batteries

Article
In Operando Health Monitoring for Lithium-Ion Batteries in
Electric Propulsion Using Deep Learning
Jaya Vikeswara Rao Vajja , Alexey Serov, Meghana Sudarshan, Mahavir Singh and Vikas Tomar *

School of Aeronautics and Astronautics Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
* Correspondence: tomar@[Link]

Abstract: Battery management systems (BMSs) play a vital role in understanding battery performance
under extreme conditions such as high C-rate testing, where rapid charge or discharge is applied
to batteries. This study presents a novel BMS tailored for continuous monitoring, transmission,
and storage of essential parameters such as voltage, current, and temperature in an NCA 18650
4S lithium-ion battery (LIB) pack during high C-rate testing. By incorporating deep learning, our
BMS monitors external battery parameters and predicts LIB’s health in terms of discharge capacity.
Two experiments were conducted: a static experiment to validate the functionality of BMS, and
an in operando experiment on an electrically propelled vehicle to assess real-world performance
under high C-rate abuse testing with vibration. It was found that the external surface temperatures
peaked at 55 ◦ C during in operando flight, which was higher than that during static testing. During
testing, the deep learning capacity estimation algorithm detected a mean capacity deviation of
0.04 Ah, showing an accurate state of health (SOH) by predicting the capacity of the battery. Our BMS
demonstrated effective data collection and predictive capabilities, mirroring real-world conditions
during abuse testing.

Keywords: lithium-ion batteries; deep learning; state of health; in operando monitoring; C-rate;
electric propulsion; battery management system

Citation: Vajja, J.V.R.; Serov, A.;

1. Introduction
Sudarshan, M.; Singh, M.; Tomar, V. In
Operando Health Monitoring for
The importance of LIBs and their associated technologies cannot be overstated in
Lithium-Ion Batteries in Electric
the current technological landscape. Diverse systems, ranging from electric vehicles and
Propulsion Using Deep Learning. aerial drones to portable electronic devices, rely extensively on the safe operation of LIB
Batteries 2024, 10, 355. https:// technology such as avoiding fire and thermal runaway, etc. [1]. LIBs offer high energy
[Link]/10.3390/batteries10100355 density, long cycle life, fast charging, low self-discharge rates, a wide operating temperature
range, versatility in design, reduced maintenance needs, and environmental friendliness
Academic Editor: Mona Faraji Niri
compared to conventional rechargeable battery technologies such as nickel–metal hydride
Received: 31 July 2024 (NiMH), and nickel–cadmium (NiCd) batteries, etc. [2]. LIBs present a significant challenge
Revised: 4 October 2024 due to their widespread applications. The aging of LIBs decreases their ability to store
Accepted: 9 October 2024 energy and provide power for applications. Therefore, state of health (SOH) is an important
Published: 11 October 2024 parameter for determining battery aging [3]. Many challenges are faced in the accurate
estimation of SOH due to internal battery chemistry and the difficulty in measuring indi-
vidual parameters such as voltage, current, temperature, and capacity [4]. This underscores
the importance of precise sensing and monitoring mechanisms to safeguard durability
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
and dependability [5]. Battery management systems (BMSs) play a key role in accurately
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
sensing and monitoring battery parameters, ensuring that the battery operates safely for
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
longevity and reliability [6].
conditions of the Creative Commons
The design of a BMS is historically application-specific and closely tied to the specific
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// battery or cells employed, the power demands from the system, and the desired level
[Link]/licenses/by/ of complexity [7]. In addition to the SOH of the battery, the state of charge (SOC) and
4.0/). remaining useful life (RUL) are common indicators of battery health [8]. Often, these

Batteries 2024, 10, 355. [Link] [Link]

Batteries 2024, 10, 355 2 of 18

indicators are derived from proprietary data acquisition (DAQ) setups employed for data
collection, which can restrict flexibility and introduce logistical complexities to connec-
tivity. DAQ configurations for LIBs can provide essential data such as voltage, current,
and temperature for deep learning (DL) applications, but often suffer from being bulky,
expensive, and tailored to specific research batteries or battery packs. Frequently, there is
an insufficient description of the costs involved in data collection. However, DAQ collects
the data required to calculate the battery performance parameters. DAQ also provides
flexibility in collecting a wider range of data for various applications. Integrating DL
techniques with advanced BMS presents a promising approach for the early prediction of
battery performance, overcoming the challenges associated with data collection methods,
and offering scalability for diverse applications.
To explore the use of DL in the early validation prediction of battery performance,
Kunz et al. [9] utilized a dataset gathered from a Maccor series 4000 tester, an expensive
and highly accurate battery test system capable of driving voltages and currents, as well
as accurately reporting values within ±0.02% and ±0.05% of the full-scale range. The
temperature data were gathered, but no specific details were given on the type of DAQ
used or the data rate. Huang et al. [10] describe a novel extended Kalman filter (EKF)
intent on improving SOC or SOH estimation performance using a Keithley 2461 source
meter unit to measure cell voltage and currents. A thermocouple data logger was used
for temperature data collection, with no specifics given about sensors except a mention of
K-type thermocouples. Continuing the recent trend of data logging setups for DL data,
Gasper et al. [11] developed a machine learning (ML) method using massive amounts of
data for battery health prediction with electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS). The
dataset utilized by Gasper et al. [11] was obtained from another study by Smith et al. [12],
which focused on a reduced-order LIB life model. This dataset, used for both modern
reduced-order and ML models, was captured with a Fujitsu TNW 5 V, 360 A battery cycler.
While such sophisticated battery testing systems provide highly accurate data for DL and
ML applications, they pose a significant challenge for operando studies owing to their size,
cost, and complexity. Measurement of the surface temperature of LIBs is crucial because
of its direct correlation with their safety and performance [13]. Elevated temperatures
can accelerate the degradation processes, increase the risk of thermal runaway, and com-
promise the overall stability of the battery system [13]. Monitoring and controlling the
surface temperature is essential to prevent overheating and mitigate the potential hazards
associated with LIBs [14]. With limitations imposed by computational power and storage,
a compact design using a single integrated circuit is needed with the possible integration
of cloud-based measurements [15]. A modern BMS is also a critical and underutilized
repository of battery data that can be valuable for DL applications.
In one study, Li et al. [16] developed a temperature-based BMS using linear regression
to predict and prevent over-discharge in LIBs. Their setup utilized commercially available
prismatic cells with lithium cobalt oxide (LCO) cathode, cycled using an eight-channel
battery analyzer (BAn). The external temperatures were monitored using a resistance
temperature detector (RTD) with a DAQ module. This setup successfully detected and
prevented over-discharge within 0.1 V of the cutoff voltage. Jones et al. [17] developed
a method using Gaussian process regression (GPR) to predict the discharge capacity of
LIBs after nail puncture, utilizing incremental capacity analysis data. Their approach
achieved high accuracy in forecasting battery performance under damage conditions, with
a mean coefficient of determination of 0.923. This study showcases how machine learning
algorithms can be effectively applied to complex battery systems, particularly in scenarios
involving abuse of the battery.
In a separate study, Jia et al. [18] examined ML-driven prognostication of SOC, SOH,
and RUL by employing a GPR ML model. Nizam et al. [19] and other researchers elaborate
on a spectrum of ML techniques for SOC estimation. Patil et al. [20] presented an online
RUL estimation technique that extracts pivotal data features, followed by algorithmic
classification and prediction using a support vector machine-based ML model. Wang
Batteries 2024, 10, 355 3 of 18

