International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems (IJPEDS)

Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2024, pp. 8~18

ISSN: 2088-8694, DOI: 10.11591/ijpeds.v15.i1.pp8-18  8

Estimating the state of charge of lithium-ion batteries

using different noise inputs

Anas El Maliki1, Kamal Anoune2, Abdessamad Benlafkih3, Abdelkader Hadjoudja1

1
Laboratory of Electronic Systems, Information Processing, Mechanics and Energetics, Faculty of Sciences,
University Ibn Tofail, Kenitra, Morocco
2
SmartiLab EMSI, Honoris United Universities, Rabat, Morocco
3
Advanced Systems Engineering Laboratory, National School of Applied Sciences, Ibn Tofail University, Kenitra, Morocco

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: State of charge estimation (SOC) is the most significant functionality of a
vehicle's battery management system (BMS). The methods for this
Received Mar 13, 2023 estimation are conventionally oriented towards model-based methods. As
Revised Jul 13, 2023 part of this paper, we introduce a first order equivalent circuit estimation
Accepted Aug 9, 2023 approach known as the Thevenin model, along with an extended Kalman
filter (EKF) approach to accurately estimate the SOC. We then deploy and
simulate it in MATLAB by using a reference load profile from the new
Keywords: European driving cycle (NEDC). Afterwards, the simulation results are
reviewed based on various initial noise values, and the results are compared
Energy storage to those of other EKF algorithms. According to the results, SOC estimation
Equivalent circuit model accuracy has significantly increased as a result of the improvements made.
Extended Kalman filter Specifically, the root-mean-square error decreased from 0.0068 to 0.0020.
Lithium-ion battery
State of charge estimation This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Anas El Maliki
Laboratory of Electronic Systems, Information Processing, Mechanics and Energetics
Faculty of Sciences, University Ibn Tofail
Kenitra, Morocco
Email: [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION
With the growth of public demand and government support, technological development strongly
encouraged the use of electric vehicles. Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) are drawing more research interest due
to their environmental friendliness, higher energy density, higher power output, and longer lifespan [1], [2].
Vehicles that are powered by new energy sources are commonly equipped with LIBs. Therefore, obtaining an
accurate battery state of charge (SOC) estimate becomes a challenging task for safe battery operation [3], [4].
The estimation of the SOC inside the battery management system (BMS) has the potential to enhance both
the reliability and efficiency of the system. However, estimating SOC is significantly influenced by
complicated factors related to self-discharge, discharge current, and battery aging, which leads to an
imprecise estimation of SOC [5].
Currently, several approaches have emerged to estimate battery SOC. In general, the ampere-hour
know as AH method is commonly employed because of its ease of implementation [6]. However, in practical
application, this method is susceptible to errors caused by noise and random interference which tend to
accumulate. As a result, various model-based algorithms have been proposed to correct those random errors.
The model-based methods provide a consistent performing method, like an equivalent circuit model,
such as employing an equivalent circuit model in combination with state estimation computations. Among
these methods, the Kalman filter is the commonly employed model. Nevertheless, the linear Kalman filter

Journal homepage: http://ijpeds.iaescore.com

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  9

(LKF) [7], [8] an only be applied to simple linear systems. To address nonlinear system applications, recent
research has led to the development of extensions to the Kalman filter. In particular, the extended Kalman
filter (EKF) [9], unscented Kalman filter (UKF) [10], and cubature Kalman filter (CKF) [11]. Utilizing the
EKF can reduce the time to convergence in SOC estimation, yet it amplifies the computing burden on the
battery management system (BMS) [12]. Fang et al. [13] suggested an iterative EKF method to estimate the
SOC, which has shown improvements. However, the algorithm's robustness is limited when identifying and
updating parameters such as battery capacity or internal resistance. Xiong et al. [14] employed an EKF
approach to assess the SOC in a vanadium redox flow battery. The method uses measurement of applied
currents and terminal voltages to predict the SOC, achieving a maximum error of 5.5% in SOC estimation.
Sun et al. [15] and Tian et al. [16] proposed a novel approach to improve the accuracy of SOC estimation by
integrating the first-order resistor-capacitor (RC) equivalent model with the EKF. They reported that this
approach reduced the root mean square error (RMSE) of SOC estimation by 43.34 while only slightly
increasing computational time by 4.59%.
The assessment of the EKF performance depends roughly on the key parameters Q and R, indeed
Wang et al. [17] and Zhao et al. [18] show that picking these values provide a big challenge as the
determination of the noise remains random and difficult. However, these values impact significantly on the
estimation error and the convergence rate of the EKF process. The major contribution of this paper is to
evaluate how the Q and R matrices influence the EKF estimation.
In this work, we proposed a method for estimating SOC using an extended Kalman filter in
combination with the Thevenin battery model. Additionally, we present and discuss the implementation of
the EKF using the MATLAB software. Moreover, we utilize the new European driving cycle (NEDC) [19] as
a load profile for online SOC estimation. The organization of this paper is as follows: i) Section 2 provides
details of the mathematical modeling of the Lithium-ion battery and its parameter identification method used;
ii) Followed by a demonstration of the state-of-charge estimation method employed; iii) Section 3 presents
the proposed method deployed on a MATLAB Simulink program, along with a discussion of the simulation
data; iv) In section 4, we discuss the results obtained from the previous section; and v) Section 5 presents the
conclusion.

