Article

A New Method for State of Charge Estimation of

Lithium-Ion Battery Based on Strong Tracking
Cubature Kalman Filter
Bizhong Xia 1 , Haiqing Wang 1, *, Mingwang Wang 2 , Wei Sun 2 , Zhihui Xu 2 and Yongzhi Lai 2
Received: 3 October 2015; Accepted: 18 November 2015; Published: 26 November 2015
Academic Editor: K.T. Chau
1 Graduate School at Shenzhen, Tsinghua University, Shenzhen 518055, China; [email protected]
2 Sunwoda Electronic Co. Ltd., Shenzhen 518108, China; [email protected] (M.W.);
[email protected] (W.S.); [email protected] (Z.X.); [email protected] (Y.L.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel./Fax: +86-0755-2603-6982

Abstract: The estimation of state of charge (SOC) is a crucial evaluation index in a battery
management system (BMS). The value of SOC indicates the remaining capacity of a battery, which
provides a good guarantee of safety and reliability of battery operation. It is difficult to get
an accurate value of the SOC, being one of the inner states. In this paper, a strong tracking
cubature Kalman filter (STCKF) based on the cubature Kalman filter is presented to perform
accurate and reliable SOC estimation. The STCKF algorithm can adjust gain matrix online by
introducing fading factor to the state estimation covariance matrix. The typical second-order
resistor-capacitor model is used as the battery’s equivalent circuit model to dynamically simulate
characteristics of the battery. The exponential-function fitting method accomplishes the task of
relevant parameters identification. Then, the developed STCKF algorithm has been introduced in
detail and verified under different operation current profiles such as Dynamic Stress Test (DST) and
New European Driving Cycle (NEDC). Making a comparison with extended Kalman filter (EKF) and
CKF algorithm, the experimental results show the merits of the STCKF algorithm in SOC estimation
accuracy and robustness.

Keywords: strong tracking cubature Kalman filter; state of charge; lithium-ion battery;
electric vehicle

1. Introduction
In recent years, energy-saving and emission reduction attract special attentions and
environmental pollution have become more and more critical. Electric vehicles (EVs), characterized
by environmentally benign property and zero-emissions, are with people’s horizons. Research and
development on electric vehicle batteries have been greatly active, especially because of the increasing
cost of energy consumption. Lithium-ion batteries conform to the demands of EVs and hybrid electric
vehicles (HEVs) for their high energy density, safety, low self-discharge and long cycle life. The
system that regulates the energy flow in a battery pack with respect to voltages of individual cells,
temperature, state of charge and health is defined as the Battery Management System (BMS) [1,2].
The main task of BMS is to maintain a safe operating environment for the battery system, and to
protect it from damage. The state of charge (SOC), defined as the ratio of the remaining capacity to
the rated capacity, is the core part of BMS. An accurate SOC estimation prevents over-charging or
over-discharging time and prolongs the life of batteries on the one hand, and, on the other hand,
it helps drivers effectively grasp running condition of their electric vehicle. Because the SOC is

Energies 2015, 8, 13458–13472; doi:10.3390/en81212378 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2015, 8, 13458–13472

sensitively influenced by discharge rate, ambient temperature, and aging degree of the battery, the
accurate value of the SOC is difficult to obtain.
To predict precise SOC values, numerous SOC estimation methods have been proposed, like
Ampere-hour (Ah) counting method [3], open-circuit voltage (OCV) method [4], artificial neural
network (ANN) [5,6], particle filter (PF) [7,8], a series of algorithms based on Kalman filter [9–17]. The
Ah counting method is the most common technique for the battery SOC determination in practice.
The main idea of the method is integrating the current. However, this method dissatisfies estimation
accuracy requirement because of initial value errors and the integral accumulation error caused by
measurement current. The OCV method uses the relationship between the open circuit voltage and
the SOC for the specific battery type, then, the SOC value can be obtained with interpolation method.
However, this method is improper for online applications since the battery has to be left in open circuit
mode for a long time to reach the steady-state before measuring the OCV. In addition, some kinds of
batteries do not have a definite relationship between OCV and SOC, such as lithium iron phosphate
batteries, which have voltage plateaus. Nevertheless, the method is effective for determining the SOC
at the initial and end stages due to its simplicity. The ANN method predicts the SOC according to the
nonlinear relationship between the battery SOC and its influencing factors obtained by the trained
black-box battery models. This method has excellent performance if the training data is sufficient to
cover the total loading conditions. Nevertheless, it is time-consuming and nearly impossible to collect
training data covering all of the battery loading conditions. The PF method needs numerous matrix
operations and has high requirement for hardware.
Recently, a widely used method, Kalman filter (KF) [9] algorithm, which is originally developed
to optimize the estimate state for linear systems, is applied to predict the battery SOC. The aim of
the algorithm is to extract accurate information out of noisy measurements, and then correct it. Since
lithium-ion batteries are a nonlinear system, extended Kalman filter (EKF) [10–13] and unscented
Kalman filter (UKF) methods [15–17] have been developed to solve this problem. The EKF use a
linearization process, namely a first-order Taylor series expansion, at every time step to approximate
the nonlinear system. However, the instability of the filter and the lack of robustness due to the
linearization process, and also the nontrivial, error-prone calculation of the Jacobian matrices can
be listed as the shortcomings of the EKF approach. As an alternative, sigma-point Kalman filters
(SPKF) have higher order accuracy in the error covariance of the state vector compared to EKF.
The SPKF-based methods are comparable in terms of complexity with Jacobian matrix deploying
EKF [14], moreover, achieving a second-order accuracy compared to EKF’s first order accuracy at the
same complexity level is important to note [15]. The UKF introduces an unscented transformation
to approximate the state distribution through a set of sample points called sigma points. It has been
demonstrated that UKF has better performance than EKF in terms of accuracy and robustness. Even
so, despite its derivative-free state estimation, the standard UKF has the possibility to suffer from
performance degradation and instability problems in the case of a mismatch between the a priori
assumptions, which include an accurate model, proper initial values and full information of the
noise distribution.
Many electrochemical model-based approaches [18–20], which are derived from principles of
electrochemistry, are proposed get precise knowledge of battery internal information like SOC. In [18],
two nonlinear robust observer designs have been presented for SOC estimation of Li-ion cells using an
uncertain reduced electrochemical model. Simulation studies and experiments are presented to show
the effectiveness of the observer designs. According to [19], an adaptive observer design based on a
coupled electrochemical-thermal model, is presented for simultaneous state-parameter estimation of
a Li-ion cell. Simulation studies show the effectiveness of the design where the states and parameters
are estimated with a desired convergence rate and accuracy. Although electrochemical model-based
techniques are arguably more accurate than the other modeling approaches, the complexity and
computation cost will increase accordingly.

