# Nonlinear Dynamic Model for Parameter Estimation of Li-Ion Batteries Using Supply-Demand Algorithm

Ragab El-Sehiemy, Mohamed A Hamida, Ehab Elattar, Abdullah Shaheen, Ahmed Ginidi

► To cite this version:

Ragab El-Sehiemy, Mohamed A Hamida, Ehab Elattar, Abdullah Shaheen, Ahmed Ginidi. Nonlinear Dynamic Model for Parameter Estimation of Li-Ion Batteries Using Supply-Demand Algorithm. Energies, 2022, 15 (4556), 10.3390/en15134556. [DOI: 10.5366/energies.2022.15.4556](https://doi.org/10.5366/energies.2022.15.4556)

HAL Id: hal-05366013

https://hal.science/hal-05366013v1

Submitted on 14 Nov 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Article

# Nonlinear Dynamic Model for Parameter Estimation of Li-Ion Batteries Using Supply-Demand Algorithm

Ragab El-Sehiemy <fnref n="1" />,*, Mohamed A. Hamida <fnref n="2" />,*, Ehab Elattar <fnref n="3" />, Abdullah Shaheen <fnref n="4" /> and Ahmed Ginidi <fnref n="4" />

**Abstract:** The parameter extraction of parameters for Li-ion batteries is regarded as a critical topic for assessing the performance of battery energy storage systems (BESSs). The supply-demand algorithm (SDA) is used in this work to identify a storage system's unknown parameters. The parameter-extracting procedure is represented as a nonlinear optimization task in which the state of charge (SOC) is approximated using nonlinear features related to the battery current and the initial SOC condition. Furthermore, the open-circuit voltage is approximated using the resulting SOC, which is performed in a nonlinear formula, as well. When used in the dynamic nonlinear BESS model, the SDA was used to verify the fitness values and standard deviation error. Furthermore, the results that were acquired using SDA are compared to recently developed approaches, which are the gradient-based, tuna swarm, jellyfish, heap-based, and forensic-based optimizers. Simulated studies were paired with experiments for the 40 Ah Kokam Li-ion battery and the ARTEMIS driving-cycle pattern. The numerical outcomes showed that the proposed SDA is an approach which is excellent at identifying the parameters. Furthermore, when compared to the other current optimization techniques, for both the Kokam Li-ion batteries and the ARTEMIS drive-cycle pattern, the suggested SDA exhibited substantial precision.

**Keywords:** dynamic nonlinear model; Li-ion batteries; open-circuit voltage relationship; SOC estimation; supply-demand algorithm

## 1. Introduction

The electrical power demand is rapidly increasing to satisfy all requirements of energy around the world. The gas emissions from traditional power plants, created by the burning of fossil fuels, have an impact on the environment's equilibrium. In 2012, electrical energy apps accounted for around 32% of the total gas emissions in the United States [1]. In order to power electric vehicles (EVs), a range of battery packs is now provided on global marketplaces. Because of their exceptional qualities and performance, Li-ion batteries are considered a great attractive technology for all battery energy storage systems (BESSs) [2,3]. Lithium batteries have inspired the creation of new research for developing BESS technologies, due to their effective environmental consequences and recycling capabilities [4]. BESSs are now installed independently [5] or integrated with renewable sources, such as photovoltaic energy [6], fuel cells, and wind power [7], to improve the reliability of distribution networks. This integration intends to achieve significant economic gains by optimizing the deployment of BESSs into distribution networks in terms of their location and capacity. BESSs can be used to regulate the load capacity that affects electricity networks.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

### check for updates

**Citation:** El-Sehiemy, R.; Hamida, M.A.; Elattar, E.; Shaheen, A.; Ginidi, A. Nonlinear Dynamic Model for Parameter Estimation of Li-Ion Batteries Using Supply-Demand Algorithm. *Energies* **2022**, *15*, 4556. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15134556

Academic Editor: Byoung Kuk Lee

Received: 9 May 2022

Accepted: 18 June 2022

Published: 22 June 2022

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

**Copyright:** © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

<footnote n="1">¹ Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Kafrelsheikh University, Kafrelsheikh 33516, Egypt; elsehiemy@eng.kfs.edu.eg</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Ecole Centrale de Nantes, LS2N UMR CNRS, 6004 Nantes, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Department of Electrical Engineering, College of Engineering, Taif University, Taif 21944, Saudi Arabia; e.elattar@tu.edu.sa</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Suez University, Suez 43533, Egypt; abdullahshaheen2015@gmail.com (A.S.); ahmed.ginidi@eng.suezuni.edu.eg (A.G.)</footnote>

<footnote>* Correspondence: mohamed.hamida@ec-nantes.fr</footnote>
Recently, the parameter estimation of batteries has become a critical challenge for appropriately modeling these elements on the overall system's functioning. Determining the best appropriate prediction for mimicking the battery is still a burgeoning issue of study [8,9]. The determination of battery parameters for the different modeling forms is done by using experimental approaches. The estimation of the SOC is a critical requirement for achieving the appropriate supervision and control of battery charging and discharging [10]. Furthermore, a precise prediction of the battery's characteristics and SOC is critical for a variety of reasons, including increasing the battery's life, regulating the battery's state of charge, enhancing battery performance [11], optimizing energy management, and monitoring battery safety [12]. However, this estimating approach has various drawbacks, including its expense, higher computing capacity, and time consumption, due to the presence of recurrent computing activities. Several linear and non-linear models were presented in Ref. [13]. In Ref. [14], a novel strategy for algorithmic machine learning was suggested to dynamically identify the structure–composition–property connections of the perovskite oxide materials of fuel cells.

Numerous attempts have been performed to determine the best battery settings and derive the charge status. Reference [15] uses a genetic optimization technique to adjust the characteristics of the lithium-ion polymer. Despite the high precision of the genetic optimizer, it has a significant computational cost when compared to the current algorithms, and its performance is largely sensitive to mutation and crossover coefficient settings. For identifying the battery parameters and evaluating the SOC of lithium-ion batteries, the sunflower optimization technique was created [16]. State-space modeling was implemented in the mentioned approach, and the SOC with a battery-voltage relationship was represented by a linear model, but these models are not the situation in practice. Model-based techniques are extensively studied, particularly for a SOC assessment [17]. The analogous circuit-based online extraction of the SOC provides great robustness and accuracy [18]. The acceptable temperature region for LIBs is normally -20 °C~60 °C. Both low and high temperatures that are outside of this region, however, will lead to a degradation of performance and irreversible damage, such as lithium plating and thermal runaway. The state of charge, which is defined as the ratio of the present capacity to the overall available capacity, can decrease by 23% when the temperature is decreased from 25 °C to -15 °C [19]. In ref. [20], it has been shown that high temperatures affect the capacity of the battery by 7.5% at 85 °C and 22% at 120 °C.

In refs. [21,22], the open-circuit voltage was used to estimate the SOC for lithium batteries by using an approximated linear correlation. This correlation expresses the open-circuit voltage in terms of the state of charge. Since the capacity and materials of the batteries affect this relation, it changes from one pack to the next. Another method for estimating the lithium batteries' state of charge was to use the ampere-hour count process [23]. Whenever the original SOC is available, this process can provide an estimate. Furthermore, because the capacity of the battery is significantly affected by its lifetime [24], it would not be treated as constant. In the last ten years, a large number of studies have focused on estimating the SOC of Li-ion batteries. When designing the parameterization issue, the dynamic model is taken into account. However, in prior estimating-method research, the rate of change in battery parameters was not considered. The change in the rate of the estimated parameters was examined in [25]. Intelligent computational techniques have become a strong option for the SOC estimate of lithium BESSs as numerical algorithms have progressed.