2. MATHEMATICAL MODEL
2.1. Lithium-ion battery model
The most common battery models are electrochemical models (EM) and equivalent circuit models
(ECM). An electrochemical model can be used to characterize external characteristics as well as to simulate
changes in distribution and internal characteristics. Any physical meaning that can be attributed to a process
can be represented by these changes. Nonetheless, since the electrochemical parameters and partial
differential equations require considerable amounts of computation, electrochemical models are not
commonly used in practice to assess the reliability of estimates of SOC. Equivalent circuit models, on the
other hand, are more widely used for this purpose.
An equivalent circuit model represents a battery's external properties using hardware circuit
elements like capacitors, resistors, and current loads. Due to their ease of use, these models are widely used
to simulate battery performance. One of the most popular equivalent circuit models used is Thevenin model.
Thevenin model shown in Figure 1 consists of voltage source a parallel RC circuit and a rint model. The
main concept behind using Thevenin model is to characterize the battery's behavior by representing it with an
equivalent resistance in series and a voltage source. The Thevenin model allows for better characterization of
the dynamic properties of the battery compared to simpler models like rint model.

Figure 1. Thevenin battery model

Estimating the state of charge of lithium-ion batteries using different noise inputs (Anas El Maliki)
10  ISSN: 2088-8694

In Figure, the terminal voltage and ohmic voltage are represented by 𝑈𝐿 and 𝑈𝑅 respectively. Here,
𝑅0 stands for the internal resistance. The resistor-capacitor circuit, commonly referred to as the RC circuit,
comprises both polarization resistance 𝑅𝑝 and the polarization capacitance 𝐶𝑝 . This circuit is utilized to
illustrate the polarization effect exhibited by Li-ion batteries, with 𝑈𝑝 indicating the polarization voltage. The
Thevenin battery model equations are defined as (1), employing Kirchhoff's law for their derivation.

𝑈𝐿 = 𝑈𝑜𝑐 − 𝐼𝑅0 − 𝑈𝑝
{ ̇ 1 1 (1)
𝑈𝑝 = − 𝑈𝑝 + 𝐼
𝐶𝑝 𝑅𝑝 𝐶𝑝

2.2. Parameter identification

In this subsection, the hybrid pulse power characterization (HPPC) test and the recursive least square
with forgetting factor (FFRLS) algorithms are conceived for the estimation of online battery parameters. The
HPPC test is commonly used to determine the OCV-SOC relation. However, the test also provides a way to
identify the parameter values from the ECM model which is derived from the offline parameter identification
method [20], [21]. For performing the HPPC test, the outlined steps in Table 1, must be followed.

Table 1. HPPC test steps

Step The test steps
Step 1 Keep the battery cell in a temperature control at 25 °C for four hours
Step 2 Load the cell with a constant current 1 C up to 4.2 V, then switch to a constant voltage 4.2 V until the current ≤ 0.05 C
Step 3 Give the cell a one hour rest
Step 4 Unload the cell with a current 1 C until 90% SOC. Wait until 1 hour, then discharge the cell at a current of 3 C for 10 s,
put the cell to rest for 30s, then load it with a current 2.25 C for 10 s
Step 5 Now perform the same steps 4) for various SOC (80%, 70%..., 10%)

As a result, we adopt a sextic polynomial as a fit to the relation. Using 𝑘0 ~𝑘6 as a constants, as (2).

