% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Hoekstra:911584,
      author       = {Hoekstra, F. S. J. and Raijmakers, L. H. J. and Donkers, M.
                      C. F. and Bergveld, H. J.},
      title        = {{C}omparison of battery electromotive-force measurement and
                      modelling approaches},
      journal      = {Journal of energy storage},
      volume       = {56},
      number       = {Part B},
      issn         = {2352-152X},
      address      = {Amsterdam [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Elsevier},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2022-04843},
      pages        = {105910 -},
      year         = {2022},
      abstract     = {In this paper, different approaches for obtaining a battery
                      Electromotive-Force (EMF) model, also referred to as
                      Open-Circuit Voltage, are compared by experimentally
                      measuring them and by subsequently applying different
                      post-processing strategies, thus resulting in different EMF
                      model realisations. The considered methods include GITT,
                      interpolation of charge and discharge curves and
                      extrapolation to zero current. The experiments are performed
                      for two cells, namely a Lithium Nickel–Manganese–Cobalt
                      (NMC) and a Lithium iron-Phosphate (LFP) cell. The accuracy
                      of the EMF models is compared visually, as well as
                      quantitatively in terms of voltage prediction accuracy using
                      a linear parameter-varying overpotential model and SoC
                      estimation accuracy using an extended Kalman filter. The
                      results show that different methods excel at different
                      performance indicators, for instance most accurate or least
                      experiment time, but overall extrapolation to zero current
                      has the best all-round performance.},
      cin          = {IEK-9},
      ddc          = {333.7},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)IEK-9-20110218},
      pnm          = {1223 - Batteries in Application (POF4-122)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-1223},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:000961005200008},
      doi          = {10.1016/j.est.2022.105910},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/911584},
}