Article

A Consensus Algorithm for Multi‐Objective Battery Balancing

Jorge Varela Barreras 1,2,*, Ricardo de Castro 3, Yihao Wan 4 and Tomislav Dragicevic 4

1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College London, London SW7 1AY, UK

2 The Faraday Institution, Didcot OX11 0RA, UK
3 Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Merced, CA 95343, USA;

[email protected]
4 Department of Electrical Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Kongens Lyngby, Denmark;

[email protected] (Y.W.); [email protected] (T.D.)

* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Batteries stacks are made of cells in certain series‐parallel arrangements. Unfortunately,
cell performance degrades over time in terms of capacity, internal resistance, or self‐discharge rate.
In addition, degradation rates are heterogeneous, leading to cell‐to‐cell variations. Balancing sys‐
tems can be used to equalize those differences. Dissipative or non‐dissipative systems, so‐called
passive or active balancing, can be used to equalize either voltage at end‐of‐charge, or state‐of‐
charge (SOC) at all times. While passive balancing is broadly adopted by industry, active balancing
has been mostly studied in academia. Beyond that, an emerging research field is multi‐functional
balancing, i.e., active balancing systems that pursue additional goals on top of SOC equalization,
such as equalization of temperature, power capability, degradation rates, or losses minimization.
Regardless of their functionality, balancing circuits are based either on centralized or decentralized
control systems. Centralized control entails difficult expandability and single point of failure issues,
while decentralized control has severe controllability limitations. As a shift in this paradigm, here
we present for the first time a distributed multi‐objective control algorithm, based on a multi‐agent
Citation: Barreras, J.V.; de Castro, R.;
consensus algorithm. We implement and validate the control in simulations, considering an electro‐
Wan, Y.; Dragicevic, T. A Consensus
thermal lithium‐ion battery model and an electric vehicle model parameterized with experimental
Algorithm for Multi‐Objective
data. Our results show that our novel multi‐functional balancing can enhance the performance of
Battery Balancing. Energies 2021, 14,
batteries with substantial cell‐to‐cell differences under the most demanding operating conditions,
4279. https://doi.org/10.3390/
en14144279
i.e., aggressive driving and DC fast charging (2C). Driving times are extended (>10%), charging
times are reduced (>20%), maximum cell temperatures are decreased (>10 °C), temperature differ‐
Academic Editors: João Pedro ences are lowered (~3 °C rms), and the occurrence of low voltage violations during driving is re‐
Trovao and Ta Cao Minh duced (>5×), minimizing the need for power derating and enhancing the user experience. The algo‐
rithm is effective, scalable, flexible, and requires low implementation and tuning effort, resulting in
Received: 17 May 2021 an ideal candidate for industry adoption.
Accepted: 11 July 2021
Published: 15 July 2021 Keywords: lithium‐ion battery; balancing systems; electric vehicles; consensus algorithm; distrib‐
uted control; state‐of‐charge equalization; temperature equalization
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu‐
tral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institu‐
tional affiliations.
1. Introduction
The 2015 Paris agreement has established global guidelines to tackle climate change,
including electrification of transportation [1]. Supported by policies, technological im‐
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Li‐ provements, and falling costs, the global fleet of light‐duty passenger vehicles (LDPVs)
censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. with a higher degree of electrification, such as battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug‐
This article is an open access article in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), have expanded from 2014–2019 by an annual average
distributed under the terms and con‐ of 60%, reaching about 1% of the global fleet by 2019 [2].
ditions of the Creative Commons At‐ In 2020 the COVID‐19 pandemic has brought great uncertainty for the global electric
tribution (CC BY) license (http://crea‐ vehicle (EV) market and the auto market. Although, recent studies confirm that the future
tivecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Energies 2021, 14, 4279. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14144279 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2021, 14, 4279 2 of 26

remains bright for passenger EVs in the following decades, which will gain market share
supported by battery cost reductions and technological advances [3].
Virtually all EVs in today’s market store electrical energy in batteries, an essential
technology to electrify LDPVs in the next 20 years [2,3]. EVs with a higher degree of elec‐
trification, i.e., BEVs and PHEVs, are equipped with larger batteries that can be directly
recharged from the grid, in addition to regenerative braking, a common feature in EVs
with lower degrees of electrification. Nowadays, a BEV or PHEV battery is formed of a
combination of hundreds to thousands of lithium‐ion cells connected in a certain series‐
parallel arrangement.
Lithium‐ion battery technology is improving, showing increased energy storage ca‐
pability, and their cost is falling, mainly thanks to economies of scale. However, there are
still some significant technical barriers to overcome for EV adoption [2,3], particularly re‐
garding range anxiety, charging infrastructure, battery supply chain, battery safety [4],
and battery management [5].
Regarding the latter, for safety reasons, lithium‐ion cell manufacturers limit their op‐
erating window by certain voltages, currents, and temperatures. Outside that so‐called
safety operating window (SOA), the degradation rate accelerates and there is a risk of
catastrophic failure [5]. In addition, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) typically
define more restrictive operating windows to increase safety, ensure reduced degradation
rates, and/or enhance the user experience. That is implemented in the form of conven‐
tional current or power derating algorithms, as reviewed by Barreras et al. [6] and Sun et
al. [6]. Derating can be improved through degradation‐aware algorithms, as recently
shown by Sowe et al. [7] and Schimpe et al. [8,9].
Indeed, battery degradation mechanisms are complex and enhanced by certain oper‐
ating and storage conditions that are fundamentally related to SOC, temperature, or cur‐
rent levels, as discussed by Schimpe et al. [9] orPellettier et al. [10] or For instance, extreme
temperatures are a major concern. On one hand, the degradation rates are accelerated at
high temperatures, due to rapid growth of the solid electrolyte interface (SEI) layer, exist‐
ing even the risk of thermal runaway over certain thresholds (Figure 1). On the other hand,
at low temperatures, there is accelerated aging due to lithium‐plating and stripping, being
more intense at higher C‐rates. There is also a risk of internal short due to the formation
of dendritic lithium (Figure 1). Even within a moderate temperature range (~10–50 °C),
power and energy capability are influenced by battery temperature, since lithium‐ions
diffusivity in the electrodes increases with temperature. Indeed, the temperature window
within which the battery lifetime (calendar and cycle life) and power and energy perfor‐
mance are balanced, is relatively small (~20–40 °C).
Energies 2021, 14, 4279 3 of 26

Figure 1. Overview of major thermal issues in lithium‐ion batteries.

Regarding SOC, for example, in BEVs and PHEVs the minimum allowable SOC is
typically over 5–10%, since the battery power capability, and thus the vehicle acceleration
is lower at low SOC levels, and also to avoid the risk of overdischarge. Battery degradation
rate is also higher at extreme SOCs, and therefore the maximum SOC window in EV bat‐
teries is set typically below 90–95%—although the user may occasionally select operating
modes that allow larger SOC windows for extended range operation.
To alleviate those problems, active heating and cooling strategies are implemented
in EVs, and the battery power is derated under eventual extreme SOC or temperature
conditions [11]. However, the former translates into higher auxiliary loads (i.e., lower ef‐
ficiency), more complex integration, extra costs, volume, weight, and reliability and
maintenance issues, while the latter typically means longer charging times at low temper‐
atures and reduced power capability at high temperatures.
To make everything more complex, the battery pack should also be managed at a cell
level, due to the existence of cell‐to‐cell variations in SOC, temperatures, or power and
energy capability (Figure 2). While cell‐to‐cell variations may not be substantial at the be‐
ginning‐of‐life (BOL), they increase cumulatively over time due to intrinsic and system‐
level induced issues, such as uneven power due to parallelization, non‐uniform heat‐
ing/cooling, heterogeneous mechanical stress, uneven presence of heat sources nearby, or
battery management issues. For example, in series‐connected packs, lower capacity cells
charge and/or discharge faster, leading to a reduced battery operating window. In other
words, less energy is charged and discharged, since the battery pack performance is lim‐
ited by the cell(s) with the minimum voltage/SOC during discharge and the maximum
voltage/SOC during charge.
Energies 2021, 14, 4279 4 of 26

Figure 2. Schematic representation of cell‐to‐cell differences on SOC (left) and temperature (right), showing balanced (top)
and imbalanced modules (bottom) of 8 cells in series. As suggested on the bottom‐left schematic, non‐uniform cooling can
lead to temperature imbalances, but other reasons are possible.