𝑉𝑜𝑐𝑣 = 𝑘0 + 𝑘1 𝑆𝑜𝑐 + 𝑘2 𝑆𝑜𝑐 2 + 𝑘3 𝑆𝑜𝑐 3 + 𝑘4 𝑆𝑜𝑐 4 + 𝑘5 𝑆𝑜𝑐 5 + 𝑘6 𝑆𝑜𝑐 6 (2)

On the other hand, the FFRLS is employed to determine the battery parameters. Generally, recursive least
square (RLS) algorithms are derived from the least square (LS) algorithm, and the basic principle is given by
(3). Based on the Thevenin model described in Figure 1, the transfer function of the battery impedance is
given by the following electrical equation with respect to the Laplace domain as (3).

𝑈(𝑠)−𝑈𝑜𝑐 (𝑠) 𝑅𝑝
𝐺(𝑠) = = − (𝑅0 + ) (3)
𝐼(𝑠) 1+𝑅𝑝 𝐶𝑝 𝑠

A bilinear transformation is used to map as (3) to the Z plane. The transformation is represented
as (4).

𝑎2 +𝑎3 𝑧 −1
𝐺(𝑠) = (4)
1−𝑎1 𝑧 −1

The model parameters can be obtained as (5).

∆𝑡−2𝑅𝑝 𝐶𝑝
𝑎1 =
∆𝑡+2𝑅𝑝 𝐶𝑝
𝑅0 ∆𝑡+𝑅𝑝 ∆𝑡+2𝑅0 𝑅𝑝 ∆𝑡
𝑎2 = (5)
∆𝑡+2𝑅𝑝 𝐶𝑝
𝑅0 ∆𝑡+𝑅𝑝 ∆𝑡−2𝑅0 𝑅𝑝 ∆𝑡
𝑎3 =
{ ∆𝑡+2𝑅𝑝 𝐶𝑝

𝑎2 −𝑎3
𝑅0 =
1−𝑎1
𝑎2 +𝑎3 𝑎2 −𝑎3
𝑅𝑝 = − (6)
1+𝑎1 1−𝑎1
(1−𝑎1 )∆𝑡
𝐶𝑝 =
{ 2(1−𝑎1 )𝑅𝑝

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2024: 8-18
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  11

2.3. State of charge estimation methods by EKF

As a standard method of estimating the battery's system of cells, we commonly use the EKF method.
Due to its model of a nonlinear system, its approximation can accurately estimate system states across a wide
range of operations [22]. Using the EKF, you get first-order polynomial accuracy where both quadratic and
higher order terms are discarded. In addition to improving the algorithm's ability to handle nonlinear systems,
EKF also adds flexibility to the algorithm, further improvements are needed to handle complex state
monitoring problems in practical applications such as Li-ion batteries.
In the scenario of estimating SOC with an extended Kalman filter, the linear equation for the state-
space model is requested at every time point near the latest estimation of SOC. To implement the EKF
equations, the battery model must first be obtained. The input signal in this case is the charge/discharge
current while the output is the voltage of the battery. The discrete state-space battery model equation for a
nonlinear system can be as (7).

𝑥𝑘+1 = 𝑓(𝑥𝑘 , 𝑢𝑘 ) + 𝑑𝑘
(7)
𝑦𝑘 = 𝑔(𝑥𝑘 , 𝑢𝑘 ) + 𝑠𝑘

Let 𝑓(𝑥𝑘 , 𝑢𝑘 ) represent the nonlinear state transition function, and 𝑔(𝑥𝑘 , 𝑢𝑘 ) denote the nonlinear
measurement function. Taking into account both the state equation and measurement noise, we can express
(7) as (8).

𝑥𝑘+1 = 𝐴̂𝑘 𝑥𝑘 + 𝑓(𝑥̂𝑘 , 𝑢𝑘 ) − 𝐴̂𝑘 𝑥̂𝑘 + 𝑑𝑘

(8)
𝑦𝑘 = 𝐶̂𝑘 𝑥𝑘 + 𝑔(𝑥̂𝑘 , 𝑢𝑘 ) − 𝐶̂𝑘 𝑥̂𝑘 + 𝑠𝑘

The state along with the output, is predicted via nonlinear battery models. At time step 𝑘, the
nonlinear battery model is linearized through the predicted state 𝑥̂𝑘− to obtain the matrices 𝐴̂𝑘 , 𝐵̂𝑘 , and 𝐶̂𝑘 .
These matrices are used when calculating and updating the covariance matrix of the state estimation errors
and Kalman gain. This process leads to the main purpose of predicting 𝑥̂𝑘− and 𝑃𝑘− ,

𝑥̂𝑘− = 𝐴𝑥̂𝑘−1
+
+ 𝐵𝑢𝑘−1 + 𝑤𝑘 (9)

𝑃𝑘− = 𝐴𝑃𝑘−1 𝐴𝑇 + 𝑄 (10)

and the update process is as (11), (12), and (13).