13459
Energies 2015, 8, 13458–13472

In 2009, a new nonlinear filter based on KF called as cubature Kalman filter (CKF) was proposed
by Arasaratnam and Haykin [21]. The key idea of this method is using the radial-spherical cubature
rule to capture the mean and covariance of the states of a nonlinear system with additive Gaussian
noise. The CKF uses a set of 2n points to predict the SOC of the battery, while the UKF uses a set
of 2n + 1 points, where n represents the state-vector dimension. It has already been proven more
accurate and stable than the UKF [22,23]. The CKF has been successfully applied in many fields, such
as moving-target tracking [24] and spacecraft attitude estimation [25].
In this paper, a new strong tracking cubature filter (STCKF) method for SOC estimation is
presented to improve the robustness and accuracy of the CKF method. Two typical driving cycles,
including Dynamic Stress Test (DST) and NEDC, are applied to assess the performance of the
proposed Energies 2015, 88, page–page 
method. The experimental results show that this method can obtain super performance
in terms ofand 
accuracy andthe 
stable  than  robustness,
UKF  [22,23]. better than
The  CKF  has EKF
been and CKF. applied  in  many  fields,  such  as 
successfully 
The moving‐target tracking [24] and spacecraft attitude estimation [25]. 
remainder of this paper is organized as follows.   In Section 2, the second-order
In  this 
resistor-capacitor paper,  a  new 
equivalent strong  tracking 
circuit model cubature 
is usedfilter 
and(STCKF)  method parameters
the model for  SOC  estimation  is 
are determined
presented to improve the robustness and accuracy of the CKF method. Two typical driving cycles, 
by exponential-function fitting method. The CKF and STCKF methods are illustrated in detail
including  Dynamic  Stress  Test  (DST)  and  NEDC,  are  applied  to  assess  the  performance  of  the 
in Sectionproposed method. The experimental results show that this method can obtain super performance in 
3. Section 4 describes the experimental configurations. The verification results and
comparisons of different approaches are discussed in Section 5, and conclusions of the paper are
terms of accuracy and robustness, better than EKF and CKF. 
made in Section The 6.remainder  of  this  paper  is  organized  as  follows.  In  Section  2,  the  second‐order   
resistor‐capacitor  equivalent  circuit  model  is  used  and  the  model  parameters  are  determined  by 
2. Batteryexponential‐function 
Model and Parametersfitting  method.  The  CKF  and  STCKF  methods  are  illustrated  in  detail  in   
Identification
Section  3.  Section  4  describes  the  experimental  configurations.  The  verification  results  and 
2.1. comparisons 
Battery Model of  different  approaches  are  discussed  in  Section  5,  and  conclusions  of  the  paper  are 
made in Section 6. 
Equivalent circuit models, which consist of basic circuit elements (e.g., resistors, capacitors
2. Battery Model and Parameters Identification 
and inductors), are commonly used to simulate the voltage-current behaviors of a battery [26–28].
Building an effective equivalent circuit model (ECM) makes a great difference for researching battery
2.1. Battery Model 
management Equivalent circuit models, which consist of basic circuit elements (e.g., resistors, capacitors and 
system. Estimation accuracy is certainly based on the precise ECM for SOC estimation
algorithms. Then, the commonly 
inductors),  are  applicationused ofto ECM prevents
simulate  batteries behaviors 
the  voltage‐current  from unnecessary
of  a  battery  and permanent
[26–28]. 
damage inBuilding an effective equivalent circuit model (ECM) makes a great difference for researching battery 
actual operation.
Whenmanagement system. Estimation accuracy is certainly based on the precise ECM for SOC estimation 
choosing ECM, the following several aspects must be considered. First of all, the model
algorithms.  Then,  the  application  of  ECM  prevents  batteries  from  unnecessary  and  permanent 
can clearly imitate the dynamic behaviors of the battery. Secondly, it must not be too complicated to
damage in actual operation.   
establish the state-space equations so complex computations do not increase the burden on the CPU.
When choosing ECM, the following several aspects must be considered. First of all, the model 
The complicated ECM can well simulate dynamic behaviors while it increases the computation cost.
can clearly imitate the dynamic behaviors of the battery. Secondly, it must not be too complicated to 
Therefore,establish the state‐space equations so complex computations do not increase the burden on the CPU. 
a tradeoff must be made to meet the above requirements.
The complicated ECM can well simulate dynamic behaviors while it increases the computation cost. 
Hence, this paper is based on a second-order equivalent circuit battery model. As shown
Therefore, a tradeoff must be made to meet the above requirements. 
in Figure 1, the second-order
Hence,  this  paper  is RC battery
based  model consists
on  a  second‐order  of an
equivalent  open-circuit
circuit  voltage
battery  model.  Uocin 
As  shown  (SOC) that
has a certain relationship with SOC at the same temperature, a resistoroc(SOC) that has a 
Figure 1, the second‐order RC battery model consists of an open‐circuit voltage U Ro , and two parallel
certain  relationship 
resistor-capacitor (RC) networkswith  SOC  at  the  in
connected same  temperature, 
series a 1 resistor 
(i.e., R1 -C and R2R-C o,  and 
2 ). two resistor
The parallel R  o is the
resistor‐capacitor (RC) networks connected in series (i.e., R1‐C1 and R2‐C2). The resistor Ro is the ohmic 
ohmic resistance caused by the accumulation and dissipation of charge in the electrical double-layer,
resistance caused by the accumulation and dissipation of charge in the electrical double‐layer, R1 and 
R1 and C1C1are the activation polarization resistance and capacitance, respectively,
 are the activation polarization resistance and capacitance, respectively, while R while R and C2
2 and C2 separately  2
separatelyare the concentration polarization resistance and capacitance, respectively. 
are the concentration polarization resistance and capacitance, respectively.

 
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the second‐order resistor‐capacitor (RC) equivalent circuit model. 
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the second-order resistor-capacitor (RC) equivalent circuit model.
The cell SOC is defined as the coefficient of the remaining capacity to the nominal capacity. The 
SOC can be expressed as the following equation: 
13460

3
Energies 2015, 8, 13458–13472

The cell SOC is defined as the coefficient of the remaining capacity to the nominal capacity. The
SOC can be expressed as the following equation:
şt
t iptqdt
SOCptq “ SOCpt0 q ´ 0 (1)
QN

where i(t) represents the value of current (defined to be negative for discharging and positive for
charging). Q N is the nominal capacity. SOC(t0 ) represents the SOC value at time t0 .
The derivation of SOC based on Equation (1) can be formulated as:

iptq
SOC1 ptq “ ´ (2)
QN

According to the circuit theory, the electrical behavior of the second-order RC battery model can
be expressed as:
i ptq
$
’ SOC1 ptq “ ´ Q
’
’ N
&
U1
U1 = ´ R C ` C1 iptq
1 (3)
’ 1 1 1
’
U2 = ´ RU2 C2 2 ` C12 iptq
’
% 1

Ut “ Uoc pSOCq ´ U1 ´ U2 ´ Ro iptq (4)

where U1 and U2 denote the terminal voltage of C1 and C2 , respectively; and Ut and i(t) denote
individually the value of terminal voltage and current, respectively. Uoc denotes the open-circuit
voltage, which is usually a nonlinear function of SOC at the same temperature.