et al. [21] discuss a plethora of conventional methods for predicting RUL, encompassing
both ML and non-ML paradigms. Sheng et al. [22] employed transfer and ensemble learning
to predict capacity with lesser cycling data. Jinpeng et al. [23] utilized convolutional neural
network short-term charging data to estimate maximum and remaining capacities. More
information on the development of ML algorithms for battery life predictions can be found
in our previous research [24]. However, there remains a critical gap in the development
of practical, real-time BMS that can operate under high C-rate discharge conditions and
integrate with advanced ML-based prediction models in real time.
Along with the SOH, the SOC, RUL, and the C-rate are also important parameters
for the performance of LIBs. C-rate is the ratio of battery current to the rated capacity. An
increase in the C-rate of the battery causes a capacity fade or increase in battery degradation
and a reduction in time to complete one full charge or discharge cycle [25]. Such increases
in the C-rate are often required for applications like aviation [26], electric vehicle charging,
etc. [27,28]. Ouyang et al. [29] performed testing on overcharge and over-discharge rates
to investigate the fire and thermal characteristics of batteries. It was observed that the
surface temperature of the battery increases with an increase in the C-rate. Previous work
on high C-rates has also involved the development of accelerated degradation models of
batteries [20]. In the DL domain, data holds paramount importance. However, current
data collection methods often face challenges such as complex setups and sensor accuracy
ambiguities. A necessity has emerged to develop an innovative, portable BMS framework
for collecting voltage, current, and temperature data in a versatile range of applications like
high C-rates, encompassing both stationary battery loads and dynamic mobile systems. A
modular in-operando system that incorporates a BMS with DL that integrates with modern
cloud data can ensure scalability and flexibility to adapt to the evolving technological needs
of systems based on LIBs.
In this work, we present a comprehensive framework for a BMS capable of meeting
electric propulsion-specific requirements of in-operando monitoring while integrating a
capacity degradation network (CD-Net) DL model developed previously, which uses only
four historical data points to predict the upcoming cycle capacity with higher accuracy
and lower computational power [24] than support vector regression, Bayesian regression,
and GPR methods. The next section outlines the general design and key components of
such a system, followed by a detailed explanation of the specific components leading to a
proof-of-concept hardware system demonstration with 42 standard charge-discharge cycles
and 20 in-operando charge-discharge cycles [4,30]. Subsequently, an experimental setup is
described for deploying a DL SOH estimation model that can be used for both static battery
packs and electric propulsion systems. Outcomes demonstrate high-quality data capture
and successful integration of DL models with the collected data. Finally, comparisons
between BMS data and secondary DAQ source-based data are presented to validate the
efficiency of the DL-based BMS solution. This approach contributes to BMS development
as well as facilitates accurate integration with edge and cloud platforms, incorporating DL
or ML models.

2. Development of BMS
A printed circuit board was developed for the proposed BMS, focusing on collecting
essential data for battery health prediction and initiating actions based on predictions. The
developed BMS used the in operando data for modern battery health prediction including
battery voltage, current, and temperature [18,31]. The collected data were then fed to a DL
model for the live prediction of the battery health. The development process is described in
brief in the following sections.

2.1. Sensor Measurement

Accurate measurement of current and temperature is essential for the safe and efficient
operation of electric propulsion systems [31]. This section explores methodologies for
current, voltage, and temperature measurement in battery applications. The enhancements
Batteries 2024, 10, 355 4 of 18

were also highlighted to improve measurement accuracy and accommodate real-time

scenarios. Through these efforts, we aim to ensure precise and reliable monitoring of
critical parameters crucial for battery system performance and safety.

2.1.1. Current and Voltage Measurement

The current measurement was performed using a shunt resistor inserted into the
current path called a high-side current sensor. It measures the current between the positive
terminal of the power supply to the load. A current–voltage sensor INA219 was chosen due
to its extensive monitoring capabilities, including the ability to handle variable pack volt-
ages, extreme high and low voltages of the battery (from 0 to 26 V), and a standard current
measurement range of ±3.2 A; the chosen sensor provides current resolution of 8 mA and
uses inter-integrated circuit communication [32,33]. To accommodate real-time scenarios
where the current discharge from the battery exceeds ±3.2 A, the default 0.1 Ω current
shunt resistor was substituted with a 0.01 Ω resistor. This adjustment enabled the system to
accommodate a maximum current range of ±32 A. The current–voltage sensor’s maximum
voltage differential of 0.32 V drove the choice of the 0.01 Ω resistor, corresponding to a
maximum current range of ±32 A when divided by the voltage differential according to
Equations (1)–(4). A Datasheet of the INA 219 current and voltage sensor was used for
programming this sensor to develop our BMS.
+ −
Vshunt = VIn − VIn (1)

Vshuntmax = 0.32 V (2)

Rshunt = 0.01 Ω (3)
Vshunt
Maximum Possible Current ( I ) = = ±32 A (4)
Rshunt

2.1.2. Temperature Measurement

Temperature measurement for battery applications utilizes sensors that change resis-
tance with temperature. Common sensor types include thermistors, thermocouples, and
RTDs. RTDs are widely used to measure battery temperatures due to their accuracy [17,34].
In this study, PT100 Adafruit MAX31865 sensor breakout boards were chosen due to their
low power consumption (1.6 µW to 1.8 mW) including 2, 3, and 4 wire compatibility with
high accuracy and stability [35]. The relation between the resistance of the temperature
sensor and the temperature was obtained based on Callendar–van Dusen’s equation [36],
as shown in Equation (5):  
R(t) = R0 1 + αt + βt2 (5)

where, R0 = 100 Ω (resistance at 0 ◦ C) and α = 3.90830 × 10−3 , β = −5.775 × 10−7 . Five tem-
perature sensor breakout boards were used, with one attached to each battery cell repre-
sented in Figure 1 and an additional sensor on board for ambient temperature monitoring.
This setup was calibrated by comparing the ambient temperature of the room to the ambient
temperature collected by the sensor.
Batteries 2024, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 19
Batteries 2024, 10, 355 5 of 18

Figure 1. A detailed schematic of the BMS sensor network, illustrating the integration of current,
Figure 1. A detailed schematic of the BMS sensor network, illustrating the integration of current,
voltage, and temperature sensors with a microcontroller and communication module for real-time
voltage, and temperature sensors with a microcontroller and communication module for real-time
monitoring and data transmission.
monitoring and data transmission.

[Link].
Device Control
Device Control
AnAn Arduino
ArduinoUnoUnoRevRev 2 Wi-Fi
Wi-Ficircuit
circuitboard,
board, equipped
equipped with
with the the ATmega4809
ATmega4809 micro-
microcon-
troller, was chosen due to its data logging, pre-processing, and transmission
controller, was chosen due to its data logging, pre-processing, and transmission capabili- capabilities [37].
It [37].
ties had aItclock
had aspeed
clockofspeed
16 MHz with
of 16 MHz 48 with
kB of 48
flash
kB memory and Electrically
of flash memory Erasable Pro-
and Electrically Eras-
grammable
able Read-Only
Programmable Memory
Read-Only (EEPROM)
Memory of 256 Bytes
(EEPROM) of 256providing 16 digital16input
Bytes providing andin-
digital
putoutput pins. This
and output [Link]
This managed a network
device managed of sensors,
a network of including ‘temperature
sensors, including sensors’
‘temperature
and ‘current and voltage monitor sensors’ (obtained from Adafruit Industries). Its internal
sensors’ and ‘current and voltage monitor sensors’ (obtained from Adafruit Industries).
5 V regulator, with a maximum current output of 0.8 A, was used to satisfy the input current
Its internal 5 V regulator, with a maximum current output of 0.8 A, was used to satisfy the
and voltage requirements of the sensor network. Table 1 provides a detailed overview
input current and voltage requirements of the sensor network. Table 1 provides a detailed
of the various connections made using an Arduino board with various sensors, as also
overview
depictedofinthe various
Figure connections
1. This setup has made using an
five different Arduino board
temperature sensors with
for various
collectingsensors,
four
as cell
alsosurface
depicted in Figure 1. This setup has five different temperature sensors
temperatures and one ambient temperature. Serial clock (SCLK), serial data for collecting
four
outcell surface
(SDO), temperatures
serial data in (SDI),and andonechipambient temperature.
select (CS) Serialutilized
were all signals clock (SCLK), serial
in the serial
data
peripheral interface (SPI) protocol to connect the sensors to the microcontroller. Table the
out (SDO), serial data in (SDI), and chip select (CS) were all signals utilized in 2
serial
givesperipheral
informationinterface
on the(SPI) protocol
required power to for
connect
these the sensors
sensors andto the usage
their microcontroller.
in collecting Ta-
bleparameters
2 gives information
like voltage,oncurrent,
the required power for these sensors and their usage in collect-
and temperature.
ing parameters like voltage, current, and temperature.
Table 1. Description of the electrical terminals on the sensor network wiring harness.
Table 1. Description of the electrical terminals on the sensor network wiring harness.
Type Connection Use
Type Connection Use
Power and Serial USB 5 V power supply as well as serial communication to the main CPU
Power and Serial USB 5 V power supply as well as serial communication to the main CPU
Ground GND Common star ground for every component in the sensor network
Ground GND Common star ground for every component in the sensor network
ShuntShunt
V+ V+ CurrentV+
Current Sensor Sensor V+ Positive
Positive KelvinKelvin connection
connection fromfrom current
current shunt
shunt to battery
to battery positive
positive
Shunt V- V−
Shunt Current Current Sensor V−
Sensor V- Negative KelvinKelvin
Negative connection fromfrom
connection current shunt
current to load
shunt positive
to load positive
Arduino Pins
SCLK Arduino Pin 13 Clock line for SPI
SDO Arduino Pin 12 Serial Data Output for SPI
SDI Arduino Pin 11 Serial Data Input for SPI
Batteries 2024, 10, 355 6 of 18

Table 1. Cont.