𝐾𝑘 = 𝑃𝑘 𝐶(𝐶𝑃𝑘− 𝐶 𝑇 + 𝑅) (11)

𝑥̂𝑘+ = 𝑥̂𝑘− + 𝐾𝑘 (𝑦𝑘 − 𝐶𝑥̂𝑘− − 𝐷) (12)

𝑃𝑘+ = 𝑃𝑘− (𝐼 − 𝐾𝑘 𝐶) (13)

Where 𝐾𝑘 represents the Kalman gain vector, R is the covariance matrix of the zero-mean Gaussian
measurement noise 𝑣𝑘 , Q is the covariance matrix of the zero-mean Gaussian process noise 𝑤𝑘 , and 𝑃𝑘 is the
covariance matrix of the state estimation error.

3. METHOD
The proposed model consists of three parts, as illustrated in Figure 2. The first part is the data input,
where the input data is initialized. The FFRLS algorithm and the HPPC test are considered to determine the
initial values for variables 𝑘0 to 𝑘6 and (𝑅0 , 𝑅𝑝 , 𝐶𝑝 ) in the system. These values play a crucial role in
predicting the load state. Moving on to the second part, known as the Thevenin model, it involves two sub-
steps. In step A, the model estimates certain parameters. Then, in step B, the SOC-OCV calculation is
performed, which estimates the terminal voltage defined by (1). The third part is the SOC estimation, where
the EKF algorithm is utilized. This estimation process comprises two steps. First, the model calculates the
predicted state and current state. Next, the process incorporates initial noises Q and R as inputs. Finally, the
state filter determines the resulting estimated SOC value. Notably, the proposed MATLAB model's current
profile is derived from the new European driving cycle (NEDC) [23]. These three interconnected parts work
together to predict and estimate various parameters and the state of charge in the system under study.

Estimating the state of charge of lithium-ion batteries using different noise inputs (Anas El Maliki)
12  ISSN: 2088-8694

Start

Input values FFRLS

HPPC test Identification

State Of
Battery load
Charge

Thevenin Model
VL ( t ) = Vocv − R p iRp ( t ) − R0i ( t )
diRp ( t ) 1 1
=− iR ( t ) + i (t )
dt RpC p p RpC p
Thevenin Model

Extended Kalman Filter

Input Noise : Q, R
Extended Kalman Filter Algorithm
SoCupd
EKF Estimation

Figure 2. Flowchart of the proposed method

The NEDC current profile illustrated in Figure 3 has been used to construct the simulation of the
battery using the proposed model. Based on the key parameters on both Tables 2 and 3, Figure 4 presents
Thevenin model estimation of terminal voltage. Additionally, Figure 5 demonstrates the empirical model for
estimating the state of charge. The HPPC test is conducted to gain the connection between OCV and SOC.
The results obtained are fitted via a sixth-order polynomial with 𝑘0~6 shown at Table 2 [24]. The system
parameter identification is employed to obtain the parameter of the model on the basis of the SOC-OCV
curve. Here the result of the parameters based on the FFRLS function is given in Table 3 [25].
Although the EKF estimation is adopted to estimate the SOC, their initial values of the Kalman
parameters are determined as (14).

𝑃0 = [1𝑒
−1
0 ], 𝑄 = [Qa 0
] = [2𝑒
−8
0 ], 𝑅 = 2𝑒 −1 (14)
0 1𝑒 −1 0 Qb 0 5𝑒 −3
In accordance with (14), those values can be considered inputs to the EKF algorithm, as can be seen in
Figure 6, which shows a comparison between the AH empirical method and the EKF SOC estimation of the
NEDC test profile load for an electric vehicle, as well as Figure 7, which shows the respective errors of the
methods.