The artificial intelligence (AI) techniques can be used with different estimation approaches, such as the model-based procedure reported in [26], which uses an artificial neural network (ANN) and a nonlinear observation to achieve an effective estimate of the SOC. In ref. [27], a load-classifying ANN was used to categorize the battery operations based on their characteristics, and three ANNs were constructed and trained simultaneously. However, AI technologies necessitate a huge amount of memory in order to retain massive amounts of data, which is not always possible. A model for evaluating and assessing battery packs linked in a series to the system was described in [28]. The evaluation
methodology is built on the basis of real-world operation records. In ref. [29], the aging issue of battery assessment was addressed through a gradual capacity investigation using a radial-training strategy and ANN. The electrochemical energy, based on the integrated procedure storage systems, is described in ref. [30].

The preceding survey characterizes the significant attempts made to assess the pa-
rameters reliably and consistently for BESSs, based on Li-ion batteries. Even though these
approaches have produced respectable results, the techniques currently proposed in the
literature have failed to provide an accurate estimate of the battery’s parameters. As a result,
this paper provides an optimizer, known as the supply–demand algorithm (SDA) [31], to be
developed. It has minimal parameterized settings to alter and is easy to apply. Additionally,
the SDA adds the distinguishing features of exploratory and exploitative strategies, which
are discriminated by controlling the supply and demand weights. The SDA has been
applied effectively for different engineering optimization tasks, such as the performance
evaluation of the proton-exchange membrane fuel cells [32], the sizing of hybrid energy
systems [33], the photovoltaic cells’ design [34], and parameter estimations of an induction
motor [35].

Therefore, the SDA is employed for estimating the electrical characteristics of BESSs based on Li-ion batteries. Applications on two benchmarking case studies were carried out to check the capability of the proposed SDA on the nonlinear dynamic model, which were the Li-ion batteries and the ARTEMIS driving-cycle pattern. Furthermore, the results acquired using the SDA were compared to recently developed approaches, such as the gradient-based algorithm (GBA) [36,37], tuna swarm algorithm (TSA) [38], jellyfish algorithm (JFA) [39], heap-based algorithm (HBA) [40] and forensic-based investigation optimizer (FBIA) [41,42]. Efficient and robust parameters were obtained in both cases studied that proved the high closeness between the experimental and estimated performances.

The following is how the remaining portions are organized: Section 2 gives an optimization formulation of the problem of the dynamic nonlinear model of BESSs. Section 3 introduces the SDA. The simulation results are provided in Section 4. Section 5 summarizes the key results of this research, as well as potential future expansions.

## 2. Problem Formulation

2.1. *Modeling of Li-Ion Batteries*

Various battery models have been examined in the literature based on the degree of
precision desired and the practical use, including electric vehicles. In its corresponding
circuit, an efficient dynamic model with two components, the resistance and capacitor (RC),
was presented [43]. The n-RC model [44] is a frequently utilized circuit framework for
Li-ion batteries, consisting of parallel RC branching, which is linked in series for n times.
The corresponding circuit, shown in Figure 1, is a simplified form with two RC branches.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1. Equivalent circuit model for Li-ion battery.</figcaption></figure>
As shown, $V_{oc}$ and $V_T$ represent, respectively, the open-circuit voltage and terminal voltages of the battery; $C_1$ and $C_2$ are, accordingly, the polarized capacitors; $R_0$ indicates the ohmic resistance, while $R_1$ and $R$ refer to, respectively, the polarized resistors. The relaxing effect is represented by the RC components. To tackle the parameter identifying the SOC estimating challenges, we applied the state-space model. Equation (1) presents the state-space model of the batteries’ behavior as follows:

$$ \dot{X} = AX + Bu \quad (1) $$

$$ y = CX + Du + b_0 \quad (2) $$

where

$$ X = \begin{bmatrix} \text{SOC} \\ V_{RC1} \\ V_{RC2} \end{bmatrix} \quad (3) $$

$$ A = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \frac{-1}{R_1 C_1} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \frac{-1}{R_2 C_2} \end{bmatrix}, B = \begin{bmatrix} \frac{1}{Q_R} \\ \frac{1}{C_1} \\ \frac{1}{C_2} \end{bmatrix}, C = [1 \ 1 \ 1], D = [R_0] \quad (4) $$

Whereas a linear association among $V_{oc}$ and $SOC$ was expected to simply reflect the static characteristics of the batteries at a specified temperature and aging conditions [45]; such a relation is intrinsically nonlinear and may be represented using a polynomial-exponential curve [13], as follows:

$$ \begin{aligned} V_{oc} &= f(\text{SOC}) \\ &= \omega_0 + \omega_1 e^{\omega_2(1-\text{SOC})} + \omega_3 e^{\omega_4\text{SOC}} + \omega_5 e^{\omega_6(1-\text{SOC})^2} + \omega_7 e^{\omega_8\text{SOC}^2} + \omega_9 e^{\omega_{10}(1-\text{SOC})^3} + \omega_{11} e^{\omega_{12}\text{SOC}^3} \end{aligned} \quad (5) $$

where $\omega_0, \omega_1, \dots, \omega_{12}$ are the specified coefficients.

From Equation (5), 13 design coefficients are required to be specified. In addition, the SOC is approximated by utilizing a nonlinear correlation, indicated by Equations (1) and (2), with the battery current ($I_b$), and taking the starting SOC condition into consideration. It might be calculated using Equation (6) as

$$ \text{SOC} = 100 \cdot (\text{SOC}_o - \frac{1}{Q_b} \int \eta_b I_b dt) \quad (6) $$

where $\eta_b$ denotes the battery efficiency; $SOC_o$ indicates the starting SOC condition.

## 2.2. Parameterization Problem of Li-Ion Batteries via Objectives and Constraints

The prior part’s dynamic modeling of batteries is used to optimize the parameters of the Li-ion batteries. An optimization model is created to fit the predicted output voltages with the relevant recorded voltages in the experiments. As an objective metric, the sum of squares error (SSE) between the experimental points and estimated ones is minimized. This formation of optimization is typically represented as

$$ \begin{array}{l} \text{MOG} = \text{Min}_U(G_k(U)), \quad k = 1, 2, \dots, N_{ob} \\ \text{s.t} \\ U_{\text{Lower}} \le U \le U_{\text{upper}} \end{array} \quad (7) $$

MOG denotes a multi-objective expression. Each objective function is represented by $G$, and its number is $Nob$. $U$ denotes the controlling BESS variables. The bounds of the BESS variables are denoted as $U_{upper}$ and $U_{lower}$. The experimental battery records are used to determine the parameters’ extracting methodology. The experimental battery records are utilized to find the extracted parameters. The MOG seeks to minimize the aggregate
of the root mean square difference between the expected and actual state of charge and battery voltage.

$$MOG = \alpha_1 G_1(U) + \alpha_2 G_2(U) \quad (8)$$

where $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ are the weight coefficients which are set to combine the following objectives:

$$G_1(U) = \frac{\sum_{j=1}^{N_{\text{exp}}} (\text{SOC}_{\text{exp}} - \text{SOC}_{\text{est}})^2}{N_{\text{exp}}} \quad (9)$$

$$G_2(U) = \frac{\sum_{j=1}^{N_{\text{exp}}} (V_{b,\text{exp}} - V_{b,\text{est}})^2}{N_{\text{exp}}} \quad (10)$$

where SOC$_{exp}$ and SOC$_{est}$ are, respectively, the experimental and estimated state of charges. V$_{b,exp}$ and V$_{b,est}$ are, respectively, the experimental and estimated battery voltages, whereas the experimental data number is defined by N$_{exp}$.