2.2. Parameters Identification

For the second-order RC equivalent circuit model indicated in Figure 1, the value of parameters
{Uoc (SOC), Ro , R1 , R2 , C1 , C2 } and the relationship between OCV and SOC have to be identified.
These parameters can be divided into two parts. The first part is Uoc , which has a certain relationship
with SOC. The second is comprised of {Ro , R2 , R2 , C1 , C2 }, which describe the dynamic behaviors of
battery. To identify these parameters, some experiments have been carried out on the ICR18650-22F
lithium-ion battery (Samsung, Seoul, Korea).
To collect data for determining the relationship of OCV versus SOC, a consecutive test was
performed on the battery. First, the battery is charged to the fully charged state with the standard
charging pattern and fully discharged at the same temperature twice. Then, after 2 h rest, the fully
charged battery that has reached steady state is discharged with a constant current of 0.1 C by 10%
of the nominal capacity and it is left in the open-circuit for condition for 5 h. Repetitive operation of
the above discharging with a constant current and rest is executed until the batter achieves the fully
discharged state. The entire process of experiment is presented in Figure 2.
According to the measured data from the above test, sixth-order polynomial fitted curve are
shown in Figure 3, which can well describe the nonlinear relationship between the OCV and the SOC:
The exponential-function fitting method [28–30] is adopted to identify parameters {Ro , R2 , R2 ,
C1 , C2 }. The details of parameters identification can be found in [29], which has been published by
our research group.
The identified parameters of second-order RC ECM are listed in Table 1.

13461
Energies 2015, 8, 13458–13472
Energies 2015, 88, page–page 
Energies 2015, 88, page–page 

 
 
Figure 2. Flow chart of an open‐circuit voltage (OCV) test for determining the relationship of OCV 
Figure 2. Flow chart of an open-circuit voltage (OCV) test for determining the relationship of OCV
Figure 2. Flow chart of an open‐circuit voltage (OCV) test for determining the relationship of OCV 
and state of charge (SOC). 
and state of charge (SOC).
and state of charge (SOC). 

 
 
Figure 3. The sixth‐order polynomial fitted curve between OCV and SOC. 
Figure 3. The sixth‐order polynomial fitted curve between OCV and SOC. 
Figure 3. The sixth-order polynomial fitted curve between OCV and SOC.
Table 1. Identified parameters of second‐order RC ECM. 
Table 1. Identified parameters of second‐order RC ECM. 
Table 1. Identified
Parameters  Ro  parameters
R1 of second-order
R2 RC
C1 ECM. C2 
Parameters 
Value  Ro 
0.0377 Ω  R1
0.0242 Ω  R2
0.00300 Ω  C1
1673.3 F  C2 
17,823 F 
Parameters
Value  Ro
0.0377 Ω  R1
0.0242 Ω  R2
0.00300 Ω  C1
1673.3 F  C2
17,823 F 
0.0377 Ω 0.0242 Ω 0.00300 Ω
3. SOC Estimation Based on the Strong Tracking Cubature Kalman Filter 
Value 1673.3 F 17,823 F
3. SOC Estimation Based on the Strong Tracking Cubature Kalman Filter 
3.1. Cubature Kalman Filter Algorithm (CKF) 
3. SOC Estimation Based on the Strong Tracking Cubature Kalman Filter
3.1. Cubature Kalman Filter Algorithm (CKF) 
In 2009, a new nonlinear filter called the cubature Kalman filter (CKF) [21,22] was proposed by 
In 2009, a new nonlinear filter called the cubature Kalman filter (CKF) [21,22] was proposed by 
3.1. Cubature Kalman Filter Algorithm (CKF)
Arasaratnam and Haykin. On the basis of the Bayesian filter, the CKF uses a set of 2n points to capture 
Arasaratnam and Haykin. On the basis of the Bayesian filter, the CKF uses a set of 2n points to capture 
the  mean  and  covariance  of  the  states  with  additive  Gaussian  noise  by  the  three‐degree   
In
the 2009,
mean a and 
new covariance 
nonlinear filter
radial‐spherical cubature rule.  called
of  the  states the cubature
with  additive Kalman
Gaussian  filter (CKF)
noise  by [21,22] was proposed
the  three‐degree   
by Arasaratnam and Haykin.
radial‐spherical cubature rule. 
The  basic  idea  On the filter 
of  the  Bayesian  basisis ofcalculating 
the Bayesian filter, the CKF uses
the  multi‐dimensional  a set of
weighted  2n points
integral, 
to capture thebasic 
The  mean and
idea  of covariance
which can be expressed as:  the  Bayesian offilter 
the states with additive
is  calculating  Gaussian noise
the  multi‐dimensional  by the integral, 
weighted  three-degree
radial-spherical cubature rule.
which can be expressed as: 

f )  f ( x )the
The basic idea of the Bayesian filter isI (calculating w( xmulti-dimensional
) dx   weighted integral, (5) which
can be expressed as: ż
I ( f )  D f ( x ) w( x ) dx  
D
(5) 

Ip f q “ f5pxqwpxqdx (5)
D 5

13462
 Energies 2015, 8, 13458–13472

where f (¨) is some nonlinear function, D  Rn is the region of integration, and the known weighting
function w(x) ě 0 for all x  D. In a Gaussian-weighted integral, w(x) is a Gaussian density and satisfies
the non-negativity condition in the entire region. According to [21], it can be obtained that:

ş 2n
ř
Ip f q “ f pxqNpx; 0, Iqdx « wi f pξi q
D i “1 (6)
? 1
ξi “ nr1si , wi “ 2n i “ 1, 2, ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ , 2n

where N(x; 0, I) is Standard Gaussian distribution, n represents the state-vector dimension, [1]i
represents the i-th column vector. The third-degree cubature rule is exact for Gaussian-weighted
integrals whose integrands are written in the form of a linear combination of monomials up to the
third degree.
A discrete-time nonlinear dynamical system with additive process and measurement noises is as
follows:
xk`1 “ f pxk , uk q ` Γk wk
#
(7)
yk`1 = hpxk , uk q ` vk
where Xk  Rn is the state vector at time k; yk  Rm is the measurement vector at time k; f (¨) and
h(¨) are known nonlinear functions; Γk is the discrete-time process noise distribution matrix; wk and
vk are independent Gaussian white process noise and measurement noise with covariance Qk and
Rk separately.
The process of the CKF algorithm for battery SOC estimation is summarized as follows.