There are two main approaches to balance these cell‐to‐cell differences. The first re‐
lies on dissipative mechanisms, and it is so‐called passive balancing. The idea is to dissi‐
pate the energy of the highest‐charged cell in a passive element, such as a resistor, during
the charging phase [12]. The main advantages of this approach are simplicity and low cost
but at the expense of higher energy losses. This dissipative approach also does not fully
address the balancing problem during discharge: the effective capacity and power of the
battery pack are still defined by the weakest cell(s), i.e., the cell(s) with the highest/lowest
SOC, lowest power capability and/or maximum/minimum temperature [13].
The second approach is non‐dissipative, a so‐called active balancing, which aims to
continuously re‐distribute the energy within the battery pack using power conversion. In
the literature, there is a wide range of power conversion topologies that can be used
[5,12,14,15], enabling the transfer of energy from one cell to another, a common energy
buffer (e.g., a capacitance of inductance) or from the cell to the pack. This re‐distribution
of energy brings several advantages. Firstly, it provides higher energy efficiency than pure
dissipative approaches and can be much faster. But more importantly, it opens new pos‐
sibilities from the point of view of the control algorithm beyond the conventional SOC‐
based, OCV‐based, and terminal voltage‐based balancing algorithms, which are broadly
used both in passive and active balancing, as described by Fleischer et al. in [12].
As shown in pioneering works of Altaf et al. [16,17], Barreras et al. [5,18], Pinto et al.
[14,19], and de Castro et al. [20], active balancing opens the way for novel balancing func‐
tions, including not only SOC and voltage balancing, but also thermal control, power ca‐
pability equalization, or distributed hybridization. For instance, it is well known the con‐
nection between battery current and temperature, due to self‐heating effects, as illustrated
in Figure 3. This means that increase in battery temperature can be controlled, up to some
extent, through current limitation [5].
Energies 2021, 14, 4279 5 of 26

Figure 3. Temperature and voltage in time for CC discharge at various C‐rates for a pristine Kokam
53 Ah cell.

All in all, active balancing can enable improved battery performance, prolonged life‐
time, and improved or additional features, as already stated by Barreras et al. in 2014 [18].
Regarding battery performance, the usable capacity of the entire pack over its lifetime can
be increased, since both the charge and discharge performance of the battery pack can be
dictated by the average characteristics of the cells, instead of the weakest cell, as is the case
with dissipative approaches [13]. On the other hand, higher costs, complexity, and volume
represent the main obstacles for the deployment of this technology in practice, especially
in automotive applications [5,12,15].
From a control architecture perspective, battery balancing functions can be per‐
formed in the following ways: centralized; de‐centralized, or distributed architectures.
That can be related to the battery management system (BMS) topology [5], as illustrated
in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Basic types of BMS topologies (top) and their corresponding control networks (bottom): (a) centralized; (b) de‐
centralized (modular and master‐slave topologies), and (c) distributed.
Energies 2021, 14, 4279 6 of 26

In centralized networks, control functions are concentrated in a single unit (aka

agent), which receives state information from all battery cells and centrally decides the
control actions for the balancing hardware. In decentralized networks, each cell (or mod‐
ule) decides the control action locally, so the biggest reliability problem of centralized net‐
works, i.e., single point of failure, is solved. However, the controllability is limited because
there is no cell‐to‐cell communication. In distributed paradigms, the decentralization is
only partial, i.e., the cells can communicate variables of interest with their neighboring
cells. Therefore, the control intelligence is divided among a full network of control agents
with partial information about the state of the battery.
In general, centralized and distributed control paradigms have the potential to
achieve optimal performance, since they access global state information; however, they
are also more complex to solve and implement, especially for large‐scale systems with
dozens or hundreds of actuators. On the other hand, decentralized architectures execute
the control effort only locally, thereby requiring no information exchange and lower com‐
putational power. However, since each agent uses local information of the battery pack,
it is challenging to achieve optimal control performance.
From an algorithmic perspective, three classes of control methods have been pro‐
posed for advanced active battery balancing, either in centralized or de‐centralized archi‐
tectures:
 Model‐based: they rely on the mathematical model of the battery modules, often
based on equivalent electric circuits. Battery models can be just used to estimate the
current battery state, such in conventional OCV‐ and SOC‐based balancing methods
[12], but also to predict the future behavior of the battery pack, aiming to synthesize
a control policy that fulfills the balancing goals, such as minimization of SOC or ther‐
mal unbalances, enforcing actuation and safety constraints. Model‐predictive control
[21], or linear state feedback [22] represent paradigmatic examples of this approach.
 Machine learning: in this case, the control policy is derived based on interactions with
the real battery pack or with a simulation model. It usually decreases modeling ef‐
forts and domain knowledge expertise but at the expense of higher data needs and
computational effort (especially during training). Reinforcement learning [23] is a
good example of this approach, which has been gaining increased attention over the
last few years.
 Fuzzy logic: in contrast with previous approaches, it relies mainly on expert
knowledge to derive control algorithms [24], but this also means that there is no sin‐
gle systematic approach or implementation framework.
Beyond that, a novel method for battery balancing control are consensus algorithms,
a distributed architecture based on graph theory in the area of communication. Consensus
algorithms only require communication links between adjacent units, i.e., previous and
next cells in a series string in our case, featuring advantages of less information require‐
ment, scalability (i.e., modularity), and robustness, while keeping the potential for optimal
performance due to global information discovery [25].
So far, only a couple of papers in the literature have implemented consensus algo‐
rithms, and for a single function or objective, i.e., either cell voltage [26] or SOC equaliza‐
tion [27]. In contrast, in this study, we propose for the first time in the literature a multi‐
functional/multi‐objective consensus algorithm for distributed battery balancing. Here we
show how this algorithm can simultaneously perform SOC, temperature, and voltage bal‐
ancing, but it could be easily extended to equalize other variables. For example, the sur‐
face concentration of electrode particles, or the rates of degradation, being able to perform
derating actions, such as the ones presented in [9], at cell or module level.
The overall framework is presented in Figure 5. The concept is evaluated in simula‐
tions in the context of an e‐mobility application, considering a cell‐to‐pack‐to‐cell balanc‐
ing system configuration and a series‐connected battery pack.
Energies 2021, 14, 4279 7 of 26

Figure 5. Block diagram of the distributed consensus control framework for multi‐function EV battery balancing.

2. System Modeling and Control Algorithm

A single module of a battery system in an e‐mobility application is modeled in this
work, including 8‐cells connected in series and the cell‐to‐pack‐to‐cell (CPC) balancing
system. The battery power profiles are generated considering the full‐pack and different
driving conditions. The battery module electrical equivalent circuit model (EECM) is sum‐
marized in Figure 6.

Figure 6. EECM of the 8S battery module and the DC/DC converter of the CPC balancing system.

2.1. Electro‐thermal Battery Model

A battery module made of 8 large format Li‐ion pouch cells (NMC cathode, 53 Ah)
connected in series is simulated by means of a multi‐cell model. The electro‐thermal
model of each cell is composed of a simple lumped EECM coupled with a simple lumped
thermal equivalent circuit model (TECM), which considers heat transfer between neigh‐
boring cells. Apart from that, different sets of parameters are generated to create different
scenarios for cell‐to‐cell variations. Experimental data from single‐cell characterization
tests are combined with statistical data from screening tests on more than 200 pristine cells
from Barreras et al. [28] and data from the literature to parameterize the models.

2.1.1. Electrical Model

Regarding the EECM of each cell 𝑗, the circuit implemented consists of a variable DC
voltage source, OCV [V], in series with a constant resistor, 𝑅 [Ω] (Figure 6). The former
Energies 2021, 14, 4279 8 of 26

represents the cell equilibrium voltage, usually referred to in this context as the open‐
circuit voltage (OCV), while the latter accounts for all the cell internal resistance effects.
This is mathematically represented as:
𝑣 𝑡 OCV SOC 𝑅𝑖 𝑡 , 𝑗 ∈ 1, . . . , 𝑁 (1)
1
SOC 𝑇 𝑖 𝑡 (2)
𝑄
where 𝑣 [V] is the terminal voltage of the cell 𝑗, 𝑁 [–] is the number of cells in series in
each module, SOC [–] is the cell SOC, 𝑄 [As] is the cell actual capacity, and 𝑖 [A] is the
cell current.
The average non‐linear OCV vs. SOC characteristic is obtained from step‐response
tests conducted on an automated battery tester on a single cell (Figure 7). For implemen‐
tation purposes, the average OCV vs. SOC relationship is linearized between 95% and 5%
SOC, as illustrated in Figure 8. That is the typical SOC range of a lithium‐ion battery in a
full‐electric vehicle. For the interest of the reader, the electrical test system setup is shown
in Figure 9. This linear model is described as:
𝑂𝐶𝑉 𝑡 𝑎 𝑏 𝑆𝑂𝐶 𝑡 (3)
where 𝑎 , 𝑏 are constant parameters derived for the model, and equal to 3.406 V and
0.673 V, respectively.

Figure 7. Step‐response test data at 0.5C and 25 °C.

Figure 8. OCV vs. SOC characteristic.