Type Connection Use

Arduino Pins
SCLK Arduino Pin 13 Clock line for SPI
SDO Arduino Pin 12 Serial Data Output for SPI
SDI Arduino Pin 11 Serial Data Input for SPI
CS1 Arduino Pin 10 Chip Select Temperature Sensor 1
CS2 Arduino Pin 9 Chip Select Temperature Sensor 2
CS3 Arduino Pin 8 Chip Select Temperature Sensor 3
CS4 Arduino Pin 7 Chip Select Temperature Sensor 4
CS5 Arduino Pin 6 Chip Select Temperature Sensor 5
SCLK Arduino Pin SCLK Serial Data Clock for I2C
SDO Arduino Pin SDO Serial Data Address for I2C

Table 2. Current and operating voltage requirements of the sensor network used in the development
of BMS in this study.

Purpose Sensors Used Operating Voltage Maximum Supply Current

Pack voltage and current sensor Adafruit INA219 3.0–5.5 V 1 mA
Battery surface temperature sensors Adafruit PT100 MAX31865 3.0–3.6 V 3 mA
Ambient temperature sensor Adafruit PT100 MAX31865 3.0–3.6 V 3 mA

2.3. SOH Estimation on BMS

Voltage and temperature collected by the BMS are transferred to the computer or
data collection facility. The current collected by the BMS was used to calculate the SOC
of the battery by using the coulomb counting method, as shown in Figure 2. The data
collected by the BMS are transferred via a wired transfer method due to its high-speed
communication between the BMS and computer for the prediction of capacity. Coulomb
counting [38] uses the initial capacity (Qn ) provided in the data sheet of the battery pack
(also mentioned in Table 3) along with the continuous current flowing into the battery
pack to calculate the SOC. The SOC of each cycle along with the nominal capacity and
cell chemistry fed into the CD-Net model [24] developed in-house by Sudarshan et al. are
used for predicting the upcoming cycle discharge capacity. A combination of a five-layer
autoencoder with a structure of 10 × 4 × 1 × 4 × 10 neurons and a two-layer perceptron
was used in the CD-Net model. The model was optimized over 20 epochs using Adam’s
optimizer with 1 × 10−4 learning rate. Four cycles of historical data were fed into the
CD-Net, and using an encoder–decoder, the noise in the data was removed to highlight the
temporal vectors responsible for the degradation of the battery. A rectified linear activation
function with mean squared error as a loss function was used in the CD-Net model for
better predictions. This model has already been tested on the NASA Prognostics Center of
Excellence dataset and Sandia National Lab dataset in [24]. The maximum capacity of the
upcoming cycle predicted by the CD-Net model is used to calculate the SOH, a ratio of the
predicted maximum capacity to the nominal battery capacity.
Batteries 2024, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 19
Batteries 2024, 10, 355 7 of 18

[Link]
Figure 2. drone with
with thethe
BMSBMS on stores
on top top stores the voltage,
the voltage, temperature,
temperature, and current.
and current. Current
Current was also
usedalso
was to calculate the SOC of
used to calculate the
the battery,
SOC of thewhich helps
battery, to predict
which helps tothepredict
discharge
the capacity
dischargebycapacity
using CD-
by
Net.
using CD-Net.

3. Experimental
Table Setup
3. Specifications of the individual cells in the LIB battery pack used in this study.
Tests were conducted on an 18650 Sony VTC 6 battery pack with 4 cells in series. The
specifications ofCharacteristic
the individual cell are listed in Table 3. The NCA Value
cells were selected due
Cell chemistry NCA
to their higher risk of thermal runaway when compared to other cell chemistries such as
Cell form
lithium cobalt oxide factor
(LCO) or lithium iron phosphate (LFP) [39].18650
The battery pack had a
Nominal capacity 3120 mAh
capacity of 3 Ah with a maximum voltage of 16.8 V. Each cell weighed approximately 46.4
Nominal voltage 3.6 V
± 1.5 g, and the entire battery
Standard charge pack weighed 195 ± 3 g. Each
CCCV, 1 C, 4.2 considered
cell was V fully
charged whenStandard
the voltage reached
discharge 4.2 V, and fully discharged it reached 2.5 V.
Constant charge, 1 C, 2.5 VAccording
to the datasheet, a standard
Weight cycle was defined as charging the46.4 battery
± 1.5under
g CCCV at 3 A
of current followed by 0.167 h rest and discharging under constant current discharge at 3
A Experimental
3. of current followed
Setupby 1.0 h rest.
Tests were conducted on an 18650 Sony VTC 6 battery pack with 4 cells in series. The
3.1. On-Ground Testing
specifications of the individual cell are listed in Table 3. The NCA cells were selected due
On-ground
to their higher risk tests were conducted
of thermal runawayto analyze
when the performance
compared to other cellofchemistries
newly developed
such as
BMS before deploying it in electric propulsion vehicles. The
lithium cobalt oxide (LCO) or lithium iron phosphate (LFP) [39]. The batteryon-ground tests involved ap-
pack had
plying a load to the battery, allowing it to charge and discharge
a capacity of 3 Ah with a maximum voltage of 16.8 V. Each cell weighed approximatelyby connecting the BMS
between
46.4 ± 1.5the battery
g, and the pack
entireand the BAn,
battery as shown195
pack weighed in Figure 3b. The
± 3 g. Each cellNEWARE Powerwall
was considered fully
CT-4004-20V20A
charged when the system
voltage BAn,
reachedcapable
4.2 V, of
andcharging and discharging
fully discharged it reachedup2.5
to V.
a combined
According 20
to
V and 20 A, was used as a load during on-ground testing. The voltage,
the datasheet, a standard cycle was defined as charging the battery under CCCV at 3 A of current of the bat-
tery pack,
current and surface
followed temperature
by 0.167 of each cell were
h rest and discharging undermonitored, and the
constant current BMS logged
discharge at 3 Athe
of
data. Tofollowed
current place thebyRTD 1.0 honrest.
the battery, the protective film of the battery was removed at
the center of the 18650 cell, and the orientation of the battery pack was noted to maintain
3.1. On-Ground
consistency Testing
in recording surface temperature, as shown in Figure 3d. Additionally, the
voltage and applied
On-ground testscurrent on the battery
were conducted pack were
to analyze thecollected
performanceby theofBAn.
newlyFollowing the
developed
standard
BMS cycling
before on the itbattery
deploying pack,propulsion
in electric 42 cycles were performed
vehicles. to check thetests
The on-ground performance
involved
of the newly
applying developed
a load BMS. The
to the battery, cycling
allowing it topattern
chargewasandsimilar
dischargeto certification
by connectingexperiment
the BMS
bed by NASA
between for small
the battery pack satellites
and the[40].
BAn, as shown in Figure 3b. The NEWARE Powerwall
CT-4004-20V20A system BAn, capable of charging and discharging up to a combined 20 V
and 20 A, was used as a load during on-ground testing. The voltage, current of the battery
pack, and surface temperature of each cell were monitored, and the BMS logged the data.
To place the RTD on the battery, the protective film of the battery was removed at the center
of the 18650 cell, and the orientation of the battery pack was noted to maintain consistency
in recording surface temperature, as shown in Figure 3d. Additionally, the voltage and
Batteries 2024, 10, 355 8 of 18

applied current on the battery pack were collected by the BAn. Following the standard
cycling on the battery pack, 42 cycles were performed to check the performance of the
Batteries 2024, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19
newly developed BMS. The cycling pattern was similar to certification experiment bed by
NASA for small satellites [40].