(a) Initialization:
x̂0 “ Erx0 s, P0 “ Erpx0 ´ x̂0 qpx0 ´ x̂0 qT s (8)

(b) Time update

(1) Calculate the cubature points:

Pk “ Sk Sk T (9)

xi k “ Sk ξi ` x̂k i “ 1, 2, ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ , 2n (10)

where n represents the state-vector dimension and ξ is the set of standard cubature points,
which is shown by:
# ?
nr1si i “ 1, 2, ¨ ¨ ¨ , n
ξi “ ?
´ nr1si i “ n ` 1, n ` 2, ¨ ¨ ¨ , 2n

where [1]i represents the identity matrix and [1](i) denotes its i-th column vector.
(2) Calculate the propagated cubature points:

χik`1|k “ f pxk i q (11)

(3) Calculate the predicted state and covariance:

2n
1 ÿ i
x̂k`1|k “ χk`1|k (12)
2n
i “1
2n
1 ÿ i T
Pk`1|k “ χ k`1|k pχi k`1|k q ´ x̂k`1|k px̂k`1|k qT ` Qk (13)
2n
i “1

where Qk is the process noise covariance matrix at time step k.

13463
 Energies 2015, 8, 13458–13472

(c) Measurement update

(1) Calculate the cubature points:

Pk`1|k “ Sk`1|k Sk`1|k T (14)

xi k`1|k “ Sk`1|k ξi ` x̂k`1|k (15)

(2) Calculate the propagated cubature points:

yk`1 i “ hpxi k`1|k q (16)

(3) Calculate the predicted measurement and covariance:

2n
1 ÿ
ŷk`1 “ y k `1 i (17)
2n
i“1
2n
1 ÿ i
P y k `1 “ y k`1 pyi k`1 qT ´ ŷk`1 pŷk`1 qT (18)
2n
i “1
2n
1 ÿ i
P xy k`1 “ x k`1 pxi k`1 qT ´ x̂k`1|k px̂k`1|k qT (19)
2n
i “1

where Rk is the measurement noise covariance matrix at time step k.

(d) Estimate the Kalman gain, updated state and error covariance:

Kk`1 “ P xy k`1 pPy k`1 q´1 (20)

x̂k “ x̂k`1|k ` Kk`1 pyk`1 ´ ŷk`1 q (21)

Pk`1 “ Pk`1|k ´ Kk`1 Py k`1 Kk`1 T (22)

3.2. Strong Tracking Cubature Kalman Filter (STCKF)

Although the EKF has been widely used, it is limited for the following drawbacks:

(1) Poor robustness against model uncertainties.

(2) Loss of tracking ability for sudden changes of the state when it has reached steady state.
(3) Cannot be used to estimate time-varying parameters.

In order to improve performance of EKF, strong tracking filter (STF) was proposed [31,32] and
used for battery SOC estimation [33]. In the actual design, STF still continues to use framework of
Kalman filter because of conciseness and recursive property. The framework of Kalman filter can be
expressed as:
x̂k “ x̂k`1|k ` Kk`1 γk`1 (23)

γk`1 “ pyk`1 ´ Hk`1 x̂k`1|k q (24)

ˇ
δhpx q ˇ
where γk` 1 is residual sequence of measurement. Hk is Hk “ δx k ˇ when the system is
k xk “x̂k
nonlinear. Hence, STF is transformed into seeking the optimal filter gain matrix Kk+1 that can be
deduced by orthogonality principle [32–34].
Erpxk`1 ´ x̂k`1 qpxk`1 ´ x̂k`1 qT s “ min (25)

Vj,k`1 “ Erγk`1 γk`1 T s “ 0 (26)

When system model and real system completely match and modeling error does not exist,
residual sequence of Kalman filter output is white Gaussian noise with zero mean, so these residual

13464
Energies 2015, 8, 13458–13472

sequences are mutually orthogonal. Equation (25), which is the performance index of Kalman filter,
denotes the minimum error estimation covariance and Equation (26) represents that these residual
sequences are mutually orthogonal. Since the system model is not very accurate in fact, the mean
of residual sequence will show this problem when state estimation of filter deviates from the system
state. Thus, the STF can adjust gain matrix online by introducing fading factor to the state estimation
covariance matrix.
x
Pk`1|k “ λk`1 Pk`1|k ` Qk (27)
where λk+1 is the fading factor; Pkx`1|k
is state estimation covariance matrix before introducing fading
factor; Pk`1|k is state estimation covariance matrix after introducing fading factor; Qk is covariance of
process noise. The fading factor can be obtained by following equations:

γk`1 “ pyk`1 ´ ŷk`1 q (28)

$
& γ1 γ1 T k=0
V0,k`1 “ T
(29)
ρV0,k `γ γ
k`1 k`1
%
1`ρ kě1

Nk`1 “ V0,k`1 ´ Hk Qk Hk T ´ βRk`1 (30)

Mk`1 “ Hk`1 Fk Pk Fk T Hk T (31)

“ ‰
tr Nk`1
λ0 “ “ ‰ (32)
tr Mk`1
λk`1 “ maxp1, λ0 q (33)
where Hk and Fk are the measure matrix and process matrix, respectively, and λk is called the
fading factor which adjusts gain matrix to realize orthogonality principle. Qk and Rk are covariance
of process noise and measure noise, respectively. The matrix Nk+1 and Mk+1 are defined by
Equations (30) and (31), which are used for calculating the fading factor λk ; tr[Nk ] and tr[Mk ] are
the trace of matrix Nk and Mk , respectively.
By combining the above cubature Kalman filter and strong tracking filter, we can deduce the
strong tracking cubature Kalman filter (STCKF) algorithm in detail, as shown in Table 2.
In Table 2, after initialization, the estimated state vector x̂k+1|k and the estimation error covariance
Pk+1|k can be firstly achieved according to the time and measurement update processes. Then, the
fading factor λk+1 is calculated. The estimated state vector x̂k` 1 and the estimation error covariance
Pk+1 after adding the fading factor are obtained though update processes. x̂k`1 , Pk+1 and λk` 1 are
used for the next prediction and update processes. The battery SOC can be recursively estimated by
repeating the above procedure.

Table 2. Summary of strong tracking cubature Kalman filter (STCKF) algorithm.