Furthermore, the parameters of the BESS are kept within their acceptable limits as follows:

$$R_{o,Lower} \le R_o \le R_{o,upper} \quad (11)$$

$$R_{j,Lower} \le R_j \le R_{j,upper} \quad j = 1 \& 2 \quad (12)$$

$$C_{j,Lower} \le C_j \le C_{j,upper} \quad j = 1 \& 2 \quad (13)$$

$$Q_{b,Lower} \le Q_b \le Q_{b,upper} \quad (14)$$

$$w_{j,Lower} \le w_j \le w_{j,upper} \quad j = 0, 1, 2, \dots, 12 \quad (15)$$

### 3. SDA for Optimized Parameters Extraction of BESSs Based on Li-Ion Batteries

There are two mechanisms in the SDA. The first is the stability phase. When the market supply (MS) exceeds the market demand (MD), the fluctuations are lessened each time [31]. As a result, the curve of the product supply and price versus time continues to spiral inward. After a fixed number of repetitions, the supply and price settle to the market equilibrium ($u_0, v_0$). The other mechanism is the instability condition, which occurs when the market supply (MS) is less than the market demand (MD). As a result, the fluctuations will rise each time. Consequently, the curve of the product supply and price versus time continues to spiral outward. As a result, the production and prices deviate further from the market equilibrium ($u_0, v_0$) over time.

In the SDA, m symbolizes the markets, while every market includes $p_s$ divisions of the diverse products, with every market having a specific amount and price. Every option solution is expressed as the variables by product prices (U), whereas the product amounts (V) are altered as a likely option. As a result, when the contender solution outperforms the previous one, it takes its place. The matrices of the product price and amount may be represented as shown as follows:

$$U = \begin{bmatrix} u_1 \\ u_2 \\ \vdots \\ u_m \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} u_1^1 & u_1^2 & \cdots & u_1^{p_s} \\ u_2^1 & u_2^2 & \cdots & u_2^{p_s} \\ \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ u_m^1 & u_m^2 & \cdots & u_m^{p_s} \end{bmatrix} \quad (16)$$

$$V = \begin{bmatrix} v_1 \\ v_2 \\ \vdots \\ v_m \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} v_1^1 & v_1^2 & \cdots & v_1^{p_s} \\ v_2^1 & v_2^2 & \cdots & v_2^{p_s} \\ \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ v_m^1 & v_m^2 & \cdots & v_m^{p_s} \end{bmatrix} \quad (17)$$
where $u_i$ ($i = 1: p_s$) and $v_i$ ($i = 1: p_s$) are the $i^{th}$ vector of the product price and quantity that are significant to a possible solution; $m$ denotes the number of marketplaces; $j$ denotes the control parameters within every vector; $ps$ represents its dimensionality. The fitness score is used to evaluate the two product vectors of the product and price from every marketplace. As a result, an array may be created based on the fitness scores of the vectors of the product price and product within every market, which are denoted in Equations (18) and (19).

$$Fu = [Fu_1 \ Fu_2 \ \dots \ Fu_m]^T \qquad (18)$$

$$Fv = [Fv_1 \ Fv_2 \ \dots \ Fv_m]^T \qquad (19)$$

The vector of the equilibrium product ($u_0$) is evaluated as:

$$N_j = \left| Fv_j - \frac{1}{m} \sum_{j=1}^{m} Fv_j \right| \qquad (20)$$

$$Q = \frac{N_j}{\sum_{j=1}^{m} N_j} \qquad (21)$$

$$v_0 = v_k, \quad k = \text{RWS}(Q) \qquad (22)$$

where RWS is the roulette-wheel selection.

The vector of equilibrium price ($u_0$) is evaluated as:

$$M_j = \left| Fu_j - \frac{1}{m} \sum_{j=1}^{m} Fu_j \right| \qquad (23)$$

$$P = \frac{M_j}{\sum_{j=1}^{m} M_j} \qquad (24)$$

$$u_0 = \begin{cases} Ra \cdot \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n} x_i}{m} & \text{if } r_a < 0.5 \\ x_k, & k = \text{RWS}(P) \ r_a \ge 0.5 \end{cases} \qquad (25)$$

where $Ra$ is a randomized integer between [0,1]. Depending on its likelihood in the vector of the equilibrium price via the price array, the SDA estimates that there is a 50% possibility of picking between the mean price and the current vectors in Equation (25). The supply and demand equations within every market could perhaps be adjusted correspondingly, as indicated in Equations (26) and (27), accordingly, by defining the equilibrium price ($u_0$) and product ($v_0$) vectors:

$$v_i(t + 1) = v_0 + \alpha \cdot (u_i(t) - u_0) \qquad (26)$$

$$u_i(t + 1) = u_0 - \beta \cdot (v_i(t + 1) - v_0) \qquad (27)$$

where $u_i(t)$ is the vector of the $i^{th}$ product price at period $t$ and $v_i(t)$ is the vector of the $i^{th}$ product amount at period $t$. The demand and supply ratios are represented by $\beta$ and $\alpha$, respectively. Therefore, the formula may be rewritten as:

$$u_i(t + 1) = u_0 - \alpha\beta \cdot (u_i(t) - u_0) \qquad (28)$$

where

$$\alpha = \frac{2 \cdot (T - t + 1)}{T} \cdot \sin(2\pi r) \qquad (29)$$

$$\beta = 2 \cdot \cos(2\pi r) \qquad (30)$$
where *T* is the number of iterations and *r* denotes a randomized integer from the range [0,1].

*Correlation between the Algorithm Model and the Parameters Estimation of BESSs Research*

The key stages of the SDA to handle the effective and practical parameters of BESSs,
based on the Li-ion batteries with a nonlinear dynamic model, are represented in Figure 2.
As seen, the SDA is straightforward to deploy and simply requires a few settings to be
altered. Its temporal context is governed by the number of markets, the dimensionality
of the task, the maximum iteration, the *RWS*, the number of commodities, and the price
adjustments within every iteration. As a result, the SDA gives distinguishing exploratory
and exploitative features by altering the demand and supply ratios *α* and *β*. The phases of
the SDA implementation for estimating the optimum BESS variables are as follows:

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Main steps of SDA for effective and practical parameters of BESSs.</figcaption></figure>

Step 1: Import the experimental data from the investigated BESS.

Step 2: Establish the population size, maximal iterations number and bounds of the independent variables. The BESS parameters, which are produced by a randomized strategy inside the required bounds, reflect the original members of the commodities' quantity and price directions. The size of the population determines the number of commodity prices and quantity vectors.
Step 3: The BESS parameters determine the output voltage and state of charge.

Step 4: The fitness function is computed based on the RMSE model, as in Equation (9).

Step 5: The SDA's updating system, as explained in the preceding part, is enabled to refresh the commodities' quantity and price vectors.

Step 6: Every BESS attribute is checked against its boundaries, and any violating variable is adjusted to its closest boundary, which ensures that the inequality requirements associated with the control variables are met and that they are always inside the search space under consideration.

Step 7: After running the maximal iterations number, the best participant is retrieved and modified to be the optimal BESS parameters.

