IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/appene/v378y2025ipas0306261924021408.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Methodology for comparative assessment of battery technologies: Experimental design, modeling, performance indicators and validation with four technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Irujo, Elisa
  • Berrueta, Alberto
  • Sanchis, Pablo
  • Ursúa, Alfredo

Abstract

An increasing number of applications with diverse requirements incorporate various battery technologies. Selecting the most suitable battery technology becomes a tedious task as several aspects need to be taken into account. Two of the key aspects are the battery characteristics under temperature variations and their degradation. While numerous contributions using tailored assessment methods to evaluate both aspects for a particular application exist in the literature, a general methodology for analysis is necessary to enable a quantitative comparison between different technologies. We propose in this paper a novel methodology, based on performance indicators, to quantify the potential and limitations of a battery technology for diverse applications sharing a similar operational profile. A quantification of phenomena such as the influence of high and low temperatures on the battery, or the effect of cycling and state of charge on battery aging is obtained. In pursuit of these indicators, an experimental procedure and the fitting of aging model parameters that allow their calculation are proposed. As an additional outcome of this work, a general aging model that allows comprehensive analysis of aging behavior is developed and the trade-off between experimental time and accuracy is analyzed to find an optimal experimental time between 2 and 4 months, depending on the studied battery technology. Finally, the proposed methodology is applied to four battery technologies in order to show its potential in a real case-study.