Energies 2021, 14, 4279 9 of 26

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 9. Test setup: (a) Kokam 53 Ah SLPB pouch cell; (b) 3‐D representation of one of the cells and its holder; (c) from
right to left, Maccor 4000 Series automated battery tester, FRA, and thermal chambers cabinets.

On the other hand, a statistical model of cell‐to‐cell variations is built to estimate the
value of the series resistance and the cell capacity for each cell in the module at different
aging states, as described in next Section 2.1.2.

2.1.2. Statistical Model of Cell‐to‐cell Variations

Estimation or prediction of cell‐to‐cell variations over the battery life is particularly
challenging. Manufacturing tolerances and uneven temperature distributions are key fac‐
tors behind imbalances in electrical parameters such as capacity, internal resistance, or
self‐discharge rate. While there is a myriad of modeling and aging studies at the single‐
cell level, only a very few focus on the diversion of aging of large groups of lithium‐ion
cells. Moreover, just two of them present experimental results for large‐capacity cells, as
summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Overview of experimental studies on cell‐to‐cell variations in the literature.

Capacity 1 [Ah] Sample Size [–] Chemistry Format Ageing State Reference Year
70 96 C/LFP Prismatic BOL Zheng [29] 2011
53 208 C/NMC Pouch BOL Barreras [28] 2017
5.3 198 C/NCA+NMC ‐ BOL An [30] 2016
5 216 C/NMC Prismatic BOL Rothgang [31] 2014
4.4 96 C/LFP Cylindrical BOL Paul [32] 2013
3.35 2 C/NCA Cylindrical MOL An [33] 2015
3 1100 C/LFP Cylindrical BOL Rumpf [34] 2017
3 248 ‐ ‐ BOL Zou [35] 2018
2.9 356 C/NCA Cylindrical BOL, EOL Baumann [36] 2018
2.8 51 C/LCO+NMC Cylindrical BOL Devie [37] 2018
2.8 112 C/NCA Cylindrical BOL, MOL Campestrini [38] 2016
1.95 2392 C/NMC Cylindrical BOL, MOL Schuster [39] 2015
1.9 10 C/LMNC+LMO Cylindrical BOL Dubarry [40] 2011
1.85 48 C/NMC Cylindrical BOL Baumhöfer [41] 2014
0.3 100 C/LCO Cylindrical BOL Dubarry [42] 2010
~0.3 60 C/LCO Cylindrical ‐ Shin [43] 2013
1 Articles sorted in descending order of cell capacity.

In this study, statistical data obtained by Barreras et al. [28] through screening tests
conducted on 208 Kokam SLPB 53 Ah cells tested at Beginning‐of‐Life (BOL) is used to
parametrize the statistical model of cell‐to‐cell variation at BOL. The cell capacities are
Energies 2021, 14, 4279 10 of 26

derived from the discharge capacities measured during a 1C full discharge at constant
current and room temperature. The internal resistances are derived from measurements
of the so‐called direct current resistance (DCR) around room temperature and 50% SOC.
The DCR parameterization is interesting in this context because it accounts for pure ohmic
plus charge‐transfer polarization effects, i.e., the dominant effects in an EV battery pack
during driving [44]. The two histograms of the relative frequency of discharge capacity
and the DCR resistance at BOL are shown in Figure 10. These histograms are fitted to
normal distributions, which are the de facto statistical models of cell‐to‐cell variations at
BOL [28].

(a) (b)
Figure 10. Histograms and normal distributions of the relative frequency of (a) the DCR and (b) the 1C discharge capacity
for 208 Kokam SLPB 53 Ah lithium‐ion pouch cells at BOL [5,14].

On the other hand, in the absence of more statistical data from large format cells at
other aging states in the literature, the Middle‐of‐Life (MOL) and End‐of‐Life (EOL) pa‐
rameter distributions are calculated through certain manipulation of the BOL distribu‐
tions based on insights from the literature, following the same approach of Pinto et al.
[14]. Then, as summarized in Figure 11, based on these statistical models of parameter
distributions, a mixed aging scenario with substantial cell‐to‐cell variations is generated
for our model.

Figure 11. Mixed aging scenario for cell‐to‐cell variations considered for the 8S module in this study
[14].

Table 2 presents the resistance and capacity values derived for each cell of the 8S
module under this scenario. The values are presented in vectors of 8 elements and nor‐
malized to the mean value of the internal resistance at the BOL (2.09 mΩ), and the nominal
cell capacity (53 Ah), respectively. Further information on the methods used to determine
these datasets in [14].
Energies 2021, 14, 4279 11 of 26

Table 2. Normalized internal resistances and capacities for the 8S module.

Normalized 𝑹𝒋 Normalized 𝑸𝒋
[1.602 2.955 2.882 1.636 0.999 1.428 0.973 1.487] [0.934 0.883 0.874 0.925 0.977 0.921 0.976 0.934]

In addition, for all the BEV driving scenarios we assumed the next dataset for the
initial SOC of each cell in the 8S module: 𝜑 [0.925 0.935 0.932 0.930 0.931 0.922 0.930
0.938]. The complement of this dataset is assumed for all the fast charging scenarios, i.e.,
(1 𝜑 .

2.1.3. Thermal Model

With respect to the thermal model, we assumed a lumped‐parameter model and con‐
sidered that: (1) the heat generation is evaluated based on Joule losses; (2) the cell heat
capacity is constant; (3) the thermal resistance from cell to ambient is constant and formu‐
lated based on heat convection; (4) there is certain conductive heat transfer from one cell
to the next/previous.
This is represented by means of a simple lumped TECM for each cell with links to
neighboring cells, as illustrated in Figure 12, where 𝑇 [K] is the actual temperature of cell
𝑗, 𝑇 [K] is the ambient temperature, 𝐶 [J/K] is the cell heat capacity, 𝑅 [K/W] is
the conductive thermal resistance between adjacent cells, and 𝑅 [K/W] is the convec‐
tive thermal resistance between each cell and the environment. For each cell 𝑗, the TECM
is coupled with the corresponding EECM through the heat generation term, 𝑄 , [W],
which represents Joule losses and is expressed as:
𝑄 , 𝑅𝑖 𝑡 (4)

Figure 12. TECM of cell 𝑗 with links to neighboring cells.

Regarding heat capacity, is assumed that 𝐶 1032 J/K. This value is derived from
the cell mass (1.2 kg) and the specific heat capacity (860 J/kgK)) determined by means of
flash lamp thermal characterization tests by Barreras et al. [45,46]. The tests are conducted
at room conditions on a similar cell (Kokam SLPB 40 Ah pouch cell), following ASTM
E1461 standard procedures [47].
From the same references [45,46], the in‐plane thermal conductivity is obtained. This
value is used in combination with the cell dimensions, the tab dimensions, and the thermal
conductivity of the tabs, to estimate the cell‐to‐cell conductive thermal resistance from the
next equations:
𝑅 2𝑅 , 𝑅 , (5)
where 𝑅 , [K/W] is the in‐plane conductive thermal resistance of a cell, and
𝑅 , [K/W] is the conductive thermal resistance of the cell tabs that physically con‐
nect adjacent cells, and are derived as follows:
𝑑/2
𝑅 , (6)
𝑘|| 𝐴||
Energies 2021, 14, 4279 12 of 26

where 𝑑 0.222 m is the height of the cell, 𝑘|| 33 W/mK is the in‐plane thermal con‐
ductivity [45,46], and 𝐴|| 0.01908 m2 is the averaged cross‐section of the cell calculated
from the datasheet.
𝐿/2
𝑅 , (7)
𝑘 𝐴
where 𝐿 0.02 m is the distance assumed between the tabs of adjacent cells, 𝑘 237
W/mK is the thermal conductivity of the tabs, assuming that is equal to the tabulated value
of aluminum and neglecting contact resistances between tabs, and 𝐴 32 ∙ 10 m2 is
the cross‐section of two tabs superimposed, calculated from the datasheet.
These calculations result in 𝑅 6.16 K/W, 𝑅 , 1.76 K/W, and
𝑅 , 2.64 K/W, suggesting that both the cell thermal resistances and the tab re‐
sistance play an important role in cell‐to‐cell heat transfer through the tabs of adjacent
cells. Unfortunately, there is a lack of results in the literature for other cells, for example,
Zhu et al. [48] just estimated a value of 1.711 K/W for large format prismatic cells. In any
case, 𝑅 , is an intrinsic cell property, which suggests that 𝑅 3.53 K/W even
assuming that 𝑅 , could be minimized by improved thermal design of tab‐inter‐
connection.
On the other hand, 𝑅 is derived from:
1
𝑅 (8)
ℎ𝐴
where ℎ [W/m2K] is the convective heat transfer coefficient, and 𝐴 [m2] is the interface
surface area of the solid material. In this study, we estimated 𝑅 0.813 K/W, assum‐
ing ℎ 15 W/m2K and 𝐴 0.082 m2. The former is a typical value for low forced air
velocities, and the latter is the sum of the areas of the larger front and rear faces of the cell.
We considered a battery module with parallel cooling/heating based on forced air. The
arrangement is sketched in Figure 13. In comparison with series cooling/heating, a parallel
arrangement provides a more even distribution of the temperatures [14].