## 4. Simulation Results

Inside this section, the 40 Ah Li-ion battery cell is an example of a commercial battery that achieves significant increases in driving performance and dependability. Its specification has the following characteristics: nominal voltage rating is 3.7 V, capacity is 40 Ah, intrinsic resistance is 0.9 mΩ, both charging and discharging currents are 40 amperes, and the specific energy is 167 Wh/kg of weight 0.885 kg [46]. The recommended estimation technique, implemented for the Artemis driving cycle, is provided. Additionally, the GBA, JFA, TSA, HBA, and FBIA were implemented as well. The simulation studies were executed with the same number of iterations with 500 and the individuals' number of 100.

### 4.1. Simulation Results of Li-Ion Battery Cell

Table 1 presents the considered boundaries of the estimated parameters of the Li-ion battery cells [16]. As shown, the number of the control variables is high, with 20 parameters, where the relation between the VOC and SOC is taken in its high nonlinear form. For the experimental and estimated values, the competitive algorithms: SDA, GBA, JFA, TSA, HBA and FBIA are applied. Table 2 displays their optimal fitness function and the associated improvements, compared to the obtained results by the proposed SDA. The detailed optimal BESS parameters are tabulated in the Appendix A and relate to all the implemented techniques (Table A1). In addition, Figure 3 displays the corresponding convergence characteristics of the SDA versus the other techniques for the Li-ion battery cell parameters.

<table><caption>**Table 1.** Boundaries for Li-ion battery cell parameters.</caption><thead><tr><td>Parameter</td><td>Lower Bound</td><td>Upper Bound</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>R<sub>0</sub> (Ω)</td><td>0.010</td><td>0.010</td></tr><tr><td>R<sub>1</sub> (Ω)</td><td>0.000</td><td>1.300</td></tr><tr><td>C<sub>1</sub> (mF)</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.105</td></tr><tr><td>R<sub>2</sub> (Ω)</td><td>0.000</td><td>1.300</td></tr><tr><td>C<sub>2</sub> (mF)</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.105</td></tr><tr><td>Q<sub>b</sub> (A.s)</td><td>13,000.0</td><td>170,000.0</td></tr><tr><td>ω<sub>0</sub>, ω<sub>1</sub>, ..., ω<sub>12</sub></td><td>-100.00</td><td>100.00</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 2.** Comparative results for Li-ion battery cell parameters.</caption><thead><tr><td>Items</td><td>SDA (2019)</td><td>GBA (2020)</td><td>JFA (2021)</td><td>TSA (2021)</td><td>HBA (2020)</td><td>FBIA (2020)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>RMSE</td><td>8.0200 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td>8.1930 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td>9.1640 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td>8.2240 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td>9.2670 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td>9.2160 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td></tr><tr><td>RMSE % Improvement</td><td>-</td><td>2.157</td><td>14.264</td><td>2.5436</td><td>15.5486</td><td>14.9127</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** Convergence characteristics of SDA versus other techniques for Li-ion battery cell parameters and the related zoomed portion with smallest objective value.</figcaption></figure>

From Table 2 and Figure 3, the SDA finds the minimum objective value of 0.00802. On the other side, the GBA, JFA, TSA, HBA and FBIA achieve counterpart objective values of 0.008193, 0.009164, 0.008224, 0.009267 and 0.009216, respectively. The essential difference between the main Figure 3 and the small inserted figure is that the inserted portion represents a zooming focus on the small RMSE values. Figure 3 displays that the SDA requires more iterations before approaching the stable zone, compared to the GBA and TSA. The proposed SDA provides the least value of the considered objective. The improvement in the RMSE is recorded in the last row between the proposed SDA and the other compared algorithms. As shown, the proposed SDA provides a great improvement with 14.264, 15.5486 and 14.9127% compared to the JFA (2021), HBA (2020) and FBIA (2020), respectively. Added to that, the proposed SDA shows an improvement of 2.157% and 2.5436% compared to the GBA (2020) and TSA (2021), respectively. Therefore, the proposed SDA outperformed the others.

For the Li-ion battery cell, Figure 4 describes the whiskers boxplot for the compared algorithms of SDA, GBA, JFA, TSA, HBA and FBIA. As shown, the best performance is accompanied by the SDA and FBIA, since their acquired boxes have very small lengths compared to the others. On the contrary, the worst performance is due to the TSA, which has the highest length of its acquired box. Despite that, the HBA and GBA show the far outlier points of 0.117968077 and 0.118542406, respectively.

As illustrated in Figure 5, the SDA achieves the least indices of the maximum, mean and minimum objective values of 0.011333845, 0.009074044, and 0.008020075, respectively. Secondly, the FBIA achieves little higher indices of the maximum, mean and minimum objective values of 0.013716547, 0.010839514, and 0.009215654, respectively. Based on these indices, the worst maximum value is due to the HBA and GBA, which has the highest objective values of 0.117968077 and 0.118542406, respectively. Nevertheless, Figure 6 depicts the standard deviation comparison for the SDA, GBA, JFA, TSA, HBA and FBIA. As shown, both the SDA and FBIA provide the least area of 1%. With a highly accurate comparison, the acquired standard deviation is 0.001131406, based on the SDA, whilst the acquired standard deviation is 0.035765609, based on the FBIA. This assessment shows the SDA gave a better performance than the FBIA, with more than 30% accuracy. On the other side, the other techniques can be ascendingly ordered as JFA, HBA, GBA and TSA, where they have percentages of 15%, 26%, 28% and 29%, respectively.
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.** Whiskers boxplot for SDA, GBA, JFA, TSA, HBA and FBIA for Li-ion battery cell parameters.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.** Minimum, mean and maximum objective values for SDA, GBA, JFA, TSA, HBA and FBIA.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6.** Standard deviation comparison for SDA, GBA, JFA, TSA, HBA and FBIA for Li-ion battery cell parameters.</figcaption></figure>

Otherwise, for the Li-ion battery parameters, Figure 7 displays the related experimental and estimated battery voltage via the SDA. Considering the RMSE as the main objective function, Figure 8 depicts the absolute errors of the estimated voltages via the SDA. From both figures, the great success of the proposed SDA is described between the estimated and experimental voltages, with a trivial average absolute error.
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 7.** Battery voltage with experimental and approximated values using the SDA for Li-ion battery characteristics.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 8.** Percentage of the absolute error of the estimated battery voltage for Li-ion batteries using SDA.</figcaption></figure>

Furthermore, Figure 9 shows the experimental and predicted SOCs for the Li-ion battery properties by using the suggested SDA. The relative inconsistency of the predicted SOC utilizing the indicated SDA for the Li-ion battery properties is also shown in Figure 10. The high success of the suggested SDA is described between the experimental and estimated SOCs in both figures, since the maximum absolute error does not exceed 0.0006.
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>Figure 9. SOC with experimental and approximated values using the SDA for Li-ion battery characteristics.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>Figure 10. Absolute error of the evaluated SOC for Li-ion batteries using SDA.</figcaption></figure>

## 4.2. Simulation Results of ARTEMIS Driving Cycle

The ARTEMIS driving cycle is chosen in this portion for collecting the BESS characteristics using the dynamic modeling of an urban electric vehicle (Bolloré Bluecar) [47]. The tested driving cycle is modeled using speed-time sequences that simulate the traffic circumstances and driving behavior in a specified location. The Assessment and Reliability of Transport Emission Models Inventory Systems (ARTEMIS) driving cycle is used in this work to simulate real-world driving behavior.

ARTEMIS is divided into three driving cycles: highway, rural, and urban. This pattern was chosen to reflect the rural and urban rounds. Various types of batteries have recently been created to suit the primary needs of electric and hybrid cars while improving driving performance and dependability, such as a commercial 40 Ah Li-ion battery [16,46].

