techniques. MS Thesis, Montana Tech of the University of Montana, May 2005, 99 pages.
Ashtiani. Battery Hazard Modes and Risk Mitigation Analysis. USABC Version 0.0, Aug. 2007, 10 pages.
Bald. Rapid Impedance Measurements for 50-V Battery Modules. Montana Tech MS Thesis, 2012, 115 pages.
U.S. Department of Energy. Battery Test Manual For 12 Volt Start/Stop Vehicles, U.S. Department of Energy Vehicle Technologies Program, INL/EXT-12-26503, Revision 1, May 2015, 67 pages.
U.S. Department of Energy. Battery Test Manual For 48 Volt Mild Hybrid Electric Vehicles, U.S. Department of Energy Vehicle Technologies Program, INL/EXT-15-36567, Revision 0, Mar. 2017, 70 pages.
U.S. Department of Energy. Battery Test Manual for Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles, U.S. Department of Energy Vehicle Technologies Program, INL/EXT-14-32849, Revision 3, Sep. 2014, 83 pages.
Belt et al. Calendar and PHEV cycle life aging of high-energy, lithium-ion cells containing blended spinel and layered-oxide cathodes. Journal of Power Sources, Dec. 2011, 196(23):10213-10221.
Bloom et al. An Investigation of the Impedance Rise and Power Fade in High-Power Li-Ion Cells. 19th International Electric Vehicle Symposium (EVS-19), Oct. 2002, 14 pages.
Chan. Swept Sine Chirps for Measuring Impulse Response. Application Note, Stanford Research Systems Inc., 2010, https://thinksrs.com/downloads/pdfs/applicationnotes/SR1_SweptSine.pdf.
Chen et al. Sinusoidal-Ripple-Current Charging Strategy and Optimal Charging Frequency Study for Li-Ion Batteries. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, Jan. 2013, 60(1):88-97.
Cho et al. Battery Impedance Analysis Considering DC Component in Sinusoidal Ripple-Current Charging. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, Mar. 2016, 63(3):1561-1573.
Christophersen et al. Battery Technology Life Verification Testing and Analysis. Idaho National Laboratory INL/CON-07-12282, Dec. 2007, 12 pages.
Christophersen et al. Performance Evaluation of Gen3 Advanced Technology Development Cells. 214th ECS Meeting, Abstract #549, The Electrochemical Society, 2008, 1 page.
Christophersen et al. Pulse resistance effects due to charging or discharging of high-power lithium-ion cells: A path dependence study. Journal of Power Sources, Nov. 2007,173(2):998-1005.
Christophersen et al. Advanced Technology Development Program for Lithium-Ion Batteries: Gen 2 Performance Evaluation Final Report. INL/EXT-05-00913, Jul. 2006, 140 pages.
Christophersen et al. Crosstalk Compensation for a Rapid, Higher-Resolution Impedance Spectrum Measurement. Aerospace Conference, 2012 IEEE, Mar. 2012, 16 pages.
Christophersen et al. Effects of Reference Performance Testing during Aging Using Commercial Lithium-ion Cells. J. Electrochem Soc., May 2006, 153(7):A1406-A1416.
Christophersen et al. Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy Testing on the Advanced Technology Development Program Lithium-ion Cells. Sep. 2002, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., 56(3):1851-1855.
Christophersen et al. Long-Term Validation of Rapid Impedance Spectrum Measurements as a Battery State-of-Health Assessment Technique. SAE Int. J. Alt. Power, May 2013, 6(1):146-155.
Christophersen et al. Lumped Parameter Modeling as a Predictive Tool for a Battery Status Monitor. Oct. 2003, Proceedings from IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference, 6 pages.
Christophersen et al. Rapid Impedance Spectrum Measurements for State-of-Health Assessment of Energy Storage Devices. SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars—Electron. Electr. Syst., Apr. 2012, 5(1), 11 pages.
Christophersen et al. Impedance Noise Identification for State-of-Health Prognostics. 43rd Power Sources Conference, Jul. 2008, 4 pages.
Christopherson. Battery Test Manual For Electric Vehicles. Idaho National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy Vehicle Technologies Program, INL/ EXT-15-34184, Revision 3, Jun. 2015, 67 pages.
Delaille et al. Study of the ‘coup de foue7’ of lead-acid cells as a function of their state-of-charge and state-of-health. Journal of Power Sources, Aug. 2006,158(2):1019-1028.