Figure
Figure 3. 3. Overviewof
Overview ofthe
the experimental
experimental setup designed
setup in-house:
designed (a) top
in-house: (a)view of BMS
top view ofwith
BMSallwith
the all the
sensors used in these experiments, (b) schematic representation of BMS and quadcopter connectiv-
sensors used in these experiments, (b) schematic representation of BMS and quadcopter connectivity
ity with batteries, (c) in operando experimental setup of quadcopter along with batteries and BMS,
with batteries, (c) in operando experimental setup of quadcopter along with batteries and BMS, and
and (d) 18650 NCA batteries used in batteries where RTD is placed in the middle of the surface.
(d) 18650 NCA batteries used in batteries where RTD is placed in the middle of the surface.
3.2. In-Air Testing
3.2. In-Air Testing
After performing the on-ground experiments, real-time in-air testing was conducted
forAfter performing the
20 charge-discharge on-ground
cycles. experiments,
This testing real-time
was conducted in-air
to gather testing
data underwashighconducted
dis-
forcharge
20 charge-discharge cycles. This testing was conducted to gather
rates. Real-time data were collected using an electric propulsion vehicle or quad-data under high
discharge
copter (a rates.
FLYWOO Real-time
Explorer),data
withwere
2750 collected
kV motors using
that cananspin
electric propulsion
2750 RPM per [Link]
The or
quadcopter
quadcopter(aincludes
FLYWOO Explorer),
a GOKU with 2750
GN405 Nano flight kV motors
controller that
with an can spin
Atomic 5.82750
GHz RPM
an- per
volt. The
tenna forquadcopter
point-to-pointincludes a GOKU
communication. GN405
Without theNano
battery,flight controllerweighs
the quadcopter with 162.8
an Atomic
5.8±GHz
2 g. The quadcopter
antenna was chosen for its
for point-to-point real-world usageWithout
communication. and ability to battery,
the draw high currents
the quadcopter
from the
weighs battery
162.8 ± 2pack
g. [41].
The The battery pack
quadcopter waswaschosen
installed
forin its
a 3D-printed
real-world mounting
usage frame
and ability
to support the BMS on top, as seen in Figure 3c. The BMS weighed
to draw high currents from the battery pack [41]. The battery pack was 113 ± 2 g. The battery
installed in
charging protocol
a 3D-printed mountingremained
frameconsistent
to support withthe
theBMS
on-ground
on top,procedure,
as seen in utilizing
Figure the
3c. The
datasheet of the battery pack. After each charging cycle, approximately 0.167 h were re-
BMS weighed 113 ± 2 g. The battery charging protocol remained consistent with the
quired to prepare for in-air discharge. Unlike the controlled discharge patterns employed
on-ground procedure, utilizing the datasheet of the battery pack. After each charging
during ground testing, the in-air discharge cycles were randomized to simulate real-world
cycle, approximately
variations. 0.167 hflew
The quadcopter were required to1prepare
approximately foot above for ground
in-air discharge.
level duringUnlike
dis- the
controlled
charge. When the BMS indicated that the battery voltage had reached 10 V, the in-air dis- cycles
discharge patterns employed during ground testing, the in-air discharge
were randomized
charge to simulate
was stopped. real-world
After a 0.167 variations.
h rest period, Thecycle
a charging quadcopter flew approximately
was performed.
1 foot above ground level during discharge. When the BMS indicated that the battery
4. Results
voltage had and Discussion
reached 10 V, the in-air discharge was stopped. After a 0.167 h rest period, a
charging cycle was performed.
The following section discusses the results and key findings obtained using the newly
developed BMS, including CD-Net model predictions. Using the previous experimental
4. Results
setup forand Discussion
on-ground and in-air experiments, the newly developed BMS collected data
from
The following section dynamic
both stationary and discussesbattery [Link]
the results The key
newly developed
findings BMS seamlessly
obtained using the newly
integrates DL models like CD-Net, providing significant flexibility
developed BMS, including CD-Net model predictions. Using the previous to adapt to evolving
experimental
technological
setup needs. and in-air experiments, the newly developed BMS collected data
for on-ground
from both stationary and dynamic battery loads. The newly developed BMS seamlessly
integrates DL models like CD-Net, providing significant flexibility to adapt to evolving
technological needs.
Batteries 2024, 10, 355 9 of 18

Batteries 2024, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 19

4.1. On-Ground Voltage Profile Measurements
Figure 4a illustrates voltage versus time data for 42 cycles of charging and discharging
from4.1.
both the BAn and the newly developed BMS. Each cycle consisted of approximately
On-Ground Voltage Profile Measurements
1.5 ± 0.2 h of charging, followed by 1.0 ± 0.2 h of discharging. During the discharging
Figure 4a illustrates voltage versus time data for 42 cycles of charging and discharg-
phase,
ingas depicted
from both the inBAn
Figure
and 4b,
the the
newlyvoltage initially
developed [Link]
Each cycle rapidly
consistedbefore transitioning
of approxi-
to a mately
slower1.5 decline,
± 0.2 h of charging, followed by 1.0 ± 0.2 h of discharging. During the discharg-et al. [43].
consistent with the findings of Chin et al. [42] and Huang
Subsequently,
ing phase, as the constant
depicted current
in Figure 4b,charging
the voltagephase leddecreased
initially to a logarithmic increase
rapidly before in voltage,
transi-
tioningby
followed toaa constant
slower decline,
voltageconsistent
chargingwithperiod
the findings
lasting of Chin
overet0.5 al.±
[42]
0.1and
h. Huang et
The voltage data
al. [43]. Subsequently, the constant current charging phase led to
acquired by the BMS closely match those of the BAn, although a slight initial lag was a logarithmic increase in
voltage, followed by a constant voltage charging period lasting over 0.5 ± 0.1 h. The volt-
observed in the BMS data, which subsequently converged with the BAn readings. The
age data acquired by the BMS closely match those of the BAn, although a slight initial lag
constant voltage portion of the discharge curve can be further investigated to establish a
was observed in the BMS data, which subsequently converged with the BAn readings. The
direct
constant voltagewith
correlation theofSOH
portion of batteries
the discharge curve[44].
can beDifferences in the voltage
further investigated reading
to establish a occur
due direct
to thecorrelation
5-second with datathe
transfer
SOH ofrate of the
batteries BMS
[44]. and a delay
Differences in thein the internal
voltage clock for both
reading occur
systems.
due toThe BMS operates
the 5-second on the
data transfer battery’s
rate of the BMSpower,
and a unlike
delay inthethe BAn, which
internal uses
clock for an external
both
powersystems.
source The BMS
that operates
causes theoninitial
the battery’s
lag. Thepower, unlike the
observed BAn, which
average uses anof
deviation external
0.2 V between
powerand
the BMS sourceBAn,thatalong
causes with
the initial
the lag. The observed
logarithmic average
curve duringdeviation of 0.2 V between
the constant current phase,
the BMS and BAn, along with the logarithmic curve during the constant current phase,
indicates a close match. The study by Fleischer et al. [45] observed an accuracy error of just
indicates a close match. The study by Fleischer et al. [45] observed an accuracy error of
abovejust0.05 ± 0.01
above 0.05 ±V0.01
while performing
V while performing on-ground
on-groundtests testswith
with a a hardware-in-the-loop
hardware-in-the-loop (HIL)
simulator. Overall, the results suggested good alignment, with minor
(HIL) simulator. Overall, the results suggested good alignment, with minor variations at- variations attributed
to the powertosource
tributed the powerandsource
internal clock discrepancies
and internal clock discrepancies between
between thethe
BMSBMSandandBAn.
BAn.

(a)

(b)

Figure 4. A comparison of voltage readings collected from both BMS and BAn. (a) Voltage data for
42 cycles, highlighting the deviations between 0.2 V and 0.4 V. This indicates a close match between
the BMS and BAn data. (b) The first cycle data, illustrating the discharging and charging profiles.
Random deviations in voltage are shown compared to the BAn readings.
Batteries 2024, 10, 355 10 of 18

4.2. On-Ground Current Profile Measurements

Figure 5a illustrates the current flowing through the BAn during 42 cycles of on-
ground testing. Figure 5a,b show the initial cycle’s current data from both the BAn and the
Batteries 2024, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 19
BMS, as well as the deviation between them. The negative values in the figure represent
the current drawn from the battery during discharge. The BAn draws a current up to −3 A
during the constant current phase of discharge. The BMS data showed a good match with
Figure 4. A comparison of voltage readings collected from both BMS and BAn. (a) Voltage data for
the42BAn data.
cycles, After discharging
highlighting at −3 A0.2for
the deviations between V and ± V.
1.0 0.4 0.2This
h, indicates
the current drawn
a close dropped to
match between
0 Athefor the 1.0 h of rest. The current increased to +3 A to charge the battery
BMS and BAn data. (b) The first cycle data, illustrating the discharging and charging profiles. during the
constant
Randomcurrent phase,
deviations consistent
in voltage withcompared
are shown the findings
to the of
BAn Chin et al. [42]. The constant current
readings.
charging phase lasted around 0.5 ± 0.1 h. The constant voltage charging began after the
4.2. On-Ground
constant current Current
charging Profile
[Link]
The negative slope after each constant current charging
Figure 5a illustrates
phase represents the constantthe current
voltageflowing
charge through the BAn
of the battery. duringthis
During 42 constant
cycles of on-
voltage
ground
charge, thetesting.
current Figure 5a,b to
supplied showthe the initialgradually
battery cycle’s current data from
decreased as theboth the BAn
voltage and to
increased
theVBMS,
16.8 in theasbattery.
well as the deviation between them. The negative values in the figure repre-
sent the collected
Data current drawn
fromfrom the battery
the BMS showed during
closedischarge.
agreement. TheHowever,
BAn draws in athe
current up to the
part where
−3 A during the constant current phase of discharge. The BMS data
current skipped before each constant current phase, the BMS was delayed in reading these showed a good match
with the
values, BAn data.
causing After discharging
deviations higher than at −3 A for
0.25 1.0certain
A in ± 0.2 h,instances,
the currentas drawn
shown dropped to 5b.
in Figure
0 A for the 1.0 h of rest. The current increased to +3 A to charge the battery during the
The highest voltage deviations were observed when the charging phase shifted from
constant current phase, consistent with the findings of Chin et al. [42]. The constant cur-
constant current to constant voltage. The current readings were more accurate than the
rent charging phase lasted around 0.5 ± 0.1 h. The constant voltage charging began after
voltage readings from the BMS with a lower average deviation of 0.077 A. However, when
the constant current charging phase. The negative slope after each constant current charg-
theing
data points
phase with deviations
represents the constant greater
voltagethan 0.25ofAthe
charge were removed,
battery. Duringthe thisaverage
constantdeviation
volt-
dropped to 0.058 A. This was due to the lower shunt resistance
age charge, the current supplied to the battery gradually decreased as the voltageused to measure the voltage
in-
drop, which
creased relates
to 16.8 V intothe
the current via Ohm’s law.
battery.