Initialization x̂0 “ Erx0 s, P0 “ Erpx0 ´ x̂0 qpx0 ´ x̂0 qT s

(1) Time update
(a) The cubature points Pk “ Sk Sk T , xi k “ Sk ξi ` x̂k
(b) Propagated cubature points χi k`1|k “ f pxi k q
2n
1
χi k`1|k
ř
x̂k`1|k “ 2n
i“1

(c) State and covariance time update 2n

1
P x k`1|k “ χi k`1|k pχi k`1|k qT ´ x̂k`1|k x̂k`1|k
T
ř
2n ` Qk
i“1

Pl k`1|k “ P x k`1|k ` Qk

13465
Energies 2015, 8, 13458–13472

Table 2. Cont.

Initialization x̂0 “ Erx0 s, P0 “ Erpx0 ´ x̂0 qpx0 ´ x̂0 qT s

(2) Measurement update
T
Pl k`1|k “ Sk`1|k
l l
Sk`1|k
(a) The cubature points i,l l
xk`1|k “ Sk`1|k ξi ` x̂k`1|k

(b) Propagated cubature points γi,l i,l

k`1 “ hpxk`1|k q
2n
1
γi,l
ř
ŷk`1 “ 2n k`1
i“1
(c) Measurement and error covariance
2n
xy,l 1
xi,l k pγi,l T T
ř
Pk`1|k “ 2n k`1 q ´ x̂k`1|k ŷk`1
i“1

λk`1 “ maxp1, λ0 q
trr Nk`1 s
λ0 “ trr Mk`1 s

Nk`1 “ V0,k`1 ´ Hk Qk Hk T ´ βRk`1

(3) The fading factor
Mk`1 “ Hk`1 Fk Pk Fk T Hk T

& γ1 γ1 T
$
k=0
V0,k`1 “
% ρV0,k `γk`1 γk`1 T
1`ρ kě1
(4) Update after add fading factor
x
Pk`1|k “ λk`1 Pk`1|k ` Qk
(a) The cubature points
i
xk`1|k “ Sk`1|k ξi ` x̂k`1|k

(b) Propagated cubature points γik`1 “ hpxk`1|k

i q
2n
1
γik`1
ř
yk`1 “ 2n
i“1
2n
y 1
γik`1 pγik`1 qT ´ yk`1 yk`1 T
ř
(c) Measurement and error covariance Pk`1 “ 2n
i“1
2n
xy 1 i pγik`1 qT ´ xk`1|k yk`1 T
ř
Pk`1 “ 2n xk`1|k
i“1
xy y ´1
Kk`1 “ Pk`1 pPk`1 q

(d) Estimate the Kalman gain, updated state and error covariance x̂k`1 “ x̂k`1|k ` Kk`1 pyk`1 ´ ŷk`1 q
T y
Pk`1 “ Pk`1|k ´ Kk`1 Pk`1 Kk`1

4. Experimental Configurations
Figure 4 shows the schematic of battery test bench. It consists of (1) tested Samsung lithium-ion
batteries; (2) a control board for controlling battery charge/discharge, as well as battery voltage
and current sampling with a period of 1 s; (3) a host computer with monitoring software for data
sampling and MATLAB R2010a for data analysis; (4) a DC contactor for charge/discharge switching;
(5) a programmable power supply for cell charging; and (6) a programmable electric load for cell
discharging. The LiNix Coy Mnz O2 (x + y + z = 1) lithium-ion battery, which will be the next generation
of the mainstream batteries for EVs, has a distinctive features in energy density, power density, cycle
life and so on. The batteries used in this test are Samsung ICR18650-22P lithium-ion battery, whose
nominal capacity and nominal voltage are 2.2 Ah and 3.62 V, respectively.

13466
current sampling with a period of 1 s; (3) a host computer with monitoring software for data sampling 
and  MATLAB  R2010a  for  data  analysis;  (4)  a  DC  contactor  for  charge/discharge  switching;  (5)  a 
and  MATLAB  R2010a  for  data  analysis;  (4)  a  DC  contactor  for  charge/discharge  switching;  (5)  a 
programmable  power  supply  for  cell  charging;  and  (6)  a  programmable  electric  load  for  cell 
programmable  power  supply  for  cell  charging;  and  (6)  a  programmable  electric  load  for  cell 
discharging. The LiNixCoyMnzO2 (x + y + z = 1) lithium‐ion battery, which will be the next generation 
discharging. The LiNixCoyMnzO2 (x + y + z = 1) lithium‐ion battery, which will be the next generation 
of the mainstream batteries for EVs, has a distinctive features in energy density, power density, cycle 
of the mainstream batteries for EVs, has a distinctive features in energy density, power density, cycle 
life and so on. The batteries used in this test are Samsung ICR18650‐22P lithium‐ion battery, whose 
Energies 2015, 8, 13458–13472
life and so on. The batteries used in this test are Samsung ICR18650‐22P lithium‐ion battery, whose 
nominal capacity and nominal voltage are 2.2 Ah and 3.62 V, respectively. 
nominal capacity and nominal voltage are 2.2 Ah and 3.62 V, respectively. 

 
 
Figure 4. Schematic of battery test bench. 
Figure 4. Schematic of battery test bench.
Figure 4. Schematic of battery test bench. 

5. Verification Results and Analysis 
5. Verification Results and Analysis 
5. Verification Results and Analysis
5.1. Estimation Results under Dynamic Stress Test (DST) Cycle 
5.1. Estimation Results under Dynamic Stress Test (DST) Cycle
5.1. Estimation Results under Dynamic Stress Test (DST) Cycle 
A good SOC estimation technique should be able to perform effectively under different loading 
A good SOC estimation technique should be able to perform effectively under different loading
A good SOC estimation technique should be able to perform effectively under different loading 
profiles. Thus, we collected battery discharge data using dynamic stress testing (DST) to verify the 
profiles. Thus, we collected battery discharge data using dynamic stress testing (DST) to verify the
profiles. Thus, we collected battery discharge data using dynamic stress testing (DST) to verify the 
applicability of the developed method during working conditions, which is a step charge/discharge 
applicability of the developed method during working conditions, which is a step charge/discharge
applicability of the developed method during working conditions, which is a step charge/discharge 
profile. The current profile and zoom profile for DST are shown in Figure 5a,b, respectively. 
profile. The current profile and zoom profile for DST are shown in Figure 5a,b, respectively.
profile. The current profile and zoom profile for DST are shown in Figure 5a,b, respectively. 