Din et al. A Scalable Active Battery Management System With Embedded Real-Time Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, Jul. 2017, 32(7):5688-5698.
Din et al. Online Spectroscopic Diagnostics Implemented in an Efficient Battery Management System. 16th Workshop on Control and Modeling for Power Electronics, 2015, 7 pages.
Doan et al. Intelligent Charger with Online Battery Diagnosis Function. 9th International Conference on Power Electronics-ECCE Asia, Jun. 2015, pp. 1644-1649.
Doughty et al. FreedomCAR Electrical Energy Storage System Abuse Test Manual for Electric and Hybrid Electric Vehicle Applications. SAND2005-3123, Aug. 2006, 46 pages.
Egloff et al. A Critical Analysis of an Instrumentation Current Sources. 59th International Instrumentation Symposium, May 2013, 12 pages.
Fasmin et al. Review—Nonlinear Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy. Journal of The Electrochemical Society, May 2017, 164(7):H443-H455.
Fenton et al. BSM Development Documentation Senior Project Final Report for the Idaho National Laboratory. May 2005, Montana Tech of the University of Montana, 21 pages.
Ford, Jr. Validation of Push Pull Current. Proceedings of the Annual Montana Tech Electrical and General Engineering Symposium, Jan. 2016, 25 pages.
Garcia et al. On-line State-of-Health and Remaining-Useful-Life Assessment of Batteries using Rapid Impedance Spectrum Measurements. 45th Power Sources Conference Proceedings, Jun. 2012, 7.3, pp. 115-118.
Haskins et al. Battery Technology Life Verification Test Manual. Idaho National Laboratory, Feb. 2005, INEEL/EXT-04-01986, 133 pages.
Hirschorn et al. On Selection of the Perturbation Amplitude Required to Avoid Nonlinear Effects in Impedance Measurements. Israel Journal of Chemistry, 2008, vol. 48, pp. 133-142.
Hoffmann et al. Development and Test of a Real Time Battery Impedance Estimation System. IEEE Aerospace 2006 Conference, Mar. 2006, IEEE 0-7803-9546-8/06, 8 pages.
Huet. A review of impedance measurements for determination of the state-of-charge or state-of-health of secondary batteries. Journal of Power Sources, Jan. 1998, 70(1):59-69.
Morrison et al. An Advanced Calibration Procedure for Complex Impedance Spectrum Measurements of Advanced Energy Storage. 58th International Instrumentation Symposium, Jun. 2012, INL/CON-12-24519, 17 pages.
Morrison et al. Fast Summation Transformation for Battery Impedance Identification. IEEE Aerospace Conference, Mar. 2009, 9 pages.
Morrison et al. Real Time Estimation of Battery Impedance. IEEE Aerospace Conference, Mar. 2006, 13 pages.
Morrison. DC Buffering and Floating Current for a High Voltage IMB Application. INL/EXT-14-32858, Aug. 2014, 8 pages.
Morrison. Development and Implementation of a Calibration Procedure for Complex Impedance Spectrum Measurements with Applications to Embedded Battery Health Monitoring and Management Systems. University of Connecticut Master's Thesis, 2012, 119 pages.
Morrison. Signals and Systems: State Variable Description of Linear Time Invariant Systems. Montana Tech Digital Commons, Sep. 2013, Chapter 17, pp. 198-216.
Morrison. Signals and Systems: Synchronous Detection. Montana Tech Digital Commons, Sep. 2013, Chapter 20, pp. 243-246.
Motloch et al. High-Power Battery Testing Procedures and Analytical Methodologies for HEV's. 7, SAE Int. Passenger Cars Electron. Electr. Syst., vol. 111 (2002), pp. 797-802.
Nikolopoulos et al. Accurate Method of Representation of High-Voltage Measuring Systems and its Application in High-Impulse-Voltage Measurements. IEEE, Mar. 1989, 136(2):66-72.
Piller et al. Methods for state-of-charge determination and their applications. Journal of Power Sources, Jun. 2001, 96(1):113-120.
Qahouq et al. Single-Perturbation-Cycle Online Battery Impedance Spectrum Measurement Method With Closed-Loop Control of Power Converter. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, Sep. 2017, 64(9):7019-7029.
Qahouq. Online Battery Impedance Spectrum Measurement Method. IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition, Mar. 2016, pp. 3611-3615.
Ramos et al. Comparison of impedance measurements in a DSP using ellipse-fit and seven-parameter sine-fit algorithms. Measurement, May 2009, 42(9):1370-1379.