(a)

(b)

Figure 5. Cont.
 Batteries
Batteries 2024,
2024, 10, 35510, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19
11 of 18

(c) (d)
Figure 5. Current data comparison between BAn and BMS across multiple cycles; (a) current data
Figure 5. Current data comparison between BAn and BMS across multiple cycles; (a) current data
over 42 cycles for both BAn and BMS, showing consistent overall trends; (b) deviations between
over 42 cycles for both BAn and BMS, showing consistent overall trends; (b) deviations between
BAn and BMS, ranging from −3 A to +3 A, mainly during phase transitions from constant current to
BAn and BMS,
constant ranging
voltage from
or rest; −3 A cycle
(c) initial to +3comparison,
A, mainly during
showing phase transitions
a close from constant
match between current to
BAn and BMS;
constant voltageduring
(d) deviations or rest;the
(c)initial
initialcycle,
cyclewith
comparison,
the highestshowing a close
deviations match
occurring between
during phaseBAn and BMS;
shifts.
(d) deviations during the initial cycle, with the highest deviations occurring during phase shifts.
Data collected from the BMS showed close agreement. However, in the part where
[Link]
On-Ground Temperature
current skipped before Profile Measurements
each constant current phase, the BMS was delayed in reading
these values, causing deviations higher
Four surface temperatures were collected than 0.25 to
A in certain instances,
monitor the rise inastemperature
shown in Figure of each
5b. The highest voltage
cell throughout all 42 cycles. deviations were observed when the charging phase shifted from
constant
A rapid current
surfaceto temperature
constant voltage. The current
increase readingsduring
was observed were more accurateofthan
the cycling the the
battery
voltage readings from the BMS with a lower average deviation of 0.077 A. However, when
for each cell. Similar observations were made by Chin et al. [42] and Tarascon et al. [2]. In
the data points with deviations greater than 0.25 A were removed, the average deviation
Figure 6a, during the first cycle, each cell was at room temperature (24 ± 0.3 ◦ C (TA)) before
dropped to 0.058 A. This was due to the lower shunt resistance used to measure the volt-
the on-ground experiments began. After the on-ground experiments commenced, there
age drop, which relates to the current via Ohm’s law.
was a gradual rise in temperature due to the constant current charging of the battery pack,
as shown in Figure
4.3. On-Ground 6b. Starting
Temperature from
Profile room temperature, the surface temperature reached
Measurements
just above 32 ± 0.3 ◦ C for each cell in the battery pack by the end of the constant current
Four surface temperatures were collected to monitor the rise in temperature of each
charge. A decrease
cell throughout in cycles.
all 42 the surface temperature was then observed due to the constant
voltageAcharge, followed
rapid surface temperatureby a 0.167 h [Link]
increase Subsequently,
observed duringconstant current
the cycling of discharge
the battery was
applied to the battery by the BAn, causing the temperature to rise to 37 ±al.0.3 ◦
for each cell. Similar observations were made by Chin et al. [42] and Tarascon et [2].C.
In The
constant voltage
Figure 6a, duringcharging phase
the first cycle, eachcaused theatsurface
cell was temperature
room temperature (24 ±to0.3
gradually decrease,
°C (TA)) before
which was similarexperiments
the on-ground to the observations made
began. After theby Chen et al.
on-ground [46]. Aftercommenced,
experiments that, 1.0 h ofthere
rest was
provided; at thisrise
was a gradual time, the surface temperature
in temperature of thecurrent
due to the constant batterycharging
droppedoftothe room temperature.
battery pack,
Theashighest
shown in temperatures were observed
Figure 6b. Starting from roomat the end of each
temperature, constant
the surface current phase
temperature reachedof the
just above
batteries. These32 ±observations
0.3 °C for each cell consistent
were in the battery pack
with all by
thethe end performed
cycles of the constant current
on the ground,
charge. A
as shown indecrease
Figure 6a. in the surface temperature was then observed due to the constant volt-
age charge,
The surfacefollowed by a 0.167
temperature of hcell
rest. Subsequently,
4 was observedconstant current discharge
to be comparatively wasthan
higher ap- the
plied to the battery by the BAn, causing the temperature to rise to 37 ±
other three cells in the battery pack, as shown in Figure 6a. This could be due to various 0.3 °C. The constant
voltage
factors suchcharging phaseaging,
as battery caused changes
the surface intemperature
the SOC, and to gradually decrease, [47].
other influences whichThermal
was
similar to the observations made by Chen et al. [46]. After that, 1.0 h of rest was provided;
variation within a cell impacts the overall battery pack, causing different charging or
at this time, the surface temperature of the battery dropped to room temperature. The
discharging behaviors which can lead to an electrically unbalanced battery pack [48] and
highest temperatures were observed at the end of each constant current phase of the bat-
variable power capabilities in each cell [49]. The BMS detects and displays the temperature
teries. These observations were consistent with all the cycles performed on the ground, as
differences in each cell. Early detection of thermal issues in the battery enables timely
shown in Figure 6a.
cell replacement or the implementation of appropriate thermal management strategies,
preventing premature failure and extending the overall battery life.
Batteries 2024,
Batteries 2024, 10,
10, 355
x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 19
12 of 18

(a)

(b)
Figure
Figure 6.
6. Surface
Surface temperature
temperature data
data for
for aa 4-cell
4-cell NCA
NCA battery
battery pack, with ambient
pack, with ambient temperature
temperature (TA)
(TA)
logged by BMS. (a) Data of 42 cycles performed on the ground. A repeated pattern is observed, with
logged by BMS. (a) Data of 42 cycles performed on the ground. A repeated pattern is observed,
T4 reaching the highest temperature of 38 °C. (b) The third complete cycle performed on the ground.
with T4 reaching the highest temperature of 38 ◦ C. (b) The third complete cycle performed on the
Temperature peaks are observed at the end of the constant current phases for both charging and
ground. Temperature peaks are observed at the end of the constant current phases for both charging
discharging.
and discharging.
The surface
4.4. In-Air Currenttemperature of cell Measurements
and Voltage Profile 4 was observed to be comparatively higher than the
other three cells in the battery pack, as shown in Figure 6a. This could be due to various
Figure 7 illustrates the current and voltage readings collected by the newly developed
factors such as battery aging, changes in the SOC, and other influences [47]. Thermal var-
BMS during in-air testing. For each in-air cycle, the current drawn by the quadcopter varied
iation within a cell impacts the overall battery pack, causing different charging or dis-
randomly based on the power needs of the quadcopter, as shown in Figure 7a. As depicted
charging behaviors which can lead to an electrically unbalanced battery pack [48] and
in Figure 7b, the charging of the LIB was conducted on the ground, similar to the process
variable power capabilities in each cell [49]. The BMS detects and displays the temperature
in Figure 4. Figure 7b represents the first cycle of in-air testing. At the end of the charge,
differences in each cell. Early detection of thermal issues in the battery enables timely cell
0.167 ± 0.03 h were required to prepare for the flight, which included integrating the BMS
replacement or the implementation of appropriate thermal management strategies, pre-
with the quadcopter and setting up the flight station, as shown in Figure 3c.
venting premature failure and extending the overall battery life.
At the beginning of the flight, the current drawn from the battery increased sharply
until it reached the required power for the electrically propelled quadcopter, which in this
4.4. In-Air Current and Voltage Profile Measurements
case was approximately −6 A. Once the required power was reached, the current drawn
Figurerelatively
remained 7 illustrates the current
consistent, and
with voltage
slight readings during
fluctuations collected byflight
the the newly developed
to maintain the
BMS during in-air
quadcopter’s testing.
attitude For each At
and altitude. in-air cycle,0.167
around the current drawndrawn
h, the current by the dropped
quadcopter var-
rapidly
ied randomly based on the power needs of the quadcopter, as shown in Figure 7a. As
 attitude. The rise in voltage observed during these attitude corrections was considered an
outlier in the data.
The current drawn by the quadcopter to maintain attitude and altitude increased
over the 20 cycles conducted in-air, as shown in Figure 7a. The discharge current started
Batteries 2024, 10, 355 13 of 18
at a maximum of −10 A for the first experiment and increased over time, reaching the
highest discharge current of 13 A by the ninth in-air cycle. For the last 14 cycles, the current
drawn from the battery was consistently above 11 A. The current drawn from the batteries
to zero due to a temporary cut-off in power to adjust the flight’s attitude. Upon restarting
during in-air testing
the experiment, occurred
the current at higher
drawn C-rates
increased compared
again, reaching to the
9 A. on-ground
The experiments,
spikes in the current
and the BMS could record these high C-rate currents accurately drawn from the batteries,
profile before the end of the experiment were due to corrections made to the quadcopter’s
which were
attitude. Thehigher
rise inC-rates
voltage than the on-ground
observed during theseexperiments. The BMS
attitude corrections wascould record
considered anthe
currents atthe
outlier in high C-rates.
data.

