Physics-Informed Machine Learning for Battery Capacity Forecasting
Authors: Behtash Mohammad , Das Sourav , Navidi Sina , Sarkar Abhishek , Shrotriya Pranav , Hu Chao 
Published: August 2024

Batteries, recognized as effective energy storage solutions, are considered the main facilitators of the world-wide transition towards clean and renewable energy sources. Among different types of batteries, lithium-ion (Li-ion) variants offer higher energy densities and relatively longer life spans when compared to other types. Nonetheless, a primary concern with these batteries is their lifetime. Batteries undergo various degradation mechanisms under storage and use, significantly impacting their lifespan. To this end, it is crucial to predict the degradation and lifetime of Li-ion batteries under given conditions.

Researchers use three main methodologies to perform battery health diagnostics and to predict the lifetime of batteries. One approach revolves around using mechanistic, first-principle electrochemical models, also known as physics-based models. If equipped with proper thermodynamic theories, such models can show promising capabilities; however, holistic degradation prediction with these models is still challenging due to the computational complexities and the multitude of parameters that need to be fine-tuned in this approach. The other common strategy is to use empirical models to predict battery degradation. These models generally entail fewer parameters to be identified and are computationally less intensive to solve. Nonetheless, empirical models can suffer from the accuracy point-of-view as they are constrained to predict degradation trends introduced by certain degradation modes. Another common technique in battery life prediction is to utilize purely data-driven methods, such as machine learning (ML) algorithms, which also have shown promising results in the literature on rapid health predictions. However, these methods require large volumes of experimental data for training and testing ML models to ensure accuracy. In addition, data-driven methods are likely to extrapolate poorly to conditions beyond their training data and are indifferent towards the underlying degradation mechanisms. Recently, physics-informed machine learning (PI-ML) methods have garnered significant attention. They integrate physics-based or empirical models (developed based on physics) with a data-driven approach and allow one to train ML models on a smaller set of experimental data.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the performance comparison between first-principle and empirical models when integrated within PI-ML remains unclear. Therefore, in this work, we aim to compare these two models when applied to prognostics (capacity forecasting and remaining useful life prediction) of a set of Li-ion batteries. To perform this study, we generate aging data for 40 Li-ion coin cells cycled under randomized conditions. Each cell undergoes a three-step charging stage followed by a two-step discharge stage. After obtaining the aging data, we will develop two PI-ML models, one equipped with a physics-based model and another with a set of empirical models. Both PI-ML models in this work will follow the sequential integration approach, where the training data for the final PI-ML model come from both experimental and computational data, the latter of which are obtained from the physics-based or empirical models. The parameters for the physics-based and empirical models are identified from another set of experimental data. Finally, the PI-ML models will be tested with experimental data obtained at different cycling conditions. The data flow for the sequential architecture of PI-ML is shown in the attached figure. This comparative study will help identify the performance of physics-based and empirical models when integrated into PI-ML. The main performance metric considered in this work is each model’s ability to extrapolate beyond the experimental training data set, hence aiding the final PI-ML model in generalizing to conditions not covered by its experimental training data set.

Figure 1