Suggested Citation

  • Irujo, Elisa & Berrueta, Alberto & Sanchis, Pablo & Ursúa, Alfredo, 2025. "Methodology for comparative assessment of battery technologies: Experimental design, modeling, performance indicators and validation with four technologies," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 378(PA).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:378:y:2025:i:pa:s0306261924021408
    DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.124757
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261924021408
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.124757?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. de Hoog, Joris & Timmermans, Jean-Marc & Ioan-Stroe, Daniel & Swierczynski, Maciej & Jaguemont, Joris & Goutam, Shovon & Omar, Noshin & Van Mierlo, Joeri & Van Den Bossche, Peter, 2017. "Combined cycling and calendar capacity fade modeling of a Nickel-Manganese-Cobalt Oxide Cell with real-life profile validation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 47-61.
    2. Lalinde, Iñaki & Berrueta, Alberto & Arza, Joseba & Sanchis, Pablo & Ursúa, Alfredo, 2024. "On the characterization of lithium-ion batteries under overtemperature and overcharge conditions: Identification of abuse areas and experimental validation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 354(PB).
    3. Jarnut, Marcin & Wermiński, Szymon & Waśkowicz, Bartosz, 2017. "Comparative analysis of selected energy storage technologies for prosumer-owned microgrids," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 925-937.
    4. Omar, Noshin & Monem, Mohamed Abdel & Firouz, Yousef & Salminen, Justin & Smekens, Jelle & Hegazy, Omar & Gaulous, Hamid & Mulder, Grietus & Van den Bossche, Peter & Coosemans, Thierry & Van Mierlo, J, 2014. "Lithium iron phosphate based battery – Assessment of the aging parameters and development of cycle life model," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 1575-1585.
    5. Lam, Dylon Hao Cheng & Lim, Yun Seng & Wong, Jianhui & Allahham, Adib & Patsios, Charalampos, 2023. "A novel characteristic-based degradation model of Li-ion batteries for maximum financial benefits of energy storage system during peak demand reductions," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 343(C).
    6. Sarasketa-Zabala, E. & Martinez-Laserna, E. & Berecibar, M. & Gandiaga, I. & Rodriguez-Martinez, L.M. & Villarreal, I., 2016. "Realistic lifetime prediction approach for Li-ion batteries," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 839-852.
    7. Borgonovo, Emanuele & Plischke, Elmar, 2016. "Sensitivity analysis: A review of recent advances," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 248(3), pages 869-887.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Khaleghi, Sahar & Karimi, Danial & Beheshti, S. Hamidreza & Hosen, Md. Sazzad & Behi, Hamidreza & Berecibar, Maitane & Van Mierlo, Joeri, 2021. "Online health diagnosis of lithium-ion batteries based on nonlinear autoregressive neural network," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 282(PA).
    2. Li, Yi & Liu, Kailong & Foley, Aoife M. & Zülke, Alana & Berecibar, Maitane & Nanini-Maury, Elise & Van Mierlo, Joeri & Hoster, Harry E., 2019. "Data-driven health estimation and lifetime prediction of lithium-ion batteries: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 1-1.
    3. Ma, Jian & Xu, Shu & Shang, Pengchao & ding, Yu & Qin, Weili & Cheng, Yujie & Lu, Chen & Su, Yuzhuan & Chong, Jin & Jin, Haizu & Lin, Yongshou, 2020. "Cycle life test optimization for different Li-ion power battery formulations using a hybrid remaining-useful-life prediction method," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 262(C).
    4. Andre Leippi & Markus Fleschutz & Michael D. Murphy, 2022. "A Review of EV Battery Utilization in Demand Response Considering Battery Degradation in Non-Residential Vehicle-to-Grid Scenarios," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-22, April.
    5. Mathieu, Romain & Baghdadi, Issam & Briat, Olivier & Gyan, Philippe & Vinassa, Jean-Michel, 2017. "D-optimal design of experiments applied to lithium battery for ageing model calibration," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 2108-2119.
    6. Haber, Marc & Azaïs, Philippe & Genies, Sylvie & Raccurt, Olivier, 2023. "Stress factor identification and Risk Probabilistic Number (RPN) analysis of Li-ion batteries based on worldwide electric vehicle usage," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 343(C).
    7. Guan, Ting & Sun, Shun & Gao, Yunzhi & Du, Chunyu & Zuo, Pengjian & Cui, Yingzhi & Zhang, Lingling & Yin, Geping, 2016. "The effect of elevated temperature on the accelerated aging of LiCoO2/mesocarbon microbeads batteries," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 1-10.
    8. Lysander De Sutter & Gert Berckmans & Mario Marinaro & Jelle Smekens & Yousef Firouz & Margret Wohlfahrt-Mehrens & Joeri Van Mierlo & Noshin Omar, 2018. "Comprehensive Aging Analysis of Volumetric Constrained Lithium-Ion Pouch Cells with High Concentration Silicon-Alloy Anodes," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-21, October.
    9. Zheng, Yuejiu & Qin, Chao & Lai, Xin & Han, Xuebing & Xie, Yi, 2019. "A novel capacity estimation method for lithium-ion batteries using fusion estimation of charging curve sections and discrete Arrhenius aging model," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 251(C), pages 1-1.
    10. Vincenzo Varriale & Antonello Cammarano & Francesca Michelino & Mauro Caputo, 2021. "Sustainable Supply Chains with Blockchain, IoT and RFID: A Simulation on Order Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-23, June.
    11. Makam, Vaishno Devi & Millossovich, Pietro & Tsanakas, Andreas, 2021. "Sensitivity analysis with χ2-divergences," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 372-383.
    12. Plischke, Elmar & Borgonovo, Emanuele, 2019. "Copula theory and probabilistic sensitivity analysis: Is there a connection?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(3), pages 1046-1059.
    13. Wen Shi & Xi Chen & Jennifer Shang, 2019. "An Efficient Morris Method-Based Framework for Simulation Factor Screening," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 745-770, October.
    14. F. Wang & G. H. Huang & Y. Fan & Y. P. Li, 2020. "Robust Subsampling ANOVA Methods for Sensitivity Analysis of Water Resource and Environmental Models," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(10), pages 3199-3217, August.
    15. Berecibar, M. & Gandiaga, I. & Villarreal, I. & Omar, N. & Van Mierlo, J. & Van den Bossche, P., 2016. "Critical review of state of health estimation methods of Li-ion batteries for real applications," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 572-587.
    16. Daniel Harenberg & Stefano Marelli & Bruno Sudret & Viktor Winschel, 2019. "Uncertainty quantification and global sensitivity analysis for economic models," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 10(1), pages 1-41, January.
    17. Tobias Fissler & Silvana M. Pesenti, 2022. "Sensitivity Measures Based on Scoring Functions," Papers 2203.00460, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2022.
    18. Onur Yuksel & Eduardo Blanco-Davis & Andrew Spiteri & David Hitchmough & Viknash Shagar & Maria Carmela Di Piazza & Marcello Pucci & Nikolaos Tsoulakos & Milad Armin & Jin Wang, 2025. "Optimising the Design of a Hybrid Fuel Cell/Battery and Waste Heat Recovery System for Retrofitting Ship Power Generation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-40, January.
    19. Ester Vasta & Tommaso Scimone & Giovanni Nobile & Otto Eberhardt & Daniele Dugo & Massimiliano Maurizio De Benedetti & Luigi Lanuzza & Giuseppe Scarcella & Luca Patanè & Paolo Arena & Mario Cacciato, 2023. "Models for Battery Health Assessment: A Comparative Evaluation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-34, January.
    20. Shang, Xiaobing & Su, Li & Fang, Hai & Zeng, Bowen & Zhang, Zhi, 2023. "An efficient multi-fidelity Kriging surrogate model-based method for global sensitivity analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:378:y:2025:i:pa:s0306261924021408. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/405891/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.