Figure 13. 2‐D schematic of the parallel air‐cooling arrangement assumed for the 8S module [5].

2.2. Balancing System Model

The overall balancing system topology proposed consists of a set of bi‐directional
DC/DC converters connected in parallel with each cell, which can move energy from/to
each cell to/from the 8S battery module. This is the so‐called CPC energy transfer config‐
uration. As shown in Figure 6, the balancing system is represented through a simplified
EECM, assuming that all the conduction power losses of each DC/DC converter can be
lumped together into an equivalent resistive component, assuming 𝑅 10 mΩ. On the
other hand, for the calculation of the overall balancing system losses, switching, magnetic,
Energies 2021, 14, 4279 13 of 26

and drivers’ energy losses are assumed to be constant and equal to 𝑃 , , 100 mW
for each converter.

2.3. Battery Power Profiles Generation

To test the algorithm under realistic demanding conditions, we have generated both
fast charging and aggressive driving power profiles considering an exemplary BEV and
the battery specifications.

2.3.1. Aggressive Driving Power Profiles

In a BEV, the battery pack supplies power and energy to the vehicle driveline, which
is composed of the electric motor(s), inverter, and mechanical transmission. This load
power (𝑝 x t Lx t ) is dependent on numerous factors, including the type of driv‐
ing cycle the vehicle is operating, the energy efficiency of the driveline’s components, as
well as the inertial, rolling, and aerodynamic resistance forces that affect the vehicle (see
[49] for details). Given that our goals consist in the design and test of the balancing control
algorithm, in what follows we will assume that the load power 𝑝 is a known disturb‐
ance. Its value is computed considering the uCar [49] as a reference vehicle. In this paper,
we use the US06 (repeated a certain number of times) as the driving cycle, since we focus
on more demanding aggressive driving scenarios, but the model framework also imple‐
ments other standard and non‐standard driving cycles. The driving process is finished
when the end‐of‐discharge condition is detected, i.e., when min 𝑆𝑂𝐶 0.05, a common
limit in real BEVs.
With regard to low voltage violations, they take place when one or several cells show
a voltage below the lower voltage threshold set by the application. Here we used the min‐
imum cell voltage stated by the manufacturer to define this limit (𝑣 2.7 V), but more
restrictive windows are common for safety and reliability reasons. In real‐life, the BMS
would derate the BEV battery power when a low voltage violation is detected [6,11], either
temporarily or permanently by forcing a low‐power operating mode, sometimes called
“limp home” mode. However, here we decided not to implement such a derating algo‐
rithm, to enable a fair comparison between different cases by ensuring the same power
levels. Instead, we allowed BEV operation until the aforementioned lower SOC threshold
and quantified the operation time with low voltage violations as a key performance indi‐
cator.

2.3.2. Fast Charging Power Profiles

The DC fast charging profiles are created based on a constant power constant voltage
(CP‐CV) strategy, which is common in fast charging protocols. The charging process shifts
to the CV stage when max 𝑣 4.2 V. The power level in the CP stage is determined by
trial‐and‐error aiming to charge with the maximum power that does not result in cell over‐
current considering the limits defined in the manufacturer’s datasheet, i.e., max 𝑖 106
A. The power level is determined considering also the maximum balancing currents,
which are below 20A for all the cases evaluated. The charging process is finished when
the end‐of‐charge condition is detected, i.e., when max 𝑆𝑂𝐶 0.8. This is a also com‐
mon setting in fast charging protocols.

2.4. Multi‐Agent Consensus Algorithm

The coordination of distributed system with multiple agents is enabled by a protocol
known as consensus algorithms, which allows the agents to exchange information via the
communication network. In the case of the battery system, consensus algorithms can
achieve information sharing and coordination among different cells.
The coordination of distributed system with multiple agents is enabled by a protocol
known as consensus algorithms, which allows the agents to exchange information via the
communication network. In the case of a battery pack, each cell in a pack represents one
Energies 2021, 14, 4279 14 of 26

agent. An important feature of the consensus algorithm is that information exchange oc‐
curs only between the neighboring cells and that the centralized controller does not exist.
For this reason, even if some of the communication links fail, the full information ex‐
change capability can be preserved, where the actual level of resiliency depends on the
communication network topology, as discussed in [50].
When every given cell knows the average of these variables, it is possible to design
local control protocols that can ensure desired behavior of both the battery pack system
and each cell totally independently of the centralized pack‐level controller. In this context,
a single point of failure is avoided, while the performance can be designed per technical
requirements without any limitation.
The consensus algorithm is applied to the controller of every given cell by locally
implementing a simple difference of variables of interest (in our case cell SOCs, terminal
voltages, and temperatures) between each cell and those of other adjacent cells, which can
be expressed as [4]

𝑥 𝑡 𝑥 𝑡 𝑥 𝑡 (9)

where 𝑥 𝑡 and 𝑥 𝑡 are the variables of interest in agent 𝑗 and 𝑘. 𝑁 represents the
whole set of neighbors of cell j.
From the equation above, it can be understood that the variables of interest change
interactively according to the values of local measurements and the receiving measure‐
ments coming from the neighboring cells. Provided that the communication network is
fully connected, all the variable values will eventually converge to an average. Therefore,
based on the consensus algorithm that information is shared among units, each cell can
compute an exact average value of the variables of interest, i.e., cells SOCs, terminal volt‐
ages, and temperatures, as shown in [51].
The multi‐agent network of the battery pack is modeled as an undirected and con‐
nected graph. And the consensus algorithm can be expressed as follows [5,6]:
𝑥 𝑡 𝑳𝑥 𝑡 (10)
where L is the graph Laplacian of the network, which formally describes the network’s
topology. The elements of the matrix are defined as
1, 𝑘 ∈ 𝑁
𝐿 (11)
𝑑, 𝑘 𝑗
where 𝑑 is the number of neighbors of node 𝑗, which means the diagonal elements 𝐿
are determined by the number of edges attached to the node.
In this application, 𝑥 𝑡 includes the average estimated SOC, or temperature, or ter‐
minal voltage, but other variables are also possible. Each cell (or agent) 𝑗 receives the
estimated current average value from neighboring agents and updates its information
based on the SOC, temperature, and terminal voltage using three consensus balancing
algorithms.
The estimation of SOC is updated as

𝑆𝑂𝐶 𝑡 𝑆𝑂𝐶 𝑡 𝜎 𝑆𝑂𝐶 𝑡 𝑆𝑂𝐶 𝑡 𝑑𝑡 (12)

where 𝑆𝑂𝐶 denotes the agent j’s average estimated SOC of all agents, 𝑆𝑂𝐶 is the actual
SOC of agent 𝑗, and 𝜎 is the SOC consensus coefficient.
Similarly, the agent j’s average temperature and terminal voltage of all agents can be
obtained based on the next consensus algorithms:

𝑇 𝑡 𝑇 𝑡 𝜎 𝑇 𝑡 𝑇 𝑡 𝑑𝑡 (13)
Energies 2021, 14, 4279 15 of 26

where 𝑇 represents the estimation of agent 𝑗, 𝑇 is the actual temperature of agent j, and
𝜎 is the temperature consensus coefficient, and

𝑣̅ 𝑡 𝑣 𝑡 𝜎 𝑣̅ 𝑡 𝑣̅ 𝑡 𝑑𝑡 (14)