Ran et al. Prediction of State of Charge of Lithium-ion Rechargeable Battery with Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy Theory. 5th IEEE Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications, Jul. 2010, pp. 684-688.
Ranade et al. An overview of harmonics modeling and simulation, Tutorial on Harmonics Modeling and Simulation. IEEE Power Engineering Society, 1998, Chapter 1, 7 pages.
Ranieri et al. Electronic Module for the Thermal Monitoring of a Li-ion Battery Cell through the Electrochemical Impedance Estimation. 22nd International Workshop on Thermal Investigations of ICs and Systems, Sep. 2016, pp. 294-297.
Smith et al. Model Validation Approaches for Nonlinear Feedback Systems Using Frequency Response Measurements. IEEE Proceedings of the 38th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Dec. 1999, vol. 2, pp. 1500-1504.
Smyth. Development of a Real Time Battery Impedance Measuring System. M.S. Thesis, Montana Tech of the University of Montana, 2008, 128 pages.
Thomas et al. Statistical methodology for predicting the life of lithium-ion cells via accelerated degradation testing. Journal of Power Sources, Sep. 2008, 184(1):312-317.
Unkflhaeuser et al. Electrochemical Storage System Abuse Test Procedure Manual. United States Advanced Battery Consortium, SAND99-0497, Jul. 1999, 33 pages.
Varnosfaderani et al. Online Impedance Spectroscopy Estimation of a dc-dc converter connected Battery using an Earth Leakage Monitoring Circuit. 19th European Conference on Power Electronics and Applications, Sep. 2017, pp. P.1-P.10.
Verbrugge et al. Adaptive state of charge algorithm for nickel metal hydride batteries including hysteresis phenomena. Journal of Power Sources, Feb. 2004, 126(1-2):236-249.
Verbrugge. Adaptive, multi-parameter battery state estimator with optimized time-weighting factors. J Appl Electrochem, May 2007, 37(5):605-616.
Wang et al. State Estimation of Lithium ion Battery Based on Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy with On-board Impedance Measurement System. IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference, Oct. 2015, 5 pages.
Zhu et al. PSpice Simulation via AC Impedance for PEFC at Operational Loads. http://folk.ntnu.no/skoge/prost/proceedings/aiche-2005/topical/pdffiles/T1/papers/215c.pdf, 2005, 3 pages.
Ziemer et al. Signals and Linear System Analysis, Chapter 2, pp. 16-100, in: Principles of Communications, 5th edition, John Wiley & Sons.
Solartron Analytical. 1260 Impedance/Gain-Phase Analyzer. Operating Manual, Jan. 1996, 215 pages.
Solartron Analytical. 1287 Electrochemical Interface, User Guide, Aug. 2002, 134 pages.
Ineel. FreedomCAR Battery Test Manual for Power-Assist Hybrid Electric Vehicles. Oct. 2003, DOE/ID-11069, 130 pages.
Ineel. FreedomCAR Ultracapacitor Test Manual. DOE/ID-11173, Revision 0, Sep. 2004, 116 pages.
Idaho National Laboratory. Battery Test Manual for Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles, INL/EXT-07-12536, Revision 0, Mar. 2008, 68 pages.
Idaho National Laboratory. Battery Test Manual for Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles, INL/EXT-07-12536, Revision 2, Dec. 2010, 71 pages.
Katayama et al. Real-Time Electrochemical Impedance Diagnosis for Fuel Cells Using a DC-DC Converter. IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, Jun. 2015, 30(2):707-713.
Koch et al. Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy for Online Battery Monitoring—Power Electronics Control. 16th European Conference on Power Electronics and Applications, 2014, 10 pages.
Koch et al. Impedance Spectroscopy for Battery Monitoring with Switched Mode Amplifiers. 16th International Power Electronics and Motion Control Conference and Exposition, Sep. 2014, pp. 496-501.
Koch et al. On-line Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy Implementation for Telecommunication Power Supplies. IEEE International Telecommunications Energy Conference, 2015, 6 pages.
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20210181290 A1 Jun 2021 US
Provisional Applications (2)
Number Date Country
62331730 May 2016 US
62326923 Apr 2016 US
Continuations (3)
Number Date Country
Parent 16852231 Apr 2020 US
Child 17188741 US
Parent 16432822 Jun 2019 US
Child 16852231 US
Parent 15497142 Apr 2017 US
Child 16432822 US