 
 
Figure 5. Dynamic Stress Testing: (a) current profile and (b) zoom plot of current profile. 
Figure 5. Dynamic Stress Testing: (a) current profile and (b) zoom plot of current profile. 
Figure 5. Dynamic Stress Testing: (a) current profile and (b) zoom plot of current profile.
11
11
The estimation curve of SOC is presented in Figure 6a, where the black dotted-line is the
reference SOC values computed using Coulomb counting method with accurate current values and
initial SOC value, while the red solid-line and black solid-line is the estimated results with STCKF
and EKF method, respectively. The initial SOC value for STCKF and EKF method was set at 95% for
two reasons: (1) to simulate preferably the actual conditions, where the exact SOC at the beginning
of usage is unknown or inaccurate, and (2) to measure the self-correction capability of the STCKF
method. The SOC estimation error of STCKF and EKF method is indicated in Figure 6b with the red

13467
 The  estimation  curve  of  SOC  is  presented  in  Figure  6a,  where  the  black  dotted‐line  is  the 
reference SOC values computed using Coulomb counting method with accurate current values and 
initial SOC value, while the red solid‐line and black solid‐line is the estimated results with STCKF 
and EKF method, respectively. The initial SOC value for STCKF and EKF method was set at 95% for 
two reasons: (1) to simulate preferably the actual conditions, where the exact SOC at the beginning 
Energies 2015, 8, 13458–13472
of usage is unknown or inaccurate, and (2) to measure the self‐correction capability of the STCKF 
method. The SOC estimation error of STCKF and EKF method is indicated in Figure 6b with the red 
solid-line and black solid-line. From Figure 6c, we can easily get that the value of SOC estimation
solid‐line and black solid‐line. From Figure 6c, we can easily get that the value of SOC estimation 
error
error  with STCKF
with STCKF is is aa little
little bigger
bigger than
than the
the result
result with
with EKFEKF method
method atat the
the beginning.
beginning. Then,
Then, SOC
SOC 
estimation error deceases and approaches a very small value gradually; however,
estimation error deceases and approaches a very small value gradually; however, estimation error  estimation error
using EKF method changes little. The SOC estimation error from 4000 to 5000 s is shown in Figure 6c,
using EKF method changes little. The SOC estimation error from 4000 to 5000 s is shown in Figure 
which indicates that the maximum error of STCKF is less than 1% and the maximum error of EKF is
6c, which indicates that the maximum error of STCKF is less than 1% and the maximum error of EKF 
about 3%. The battery terminal voltage versus time is shown in Figure 7a, where the blue solid-line
is about 3%. The battery terminal voltage versus time is shown in Figure 7a, where the blue solid‐line 
is the measured terminal voltage with a high precision voltage sensor and the red dotted-line is
is the measured terminal voltage with a high precision voltage sensor and the red dotted‐line is the 
the estimated voltage by the developed method. It can be seen that the terminal voltage shows
estimated voltage by the developed method. It can be seen that the terminal voltage shows serious 
serious fluctuations
fluctuations  due  to  due to the sharply
the  sharply  variable
variable  current. current.
However, However, the voltage
the  voltage  estimation
estimation  errorsmall 
error  has  has
small fluctuations and the average value of estimation error is about 0.02 V, as
fluctuations and the average value of estimation error is about 0.02 V, as shown in Figure 7b. The  shown in Figure 7b.
The estimation
estimation  results
results  of SOC
of  SOC  and
and  terminal
terminal  voltageillustrate 
voltage  illustratethat 
thatthe 
theproposed 
proposed method 
method for 
for SOC
SOC 
estimation has good performance in terms of estimation accuracy and self-correction
estimation has good performance in terms of estimation accuracy and self‐correction capability.  capability.

 
Figure 6. The estimation results under Dynamic Stress Test (DST): (a) SOC estimation profile; (b) SOC 
Figure 6. The estimation results under Dynamic Stress Test (DST): (a) SOC estimation profile; (b) SOC
estimation error profile; and (c) Zoom plot of SOC estimation error profile. 
estimation error profile; and (c) Zoom plot of SOC estimation error profile.

12

13468
Energies 2015, 8, 13458–13472
Energies 2015, 88, page–page 

 
Figure 7. Terminal voltage estimation under DST: (a) Voltage profile; and (b) Voltage estimation error profile. 
Figure 7. Terminal voltage estimation under DST: (a) Voltage profile; and (b) Voltage estimation
error profile.
5.2. Estimation Results under New European Driving Cycle (NEDC) Cycle with Voltage Noise 
In  practice, 
5.2. Estimation Resultsit under
is  difficult  to  always Driving
New European obtain  the  precise 
Cycle (NEDC)measurement 
Cycle withof  current 
Voltage and  voltage, 
Noise
because  of  the  noise  interference  caused  by  incorrect  current  and  voltage  sensor  error  and 
In practice, it is difficult to always obtain the precise measurement of current and voltage,
electromagnetic interference. In order to simulate the practical condition, a sequence of voltage noise 
becausewas  ofattached  to  measured 
the noise voltage 
interference to  verify 
caused by the  robustness 
incorrect of  the 
current anddeveloped 
voltagemethod 
sensoragainst 
error and
electromagnetic interference. In order to simulate the practical condition, a sequence ofand 
measurement  noise.  The  comparison  with  the  frequently‐used  extended  Kalman  filter  (EKF)  voltage
noisecubature Kalman filter (CKF) can show the characteristics in terms of accuracy and robustness. As is 
was attached to measured voltage to verify the robustness of the developed method against
shown in Figure 8a, the absolute value of voltage noise is less than 0.08 V and Figure 8b illustrates 
measurement noise. The comparison with the frequently-used extended Kalman filter (EKF) and
more details. 
cubature Kalman filter (CKF) can show the characteristics in terms of accuracy and robustness. As is
The comparison results of SOC estimation are shown in Figure 9. As indicated in the Figure 9a, 
shown in Figure 8a, the absolute value of voltage noise is less than 0.08 V and Figure 8b illustrates
the black solid‐line is the reference SOC value calculated by Coulomb counting method with accurate 
morecurrent values and initial SOC value, the red solid‐line is SOC estimation using EKF method, the blue 
details.
The comparison results of SOC estimation are shown in Figure 9. As indicated in the Figure 9a,
solid‐line shows SOC estimation result by CKF method and the green solid‐line represents the SOC 
the black solid-line is the reference SOC value calculated by Coulomb counting method with accurate
estimation computed by STCKF method. From Figure 9b, it is clear that the SOC estimation error 
current values by 
calculated  andSTCKF 
initialmethod  has  a  smaller 
SOC value, the red fluctuation 
solid-line than 
is SOCestimation  error using
estimation using EKF
EKF method,
or  CKF  the
method. In order to further evaluate merits of the STCKF, the comparison of root mean square error 
blue solid-line shows SOC estimation result by CKF method and the green solid-line represents the
SOC (RMSE), maximum estimation error and execution time with different method are shown in Table 3. 
estimation computed by STCKF method. From Figure 9b, it is clear that the SOC estimation
It is shown that the RMES of EKF method and CKF method are 0.0233 and 0.0157, respectively, while 
error calculated by STCKF method has a smaller fluctuation than estimation error using EKF or CKF
the RMSE computed by STCKF method is 0.0133. The maximum errors of EKF and CKF are 6.13% 
method. In order to further evaluate merits of the STCKF, the comparison of root mean square error
and 5.28%, respectively, while that of the STCKF is only 4.17%. As shown in Table 3, execution time 
(RMSE), maximum estimation error and execution time with different method are shown in Table 3.
of EKF method and CKF method are 0.89 and 1.55 s, respectively. However, execution time of STCKF 
It is shown that the RMES of EKF method and CKF method are 0.0233 and 0.0157, respectively, while
method is 2.58 s. Therefore, it can be concluded that although the STCKF takes more computational 
the RMSE computed by STCKF method is 0.0133. The maximum errors of EKF and CKF are 6.13%
cost, it is more robust to measurement noise compared with the EKF and CKF algorithms. 
and 5.28%, respectively, while that of the STCKF is only 4.17%. As shown in Table 3, execution time
of EKF method and CKF Table 3. Comparison of SOC estimation method under NEDC test. 
method are 0.89 and 1.55 s, respectively. However, execution time of STCKF
method is 2.58 s. Therefore, it can be concluded EKF
Estimation Method that although
CKF the STCKF
STCKFtakes more computational
cost, it is more robust to measurement RMSE  noise compared 0.0233  with the EKF 0.0133 
0.0157  and CKF algorithms.
Maximum error  6.13%  5.28%  4.17% 
Table 3. Comparison of SOC estimation method under NEDC test.
Execution time  0.89 s  1.55 s  2.58 s 