(a)

(b)

Figure 7. Current and voltage data collected by BMS during random flight patterns of the drone.
(a) The current and voltage over 20 cycles performed by the drone. The battery pack provides variable
discharge current necessary for flight. (b) One discharge cycle during flight (the first of 20 cycles).
During this cycle, the current discharges at higher C-rates in real-time, while the voltage drops from
16.8 V to 10 V. Note that each discharge cycle lasts less than an hour.

The current drawn by the quadcopter to maintain attitude and altitude increased over
the 20 cycles conducted in-air, as shown in Figure 7a. The discharge current started at a
maximum of −10 A for the first experiment and increased over time, reaching the highest
discharge current of 13 A by the ninth in-air cycle. For the last 14 cycles, the current drawn
from the battery was consistently above 11 A. The current drawn from the batteries during
in-air testing occurred at higher C-rates compared to the on-ground experiments, and the
BMS could record these high C-rate currents accurately drawn from the batteries, which
were higher C-rates than the on-ground experiments. The BMS could record the currents at
high C-rates.
 cating a 6.5 ± 0.3 °C rise in surface temperature during in-air discharge. This temperature
increase is attributed to the high C-rate discharge performed in the air. Sudden spikes in
temperature at 0.167 h and after 0.33 h were caused by attitude corrections. T4 in Figure
8a,b showed lower temperatures compared to the other cells, likely due to cell imbalance
Batteries 2024, 10, 355
in the battery pack [29,47].
14 of 18
Compared to the BMS developed by Li et al. [50], the proposed BMS achieves higher
C-rates with in-air data, indicating varied temperatures among the cells in the battery
pack. As shown in Figure 8a, during the first five cycles, T2 exhibited a higher temperature
4.5. In-Air
than Temperature
the other Profile
cells. After the Measurements
fifth cycle, T3 showed a greater increase in temperature com-
Figure
pared 8 shows
to T2. the surface
Temperature peakstemperature of each in
were first observed cell
theinseventh
the battery pack
in-air during
cycle becausein-air
the ex-
periments. Figure 8b
current exceeded specifically
a 4C dischargedisplays
rate for the
the temperature
first time withinof each
the cell duringNotably,
20 cycles. the first the
in-air
cycle. As temperature
highest the initial cellreached
temperature starts 55
was around below 40 ◦ C,isa16
°C, which reduction in surface
± 0.5 °C higher thantemperature
the peak
is temperature
observed during the charging
observed of the LIB.
on the ground, andDuring
10 ± 0.5discharge
°C higherinthanthe air
the(Figure 8b), cycle.
first in-air a dip in
Overall,temperature
ambient temperatures observed
occurs during
due to in-air experiments
air flowing were The
around the cells. higher than temperature
surface those rec-
orded during
gradually on-ground
increases discharge, reaching a peak of around 43 ± 0.3 ◦ C.
duringexperiments.

Batteries 2024, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 19

(a)

(b)
Figure
Figure 8. 8. Surfacetemperature
Surface temperaturedatadata collected
collected by
by BMS
BMS during
duringrandom
randomflight
flightpatterns
patternsof of
thethe
drone,
drone,
incorporating ambient temperature (TA) using a 4-cell LIB pack. (a) A consistent pattern across 20
incorporating ambient temperature (TA) using a 4-cell LIB pack. (a) A consistent pattern across
cycles performed by the drone. TA dips during flight, and each cell exhibits varying temperatures.
20 (b)
cycles
Oneperformed
discharge by thewhile
cycle drone. TA dips
flying. during
It shows anflight, andineach
increase cell exhibits
temperature overvarying temperatures.
time, with the dis-
(b)charge
One discharge cycleless
cycle lasting while
thanflying. It shows an increase in temperature over time, with the discharge
an hour.
cycle lasting less than an hour.
4.6. Deep Learning Integration with BMS
OnData
the collected
ground, the maximum ◦ C, indicat-
◦
from BAn andtemperature
BMS were used reached was approximately
to calculate the discharge39 capacity of
ingthe
a 6.5 ± 0.3
battery overCeach
rise cycle.
in surface
Less temperature during
capacity loss was in-airover
observed discharge. This temperature
the 42 cycles conducted
increase is attributed
on-ground, as seen into the high
Figure 9a.C-rate
Figuredischarge performed
9a illustrates in the air.
the maximum Suddencapacity
discharge spikes in
temperature at 0.167 h and after 0.33 h were caused by attitude corrections. T4
noted in each cycle performed on-ground. The blue line represents the capacity calculated in Figure 8a,b
showed
using coulomb counting on-ground [38]. In the initial cycle, the battery capacity experi-the
lower temperatures compared to the other cells, likely due to cell imbalance in
battery
encedpack
a rise[29,47].
due to instability in the early cycles of the battery [51]. From the second cycle
onward, the battery capacity gradually decreased over the cycles. At the end of the 20th
cycle, the capacity of the battery was 2.84 Ah. Building upon Li et al. [50] and Shi et al.
[52], the proposed BMS demonstrates the successful integration of CD-Net for real-time
battery capacity prediction. Capacity predictions started from the 5th cycle, at 2.92 Ah,
whereas the coulomb counting capacity recorded by the BMS for the 5th cycle was 2.95
Batteries 2024, 10, 355 15 of 18

Compared to the BMS developed by Li et al. [50], the proposed BMS achieves higher
C-rates with in-air data, indicating varied temperatures among the cells in the battery
pack. As shown in Figure 8a, during the first five cycles, T2 exhibited a higher temperature
than the other cells. After the fifth cycle, T3 showed a greater increase in temperature
compared to T2. Temperature peaks were first observed in the seventh in-air cycle because
the current exceeded a 4C discharge rate for the first time within the 20 cycles. Notably,
the highest temperature reached was around 55 ◦ C, which is 16 ± 0.5 ◦ C higher than the
peak temperature observed on the ground, and 10 ± 0.5 ◦ C higher than the first in-air cycle.
Overall, temperatures observed during in-air experiments were higher than those recorded
during on-ground experiments.

4.6. Deep Learning Integration with BMS

Data collected from BAn and BMS were used to calculate the discharge capacity of the
battery over each cycle. Less capacity loss was observed over the 42 cycles conducted on-
ground, as seen in Figure 9a. Figure 9a illustrates the maximum discharge capacity noted
in each cycle performed on-ground. The blue line represents the capacity calculated using
coulomb counting on-ground [38]. In the initial cycle, the battery capacity experienced a
rise due to instability in the early cycles of the battery [51]. From the second cycle onward,
the battery capacity gradually decreased over the cycles. At the end of the 20th cycle, the
capacity of the battery was 2.84 Ah. Building upon Li et al. [50] and Shi et al. [52], the
proposed BMS demonstrates the successful integration of CD-Net for real-time battery
capacity prediction. Capacity predictions started from the 5th cycle, at 2.92 Ah, whereas
the coulomb counting capacity recorded by the BMS for the 5th cycle was 2.95 Ah. The
capacity showed a gradual drop over the cycles, with predictions from the model remaining
consistent with BMS capacity, exhibiting a difference of around 0.030 Ah at the 20th cycle.
This information can be further used to predict the approximate SOH of the battery for that
cycle [24]. As observed in Figure 9b, the discharge coulomb counting capacity of the battery
during flying tests was more unstable than the on-ground tests. This instability in coulomb
counting can be attributed to various factors such as temperature rise, and variable current
discharge rates [21] similar variations were noted by Kong et al. [53]. The mean difference
between the calculated coulomb counting capacity and the predicted capacity observed in
air was 0.046 Ah. Despite fluctuations encountered while collecting the in-air data, due
to several factors such as temperature rise and current fluctuations throughout cycling,
the CD-Net model was able to predict the upcoming cycle capacity. Predicting upcoming
cycle capacity helps in the development of the BMS by establishing a threshold
Batteries 2024, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW
of predicted
16 of 19
capacity before the battery reaches its EOL.