where 𝑣̅ represents the estimation of agent 𝑗, 𝑣 is the actual terminal voltage of agent
j,, and 𝜎 is the voltage consensus coefficient.
Then, the reference balancing current for each cell 𝑗, i.e., 𝑖 , [A] in Figure 6, is cal‐
culated with a correction term obtained from the cooperation between agents, incorporat‐
ing the SOC balancing (Equation (12)), temperature balancing (Equation (13)), and/or ter‐
minal voltage balancing (Equation (14)), based on multi‐agent. As a result, the multi‐agent
consensus algorithm helps each local unit to converge towards the global average of SOC,
terminal voltage, and temperature.
Regarding the value of each consensus coefficient, 𝜎 , 𝜎 , and 𝜎 , they could be for‐
mally selected taking into account the topology of the communication network defined
by graph Laplacian matrix 𝑳 (Equation (11)) to ensure fast and stable convergence. In‐
deed, these parameters affect the second smallest eigenvalue of the 𝑳, which should be
maximized to ensure the fastest possible convergence, as explained in detail in [52]. How‐
ever, formal stability analysis falls beyond the scope of this paper, and the interested
reader is referred to the literature for more details.
In this paper, we have just followed a sub‐optimal trial‐and‐error selection method
to determine the starting values of the consensus parameters. The selection is also sup‐
ported by sensitivity analysis in the more complex cases of multi‐function control.
In addition, we took into account the following considerations: (1) the values of the
consensus coefficients determine the convergence rate of the algorithm for each variable
of interest, being faster for larger values, (2) the control actions, i.e., the balancing currents,
are larger for larger values of the coefficients and larger differences in the variables of
interest, and (3) the magnitude of the differences might be quite different for each variable
of interest, being particularly lower for the SOCs, as they are defined as dimensionless
variables with values between 0 and 1. This means that different values are expected for
each consensus parameter, being particularly larger for the SOC case.
It is also worth noting that in ordinary control theory, hardware implementation of
the controller is often not considered, and therefore in theory too large consensus coeffi‐
cients that might lead to extremely large control signals are possible. This might result in
hardware or stability issues. In practice, this situation is typically avoided by including
saturation in the actuator, as discussed in [53]. Here, we included a saturation block to the
controller to limit the balancing currents to ±1C (53 A), but other limits could be explored.
Finally, it is worth noting that, within this framework, static or dynamic values for
the consensus coefficients can be applied. For instance, in this paper, beyond the static
coefficients, we also propose a dynamic voltage consensus coefficient determined in quad‐
ratic proportion to the battery current, 𝑖 [A]:
𝜎 𝑘 1 𝑘 𝑖 (15)
where 𝑘 and 𝑘 [–] are constant coefficients, and typically 𝑘 ≫ 𝑘 to avoid controller
saturation. This dynamic definition of the voltage consensus coefficient virtually elimi‐
nates the widely known problem in regular balancing systems [54] of over‐balancing volt‐
ages during low current periods or under‐balancing voltages during high current peaks.

3. Results
Using our simulation framework, we can easily study a myriad of scenarios with
respect to battery states, external conditions, or power demand. In this paper, due to space
constraints, we focus only on demonstrating the effectiveness of the algorithm under more
demanding scenarios. Hence, we focus on aggressive driving and fast charging conditions
(see Section 2.3), in combination with substantial differences in cell‐to‐cell variations (see
Energies 2021, 14, 4279 16 of 26

Section 2.1.2), and moderate parallel forced air cooling (see Section 2.1.3). Thus, we assumed
in all the scenarios analyzed the mixed aging cell‐to‐cell variations scenario. As qualitatively
shown in Figure 12, this is the case with a larger variation in cell internal resistances and ca‐
pacities, since it combines cells with BOL, MOL, and EOL parameterization.
We compare side‐by‐side the performance of single‐controllers for either SOC, voltage,
and temperature balancing, and evaluate the results in comparison with the ‘no control’ case,
which is used as a benchmark. We also evaluate multi‐function dual controllers, in particular:
(1) simultaneous SOC and voltage balancing, and (2) SOC and temperature balancing.
For a detailed comparison, we present plots in time of key variables, but also provide
performance metrics in corresponding tables. In the case of multi‐function balancing, we
also conduct sensitivity analysis, aiming to provide insights on the performance of the
controller depending on the tuning of the consensus gains.
The following results are displayed for the aggressive driving scenarios:
 Figure 14 and Table 3: a comparison of single controllers;
 Figure 15 and Table 4: a comparison of single and dual controllers, including voltage
balancing using the dynamic voltage consensus gain (Equation (15));
 Figure 16 and Table 5: a sensitivity analysis of dual balancing (SOC and temperature);
 On the other hand, the next results are presented for the fast charging scenarios:
 Figure 17 and Table 6: a comparison of single controllers;
 Figure 18 and Table 7: a sensitivity analysis of dual balancing (SOC and voltage);
 Figure 19: a comparison of single and dual controllers with different fast charging pro‐
files.

(a) No control (b) SOC balancing (c) Temperature balancing (d) Voltage balancing
(𝜎 𝜎 𝜎 0) (𝜎 2000, 𝜎 𝜎 0) (𝜎 20, 𝜎 𝜎 0) (𝜎 250, 𝜎 𝜎 0)
Figure 14. Single controllers result in time. End condition: min 𝑆𝑂𝐶 0.5. Scenario: aggressive driving (US06), mixed
aging, parallel forced air cooling (ℎ 15 W/m2K).
Energies 2021, 14, 4279 17 of 26

Table 3. Key metrics of single controllers results shown in Figure 14.

Balancing ∆𝒗𝒓𝒎𝒔 ∆𝑺𝑶𝑪𝒓𝒎𝒔 ∆𝑻𝒓𝒎𝒔 𝐦𝐚𝐱 𝑻𝒋 𝑬𝑩,𝒍𝒐𝒔𝒔 𝑬𝒍𝒐𝒔𝒔 𝒗𝒋 𝟐. 𝟕 V Simulation

Scenario [mV] [%] [°C] [°C] [Wh] [Wh] Time [%] Time [s]
No control 94 1.5 3.5 54.2 0 121.1 5.86 2813
SOC
84 0.1 3.3 52.8 0.9 127.0 5.27 3092
(𝜎 2000
Temperature
82 7.9 0.7 41.4 13.4 87.9 0.43 2306
(𝜎 20)
Voltage
57 3.4 1.8 46.8 5.0 110.5 2.26 2781
(𝜎 250)
Note: best and worst values are highlighted in green and light red, respectively.

(d) Dual balancing

(c) Voltage balancing
(a) No control (b) Voltage balancing (SOC and voltage)
(𝜎 250 0.025 𝑖 ,
(𝜎 𝜎 𝜎 0) (𝜎 250, 𝜎 𝜎 0) (𝜎 600, 𝜎 0
𝜎 𝜎 0)
𝜎 175 0.0175 𝑖 )
Figure 15. Single and dual controllers results in time. End condition: min 𝑆𝑂𝐶 0.5. Scenario: aggressive driving
(US06), mixedagingg, parallel forced air cooling (ℎ 15 W/m2K).
Energies 2021, 14, 4279 18 of 26

Table 4. Key metrics of single and dual controllers results shown in Figure 15.

Balancing ∆𝒗𝒓𝒎𝒔 ∆𝑺𝑶𝑪𝒓𝒎𝒔 ∆𝑻𝒓𝒎𝒔 𝐦𝐚𝐱 𝑻𝒋 𝑬𝑩,𝒍𝒐𝒔𝒔 𝑬𝒍𝒐𝒔𝒔 𝒗𝒋 𝟐. 𝟕 V Simulation

Scenario [mV] [%] [°C] [°C] [Wh] [Wh] Time [%] Time [s]
No control 94 1.5 3.5 54.2 0 121.1 5.86 2813
SOC
84 0.1 3.3 52.8 0.9 127.0 5.27 3092
(𝜎 2000
Voltage
57 3.4 1.8 46.8 5.0 110.5 2.26 2781
(𝜎 250)
Voltage
49 4.0 1.2 44.3 8.7 106.8 1.17 2738
(𝜎 250 0.025 𝑖 )
Dual
(SOC and voltage)
59 1.6 1.7 46.2 7.5 116.4 1.38 2973
(𝜎 600, 𝜎 175
0.0175 𝑖 )
Note: best and worst values are highlighted in green and light red, respectively.

Figure 16. Sensitivity analysis: dual balancing (SOC and temperature): 𝜎 2000 1 𝛼 , 𝜎 20𝛼, 𝜎 0. End condi‐
tion: min 𝑆𝑂𝐶 0.5. Scenario: aggressive driving (US06), mixed aging, parallel forced air cooling (ℎ 15 W/m2K).

Table 5. Key metrics of dual balancing (SOC and temperature) results shown in Figure 16.

𝜶 ∆𝒗𝒓𝒎𝒔 ∆𝑺𝑶𝑪𝒓𝒎𝒔 𝐦𝐚𝐱 𝑻𝒋 𝑬𝑩,𝒍𝒐𝒔𝒔 𝒗𝒋 𝟐. 𝟕 V Simulation

∆𝑻𝒓𝒎𝒔 [°C] 𝑬𝒍𝒐𝒔𝒔 [Wh]
[–]. [mV] [%] [°C] [Wh] Time [%] Time [s]
0 84 0.1 3.3 52.8 0.9 127.0 5.27 3092
0.2 78 0.7 3.1 52.3 1.2 124.3 4.47 3063
0.5 70 2.2 2.5 51.0 2.2 117.4 3.63 2834
0.8 64 5.1 1.7 45.2 5.3 102.0 1.59 2696
1 82 7.9 0.7 41.4 13.4 87.9 0.43 2306
Note: best and worst values are highlighted in green and light red, respectively.
Energies 2021, 14, 4279 19 of 26

(a) No control (b) SOC balancing (c) Voltage balancing

(𝜎 𝜎 𝜎 0) (𝜎 2000, 𝜎 𝜎 0) (𝜎 250, 𝜎 𝜎 0)
Figure 17. Single controllers results in time. Scenario: fast charging, mixed aging, parallel forced air cooling (ℎ 15
W/m2K). All cases using the CP‐CV charge profile of the ‘no control’ case.