The ARTEMIS driving cycle was completed in this study by the rural and urban cycle, with a mean distance of 22 km in 2075 s. The regular and maximum speeds were 38.4 and
111.5 km per hour, respectively. The proposed SDA, GBA, JFA, TSA, HBA and FBIA values were utilized for the experimental and estimated values to minimize the accumulation of the root mean square of the normalized variation between the battery voltage and state of charge. Table 3 displays their optimal fitness function. The detailed optimal BESS parameters are tabulated in the Appendix A and relate to all the implemented techniques (Table A2). Furthermore, Figure 11 shows the convergence properties of the SDA versus the other approaches for the ARTEMIS driving cycle.

<table><caption>**Table 3.** Comparative results for ARTEMIS driving-cycle parameters.</caption><thead><tr><th>Items</th><th>SDA (2019)</th><th>GBA (2020)</th><th>JFA (2021)</th><th>TSA (2021)</th><th>HBA (2020)</th><th>FBIA (2020)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>RMSE</td><td>4.4116 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td>4.4485 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td>4.4818 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td>4.4877 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td>4.6836 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td>5.0492 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 11.** Convergence characteristics of SDA versus other techniques for ARTEMIS driving cycle and the related zoomed portion with smallest objective value.</figcaption></figure>

Table 3 and Figure 11 show that the SDA outperformed the others since it found the minimum objective value of 0.004411594. On the other side, the GBA, JFA, TSA, HBA and FBIA achieved the counterpart objective values of 0.004448455, 0.004481826, 0.004487704, 0.00468358 and 0.005049191, respectively.

For the ARTEMIS driving cycle, Figure 12 describes the whiskers boxplot for the comparison algorithms of SDA, GBA, JFA, TSA, HBA and FBIA. As shown, the best performance was accompanied by the SDA, whereas the worst performance was due to the TSA. Figure 13 describes the minimum, mean and maximum objective values for SDA, GBA, JFA, TSA, HBA and FBIA. As shown, the compared techniques can be ascendingly ordered for each index. Based on the minimum objective, the SDA achieved the least minimum objective value of 0.004411594, whereas the GBA, JFA, TSA, HBA and FBIA came sequentially. Based on the mean objective, the SDA achieved the least value of 0.004730328, whereas the GBA, FBIA, HBA, JFA and TSA came sequentially with the values of 0.005008, 0.005652, 0.008292, 0.01169 and 0.027305, respectively. Based on the maximum objective, the SDA achieved the least minimum objective value of 0.005318936, whereas the FBIA, GBA, HBA, JFA and TSA came sequentially with the values of 0.006576, 0.007183, 0.017607, 0.024234 and 0.053627, respectively.
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>Figure 12. Whiskers boxplot for SDA, GBA, JFA, TSA, HBA and FBIA for ARTEMIS driving cycle.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>Figure 13. Minimum, mean and maximum objective values for SDA, GBA, JFA, TSA, HBA and FBIA for ARTEMIS driving cycle.</figcaption></figure>

Nevertheless, Figure 14 depicts the standard deviation comparison for the SDA, GBA, JFA, TSA, HBA and FBIA. As shown, both the SDA and FBIA provide the least area of 1%. With a highly accurate comparison, the acquired standard deviation is 0.000307, based on the SDA, whilst the acquired standard deviation is 0.000489, based on the FBIA. This assessment shows the SDA gave a better performance than the FBIA. On the other side, the other techniques can be ascendingly ordered as GBA, HBA, JFA and TSA, where they have percentages of 3%, 10%, 24% and 61%, respectively, where the obtained standard deviations are 0.001013, 0.003797, 0.008961 and 0.023203, respectively.

Similarly, Figure 15 shows the experimental and projected battery voltages for the ARTEMIS driving cycle using the suggested SDA, while Figure 16 describes the related current profile. In addition, Figure 17 shows the absolute inaccuracy of the projected battery voltage via the SDA for the ARTEMIS driving cycle. The significant success of the suggested SDA is presented between the experimental and estimated voltages in both figures since the highest absolute error does not exceed 0.02 percent. In addition, Figure 18 depicts the predicted and experimental SOCs during the ARTEMIS driving cycle using the proposed SDA. The absolute error of the anticipated SOC utilizing the suggested SDA for the ARTEMIS driving cycle is also shown in Figure 19. Because the highest absolute error
does not exceed 0.00014, the substantial effect of the prescribed SDA is reflected between
the experimental and estimated SOCs in both figures.

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 14.** Standard deviation comparison for SDA, GBA, JFA, TSA, HBA and FBIA for ARTEMIS driving cycle.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 15.** Battery voltage with experimental and approximated values using the SDA for ARTEMIS driving cycle.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 16.** Battery current with experimental values for ARTEMIS driving cycle.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_20.png" /><figcaption>Figure 17. Percentage of the absolute error of the evaluated battery voltage for ARTEMIS driving cycle using SDA.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /><figcaption>Figure 18. SOC with experimental and approximated values using the SDA for ARTEMIS driving cycle.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /><figcaption>Figure 19. Absolute error of the evaluated SOC for ARTEMIS driving cycle using SDA.</figcaption></figure>
## 5. Conclusions

The supply-demand-based algorithm (SDA) is used in this study to precisely extract the unidentified practical parameters of BESSs based on Li-ion batteries using a nonlinear dynamic model. The estimate problem is represented as a nonlinear optimization problem where the nonlinear relation between the state of charge (SOC), the battery current and the initial SOC condition is handled, as opposed to previous linear frameworks. Therefore, the solution methodology based on SDA yields a suitable combination between the state-space modeling and nonlinear modeling. The proposed approach is tested on a 40 Ah Kokam Li-ion battery, and a dynamic validation analysis on the ARTEMIS driving cycle is conducted to demonstrate the capacity of the suggested solution technique. The statistical findings indicate the suggested SDA's great capabilities as an efficient identification technique. Furthermore, the suggested SDA exhibits substantial precision when compared to the recently competitive optimizer. For both applications, and considering the minimum mean and maximum fitness function values, the SDA achieves the least levels for these indices compared with the competing algorithms, GBA, JFA, TSA, HBA and FBIA. The limitation of the proposed algorithm, besides all the optimizers, appears in how to deal with the high variations of the battery samples. These variations require special treatment for their response. Thus, for future work, training-based techniques can be merged with advanced optimizers, such as the equilibrium optimizer [48] to alleviate the resulting problems.

**Author Contributions:** Data curation, R.E.-S.; Formal analysis, R.E.-S.; Funding acquisition, M.A.H. and A.G.; Investigation, E.E.; Methodology, M.A.H. and A.S.; Software, E.E. and A.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This work is funded by the Taif University Researchers Supporting Project, Number (TURSP-2020/86), Taif University, Taif, Saudi Arabia.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.

**Data Availability Statement:** All data are available in the paper.

**Acknowledgments:** The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support received from the Taif University Researchers Supporting Project, Number (TURSP-2020/86), Taif University, Taif, Saudi Arabia.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

## Appendix A

Tables A1 and A2 show the optimal parameter settings of the competing algorithms for the BEESs and ARTEMIS driving cycle, respectively.