(a) (b)
Figure 9. Capacity predictions made by the CD-Net model using data collected from BMS. (a) Pre-
Figure 9. Capacity predictions
dictions based onmade by the
on-ground CD-NetThe
experiments. model using dataaccurate
model demonstrates collected from
capacity BMS. (a) Predic-
predictions
over multiple cycles. (b) Predictions while flying on a drone. Capacity
tions based on on-ground experiments. The model demonstrates accurate capacity predictions becomes unstable after 4 over
cycles, yet the model still provides improved predictions compared to previous methods.
multiple cycles. (b) Predictions while flying on a drone. Capacity becomes unstable after 4 cycles, yet
5. Conclusions
the model still provides improved predictions compared to previous methods.
In operando data collection from an electrically propelled vehicle needs a portable
BMS capable of operating under abusive conditions, such as high C-rate discharge in LIBs.
In this study, a novel BMS architecture was proposed to record, transmit, and receive data
using edge and cloud frameworks that can handle high C-rate discharges. This BMS ar-
chitecture builds upon traditional systems by replacing the conventional approach that
relies on a CAN bus and an edge computer [54].
Two types of tests have been performed: on-ground tests and in-air or in operando
tests. The highest surface temperature, both on-ground and in-air, was observed at the
Batteries 2024, 10, 355 16 of 18

5. Conclusions
In operando data collection from an electrically propelled vehicle needs a portable
BMS capable of operating under abusive conditions, such as high C-rate discharge in LIBs.
In this study, a novel BMS architecture was proposed to record, transmit, and receive
data using edge and cloud frameworks that can handle high C-rate discharges. This BMS
architecture builds upon traditional systems by replacing the conventional approach that
relies on a CAN bus and an edge computer [54].
Two types of tests have been performed: on-ground tests and in-air or in operando
tests. The highest surface temperature, both on-ground and in-air, was observed at the
end of the constant current phase of discharge. In-air tests exhibited an increased surface
temperature of the battery, including a differential temperature between each cell in the
battery pack, with the maximum surface temperature reaching close to 55 ◦ C. This increase
may be attributed to factors such as aging, SOC changes, and many more. However, such
a significant increase in surface temperature can eventually lead to the failure of that cell
or even the entire battery pack. Throughout the 42 cycles performed on-ground and the
20 cycles conducted in-air, the surface temperature increased over the cycles.
Using the collected data, the CD-Net was deployed in operando to predict the SOH
of the battery. The model’s capacity prediction for the upcoming cycle was consistent
during on-ground testing, with a mean deviation of −0.026 Ah. However, during in-air
collection, the predictions exhibited a mean difference of 0.046 Ah, despite fluctuations in
capacity measured by the coulomb counting method. Within the threshold range of the
current–voltage sensor (±32 A), the BMS was able to perform data collection effectively.
Future works include increasing the volume of data collected to observe the tempera-
ture differential and make changes to the battery pack. To make electric propulsion more
sustainable, batteries need to be monitored using the latest DL models integrated into BMSs
with edge and cloud support.

Author Contributions: J.V.R.V.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Data Curation, Visualiza-

tion, Validation, Formal Analysis, Writing—Original Draft, Writing—Review and Editing; A.S.: Conceptu-
alization, Methodology, Investigation, Visualization, Writing—Original Draft; M.S. (Meghana Sudarshan):
Methodology, Investigation, Software, Data Curation, Writing—Review and Editing; M.S. (Mahavir Singh):
Methodology, Visualization, Validation, Formal Analysis, Writing—Original Draft, Writing—Review
and Editing; V.T.: Conceptualization, Investigation, Visualization, Validation, Formal Analysis,
Writing—Review and Editing, Resources, Supervision, Project Administration, Funding Acquisition.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Office of Naval Research for the financial support grant
N00014-22-1-2079 (program manager Corey Love), the School of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Data Availability Statement: Data will be made available on request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Scrosati, B.; Garche, J. Lithium batteries: Status, prospects and future. J. Power Sources 2010, 195, 2419–2430. [CrossRef]
2. Tarascon, J.M.; Armand, M. Issues and challenges facing rechargeable lithium batteries. Nature 2001, 414, 359–367. [CrossRef]
3. Xiong, R.; Li, L.; Tian, J. Towards a smarter battery management system: A critical review on battery state of health monitoring
methods. J. Power Sources 2018, 405, 18–29. [CrossRef]
4. Pradhan, S.K.; Chakraborty, B. Battery management strategies: An essential review for battery state of health monitoring
techniques. J. Energy Storage 2022, 51, 104427. [CrossRef]
5. Peng, P.; Jiang, F. Thermal safety of lithium-ion batteries with various cathode materials: A numerical study. Int. J. Heat. Mass.
Transf. 2016, 103, 1008–1016. [CrossRef]
6. Vezzini, A. Lithium-Ion Battery Management. In Lithium-Ion Batteries; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 345–360.
7. Lelie, M.; Braun, T.; Knips, M.; Nordmann, H.; Ringbeck, F.; Zappen, H.; Sauer, D.U. Battery Management System Hardware
Concepts: An Overview. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 534. [CrossRef]
8. Hasib, S.A.; Islam, S.; Chakrabortty, 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]
Batteries 2024, 10, 355 17 of 18

