IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v17y2024i4p822-d1336226.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimizing Lithium-Ion Battery Modeling: A Comparative Analysis of PSO and GWO Algorithms

Author

Listed:
  • Mónica Camas-Náfate

    (Department of Water and Energy Studies, University of Guadalajara, Guadalajara 44430, Mexico)

  • Alberto Coronado-Mendoza

    (Department of Water and Energy Studies, University of Guadalajara, Guadalajara 44430, Mexico)

  • Carlos Vargas-Salgado

    (University Institute of Energetic Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de València, 46022 Valencia, Spain
    Department of Electrical Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de València, 46022 Valencia, Spain)

  • Jesús Águila-León

    (Department of Water and Energy Studies, University of Guadalajara, Guadalajara 44430, Mexico
    University Institute of Energetic Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de València, 46022 Valencia, Spain)

  • David Alfonso-Solar

    (University Institute of Energetic Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de València, 46022 Valencia, Spain
    Department of Applied Thermodynamics, Universitat Politècnica de València, 46022 Valencia, Spain)

Abstract

In recent years, the modeling and simulation of lithium-ion batteries have garnered attention due to the rising demand for reliable energy storage. Accurate charge cycle predictions are fundamental for optimizing battery performance and lifespan. This study compares particle swarm optimization (PSO) and grey wolf optimization (GWO) algorithms in modeling a commercial lithium-ion battery, emphasizing the voltage behavior and the current delivered to the battery. Bio-inspired optimization tunes parameters to reduce the root mean square error (RMSE) between simulated and experimental outputs. The model, implemented in MATLAB/Simulink, integrates electrochemical parameters and estimates battery behavior under varied conditions. The assessment of terminal voltage revealed notable enhancements in the model through both the PSO and GWO algorithms compared to the non-optimized model. The GWO-optimized model demonstrated superior performance, with a reduced RMSE of 0.1700 (25 °C; 3.6 C, 455 s) and 0.1705 (25 °C; 3.6 C, 10,654 s) compared to the PSO-optimized model, achieving a 42% average RMSE reduction. Battery current was identified as a key factor influencing the model analysis, with optimized models, particularly the GWO model, exhibiting enhanced predictive capabilities and slightly lower RMSE values than the PSO model. This offers practical implications for battery integration into energy systems. Analyzing the execution time with different population values for PSO and GWO provides insights into computational complexity. PSO exhibited greater-than-linear dynamics, suggesting a polynomial complexity of O(n k ), while GWO implied a potential polynomial complexity within the range of O(n k ) or O(2 n ) based on execution times from populations of 10 to 1000.

Suggested Citation

  • Mónica Camas-Náfate & Alberto Coronado-Mendoza & Carlos Vargas-Salgado & Jesús Águila-León & David Alfonso-Solar, 2024. "Optimizing Lithium-Ion Battery Modeling: A Comparative Analysis of PSO and GWO Algorithms," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-22, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:17:y:2024:i:4:p:822-:d:1336226
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/4/822/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/4/822/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mitja Mori & Manuel Gutiérrez & Mihael Sekavčnik & Boštjan Drobnič, 2021. "Modelling and Environmental Assessment of a Stand-Alone Micro-Grid System in a Mountain Hut Using Renewables," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-21, December.
    2. Kai-Rong Lin & Chien-Chung Huang & Kin-Cheong Sou, 2023. "Lithium-Ion Battery State of Health Estimation Using Simple Regression Model Based on Incremental Capacity Analysis Features," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-20, October.
    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.

      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:gam:jeners:v:17:y:2024:i:4:p:822-:d:1336226. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

      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.