<table><caption>**Table A1.** Optimal parameter settings for BESSs.</caption><thead><tr><th>Parameters</th><th>SDA (2019)</th><th>GBA (2020)</th><th>JFA (2021)</th><th>TSA (2021)</th><th>HBA (2020)</th><th>FBIA (2020)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>R<sub>o</sub></td><td>1.1710 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td>2.2340 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td>8.9200 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>1.0000 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>2.3420 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td>7.1900 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td></tr><tr><td>w<sub>0</sub></td><td>3.3232</td><td>1.2739</td><td>3.7625</td><td>1.0000</td><td>3.6565</td><td>2.6351</td></tr><tr><td>w<sub>1</sub></td><td>6.2810 × 10<sup>-2</sup></td><td>-4.3769 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>-7.1382 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>1.7613 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>-1.2956 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>-3.8412 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td></tr><tr><td>w<sub>2</sub></td><td>-2.0443</td><td>1.0494</td><td>-4.8144</td><td>-8.2037</td><td>-1.4711 × 10<sup>1</sup></td><td>1.0308</td></tr><tr><td>w<sub>3</sub></td><td>-8.8259 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>1.6589 × 10<sup>-2</sup></td><td>-7.2151 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>-6.9302 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>-2.2919 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>9.0911 × 10<sup>-2</sup></td></tr><tr><td>w<sub>4</sub></td><td>-2.6769</td><td>-1.0309</td><td>-6.6625</td><td>-2.6719</td><td>-2.4416 × 10<sup>1</sup></td><td>1.3168 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td></tr><tr><td>w<sub>5</sub></td><td>1.7661</td><td>3.2928</td><td>2.4461</td><td>2.8413</td><td>1.6965</td><td>3.6720 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td></tr><tr><td>w<sub>6</sub></td><td>-5.0608 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>-2.6934 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>-2.1049 × 10<sup>1</sup></td><td>5.7460 × 10<sup>-2</sup></td><td>-2.0319 × 10<sup>1</sup></td><td>-3.3207 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td></tr><tr><td>w<sub>7</sub></td><td>2.7984 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>3.8607</td><td>4.9809 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>-5.9607 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>-1.4680 × 10<sup>-2</sup></td><td>7.6205 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table A1. Cont.**</caption><thead><tr><th>Parameters</th><th>SDA (2019)</th><th>GBA (2020)</th><th>JFA (2021)</th><th>TSA (2021)</th><th>HBA (2020)</th><th>FBIA (2020)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>w<sub>8</sub></td><td>6.9816 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>-7.2076 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>-2.1844 × 10<sup>1</sup></td><td>-2.5581 × 10<sup>1</sup></td><td>-5.8492 × 10<sup>1</sup></td><td>3.3634 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td></tr><tr><td>w<sub>9</sub></td><td>-1.5002</td><td>-4.9791 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>-1.3831</td><td>1.8460 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>-1.0924</td><td>3.5907 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td></tr><tr><td>w<sub>10</sub></td><td>-2.3231</td><td>-1.8237</td><td>-9.6681 × 10<sup>1</sup></td><td>-4.4144 × 10<sup>1</sup></td><td>-9.9364 × 10<sup>1</sup></td><td>-3.2747 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td></tr><tr><td>w<sub>11</sub></td><td>-3.6752 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>-3.0521</td><td>-2.8416 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>5.5591 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>-1.6626 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>3.5590 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td></tr><tr><td>w<sub>12</sub></td><td>-4.9946</td><td>-8.0712 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>-4.0284 × 10<sup>1</sup></td><td>-1.0000 × 10<sup>2</sup></td><td>-9.9849 × 10<sup>1</sup></td><td>-1.0838 × 10<sup>1</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Q<sub>b</sub></td><td>1.4796 × 10<sup>5</sup></td><td>1.4795 × 10<sup>5</sup></td><td>1.4797 × 10<sup>5</sup></td><td>1.4797 × 10<sup>5</sup></td><td>1.4798 × 10<sup>5</sup></td><td>1.4788 × 10<sup>5</sup></td></tr><tr><td>R<sub>1</sub></td><td>6.1000 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>5.2900 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>1.0680 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td>2.4320 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td>8.4300 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>1.7050 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td></tr><tr><td>C<sub>1</sub></td><td>5.3538 × 10<sup>-2</sup></td><td>1.5400 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>2.8489 × 10<sup>-2</sup></td><td>1.0000 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>8.6245 × 10<sup>-2</sup></td><td>5.9723 × 10<sup>-2</sup></td></tr><tr><td>R<sub>2</sub></td><td>6.8300 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>2.5800 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>5.1200 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>1.0000 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>3.3800 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>1.6900 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td></tr><tr><td>C<sub>2</sub></td><td>8.3440 × 10<sup>-2</sup></td><td>1.1000 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>9.8036 × 10<sup>-2</sup></td><td>1.0000 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>8.4449 × 10<sup>-2</sup></td><td>5.9705 × 10<sup>-2</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table A2. Optimal parameter settings for ARTEMIS driving cycle.**</caption><thead><tr><th>Parameters</th><th>SDA (2019)</th><th>GBA (2020)</th><th>JFA (2021)</th><th>TSA (2021)</th><th>HBA (2020)</th><th>FBIA (2020)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>R<sub>0</sub></td><td>1.2717 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td>1.2763 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td>1.3120 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td>4.1463 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td>4.1830 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td>1.7155 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td></tr><tr><td>w<sub>0</sub></td><td>3.6865</td><td>3.3523</td><td>3.6138</td><td>3.6542</td><td>3.6217</td><td>2.9002</td></tr><tr><td>w<sub>1</sub></td><td>3.3033 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>-5.8950 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>1.0085 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>1.4872 × 10<sup>-2</sup></td><td>3.2969 × 10<sup>-2</sup></td><td>-3.2351 × 10<sup>-2</sup></td></tr><tr><td>w<sub>2</sub></td><td>-4.6108</td><td>-8.6475 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>-1.2181 × 10<sup>1</sup></td><td>-8.4554 × 10<sup>1</sup></td><td>-7.7520 × 10<sup>1</sup></td><td>-2.3522</td></tr><tr><td>w<sub>3</sub></td><td>-3.4842 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>-7.4126 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>-9.9131 × 10<sup>1</sup></td><td>-9.3177 × 10<sup>1</sup></td><td>-1.0000 × 10<sup>2</sup></td><td>-2.3466 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td></tr><tr><td>w<sub>4</sub></td><td>-9.0153</td><td>-5.7937 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>-3.5919 × 10<sup>1</sup></td><td>-2.5526 × 10<sup>1</sup></td><td>-9.7163 × 10<sup>1</sup></td><td>7.7965 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td></tr><tr><td>w<sub>5</sub></td><td>3.0028 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>1.1688</td><td>1.8504 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>2.0108 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>2.1510 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>-2.4032 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td></tr><tr><td>w<sub>6</sub></td><td>-8.6588</td><td>-1.1185</td><td>-4.1395 × 10<sup>1</sup></td><td>-9.0805 × 10<sup>1</sup></td><td>-6.4522 × 10<sup>1</sup></td><td>-7.8605 × 10<sup>-2</sup></td></tr><tr><td>w<sub>7</sub></td><td>-2.1076 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>2.7213 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>1.9384</td><td>2.4972</td><td>1.2914 × 10<sup>1</sup></td><td>1.5704</td></tr><tr><td>w<sub>8</sub></td><td>-8.2188</td><td>1.1372</td><td>-6.6996 × 10<sup>1</sup></td><td>-4.2175 × 10<sup>1</sup></td><td>-9.9924 × 10<sup>1</sup></td><td>3.9334 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td></tr><tr><td>w<sub>9</sub></td><td>-1.2480 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>-1.6802 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>2.8872 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>3.1630 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>3.2177 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>-4.9499 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td></tr><tr><td>w<sub>10</sub></td><td>-2.2433</td><td>-1.9211</td><td>-1.7442 × 10<sup>1</sup></td><td>-2.7393 × 10<sup>1</sup></td><td>-2.0928 × 10<sup>1</sup></td><td>4.6201 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td></tr><tr><td>w<sub>11</sub></td><td>3.9310 × 10<sup>-2</sup></td><td>3.1791 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>-2.4682 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>-2.0414 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>-3.2501 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>1.3581 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td></tr><tr><td>w<sub>12</sub></td><td>-3.4717</td><td>-7.4593</td><td>-5.1422 × 10<sup>1</sup></td><td>-2.3842 × 10<sup>1</sup></td><td>-5.5243 × 10<sup>1</sup></td><td>5.8510 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Q<sub>b</sub></td><td>1.4400 × 10<sup>5</sup></td><td>1.4400 × 10<sup>5</sup></td><td>1.4400 × 10<sup>5</sup></td><td>1.4400 × 10<sup>5</sup></td><td>1.4400 × 10<sup>5</sup></td><td>1.4399 × 10<sup>5</sup></td></tr><tr><td>R<sub>1</sub></td><td>1.8011 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td>2.2901 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td>1.1348 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td>1.0000 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>1.0000 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>5.2647 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td></tr><tr><td>C<sub>1</sub></td><td>6.5384 × 10<sup>-2</sup></td><td>8.0927 × 10<sup>-2</sup></td><td>2.4314 × 10<sup>-2</sup></td><td>1.0000 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>1.0000 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>2.0985 × 10<sup>-2</sup></td></tr><tr><td>R<sub>2</sub></td><td>1.1066 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td>6.0190 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>1.7219 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td>1.0000 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>2.1714 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>1.8440 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td></tr><tr><td>C<sub>2</sub></td><td>5.3797 × 10<sup>-2</sup></td><td>3.2747 × 10<sup>-2</sup></td><td>4.1429 × 10<sup>-2</sup></td><td>9.1655 × 10<sup>-2</sup></td><td>1.0000 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>2.4333 × 10<sup>-2</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