Figure 3. New European driving cycle (NEDC) load profile

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2024: 8-18
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  13

Table 2. OCV-SOC fitting results at 25 °C Table 3. Model parameters at 25 °C

𝑘0 𝑘1 𝑘2 𝑘3 𝑘4 𝑘5 𝑘6 𝑅0 (Ω) 𝑅𝑃 (Ω) 𝐶𝑃 (𝐹)
3.353 2.478 −9.902 19.01 −14.44 2.351 1.319 0.0703 0.0481 750.6747

Figure 4. Terminal voltage using Thevenin model

Figure 5. SOC Estimation using ampere-hour method

Figure 6. SOC Estimation results of the Figure 7. SOC Estimation error results of the
proposed model proposed model

4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

This section utilizes MATLAB/Simulink simulations to evaluate the proposed model under various
parameters of the covariance matrix and compares it to the empirical ampere-hour (AH) model. According to

Estimating the state of charge of lithium-ion batteries using different noise inputs (Anas El Maliki)
14  ISSN: 2088-8694

the proposed model, SOC results are influenced by three key parameters: i) Qa, ii) Qb, and iii) R.
Additionally, two other parameters X and Y have a direct effect on these three key parameters. This
relationship can be expressed as 𝑄𝑎 = 𝑋𝑒 −𝑌 , and similarly for Qb and R, and vice versa.

4.1. Case 1: variation of Qa and Qb input noise parameters

In this case, the SOC was estimated using a parametric study. The R parameter is kept constant with
a value of 𝑅 = 2𝑒 −1 . To vary the input noise parameters, we use 𝑄𝑎 = 𝑋𝑒 −𝑌 and 𝑄𝑏 = 𝑋𝑒 −𝑌 , where X and
Y are subparameters that can be adjusted independently. The simulation of the EKF estimation using these
parameters was performed under the NEDC load profile. The research aimed to evaluate the performance of
the conventional EKF algorithm in estimating SOC for a specific system. The obtained results were presented
in Figures 8 and 9, using the input values specified in Table 4. The analysis included comparisons between
the estimated SOC values, as well as the corresponding errors introduced by the EKF algorithm.
To investigate the impact of the Y factor we conducted a comprehensive analysis by varying its
values from 1 to 6. The results of this study were quite promising, as we observed in both Figures 8 and 9 a
remarkable reduction in the maximum SOC estimation error. Initially recorded at 0.9778%, the error
decreased significantly to 0.8971% as we made adjustments to the Y factor. This improvement in accuracy
was further validated by a corresponding reduction in the RMSE, which dropped from 0.0075 to 0.0068.
These findings demonstrate a substantial enhancement in the SOC estimation precision, underscoring the
significance of the Y factor in refining the algorithm's performance.

Table 4. RMSE of SOC estimation under various Qa and Qb sub-parameters

Sub parameter X Sub parameter Y
X1 X2 Y1 Y2
𝑄𝑎 = 𝑋𝑒 −𝑌 1𝑒 −8 6𝑒 −8 2𝑒 −1 2𝑒 −6
𝑄𝑏 = 𝑋𝑒 −𝑌 1𝑒 −3 6𝑒 −3 5𝑒 −1 5𝑒 −6
RMSE of EKF 0.0068 0.0068 0.0075 0.0068

Figure 8. SOC estimation results under varied sub- Figure 9. SOC estimation error results under varied
parameters X and Y of Qa & Qb sub-parameters X and Y of Qa & Qb

4.2. Case 2: variation of Qa input noise parameters

In this study, we estimation the SOC using a parametric study. The objective was to systematically
investigate the system's behavior over a range of input parameters. For this example, we kept the parameters
𝑄𝑏 = 5𝑒 −3 and 𝑅 = 2𝑒 −1 constant, while we varied the parameters X and Y of 𝑄𝑎 according to 𝑄𝑎 = 𝑋𝑒 −𝑌 .
Based on the input values specified in Table 5, we simulated the EKF estimation under the NEDS load
profile. Figures 10 and 11 present the results obtained.
In this study, Figure 10 shows the measured and estimated SOC based on the input values provided
in Table 5. Additionally, Figure 11 show the corresponding SOC errors. By comparing these results with
other algorithms, it is evident that this algorithm produces a large error when 𝑄𝑎 = 2𝑒 −1 . However, by
varying the Y factor between 1 and 4, we found that the maximum SOC estimation error was reduced from
1.8826% to 0.8856%, and the RMSE was reduced from 0.0140 to 0.0068.