Estimation Method EKF CKF STCKF

RMSE 0.0233 0.0157 0.0133
13
Maximum error 6.13% 5.28% 4.17%
Execution time 0.89 s 1.55 s 2.58 s

13469
Energies 2015, 8, 13458–13472
Energies 2015, 88, page–page 
Energies 2015, 88, page–page 

 
 
Figure 8. Random voltage noise: (a) Random noise profile; (b) Zoom plot of random noise profile. 
Figure 8. Random voltage noise: (a) Random noise profile; (b) Zoom plot of random noise profile.
Figure 8. Random voltage noise: (a) Random noise profile; (b) Zoom plot of random noise profile. 

 
 
Figure  9.  The  SOC  estimation  results  under  New  European  Driving  Cycle  (NEDC)  test:  (a)  SOC 
Figure 
Figure 9.  The 
9. The SOC 
SOC estimation 
estimation results 
results under 
under New 
New European 
European Driving  Cycle  (NEDC)
Driving Cycle (NEDC)  test:
test:  (a) 
(a) SOC 
SOC
estimation profile; (b) SOC estimation error profile. 
estimation profile; (b) SOC estimation error profile. 
estimation profile; (b) SOC estimation error profile.
6. Conclusions 
6. Conclusions 
6. Conclusions
In this paper, the STCKF algorithm is proposed for SOC estimation of lithium‐ion batteries in 
In this paper, the STCKF algorithm is proposed for SOC estimation of lithium‐ion batteries in 
EVs. InThe 
thisSTCKF 
paper, algorithm 
the STCKFis algorithm
based  on is proposed
the  cubature for SOC estimation
Kalman  filter  and  of lithium-ion
satisfies  batteries in
the  orthogonality 
EVs. 
EVs. The 
The STCKF 
STCKF algorithm 
algorithm is 
is based 
based on 
on the 
the cubature 
cubature Kalman 
Kalman filter 
filter and 
and satisfies 
satisfies the 
the orthogonality 
orthogonality
principle  by  introducing  fading  factor  to  the  state  estimation  covariance  matrix,  improving  the 
principle  by  introducing  fading  factor  to  the  state  estimation  covariance  matrix,  improving  the 
accuracy and robustness. The frequently‐used second‐order RC equivalent circuit model is selected 
accuracy and robustness. The frequently‐used second‐order RC equivalent circuit model is selected 
to describe the nonlinear dynamic behaviors of lithium‐ion batteries to realize the trade‐off between 
to describe the nonlinear dynamic behaviors of lithium‐ion batteries to realize the trade‐off between 
13470
14
14
Energies 2015, 8, 13458–13472

principle by introducing fading factor to the state estimation covariance matrix, improving the
accuracy and robustness. The frequently-used second-order RC equivalent circuit model is selected
to describe the nonlinear dynamic behaviors of lithium-ion batteries to realize the trade-off between
computation cost and accurate dynamic characteristics. The exponential-function fitting method
and sixth-order polynomial fitting are used to implement parameters identification. The Dynamic
Stress Testing with 5% initial SOC error is applied to validate performance of STCKF algorithm.
The experiment results of SOC and terminal voltage illustrate that the proposed method for SOC
estimation performs well in terms of estimation accuracy and self-correction capability to initial SOC
error. Furthermore, comparison with EKF and CKF method under NEDC cycle test with a sequence
of voltage noise reveals the good property in SOC estimation accuracy and robustness. However,
there are also some issues in the proposed method that need further investigations. Constant model
parameters are applied to obtain SOC information and the SOC dependency of the model parameters
is not studied.