## References

1. Liddle, B.; Sadorsky, P. How much does increasing non-fossil fuels in electricity generation reduce carbon dioxide emissions? *Appl. Energy* **2017**, *197*, 212–221. [CrossRef]

2. Deng, D. Li-ion batteries: Basics, progress, and challenges. *Energy Sci. Eng.* **2015**, *3*, 385–418. [CrossRef]

3. Choi, Y.Y.; Kim, S.; Kim, K.; Kim, S.; Choi, J. Il Parameter identification and identifiability analysis of lithium-ion batteries. *Energy Sci. Eng.* **2022**, *10*, 488–506. [CrossRef]

4. Hasib, S.A.; Islam, S.; Chakraborty, R.K.; Ryan, M.J.; Saha, D.K.; Ahamed, M.H.; Moyeen, S.I.; Das, S.K.; Ali, M.F.; Islam, M.R.; et al. A Comprehensive Review of Available Battery Datasets, RUL Prediction Approaches, and Advanced Battery Management. *IEEE Access* **2021**, *9*, 86166–86193. [CrossRef]
5. Barzkar, A.; Hosseini, S.M.H. A novel peak load shaving algorithm via real-time battery scheduling for residential distributed energy storage systems. *Int. J. Energy Res.* **2018**, *42*, 2400–2416. [CrossRef]

6. El-Ela, A.A.A.; El-Seheimy, R.A.; Shaheen, A.M.; Wahbi, W.A.; Mouwafi, M.T. PV and battery energy storage integration in distribution networks using equilibrium algorithm. *J. Energy Storage* **2021**, *42*, 103041. [CrossRef]

7. Benlahbib, B.; Bouarroudj, N.; Mekhilef, S.; Abdeldjalil, D.; Abdelkrim, T.; Bouchafaa, F.; lakhdari, A. Experimental investigation of power management and control of a PV/wind/fuel cell/battery hybrid energy system microgrid. *Int. J. Hydrogen Energy* **2020**, *45*, 29110–29122. [CrossRef]

8. Chun, H.; Kim, M.; Kim, J.; Kim, K.; Yu, J.; Kim, T.; Han, S. Adaptive Exploration Harmony Search for Effective Parameter Estimation in an Electrochemical Lithium-Ion Battery Model. *IEEE Access* **2019**, *7*, 131501–131511. [CrossRef]

9. Song, Z.; Wang, H.; Hou, J.; Hofmann, H.F.; Sun, J. Combined State and Parameter Estimation of Lithium-Ion Battery With Active Current Injection. *IEEE Trans. Power Electron.* **2019**, *35*, 4439–4447. [CrossRef]

10. Cao, W.; Wang, S.; Fernandez, C.; Zou, C.; Yu, C.; Li, X. A novel adaptive state of charge estimation method of full life cycling lithium-ion batteries based on the multiple parameter optimization. *Energy Sci. Eng.* **2019**, *7*, 1544–1556. [CrossRef]

11. Wang, Y.; Ni, Y.; Li, N.; Lu, S.; Zhang, S.; Feng, Z.; Wang, J. A method based on improved ant lion optimization and support vector regression for remaining useful life estimation of lithium-ion batteries. *Energy Sci. Eng.* **2019**, *7*, 2797–2813. [CrossRef]

12. Luo, Y.; Qi, P.; Kan, Y.; Huang, J.; Huang, H.; Luo, J.; Wang, J.; Wei, Y.; Xiao, R.; Zhao, S. State of charge estimation method based on the extended Kalman filter algorithm with consideration of time-varying battery parameters. *Int. J. Energy Res.* **2020**, *44*, 10538–10550. [CrossRef]

13. Shaheen, A.M.; Hamida, M.A.; El-Sehiemy, R.A.; Elattar, E.E. Optimal parameter identification of linear and non-linear models for Li-Ion Battery Cells. *Energy Rep.* **2021**, *7*, 7170–7185. [CrossRef]

14. Deng, Q.; Lin, B. Automated machine learning structure-composition-property relationships of perovskite materials for energy conversion and storage. *Energy Mater.* **2021**, *1*, 100006. [CrossRef]

15. de Fatima Brondani, M.; Sausen, A.T.Z.R.; Sausen, P.S.; Binelo, M.O. Parameter estimation of lithium ion polymer battery mathematical model using genetic algorithm. *Comput. Appl. Math.* **2017**, *37*, 296–313. [CrossRef]

16. El-Sehiemy, R.A.; Hamida, M.; Mesbahi, T. Parameter identification and state-of-charge estimation for lithium-polymer battery cells using enhanced sunflower optimization algorithm. *Int. J. Hydrogen Energy* **2020**, *45*, 8833–8842. [CrossRef]

17. Wei, Z.; Dong, G.; Zhang, X.; Pou, J.; Quan, Z.; He, H. Noise-Immune Model Identification and State-of-Charge Estimation for Lithium-Ion Battery Using Bilinear Parameterization. *IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.* **2020**, *68*, 312–323. [CrossRef]

18. Shi, H.; Wang, S.; Fernandez, C.; Yu, C.; Fan, Y.; Cao, W. Improved splice-electrochemical circuit polarization modeling and optimized dynamic functional multi-innovation least square parameter identification for lithium-ion batteries. *Int. J. Energy Res.* **2021**, *45*, 15323–15337. [CrossRef]

19. Jaguemont, J.; Boulon, L.; Dubé, Y. A comprehensive review of lithium-ion batteries used in hybrid and electric vehicles at cold temperatures. *Appl. Energy* **2016**, *164*, 99–114. [CrossRef]