9. Kunz, M.R.; Dufek, E.J.; Yi, Z.; Gering, K.L.; Shirk, M.G.; Smith, K.; Chen, B.; Wang, Q.; Gasper, P.; Bewley, R.L.; et al. Early Battery
Performance Prediction for Mixed Use Charging Profiles Using Hierarchal Machine Learning. Batter. Supercaps 2021, 4, 1186–1196.
[CrossRef]
10. Huang, Z.; Best, M.; Knowles, J.; Fly, A. Adaptive Piecewise Equivalent Circuit Model with SOC/SOH Estimation Based on
Extended Kalman Filter. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 2023, 38, 959–970. [CrossRef]
11. Gasper, P.; Schiek, A.; Smith, K.; Shimonishi, Y.; Yoshida, S. Predicting battery capacity from impedance at varying temperature
and state of charge using machine learning. Cell Rep. Phys. Sci. 2022, 3, 101184. [CrossRef]
12. Smith, K.; Gasper, P.; Colclasure, A.M.; Shimonishi, Y.; Yoshida, S. Lithium-Ion Battery Life Model with Electrode Cracking and
Early-Life Break-in Processes. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2021, 168, 100530. [CrossRef]
13. Raijmakers, L.H.J.; Danilov, D.L.; Eichel, R.A.; Notten, P.H.L. A review on various temperature-indication methods for Li-ion
batteries. Appl. Energy 2019, 240, 918–945. [CrossRef]
14. Rao, Z.; Lyu, P.; Du, P.; He, D.; Huo, Y.; Liu, C. Thermal safety and thermal management of batteries. Battery Energy 2022,
1, 20210019. [CrossRef]
15. Tran, M.K.; Panchal, S.; Khang, T.D.; Panchal, K.; Fraser, R.; Fowler, M. Concept Review of a Cloud-Based Smart Battery
Management System for Lithium-Ion Batteries: Feasibility, Logistics, and Functionality. Batteries 2022, 8, 19. [CrossRef]
16. Li, B.; Jones, C.M.; Tomar, V. Overdischarge Detection and Prevention with Temperature Monitoring of Li-Ion Batteries and Linear
Regression-Based Machine Learning. J. Electrochem. Energy Convers. Storage 2021, 18, 040905. [CrossRef]
17. Jones, C.; Sudarshan, M.; Tomar, V. Predicting the discharge capacity of a lithium-ion battery after nail puncture using a Gaussian
process regression with incremental capacity analysis. Energy 2023, 285, 129364. [CrossRef]
18. Jia, J.; Liang, J.; Shi, Y.; Wen, J.; Pang, X.; Zeng, J. SOH and RUL Prediction of Lithium-Ion Batteries Based on Gaussian Process
Regression with Indirect Health Indicators. Energies 2020, 13, 375. [CrossRef]
19. Nizam, M.; Maghfiroh, H.; Rosadi, R.A.; Kusumaputri, K.D.U. Battery management system design (BMS) for lithium ion batteries.
In AIP Conference Proceedings; AIP Publishing: Melville, NY, USA, 2020; p. 030157.
20. Patil, M.A.; Tagade, P.; Hariharan, K.S.; Kolake, S.M.; Song, T.; Yeo, T.; Doo, S. A novel multistage Support Vector Machine based
approach for Li ion battery remaining useful life estimation. Appl. Energy 2015, 159, 285–297. [CrossRef]
21. Wang, S.; Jin, S.; Deng, D.; Fernandez, C. A Critical Review of Online Battery Remaining Useful Lifetime Prediction Methods.
Front. Mech. Eng. 2021, 7, 719718. [CrossRef]
22. Shen, S.; Sadoughi, M.; Li, M.; Wang, Z.; Hu, C. Deep convolutional neural networks with ensemble learning and transfer learning
for capacity estimation of lithium-ion batteries. Appl. Energy 2020, 260, 114296. [CrossRef]
23. Tian, J.; Xiong, R.; Shen, W.; Lu, J.; Sun, F. Flexible battery state of health and state of charge estimation using partial charging
data and deep learning. Energy Storage Mater. 2022, 51, 372–381. [CrossRef]
24. Sudarshan, M.; Serov, A.; Jones, C.; Ayalasomayajula, S.M.; García, R.E.; Tomar, V. Data-driven autoencoder neural network for
onboard BMS Lithium-ion battery degradation prediction. J. Energy Storage 2024, 82, 110575. [CrossRef]
25. Saxena, S.; Xing, Y.; Kwon, D.; Pecht, M. Accelerated degradation model for C-rate loading of lithium-ion batteries. Int. J. Electr.
Power Energy Syst. 2019, 107, 438–445. [CrossRef]
26. Sripad, S.; Bills, A.; Viswanathan, V. A review of safety considerations for batteries in aircraft with electric propulsion. MRS Bull.
2021, 46, 435–442. [CrossRef]
27. Li, M.; Feng, M.; Luo, D.; Chen, Z. Fast Charging Li-Ion Batteries for a New Era of Electric Vehicles. Cell Rep. Phys. Sci. 2020,
1, 100212. [CrossRef]
28. Tomaszewska, A.; Chu, Z.; Feng, X.; O’Kane, S.; Liu, X.; Chen, J.; Ji, C.; Endler, E.; Li, R.; Liu, L.; et al. Lithium-ion battery fast
charging: A review. eTransportation 2019, 1, 100011. [CrossRef]
29. Ouyang, D.; Chen, M.; Liu, J.; Wei, R.; Weng, J.; Wang, J. Investigation of a commercial lithium-ion battery under overcharge/over-
discharge failure conditions. RSC Adv. 2018, 8, 33414–33424. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Selvabharathi, D.; Muruganantham, N. Experimental analysis on battery based health monitoring system for electric vehicle.
Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 45, 1552–1558. [CrossRef]
31. Jinasena, A.; Spitthoff, L.; Wahl, M.S.; Lamb, J.J.; Shearing, P.R.; Strømman, A.H.; Burheim, O.S. Online Internal Temperature
Sensors in Lithium-Ion Batteries: State-of-the-Art and Future Trends. Front. Chem. Eng. 2022, 4, 804704. [CrossRef]
32. Maros, an, A.; Constantin, G.; Gîrjob, C.E.; Chicea, A.L.; Crenganis, M. Real Time Data Acquisition of Low-Cost Current Sensors
Acs712-05 and Ina219 Using Raspberry Pi, Daqcplate and Node-Red. Proc. Manuf. Syst. 2023, 18, 51–59.
33. Setiawan, B.J. Design and Build Voltage and Current Monitoring Parameters Device of Rechargeable Batteries in Real-Time Using
the INA219 GY-219 Sensor. J. Energy Mater. Instrum. Technol. 2023, 4, 58–71. [CrossRef]
34. Li, B.; Jones, C.M.; Adams, T.E.; Tomar, V. Sensor based in-operando lithium-ion battery monitoring in dynamic service
environment. J. Power Sources 2021, 486, 229349. [CrossRef]
35. Anjali, R.; Deepak, Y. Evaluating Wiring Configurations for RTD Sensor in Temperature Measurement. I-Manager’s J. Electron.
Eng. 2019, 10, 1. [CrossRef]
36. Sarkar, S. Platinum RTD sensor based multi-channel high-precision temperature measurement system for temperature range
−100 ◦ C to +100 ◦ C using single quartic function. Cogent Eng. 2018, 5, 1558687. [CrossRef]
37. Gridling, G.; Weiss, B. Introduction to Microcontrollers; Vienna University of Technology Institute of Computer Engineering
Embedded Computing Systems Group: Vienna, Austria, 2007.
Batteries 2024, 10, 355 18 of 18

38. Movassagh, K.; Raihan, A.; Balasingam, B.; Pattipati, K. A Critical Look at Coulomb Counting Approach for State of Charge
Estimation in Batteries. Energies 2021, 14, 4074. [CrossRef]
39. Duh, Y.S.; Sun, Y.; Lin, X.; Zheng, J.; Wang, M.; Wang, Y.; Lin, X.; Jiang, X.; Zheng, Z.; Zheng, S.; et al. Characterization on
thermal runaway of commercial 18650 lithium-ion batteries used in electric vehicles: A review. J. Energy Storage 2021, 41, 102888.
[CrossRef]
40. Cameron, Z.; Kulkarni, C.S.; Luna, A.G.; Goebel, K.; Poll, S. A battery certification testbed for small satellite missions. In Proceed-
ings of the 2015 IEEE AUTOTESTCON, National Harbor, MD, USA, 2–5 November 2015; pp. 162–168.
41. Perreault, M.; Behdinan, K. Delivery Drone Driving Cycle. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2021, 70, 1146–1156. [CrossRef]
42. Chin, K.B.; Brandon, E.J.; Bugga, R.V.; Smart, M.C.; Jones, S.C.; Krause, F.C.; West, W.C.; Bolotin, G.G. Energy Storage Technologies
for Small Satellite Applications. Proc. IEEE 2018, 106, 419–428. [CrossRef]
43. Huang, D.; Becerra, V.; Ma, H.; Simandjuntak, S.; Fraess-Ehrfeld, A. An Intelligent BMS for Drone-Based Inspection of Offshore
Wind Turbines. In Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), Dubrovnik, Croatia,
21–24 June 2022; pp. 1210–1218.
44. Ruan, H.; He, H.; Wei, Z.; Quan, Z.; Li, Y. State of Health Estimation of Lithium-Ion Battery Based on Constant-Voltage Charging
Reconstruction. IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron. 2023, 11, 4393–4402. [CrossRef]
45. Fleischer, C.; Sauer, D.U.; Barreras, J.V.; Schaltz, E.; Christensen, A.E. Development of software and strategies for Battery
Management System testing on HIL simulator. In Proceedings of the 2016 Eleventh International Conference on Ecological
Vehicles and Renewable Energies (EVER), Monte Carlo, Monaco, 6–8 April 2016; pp. 1–12.
46. Chen, Y.S.; Hu, C.C.; Li, Y.Y. The importance of heat evolution during the overcharge process and the protection mechanism of
electrolyte additives for prismatic lithium ion batteries. J. Power Sources 2008, 181, 69–73. [CrossRef]
47. Spitthoff, L.; Shearing, P.R.; Burheim, O.S. Temperature, Ageing and Thermal Management of Lithium-Ion Batteries. Energies
2021, 14, 1248. [CrossRef]
48. Pesaran, A.A. Battery Thermal Management in EVs and HEVs: Issues and Solutions. Battery Man 2001, 43, 34–49.
49. Alipour, M.; Ziebert, C.; Conte, F.V.; Kizilel, R. A Review on Temperature-Dependent Electrochemical Properties, Aging, and
Performance of Lithium-Ion Cells. Batteries 2020, 6, 35. [CrossRef]
50. Li, W.; Rentemeister, M.; Badeda, J.; Jöst, D.; Schulte, D.; Sauer, D.U. Digital twin for battery systems: Cloud battery management
system with online state-of-charge and state-of-health estimation. J. Energy Storage 2020, 30, 101557. [CrossRef]
51. Johnson, C.S.; Li, N.; Lefief, C.; Thackeray, M.M. Anomalous capacity and cycling stability of xLi2 MnO3 ·(1−x)LiMO2 electrodes
(M = Mn, Ni, Co) in lithium batteries at 50 ◦ C. Electrochem. Commun. 2007, 9, 787–795. [CrossRef]
52. Shi, D.; Zhao, J.; Eze, C.; Wang, Z.; Wang, J.; Lian, Y.; Burke, A.F. Cloud-Based Artificial Intelligence Framework for Battery
Management System. Energies 2023, 16, 4403. [CrossRef]
53. Ng, K.S.; Moo, C.S.; Chen, Y.P.; Hsieh, Y.C. Enhanced coulomb counting method for estimating state-of-charge and state-of-health
of lithium-ion batteries. Appl. Energy 2009, 86, 1506–1511. [CrossRef]
54. Krishna, T.N.V.; Kumar, S.V.S.V.P.D.; Srinivasa Rao, S.; Chang, L. Powering the Future: Advanced Battery Management Systems
(BMS) for Electric Vehicles. Energies 2024, 17, 3360. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.