Acknowledgments: This work is supported by the Shenzhen Key Laboratory of LED (light emitting diode)
Packaging Funded Project (No. NZDSY20120619141243215).
Author Contributions: Bizhong Xia and Haiqing Wang developed the essential idea behind the present research
and prepared the manuscript in the early stages. Mingwang Wang, Wei Sun, Yongzhi Lai and Zhihui Xu
established the test bench and carried out the experiments. Final review, including final manuscript corrections,
was done by Haiqing Wang.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Lu, L.; Han, X.; Li, J.; Hua, J.; Ouyang, M. A review on the key issues for lithium-ion battery management
in electric vehicles. J. Power Sources 2013, 226, 272–288. [CrossRef]
2. Lotfi, N.; Fajri, P.; Novosad, S.; Savage, J.; Landers, R.G.; Ferdowsi, M. Development of an experimental
testbed for research in lithium-ion battery management systems. Energies 2013, 6, 5231–5258. [CrossRef]
3. Ng, K.; Moo, C.S.; Chen, Y.P.; Hsieh, Y.C. Enhanced coulomb counting method for estimating
state-of-charge and state-of-health of lithium-ion batteries. Appl. Energy 2009, 86, 1506–1511. [CrossRef]
4. Lee, S.; Kim, J.; Lee, J.; Cho, B.H. State-of-charge and capacity estimation of lithium-ion battery using a new
open-circuit voltage versus state-of-charge. J. Power Sources 2008, 185, 1367–1373. [CrossRef]
5. Cheng, B.; Bai, Z.F.; Gao, B.G. State of charge estimation based on evolutionary neural network.
Energy Convers. Manag. 2008, 49, 2788–2794.
6. Charkhgard, M.; Farrokhi, M. State-of-charge estimation for lithium-ion batteries using neural networks
and EKF. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2010, 57, 4178–4187. [CrossRef]
7. Schwunk, S.; Armbruster, N.; Straub, S.; Kehl, J.; Vetter, M. Particle filter for state of charge and state of
health estimation for lithium-iron phosphate batteries. J. Power Sources 2013, 239, 705–710. [CrossRef]
8. Shao, S.; Bi, J.; Yang, F.; Guan, W. On-line estimation of state-of-charge of Li-ion batteries in electric vehicle
using the resampling particle filter. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 2014, 32, 207–217. [CrossRef]
9. Barbarisi, O.; Vasca, F.; Glielmo, L. State of charge Kalman filter estimator for automotive batteries.
Control Eng. Pract. 2006, 14, 267–275. [CrossRef]
10. Sepasi, S.; Roose, L.; Matsuura, M.M. Extended Kalman filter with afuzzy method for accurate battery pack
state of charge estimation. Energies 2015, 8, 5217–5233. [CrossRef]
11. Sepasi, S.; Ghorbani, R.; Liaw, B.Y. A novel on-board state-of-charge estimation method for aged Li-ion
batteries based on model adaptive extended Kalman filter. J. Power Sources 2014, 245, 337–344. [CrossRef]
12. Plett, G.L. Extended Kalman filtering for battery management systems of LiPB-based HEV battery packs
Part 3. State and parameter estimation. J. Power Sources 2004, 134, 277–292. [CrossRef]
13. Xiong, R.; Gong, X.; Mi, C.C. A robust state-of-charge estimator for multiple types of lithium-ion batteries
using adaptive extended Kalman filter. J. Power Sources 2013, 243, 805–816. [CrossRef]
14. Wan, E.; van der Merwe, R. The unscented Kalman filter for nonlinear estimation. In Proceedings of the
IEEE 2000 Adaptive Systems for Signal Processing, Communications, and Control Symposium, AS-SPCC,
Lake Louise, AB, Canada, 1–4 October 2000; pp. 153–158.

13471
Energies 2015, 8, 13458–13472

15. Tian, Y.; Xia, B.; Sun, W.; Xu, Z.; Zheng, W. A modified model based state of charge estimation of power
lithium-ion batteries using unscented Kalman filter. J. Power Sources 2014, 270, 619–626. [CrossRef]
16. Zhang, W.; Shi, W.; Ma, Z. Adaptive unscented Kalman filter based state of energy and power capability
estimation approach for lithium-ion battery. J. Power Sources 2015, 289, 50–62. [CrossRef]
17. Sun, F.; Hu, X.; Zou, Y.; Li, S. Adaptive unscented Kalman filtering for state of charge estimation of a
lithium-ion battery for electric vehicles. Energy 2011, 36, 3531–3540. [CrossRef]
18. Dey, S.; Ayalew, B.; Pisu, P. Adaptive observer design for a Li-ion cell based on coupled
electrochemical-thermal model. In Proceedings of the ASME Dynamic Systems and Controls Conference,
San Antonio, TX, USA, 22–24 October 2014.
19. Dey, S.; Ayalew, B.; Pisu, P. Nonlinear robust observers for state-of-charge estimation of lithium-ion cells
based on a reduced electrochemical model. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 2015, 23, 1935–1942. [CrossRef]
20. Moura, S.; Krstic, M.; Chaturvedi, N. Adaptive PDE observer for battery SOC/SOH estimation via an
electrochemical model. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 2013, 136. [CrossRef]
21. Arasaratnam, I.; Haykin, S. Cubature Kalman filters. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 2009, 56, 1254–1269.
[CrossRef]
22. Arasaratnam, I.; Haykin, S.; Hurd, T.R. Cubature Kalman filtering for continuous-discrete systems: Theory
and simulations. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 2010, 58, 4977–4993. [CrossRef]
23. Arasaratnam, I.; Haykin, S. Cubature Kalman smoothers. Automatica 2011, 47, 2245–2250. [CrossRef]
24. Dahmahi, M.; Meche, A.; Keche, M.; Oramri, A. Reduced cubature Kalman filtering applied to target
tracking. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Control, Instrumentation and Automation
(ICCIA), Shiraz, Iran, 27–29 December 2011; pp. 1097–1101.
25. Tang, X.J.; Liu, Z.B.; Zhang, J.S. Square-root quaternion cubature Kalman filtering for spacecraft attitude
estimation. Acta Astronaut. 2012, 76, 84–94. [CrossRef]
26. Hu, X.S.; Li, S.B.; Peng, H. A comparative study of equivalent circuit models for Li-ion batteries.
J. Power Sources 2012, 198, 359–367. [CrossRef]
27. Zhang, H.; Chow, M.Y. Comprehensive dynamic battery modeling for PHEV applications. In Proceedings
of the IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 25–29 July 2010; pp. 1–6.
28. Chen, M.; Rincon-Mora, G.A. Accurate electrical battery model capable of predicting runtime and I–V
performance. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 2006, 21, 504–511. [CrossRef]
29. Tian, Y.; Chen, C.R.; Xia, B.Z.; Sun, W.; Xu, Z.H.; Zheng, W.W. An adaptive gain nonlinear observer for state
of charge estimation of lithium-ion batteries in electric vehicles. Energies 2014, 7, 5995–6012. [CrossRef]
30. Schweighofer, B.; Raab, K.; Brasseur, G. Modeling of high power automotive batteries by the use of an
automated test system. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 2003, 52, 1087–1091. [CrossRef]
31. Li, D.; Ouyang, J.; Li, H.; Wan, J. State of charge estimation for LiMn2 O4 power battery based on strong
tracking sigma point Kalman filter. J. Power Sources 2015, 279, 439–449. [CrossRef]
32. Wang, D.; Zhou, D.H.; Jin, Y.H.; Qin, S.J. A strong tracking predictor for nonlinear processes with input
time delay. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2004, 28, 2523–2540. [CrossRef]
33. Xie, X.Q.; Zhou, D.H.; Jin, Y.H. Strong tracking filter based adaptive generic model control. J. Process Control
1999, 9, 337–350. [CrossRef]
34. Xia, B.; Wang, H.Q.; Tian, Y. State of charge estimation of lithium-ion batteries using an adaptive cubature
kalman filter. Energies 2015, 8, 5916–5936. [CrossRef]

© 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open
access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons by
Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

13472