20. Bodenes, L.; Naturel, R.; Martinez, H.; Dedryvère, R.; Menetrier, M.; Croguennec, L.; Pérès, J.-P.; Tessier, C.; Fischer, F. Lithium secondary batteries working at very high temperature: Capacity fade and understanding of aging mechanisms. *J. Power Sour.* **2013**, *236*, 265–275. [CrossRef]

21. Nadeem, A. Performance evaluation of online open-circuit voltage estimation method for photovoltaic system. *SN Appl. Sci.* **2020**, *2*, 2031. [CrossRef]

22. Li, Y.; Guo, H.; Qi, F.; Guo, Z.; Li, M. Comparative Study of the Influence of Open Circuit Voltage Tests on State of Charge Online Estimation for Lithium-Ion Batteries. *IEEE Access* **2020**, *8*, 17535–17547. [CrossRef]

23. Sun, F.; Xiong, R.; He, H. A systematic state-of-charge estimation framework for multi-cell battery pack in electric vehicles using bias correction technique. *Appl. Energy* **2016**, *162*, 1399–1409. [CrossRef]

24. Hu, X.; Jiang, H.; Feng, F.; Liu, B. An enhanced multi-state estimation hierarchy for advanced lithium-ion battery management. *Appl. Energy* **2019**, *257*, 114019. [CrossRef]

25. Safwat, I.M.; Li, W.; Wu, X. A Novel Methodology for Estimating State-Of-Charge of Li-Ion Batteries Using Advanced Parameters Estimation. *Energies* **2017**, *10*, 1751. [CrossRef]

26. Chen, J.; Ouyang, Q.; Xu, C.; Su, H. Neural Network-Based State of Charge Observer Design for Lithium-Ion Batteries. *IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol.* **2017**, *26*, 313–320. [CrossRef]

27. Tong, S.; Lacap, J.H.; Park, J.W. Battery state of charge estimation using a load-classifying neural network. *J. Energy Storage* **2016**, *7*, 236–243. [CrossRef]

28. Wang, Q.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, L.; Liu, P.; Zhang, Z. A Novel Consistency Evaluation Method for Series-Connected Battery Systems Based on Real-World Operation Data. *IEEE Trans. Transp. Electrif.* **2020**, *7*, 437–451. [CrossRef]

29. She, C.; Wang, Z.; Sun, F.; Liu, P.; Zhang, L. Battery Aging Assessment for Real-World Electric Buses Based on Incremental Capacity Analysis and Radial Basis Function Neural Network. *IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform.* **2019**, *16*, 3345–3354. [CrossRef]

30. Zhang, L.; Hu, X.; Wang, Z.; Ruan, J.; Ma, C.; Song, Z.; Dorrell, D.G.; Pecht, M.G. Hybrid electrochemical energy storage systems: An overview for smart grid and electrified vehicle applications. *Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.* **2020**, *139*, 110581. [CrossRef]

31. Zhao, W.; Wang, L.; Zhang, Z. Supply-Demand-Based Optimization: A Novel Economics-Inspired Algorithm for Global Optimization. *IEEE Access* **2019**, *7*, 73182–73206. [CrossRef]
32. Al-Shamma'A, A.A.; Ali, F.A.A.; Alhoshan, M.S.; Alturki, F.A.; Farh, H.M.H.; Alam, J.; AlSharabi, K. Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell Parameter Extraction Using a Supply-Demand-Based Optimization Algorithm. *Processes* **2021**, *9*, 1416. [CrossRef]

33. Alturki, F.; Al-Shamma'A, A.A.; Farh, H.M.H.; Alsharabi, K. Optimal sizing of autonomous hybrid energy system using supply-demand-based optimization algorithm. *Int. J. Energy Res.* **2020**, *45*, 605–625. [CrossRef]

34. Ginidi, A.R.; Shaheen, A.M.; El-Sehiemy, R.A.; Elattar, E. Supply demand optimization algorithm for parameter extraction of various solar cell models. *Energy Rep.* **2021**, *7*, 5772–5794. [CrossRef]

35. Ibrahim, S.A.; Kamel, S.; Hassan, M.H.; Elsayed, S.K.; Nasrat, L. Developed algorithm based on supply-demand-based optimizer for parameters estimation of induction motor. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE International Conference on Automation/XXIV Congress of the Chilean Association of Automatic Control (ICA-ACCA), Valparaíso, Chile, 22–26 March 2021.

36. Ahmadianfar, I.; Bozorg-Haddad, O.; Chu, X. Gradient-based optimizer: A new metaheuristic optimization algorithm. *Inf. Sci.* **2020**, *540*, 131–159. [CrossRef]

37. Deb, S.; Abdelmaaan, D.S.; Said, M.; Houssein, E.H. Recent Methodology-Based Gradient-Based Optimizer for Economic Load Dispatch Problem. *IEEE Access* **2021**, *9*, 44322–44338. [CrossRef]

38. Xie, L.; Han, T.; Zhou, H.; Zhang, Z.-R.; Han, B.; Tang, A. Tuna Swarm Optimization: A Novel Swarm-Based Metaheuristic Algorithm for Global Optimization. *Comput. Intell. Neurosci.* **2021**, *2021*, 9210050. [CrossRef]

39. Chou, J.-S.; Truong, D.-N. A novel metaheuristic optimizer inspired by behavior of jellyfish in ocean. *Appl. Math. Comput.* **2020**, *389*, 125535. [CrossRef]

40. Askari, Q.; Saeed, M.; Younas, I. Heap-based optimizer inspired by corporate rank hierarchy for global optimization. *Expert Syst. Appl.* **2020**, *161*, 113702. [CrossRef]

41. Chou, J.-S.; Nguyen, N.-M. FBI inspired meta-optimization. *Appl. Soft Comput.* **2020**, *93*, 106339. [CrossRef]

42. El-Sehiemy, R.A.; Abdullah, M.S.; Ginidi, A.; Sherif, S.M. Ghoneim A Forensic-Based Investigation Algorithm for Parameter Extraction of Solar Cell models. *IEEE Access* **2020**, *9*, 1–20. [CrossRef]

43. Claude, F.; Becherif, M.; Ramadan, H.S. Experimental validation for Li-ion battery modeling using Extended Kalman Filters. *Int. J. Hydrogen Energy* **2017**, *42*, 25509–25517. [CrossRef]

44. Lai, X.; Gao, W.; Zheng, Y.; Ouyang, M.; Li, J.; Han, X.; Zhou, L. A comparative study of global optimization methods for parameter identification of different equivalent circuit models for Li-ion batteries. *Electrochim. Acta* **2018**, *295*, 1057–1066. [CrossRef]

45. Rahimi-Eichi, H.; Baronti, F.; Chow, M.Y. Online adaptive parameter identification and state-of-charge coestimation for lithium-polymer battery cells. *IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.* **2013**, *61*, 2053–2061. [CrossRef]

46. Affanni, A.; Bellini, A.; Franceschini, G.; Guglielmi, P.; Tassoni, C. Battery choice and management for new-generation electric vehicles. *IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.* **2005**, *52*, 1343–1349. [CrossRef]

47. Torres, J.L.; Gonzalez, R.; Gimenez, A.; Lopez, J. Energy management strategy for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. A comparative study. *Appl. Energy* **2013**, *113*, 816–824. [CrossRef]

48. Abdul-hamied, D.T.; Shaheen, A.M.; Salem, W.A.; Gabr, W.I.; El-sehiemy, R.A. Equilibrium optimizer based multi dimensions operation of hybrid AC/DC grids. *Alexandria Eng. J.* **2020**, *59*, 4787–4803. [CrossRef]