Table 6. Key metrics of single controllers results shown in Figure 17.

Balancing Scenario ∆𝒗𝒓𝒎𝒔 [mV] ∆𝑺𝑶𝑪𝒓𝒎𝒔 [%] ∆𝑻𝒓𝒎𝒔 [°C] 𝐦𝐚𝐱 𝑻𝒋 [°C] 𝑬𝑩,𝒍𝒐𝒔𝒔 [Wh] 𝑬𝒍𝒐𝒔𝒔 [Wh]
No control 86 1.5 3.3 47.3 0 71.5
SOC
74 0.1 2.7 45.5 0.7 70.0
(𝜎 2000
Voltage
31 3.9 0.8 38.9 4.0 65.7
(𝜎 250)
Note: best and worst values are highlighted in green and light red, respectively.
Energies 2021, 14, 4279 20 of 26

Figure 18. Sensitivity analysis: dual balancing (SOC and voltage): 𝜎 2000 1 𝛼 , 𝜎 0, 𝜎 250𝛼. Scenario: fast
charging, mixed aging, parallel forced air cooling (ℎ 15 W/m2K). All cases using the CP‐CV charge profile of the ‘no
control’ case.

Table 7. Key metrics of dual balancing (SOC and voltage) results of Figure 18.

𝜶
∆𝒗𝒓𝒎𝒔 [mV] ∆𝑺𝑶𝑪𝒓𝒎𝒔 [%] ∆𝑻𝒓𝒎𝒔 [°C] 𝒎𝒂𝒙 𝑻𝒋 [°C] 𝑬𝑩,𝒍𝒐𝒔𝒔 [Wh] 𝑬𝒍𝒐𝒔𝒔 [Wh]
[–]
0 74 0.1 2.7 45.5 0.7 70.0
0.2 72 0.2 2.6 45.3 0.7 69.8
0.5 66 0.7 2.4 44.6 0.9 69.4
0.8 52 1.9 1.7 42.2 1.9 68.1
1 31 3.9 0.8 38.9 4.0 65.7
Note: best and worst values are highlighted in green and red, respectively.
Energies 2021, 14, 4279 21 of 26

(c) Dual balancing

(a) No control (b) Voltage balancing (SOC and voltage)
(𝜎 𝜎 𝜎 0) (𝜎 250, 𝜎 𝜎 0) (𝜎 600, 𝜎 0
𝜎 175 0.0175 𝑖 )
Figure 19. Single and dual controllers results in time. Scenario: fast charging, mixed aging, parallel forced air cooling (ℎ
15 W/m2K). Each case using its own CP‐CV charge power profile optimized to reduce charging times.

3.1. Aggressive Driving Results

From Figure 14 and Table 3, we learn that near‐perfect SOC balancing (∆𝑆𝑂𝐶
0.1%) is possible with relatively low currents and can also extend driving range (+10%).
In practice, it might be limited by the error in the SOC estimation, which is not considered
here. However, conventional SOC balancing cannot solve the problem of low voltage vi‐
olations, overheating, and thermal unbalance.
On the other hand, temperature and voltage balancing might induce larger SOC to
unbalance (7.9 and 3.4%, respectively), which might shorten the driving range (−18% and
−1%) but actually minimizes the occurrence of low voltage violations and thus the poten‐
tial need for derating during driving. In addition, both temperature and voltage balancing
can reduce the maximum temperatures (in 12.8 and 7.4 °C) and the cell‐to‐cell temperature
differences. The peak balancing currents are around 20 A, i.e., 50% higher than for SOC
balancing, but below 10% of the peak battery current.
The magnitude of these balancing effects is dictated by the values of the consensus
gains. To illustrate that, in Figure 15 and Table 4, we analyze the impact of implementing
a dynamic voltage consensus coefficient (Equation (15)). In this case, we can see that the
balancing action is more pronounced during high power peaks. To keep the balancing
power level within reasonable limits, we limited the balancing currents to 53A (or 1C). It
Energies 2021, 14, 4279 22 of 26

is observed that the dynamic gain boosts the performance of the voltage balancing con‐
troller, with a minor increase in SOC unbalances and balancing losses. Moreover, when
used in combination with SOC balancing in a dual controller fashion, we can get the ad‐
vantages of both controllers while minimizing their caveats.
As previously stated, the magnitude of the balancing effects is dictated by the values
of the consensus gains. To illustrate the importance of appropriate tuning for the consen‐
sus gains, in Figure 16 and Table 5 we present a sensitivity analysis for a dual balancing
case. We considered SOC and temperature balancing, but similar studies can be con‐
ducted for other scenarios. To conduct the parameter sweep we re‐defined the values of
the SOC and temperature consensus gains as a function of a dimensionless variable 𝛼,
which takes values from 0 to 1. This is expressed as 𝜎 2000 1 𝛼 and 𝜎 20𝛼. In
extreme cases, the dual controller behaves as a single controller, as either 𝜎 or 𝜎 are
equal to zero. As illustrated in Figure 16, different non‐linear trends are observed in the
metrics, including an irregular pattern for the maximum temperatures. These results high‐
light the importance of developing selection methods to balance the trade‐offs of each
controller.

3.2. Fast Charging Results

From Figure 17 and Table 6, we learn that the algorithm is also effective during fast
charging scenarios. The SOC balancing controller can equalize SOC smoothly, and the
voltage balancing controller is able not only to equalize terminal voltages but also to re‐
duce both the maximum temperatures (>8 °C) and the cell‐to‐cell temperature differences.
However, it increases the SOC unbalance.
As pointed out earlier for the aggressive driving scenarios, a balance between the
pros and cons of single controllers can be achieved by combining them in a multi‐function
controller and making an appropriate selection of the consensus gains. This possibility is
investigated in the sensitivity analysis presented in Figure 18 and Table 7 for a dual con‐
troller that performs SOC and voltage balancing.
For a fair comparison, the results displayed in Figures 17 and 18, and their corre‐
sponding Tables 6 and 7, are obtained using in all cases the same fast‐charging power
profile. The maximum power levels are determined considering the maximum terminal
voltages of the ‘no control’ case (Figure 17a), and the maximum balancing currents of the
SOC and voltage balancing cases (Figure 17b,c).
However, as can be observed in Figure 17b,c, and thanks to the balancing actions, it
would be possible to charge the battery at higher power levels in those cases without vio‐
lating the upper voltage limit. That is particularly true for the voltage balancing case (Fig‐
ure 17c).
This is investigated in the cases shown in Figure 19, where the battery is charged
using its own CP‐CV charge profiles to optimize the charging time. In comparison with
the ‘no control’ case (Figure 19a), which requires 1811 s to bring the battery up to the end‐
of‐charge condition, the battery with voltage balancing (Figure 19b) and dual balancing
(SOC and voltage) (Figure 19c) can be charged up to the same condition in only 1400 s and
1655 s, respectively. This enables a charging time reduction of 22.7% and 8.6%, respec‐
tively.

4. Discussion
Here we discuss other qualitative aspects of this work. Firstly, we would like to
acknowledge that both the EECM and the TECM proposed are relatively simple, but they
are sufficient to validate the novel balancing control algorithm proposed. This is particu‐
larly true when coupled with a rational distribution of cell‐to‐cell parameter variations.
Indeed, an equivalent modeling methodology has already been followed and validated
experimentally by de Castro et al. [20].
In addition, this relatively simple electro‐thermal model can be formulated with con‐
vex functions in a convex set. This means that in future work the control for the balancing
Energies 2021, 14, 4279 23 of 26

system can be evaluated offline using convex optimization, following the pioneering
methodology developed by Pinto et al. [14]. This enables the comparison of the sub‐opti‐
mal online results obtained with the novel consensus algorithm, with the global optimal
results provided by convex optimization.
Apart from that, we would like to highlight the flexibility of the algorithm, which can
be easily modified to equalize other variables of interest. This can include variables related
to battery internal states and degradation mechanisms, such as the surface concentration
of electrode particles, or the rates of degradation derived from more or less complex deg‐
radation models. Thus, it would be possible to equalize battery lifetime at the cell level
with this framework if such variables or states can be monitored, diagnosed, and/or pre‐
dicted up to some extent, which is doable with the current state‐of‐the‐art.
As a final remark, it is worth noting that the model framework is extremely fast—
one study case can be run in less than a second. This is very convenient when running
sensitivity analysis of key variables of interest, such as the consensus gains, and opens the
door to generate large amounts of synthetic data. This large amount of data could be use‐
ful, for example, in combination with big data analytics to uncover hidden patterns, cor‐
relations, and other valuable insights.