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2024: 8-18
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  15

Table 5. RMSE of SOC estimation under different Qa sub-parameters

Sub parameter X Sub parameter Y
X1 X2 Y1 Y2
𝑄𝑎 = 𝑋𝑒 −𝑌 1𝑒 −8 6𝑒 −8 2𝑒 −1 2𝑒 −4
RMSE of EKF 0.0068 0.0068 0.0140 0.0068

Figure 10. SOC estimation results under varied sub- Figure 11. SOC estimation error results under varied
parameters X and Y of Qa sub-parameters X and Y of Qa

4.3. Case 3: variation of Qb input noise parameters

Through a parametric study, an estimation of SOC was performed. In the following example, the
𝑄𝑎 = 2𝑒 −8 and 𝑅 = 2𝑒 −1 parameter are kept constant, while X and Y sub parameters of 𝑄𝑏 = 𝑋𝑒 −𝑌 is
varied. Using the parameters specified in Table 6, we simulated EKF estimation under the NEDS load
profile. The results obtained are presented in Figures 12 and 13.

Table 6. RMSE of SOC estimation under different Qb sub-parameters

Sub parameter X Sub parameter Y
X1 X2 Y1 Y2
𝑄𝑏 = 𝑋𝑒 −𝑌 1𝑒 −3 6𝑒 −3 5𝑒 −1 5𝑒 −6
RMSE of EKF 0.0068 0.0067 0.0030 0.0068

Figure 12. SOC estimation results under varied sub- Figure 13. SOC estimation Error results under varied
parameters X and Y of Qb sub-parameters X and Y of Qb

Estimating the state of charge of lithium-ion batteries using different noise inputs (Anas El Maliki)
16  ISSN: 2088-8694

According to Table 6, Figures 12 and 13 shows the measured and estimated SOC, along with the
errors resulting from the conventional EKF algorithm. With 𝑄𝑏 = 5𝑒 −1 , this algorithm induces a very small
error in comparison with other EKF algorithms. As a result of the Y factor being varied from 6 to 1, the
maximum SOC estimation error has decreased from 0.8970% to 0.4554%, while the RMSE has decreased
from 0.0068 to 0.0030.

4.4. Case 4: variation of R input noise parameters

A parametric study was conducted to estimate the SOC using the EKF method. In the following
example, we kept the parameters 𝑄𝑎 = 2𝑒 −8 and 𝑄𝑏 = 5𝑒 −1 constant while varying the sub-parameters X
and Y of 𝑅 = 𝑋𝑒 −𝑌 . These parameters were used as inputs in Table 7 to simulate the EKF estimation under a
specific load profile known as the NEDS load profile. The results are shown in Figures 14 and 15.
The provided data in Table 7 serves as input values for the EKF algorithm, which is then illustrated
in Figures 14 and 15. These figures represent both the measured and estimated SOC values, as well as the
conventional EKF errors used for system evaluation. In comparison to other algorithms, this particular EKF
algorithm shows a higher error of 0.5652% for 𝑅 = 5𝑒 −1 . However, the error reduces significantly when the
X factor is varied between 1 and 7. Specifically, the maximum error associated with SOC estimation
decreases from 0.5051% to 0.3082%, and the RMSE reduces from 0.0034 to 0.0020. This improvement
indicates the effectiveness of the EKF algorithm as the X factor is adjusted.

Table 7. RMSE of SOC estimation under different R sub-parameters

Sub parameter X Sub parameter Y
X1 X2 Y1 Y2
𝑅 = 𝑋𝑒 −𝑌 1𝑒 −1 7𝑒 −1 2𝑒 −4 2𝑒 −8
RMSE of EKF 0.0034 0.0020 0.0039 0.0039

Figure 14. SOC estimation results under varied sub- Figure 15. SOC estimation Error results under varied
parameters X and Y of R sub-parameters X and Y of R

5. CONCLUSION
To enhance the SOC estimation method's accuracy, we utilized the Thevenin model with an
extended Kalman filter. Additionally, we introduced the new European driving cycle (NEDC) for testing
purposes. The simulated data results demonstrate that our proposed model can predict SOC with a root mean
square error (RMSE) of approximately 0.68%. During the implementation of the EKF algorithm, During the
implementation of the EKF algorithm, we observed that the initial noise values of both the process
covariance matrix Q and the measurement noise covariance matrix R significantly affect the state estimation
process. To analyze this effect, we varied the initial noise matrices (Q and R) in MATLAB/Simulink. The
comparative results indicate that the SOC estimation accuracy was notably improved, reducing the maximum
SOC estimation error from 1.8826% to 0.3082%, and the RMSE from 0.0140 (1.4%) to 0.0020 (0.2%).

