Organizations: School of Electronics and Information Engineering, Hangzhou Dianzi University, Hangzhou 310018, China · School of Information Technology and Artificial Intelligence, Zhejiang University of Finance and Economics, Hangzhou 310018, China · Engineering Training Center, China Jiliang University, Hangzhou 310018, China
Accurately predicting the state-of-health (SOH) and remaining useful life (RUL) of lithium-ion batteries is crucial for ensuring the safe and efficient operation of electric vehicles while minimizing associated risks. However, current deep learning methods are limited in their ability to selectively extract features and model time dependencies for these two parameters. Moreover, most existing methods rely on traditional recurrent neural networks, which have inherent shortcomings in long-term time-series modeling. To address these issues, this paper proposes a multi-task targeted learning framework for SOH and RUL prediction, which integrates multiple neural networks, including a multi-scale feature extraction module, an improved extended LSTM, and a dual-stream attention module. First, a feature extraction module with multi-scale CNNs is designed to capture detailed local battery decline patterns. Secondly, an improved extended LSTM network is employed to enhance the model's ability to retain long-term temporal information, thus improving temporal relationship modeling. Building on this, the dual-stream attention module-comprising polarized attention and sparse attention to selectively focus on key information relevant to SOH and RUL, respectively, by assigning higher weights to important features. Finally, a many-to-two mapping is achieved through the dual-task layer. To optimize the model's performance and reduce the need for manual hyperparameter tuning, the Hyperopt optimization algorithm is used. Extensive comparative experiments on battery aging datasets demonstrate that the proposed method reduces the average RMSE for SOH and RUL predictions by 111.3% and 33.0%, respectively, compared to traditional and state-of-the-art methods.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1 : Flowchart of the proposed NN based on the fusion of FEM, IE-LSTM and DSAM.
Fig. 2 : The proposed overall framework for SOH and RUL prediction.
NASA
CALCE
XJTU
Oxford
MIT
Cell Chemistry
LCO
LCO
NCM
LCO
LFP
Rated Capacity
2 Ah
1.1 Ah
2 Ah
0.74 Ah
1.1 Ah
EOL
1.4 Ah
0.77 Ah
1.6 Ah
0.59 Ah
0.88 Ah
Saturation Voltage
4.2 V
4.2 V
1.2 V
4.2 V
3.6 V
Battery Number
28
15
55
8
124
TABLE I : Detailed description of the battery used in the experiments.
Dataset
Training Set
Test Set
NASA (OC = 20)
SOH
B0005 B0006 B0007
B0018
B0005 B0006 B0018
B0007
B0005 B0007 B0018
B0006
B0006 B0007 B0018
B0005
RUL
B0005 B0006
B0018
B0005 B0018
B0006
TABLE II : Data partitioning strategy, namely the division of training set/test set and the selection of observation cycle. OC represents observation cycle selection.
Network
Evaluation Criteria
FEM
IE-LSTM
DSAM
MAE (%, SOH)
RMSE (%, SOH)
MAE (RUL)
RMSE (RUL)
NASA dataset
✓
✓
0.0082
0.0111
5.04
6.82
✓
✓
0.0145
0.0180
4.97
6.31
✓
✓
0.0112
0.0145
4.53
6.71
✓
✓
✓
0.0053
0.0084
4.01
5.39
CALCE dataset
✓
✓
0.0099
0.0126
46.39
61.87
TABLE III : The ablation experiment results for the proposed method in this paper, illustrate the average MAE and RMSE across four cells for both datasets.
Fig. 3 : Experimental results under different observation cycles on the NASA and CALCE datasets.
Fig. 4 : Comparative results of the proposed method versus other NN-based methods.
SOH
B0005
B0006
CS2_35
CS2_36
Method
MAE
RMSE
MAPE
MAE
RMSE
MAPE
MAE
RMSE
MAPE
MAE
RMSE
MAPE
CNN
0.87
1.08
1.18
2.29
2.93
3.31
1.34
1.59
1.62
1.33
1.52
1.63
LSTM
1.21
1.66
1.69
1.84
2.24
2.56
2.05
2.57
2.59
2.05
2.64
2.61
TCN
0.95
1.20
1.26
3.09
3.70
4.24
1.43
1.74
1.78
1.56
1.86
1.93
Transformer
1.20
1.42
1.53
2.06
2.52
2.99
2.24
2.83
2.87
2.15
2.68
2.73
[ 35 ]
0.89
1.43
0.57
/
/
/
0.87
1.57
1.42
0.90
1.42
1.45
TABLE IV : Comparison results are presented between our method and both generic and state-of-the-art methods. While CNN, LSTM, TCN, and Transformer models are evaluated on our platform, other comparative values are directly sourced from the experimental results reported in relevant papers. The three evaluation metrics for SOH are displayed as percentages, where lower values indicate improved predictive performance. The best results are highlighted in bold .
Fig. 5 : The SOH and RUL prediction results of the proposed method for five datasets are presented.
Fig. 6 : Experimental results with non-full data as input to the proposed network.
Task
B0005
B0006
B0007
B00018
Metrics
MAE
RMSE
M/M
MAE
RMSE
M/M
MAE
RMSE
M/M
MAE
RMSE
M/M
SOH (%)
0.46
0.72
0.60
0.77
1.09
1.09
0.24
0.37
0.30
0.65
1.19
0.86
RUL
2.97
3.71
2.38
4.87
6.67
3.73
/
/
/
4.19
5.78
2.52
CS2_35
CS2_36
CS2_37
CS2_38
SOH (%)
0.70
0.96
0.88
0.73
1.06
0.98
0.60
0.76
0.72
0.69
0.94
0.87
RUL
37.78
54.15
25.96
33.86
42.72
25.96
45.01
55.53
40.46
44.42
60.99
35.17
TABLE V : Quantitative results of the method proposed in this paper on all eight cells, where the evaluation metrics for SOH are presented in percentage form, and M/M represents MAPE at SOH task, MedAE at RUL task.
School of Physics and Electronic Information, Anhui Normal University, Wuhu 241002, China · College of Mechanical and Vehicle Engineering, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China · School of Design, NingboTech University, Ningbo 315100, China +2