5. Conclusions
This study presents for the first time a multi‐objective distributed control for balanc‐
ing systems, based on a multi‐agent consensus algorithm. In our view, the algorithm’s
outstanding effectiveness, scalability, flexibility, and ease of implementation and tuning
make it an ideal candidate for industry adoption. Beyond its distributed architecture, our
new consensus algorithm offers key advantages over current centralized and de‐central‐
ized algorithms in the literature, such as (1) model‐based, since it does not demand pre‐
diction of future variables and does not need a model of the system; (2) machine learning,
since it does not demand any data for training and validation, and has extremely low
memory and computational requirements; and (3) fuzzy logic, since it offers a systematic
implementation approach.
Our results show that our novel multi‐functional balancing can boost the perfor‐
mance of batteries with substantial cell‐to‐cell differences under the most demanding op‐
erating conditions, i.e., aggressive driving and DC fast charging (2C). Indeed, it is well
known that under high power demand battery performance might be limited by over‐
heating and excessive unbalance in cells SOC, terminal voltages, or temperatures. How‐
ever, we demonstrate that a well‐tuned consensus algorithm can generate balancing cur‐
rent setpoints that virtually eliminate these limitations, achieving a good balance between
the pros and cons of single controllers.
In comparison with no control, driving times are increased (>10%), charging times
reduced (>22%), maximum cell temperatures decreased (>10 °C), temperature differences
lowered (~3 °C rms), and the occurrence of low voltage violations during driving reduced
(>5×). This minimizes the need for power derating and enhances the driver experience. In
a broader sense, it might also have an impact on the thermal management design, by re‐
ducing the demand for intensive and uniform cooling.
The benefits of multi‐functional balancing are particularly interesting in the case of
(1) EVs oriented to motorsport (e.g., Formula E), (2) any EVs that contemplate aggressive
driving operating modes, such as the Tesla ludicrous mode, (3) all EVs that offer super‐
charging, and (4) batteries with significant cell‐to‐cell differences. In future work, we
would like to evaluate the impact of the control in battery lifetime and to investigate the
applicability within battery energy storage applications.
Energies 2021, 14, 4279 24 of 26

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.V.B. and R.d.C.; Formal analysis: J.V.B., and R.d.C.;
Methodology: J.V.B., R.d.C. and T.D.; Visualization, J.V.B. and R.d.C.; Writing—original draft prep‐
aration, J.V.B., R.d.C., Y.W. and T.D.; writing—review and editing, J.V.B. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: J.V.B. was funded by the EPSRC Faraday Institution Multi‐Scale Modelling Project
(EP/S003053/1, grant number FIRG003.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. The Paris Agreement, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Available online: https://un‐
fccc.int/process‐and‐meetings/the‐paris‐agreement/the‐paris‐agreement (accessed on 26 October 2020).
2. International Energy Agency (IEA). Global EV Outlook 2020; International Energy Agency (IEA): New York, NY, USA, 2020.
3. BloombergNEF. BNEF Electric Vehicle Report (EVO) Report 2020; BloombergNEF: New York, NY, USA, 2020.
4. Diaz, L.B.; He, X.; Hu, Z.; Restuccia, F.; Marinescu, M.; Barreras, J.V.; Patel, Y.; Offer, G.J.; Rein, G. Meta‐Review of Fire Safety
of Lithium‐Ion Batteries: Industry Challenges and Research Contributions. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2020, 167, 090559,
doi:10.1149/1945‐7111/aba8b9.
5. Barreras, J.V. Practical Methods in Li‐ion Batteries: For Simplified Modeling, Battery Electric Vehicle Design, Battery Manage‐
ment System Testing and Balancing System Control. Aalborg Univ. PhD Ser. Fac. Eng. Sci. 2017, doi:10.5278/vbn.phd.eng.00003.
6. Sun, Y.; Saxena, S.; Pecht, M. Derating Guidelines for Lithium‐Ion Batteries. Energies 2018, 11, 3295, doi:10.3390/en11123295.
7. Sowe, J.; Few, S.; Barreras, J.V.; Schimpe, M.; Wu, B.; Nelson, J.; Candelise, C. How Can Insights from Degradation Modelling
Inform Operational Strategies to Increase the Lifetime of Li‐Ion Batteries in Islanded Mini‐Grids? ECS Meet. Abstr. 2020,
MA2020‐02, 3780, doi:10.1149/ma2020‐02453780mtgabs.
8. Schimpe, M.; Barreras, J.V.; Wu, B.; Offer, G.J. Novel Degradation Model‐Based Current Derating Strategy for Lithium‐Ion‐
Batteries. ECS Meet. Abstr. 2020, MA2020‐02, 3808, doi:10.1149/ma2020‐02453808mtgabs.
9. Schimpe, M.; Barreras, J.V.; Wu, B.; Offer, G.J. Battery Degradation‐Aware Current Derating: An Effective Method to Prolong
Lifetime and Ease Thermal Management. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2021, 168, 060506, doi:10.1149/1945‐7111/ac0553.
10. Pelletier, S.; Jabali, O.; Laporte, G.; Veneroni, M. Battery degradation and behaviour for electric vehicles: Review and numerical
analyses of several models. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 2017, 103, 158–187, doi:10.1016/j.trb.2017.01.020.
11. Barreras, J.V.; Raj, T.; Howey, D.A. Derating Strategies for Lithium‐Ion Batteries in Electric Vehicles. In Proceedings of the
IECON 2018—44th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engi‐
neers (IEEE), Washington, DC, USA, 21–23 October 2018; pp. 4956–4961.
12. Fleischer, C.; Sauer, D.U. Simulative comparison of balancing algorithms for active and passive cell balancing systems for lith‐
ium‐ion batteries. In Proceedings of the Advanced Automotive Battery Conference (AABC), Detroit, MI, USA, 15–19 June 2014.
13. Barreras, J.V.; Frost, D.; Howey, D. Smart Balancing Systems: An Ultimate Solution to the Weakest Cell Problem? IEEE Veh.
Technol. Soc. Newsl. 2018. Available online: https://dokumen.tips/documents/capacitors‐in‐power‐electronics‐applications‐reli‐
ability‐and‐.html (accesed on 10 June 2021)
14. Pinto, C.; Barreras, J.V.; Schaltz, E.; Araújo, R.E. Evaluation of Advanced Control for Li‐ion Battery Balancing Systems Using
Convex Optimization. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2016, 7, 1703–1717, doi:10.1109/tste.2016.2600501.
15. Daowd, M.; Omar, N.; Bossche, P.V.D.; Van Mierlo, J. Passive and active battery balancing comparison based on MATLAB
simulation. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference, Chicago, IL, USA, 6–9 September 2011.
16. Altaf, F.; Egardt, B.; Mardh, L.J. Load Management of Modular Battery Using Model Predictive Control: Thermal and State‐of‐
Charge Balancing. IEEE Trans. Control. Syst. Technol. 2016, 25, 47–62, doi:10.1109/tcst.2016.2547980.
17. Altaf, F.; Johannesson, L.; Egardt, B. Simultaneous Thermal and State‐of‐Charge Balancing of Batteries: A Review. In Proceed‐
ings of the 2014 IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference (VPPC), Coimbra, Portugal, 27–30 October 2014; pp. 1–7.
18. Barreras, J.V.; Pinto, C.; De Castro, R.; Schaltz, E.; Andreasen, S.J.; Araújo, R.E. Multi‐Objective Control of Balancing Systems
for Li‐Ion Battery Packs: A Paradigm Shift? In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference (VPPC),
Coimbra, Portugal, 27–30 October 2014; pp. 1–7.
19. Pinto, C.; De Castro, R.; Barreras, J.V.; Araujo, R.E.; Howey, D.A. Smart Balancing Control of a Hybrid Energy Storage System
Based on a Cell‐to‐Cell Shared Energy Transfer Configuration. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion
Conference (VPPC), Chicago, IL, USA, 27–30 August 2018; pp. 1–6.
20. De Castro, R.P.; Pinto, C.; Barreras, J.V.; Araujo, R.E.; Howey, D.A. Smart and Hybrid Balancing System: Design, Modeling, and
Experimental Demonstration. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2019, 68, 11449–11461, doi:10.1109/tvt.2019.2929653.
21. De Castro, R.; Pereira, H.; Araujo, R.E.; Barreras, J.V.; Pangborn, H.C. Multi‐Layer Control for Hybrid Balancing System. In
Proceedings of the 2021 5th IEEE Conference on Control Technology and Applications (CCTA), San Diego, CA, USA, 9–11
August 2021.
Energies 2021, 14, 4279 25 of 26