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2024: 8-18
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  17

REFERENCES
[1] P. Shrivastava, T. K. Soon, M. Y. I. Bin Idris, and S. Mekhilef, “Overview of model-based online state-of-charge estimation using
Kalman filter family for lithium-ion batteries,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 113, p. 109233, Oct. 2019, doi:
10.1016/j.rser.2019.06.040.
[2] F. Yang, Y. Xing, D. Wang, and K.-L. Tsui, “A comparative study of three model-based algorithms for estimating state-of-charge
of lithium-ion batteries under a new combined dynamic loading profile,” Applied Energy, vol. 164, pp. 387–399, Feb. 2016, doi:
10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.11.072.
[3] X. Xu, D. Wu, L. Yang, H. Zhang, and G. Liu, “State Estimation of Lithium Batteries for Energy Storage Based on Dual
Extended Kalman Filter,” Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2020, pp. 1–11, Apr. 2020, doi: 10.1155/2020/6096834.
[4] Y. Lin, X. Xu, F. Wang, and Q. Xu, “Active equalization control strategy of charge estimation of an electrochemical‐thermal
coupling model,” International Journal of Energy Research, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 3778–3789, Apr. 2020, doi: 10.1002/er.5166.
[5] C. Jin, “Brief Talk about Lithium-ion Batteries’ Safety and Influencing Factors,” IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and
Engineering, vol. 274, p. 012152, Dec. 2017, doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/274/1/012152.
[6] K. Movassagh, A. Raihan, B. Balasingam, and K. Pattipati, “A Critical Look at Coulomb Counting Approach for State of Charge
Estimation in Batteries,” Energies, vol. 14, no. 14, p. 4074, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.3390/en14144074.
[7] P. Manoharan, M. R, K. K, and S. R, “SoC Estimation and Monitoring of Li-ion Cell using Kalman-Filter Algorithm,” Indonesian
Journal of Electrical Engineering and Informatics (IJEEI), vol. 6, no. 4, p. 548, Dec. 2018, doi: 10.52549/ijeei.v6i4.548.
[8] J. Dou et al., “Extreme learning machine model for state-of-charge estimation of lithium-ion battery using salp swarm algorithm,”
Journal of Energy Storage, vol. 52, p. 104996, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.est.2022.104996.
[9] P. Venegas, D. Gómez, M. Arrinda, M. Oyarbide, H. Macicior, and A. Bermúdez, “Kalman filter and classical Preisach hysteresis
model applied to the state of charge battery estimation,” Computers & Mathematics with Applications, vol. 118, pp. 74–84, Jul.
2022, doi: 10.1016/j.camwa.2022.05.009.
[10] Y. Tian, B. Xia, W. Sun, Z. Xu, and W. Zheng, “A modified model based state of charge estimation of power lithium-ion batteries using
unscented Kalman filter,” Journal of Power Sources, vol. 270, pp. 619–626, Dec. 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.07.143.
[11] J. Luo, J. Peng, and H. He, “Lithium-ion battery SOC estimation study based on Cubature Kalman filter,” Energy Procedia, vol.
158, pp. 3421–3426, Feb. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2019.01.933.
[12] B. Li and C. Hu, “Multifunctional Estimation and Analysis of Lithium-Ion Battery State Based on Data Model Fusion under Multiple
Constraints,” Journal of The Electrochemical Society, vol. 169, no. 11, p. 110548, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.1149/1945-7111/aca2ee.
[13] H. Fang, Y. Wang, Z. Sahinoglu, T. Wada, and S. Hara, “State of charge estimation for lithium-ion batteries: An adaptive
approach,” Control Engineering Practice, vol. 25, pp. 45–54, Apr. 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.conengprac.2013.12.006.
[14] B. Xiong, J. Zhao, Z. Wei, and M. Skyllas-Kazacos, “Extended Kalman filter method for state of charge estimation of vanadium
redox flow battery using thermal-dependent electrical model,” Journal of Power Sources, vol. 262, pp. 50–61, Sep. 2014, doi:
10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.03.110.
[15] D. Sun et al., “State of charge estimation for lithium-ion battery based on an Intelligent Adaptive Extended Kalman Filter with
improved noise estimator,” Energy, vol. 214, p. 119025, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2020.119025.
[16] X. Sun, X. Tang, X. Tian, J. Wu, and J. Zhu, “Position Sensorless Control of Switched Reluctance Motor Drives Based on a New
Sliding Mode Observer Using Fourier Flux Linkage Model,” IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 978–
988, 2022, doi: 10.1109/TEC.2021.3125494.
[17] W. Wang and J. Mu, “State of Charge Estimation for Lithium-Ion Battery in Electric Vehicle Based on Kalman Filter Considering
Model Error,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 29223–29235, 2019, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2895377.
[18] L. Zhao, D. J. Thrimawithana, and U. K. Madawala, “Hybrid Bidirectional Wireless EV Charging System Tolerant to Pad
Misalignment,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 64, no. 9, pp. 7079–7086, 2017, doi: 10.1109/TIE.2017.2686301.
[19] J. Chen, X. Feng, L. Jiang, and Q. Zhu, “State of charge estimation of lithium-ion battery using denoising autoencoder and gated
recurrent unit recurrent neural network,” Energy, vol. 227, p. 120451, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2021.120451.
[20] Y. Wang et al., “A comprehensive review of battery modeling and state estimation approaches for advanced battery management
systems,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 131, p. 110015, Oct. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2020.110015.
[21] J. C. D. Mushini, K. Rana, and M. S. Aspalli, “Analysis of open circuit voltage and state of charge of high power lithium ion
battery,” International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems (IJPEDS), vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 657–664, Jun. 2022, doi:
10.11591/ijpeds.v13.i2.pp657-664.
[22] R. P. Priya, S. R, and R. Sakile, “State of charge estimation of lithium‐ion battery based on extended Kalman filter and unscented
Kalman filter techniques,” Energy Storage, vol. 5, no. 3, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.1002/est2.408.
[23] X. Lai, D. Qiao, Y. Zheng, and L. Zhou, “A Fuzzy State-of-Charge Estimation Algorithm Combining Ampere-Hour and an
Extended Kalman Filter for Li-Ion Batteries Based on Multi-Model Global Identification,” Applied Sciences, vol. 8, no. 11, p.
2028, Oct. 2018, doi: 10.3390/app8112028.
[24] Z. He et al., “State-of-charge estimation of lithium ion batteries based on adaptive iterative extended Kalman filter,” Journal of
Energy Storage, vol. 39, p. 102593, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.est.2021.102593.
[25] R. Xiao, Y. Hu, X. Jia, and G. Chen, “A novel estimation of state of charge for the lithium-ion battery in electric vehicle without
open circuit voltage experiment,” Energy, vol. 243, p. 123072, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2021.123072.

BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS

Anas El Maliki received a B.S. degree in fundamental physics studies from

Mohammed V University of Rabat in 2014 and an M.S. degree in physics and new technology
from Hassan II University of Casablanca in 2017. He is currently working toward a Ph.D.
degree in energy storage and sustainable energy at Ibn Tofail University, Kenitra. He can be
contacted at email: [email protected].

Estimating the state of charge of lithium-ion batteries using different noise inputs (Anas El Maliki)
18  ISSN: 2088-8694

Kamal Anoune is currently a Research Professor at EMSI-Rabat, Honoris United

Universities, he received his state engineering degree in electrical engineering in 2012, after he
launched his start-up specializing in automation and renewable energy, his passion for
knowledge in R&D led him to rejoint university in 2015 and obtained his Ph.D. degree in 2020
related to sizing-optimization of PV-wind-battery based micro-grid system. His current works
are focused in smart grid, energy auditing, green hydrogen, and energy management
opportunities. He can be contacted at email: [email protected].

Abdessamad Benlafkih received the B.S. and M.S. degrees, from the University
of Sciences Dhar El Mehraz Fez, In 1997 and 2003, respectively, and the Ph.D. degree in
electrical engineering from the University Ibn Tofail Kenitra in 2015. He was a teacher in the
secondary cycle from 2004 to 2020. In 2020, he has been a Professor of Electrical Power
Engineering at University Ibn Tofail Kenitra Morocco. He can be contacted at email:
[email protected]

Abdelkader Hadjoudja was an engineer and was awarded a doctorate in

microelectronic by the National Polytechnic Institute of Grenoble, France, in 1997. He worked
for 6 years as PLD Leader Engineer Software in Atmel, Grenoble, France, and as a consultant
within design and reuse. Since July 2010, he has been a full Professor of Electronics at Ibn
Tofail University, Kenitra. He can be contacted at email: [email protected].

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2024: 8-18