22. Docimo, D.J.; Fathy, H.K. Multivariable State Feedback Control as a Foundation for Lithium‐Ion Battery Pack Charge and Ca‐
pacity Balancing. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2016, 164, A61–A70, doi:10.1149/2.0151702jes.
23. Sui, Y.; Song, S. A Multi‐Agent Reinforcement Learning Framework for Lithium‐ion Battery Scheduling Problems. Energies
2020, 13, 1982, doi:10.3390/en13081982.
24. Ma, Y.; Duan, P.; Sun, Y.; Chen, H. Equalization of Lithium‐Ion Battery Pack Based on Fuzzy Logic Control in Electric Vehicle.
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2018, 65, 6762–6771, doi:10.1109/tie.2018.2795578.
25. Olfati‐Saber, R.; Murray, R. Consensus Problems in Networks of Agents with Switching Topology and Time‐Delays. IEEE Trans.
Autom. Control. 2004, 49, 1520–1533, doi:10.1109/tac.2004.834113.
26. Abhinav, S.; Binetti, G.; Davoudi, A.; Lewis, F.L. Toward consensus‐based balancing of smart batteries. In Proceedings of the
2014 IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition—APEC 2014, Fort Worth, TX, USA, 16–20 March 2014; pp.
2867–2873.
27. Ouyang, Q.; Chen, J.; Zheng, J.; Fang, H. Optimal Cell‐to‐Cell Balancing Topology Design for Serially Connected Lithium‐Ion
Battery Packs. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2018, 9, 350–360, doi:10.1109/tste.2017.2733342.
28. Barreras, J.V.; Raj, T.; Howey, D.A.; Schaltz, E. Results of Screening over 200 Pristine Lithium‐Ion Cells. In Proceedings of the
2017 IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference (VPPC), Belfort, France, 11–14 December 2017; pp. 1–6.
29. Zheng, Y.; Han, X.; Lu, L.; Li, J.; Ouyang, M. Lithium ion battery pack power fade fault identification based on Shannon entropy
in electric vehicles. J. Power Sources 2013, 223, 136–146, doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.09.015.
30. An, F.; Chen, L.; Huang, J.; Zhang, J.; Li, P. Rate dependence of cell‐to‐cell variations of lithiumion cells. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 35051,
doi:10.1038/srep35051.
31. Rothgang, S.; Baumhöfer, T.; Sauer, D.U. Diversion of Aging of Battery Cells in Automotive Systems. In Proceedings of the 2014
IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference (VPPC), Coimbra, Portugal, 27–30 October 2014; pp. 1–6.
32. Paul, S.; Diegelmann, C.; Kabza, H.; Tillmetz, W. Analysis of ageing inhomogeneities in lithium‐ion battery systems. J. Power
Sources 2013, 239, 642–650, doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.01.068.
33. An, F.; Huang, J.; Wang, C.; Li, Z.; Zhang, J.; Wang, S.; Li, P. Cell sorting for parallel lithium‐ion battery systems: Evaluation
based on an electric circuit model. J. Energy Storage 2016, 6, 195–203, doi:10.1016/j.est.2016.04.007.
34. Rumpf, K.; Naumann, M.; Jossen, A. Experimental investigation of parametric cell‐to‐cell variation and correlation based on
1100 commercial lithium‐ion cells. J. Energy Storage 2017, 14, 224–243, doi:10.1016/j.est.2017.09.010.
35. Zou, H.; Zhan, H.; Zheng, Z. A Multi—Factor Weight Analysis Method of Lithiumion Batteries Based on Module Topology. In
Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Sensing, Diagnostics, Prognostics, and Control (SDPC), Xi’an, China, 15–
17 August 2018; pp. 61–66.
36. Baumann, M.; Wildfeuer, L.; Rohr, S.; Lienkamp, M. Parameter variations within Li‐Ion battery packs—Theoretical investiga‐
tions and experimental quantification. J. Energy Storage 2018, 18, 295–307, doi:10.1016/j.est.2018.04.031.
37. Devie, A.; Baure, G.; Dubarry, M. Intrinsic Variability in the Degradation of a Batch of Commercial 18650 Lithium‐Ion Cells.
Energies 2018, 11, 1031, doi:10.3390/en11051031.
38. Campestrini, C.; Keil, P.; Schuster, S.F.; Jossen, A. Ageing of lithium‐ion battery modules with dissipative balancing compared
with single‐cell ageing. J. Energy Storage 2016, 6, 142–152, doi:10.1016/j.est.2016.03.004.
39. Schuster, S.F.; Brand, M.J.; Berg, P.; Gleissenberger, M.; Jossen, A. Lithium‐ion cell‐to‐cell variation during battery electric vehi‐
cle operation. J. Power Sources 2015, 297, 242–251, doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2015.08.001.
40. Dubarry, M.; Truchot, C.; Cugnet, M.; Liaw, B.Y.; Gering, K.; Sazhin, S.; Jamison, D.; Michelbacher, C. Evaluation of commercial
lithium‐ion cells based on composite positive electrode for plug‐in hybrid electric vehicle applications. Part I: Initial character‐
izations. J. Power Sources 2011, 196, 10328–10335, doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2011.08.077.
41. Baumhöfer, T.; Brühl, M.; Rothgang, S.; Sauer, D.U. Production caused variation in capacity aging trend and correlation to initial
cell performance. J. Power Sources 2014, 247, 332–338, doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.08.108.
42. Dubarry, M.; Vuillaume, N.; Liaw, B.Y. Origins and accommodation of cell variations in Li‐ion battery pack modeling. Int. J.
Energy Res. 2010, 34, 216–231, doi:10.1002/er.1668.
43. Shin, D.; Poncino, M.; Macii, E.; Chang, N. A statistical model of cell‐to‐cell variation in Li‐ion batteries for system‐level design.
In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Low Power Electronics and Design (ISLPED), Beijing, China, 4–6 September
2013; pp. 94–99.
44. Barreras, J.V.; Pinto, C.; De Castro, R.; Schaltz, E.; Swierczynski, M.J.; Andreasen, S.J.; Araújo, R.E. An improved parametrization
method for Li‐ion linear static Equivalent Circuit battery Models based on direct current resistance measurement. In Proceed‐
ings of the 2015 International Conference on Sustainable Mobility Applications, Renewables and Technology (SMART), Kuwait,
Kuwait, 23–25 November 2015; pp. 1–9.
45. Barreras, J.V.; Fleischer, C.; Christensen, A.E.; Swierczynski, M.J.; Schaltz, E.; Andreasen, S.J.; Sauer, D.U. An Advanced HIL
Simulation Battery Model for Battery Management System Testing. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2016, 52, 5086–5099,
doi:10.1109/tia.2016.2585539.
46. Barreras, J.V.; Swierczynski, M.J.; Schaltz, E.; Andreasen, S.J.; Fleischer, C.; Sauer, D.U.; Christensen, A.E. Functional analysis of
Battery Management Systems using multi‐cell HIL simulator. In Proceedings of the 2015 Tenth International Conference on
Ecological Vehicles and Renewable Energies (EVER), Monte Carlo, Monaco, 31 March–2 April 2015; pp. 1–10.
47. ASTM E1461‐13 Standard Test Method for Thermal Diffusivity by the Flash Method. Available online:
https://www.astm.org/Standards/E1461.htm (accessed on 13 October 2020).
Energies 2021, 14, 4279 26 of 26

48. Zhu, C.; Li, X.; Song, L.; Xiang, L. Development of a theoretically based thermal model for lithium ion battery pack. J. Power
Sources 2013, 223, 155–164, doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.09.035.
49. Araújo, R.E.; De Castro, R.; Pinto, C.; Melo, P.; Freitas, D. Combined Sizing and Energy Management in EVs with Batteries and
Supercapacitors. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2014, 63, 3062–3076, doi:10.1109/tvt.2014.2318275.
50. Meng, L.; Dragicevic, T.; Roldan‐Perez, J.; Vasquez, J.C.; Guerrero, J. Modeling and Sensitivity Study of Consensus Algorithm‐
Based Distributed Hierarchical Control for DC Microgrids. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2016, 7, 1504–1515,
doi:10.1109/tsg.2015.2422714.
51. Olfati‐Saber, R.; Fax, J.A.; Murray, R. Consensus and Cooperation in Networked Multi‐Agent Systems. Proc. IEEE 2007, 95, 215–
233, doi:10.1109/jproc.2006.887293.
52. Xiao, L.; Boyd, S. Fast linear iterations for distributed averaging. Syst. Control. Lett. 2004, 53, 65–78, doi:10.1016/j.sys‐
conle.2004.02.022.
53. Gu, G. Linear Feedback Control—Analysis and Design with MATLAB (by Dingyu Xue et al; 2007) [Bookshelf]. IEEE Control.
Syst. 2009, 29, 128–129, doi:10.1109/mcs.2008.930839.
54. Wen, B.S. Cell Balancing Buys Extra Run Time and Battery Life; Power Management, Analog Applications Journal, Texas Instru‐
ments Incorporated: New York, NY, USA, 2009.