Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Assessment and Comparative Study of Free and Co...

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Assessment and Comparative Study of Free and Commercial Numerical Software Packages for Lithium‐Ion Battery Modeling

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

E-pub ahead of print

Standard

Assessment and Comparative Study of Free and Commercial Numerical Software Packages for Lithium‐Ion Battery Modeling. / Nwanoro, Kenneth C.; Mercer, Michael P.; Hoster, Harry E.
In: Advanced Theory and Simulations, 12.05.2025.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Nwanoro KC, Mercer MP, Hoster HE. Assessment and Comparative Study of Free and Commercial Numerical Software Packages for Lithium‐Ion Battery Modeling. Advanced Theory and Simulations. 2025 May 12;e00302. Epub 2025 May 12. doi: 10.1002/adts.202500302

Author

Bibtex

@article{16b8f87ef83b469cb2d416c45f56fa98,
title = "Assessment and Comparative Study of Free and Commercial Numerical Software Packages for Lithium‐Ion Battery Modeling",
abstract = "Currently, several competing computational frameworks, including free, open‐source, and commercial packages exist, that enable users to perform purely electrochemical simulations based on the Doyle‐Fuller‐Newman (DFN) model or simulations additionally coupled with thermal/mechanical physics. In this paper, the performance of several numerical software packages is reviewed and evaluated based on the ease of model setup, spatial dimension capability, and model accuracy. In the absence of standardized benchmark tests, a series of discharge simulations under various operating conditions, such as static and dynamic electric vehicle driving cycle loads, as well as galvanostatic intermittent titration techniques (GITTs), provide rigorous test methods to evaluate and benchmark battery modeling software packages. Two different lithium‐ion battery (LIB) parameter sets enable complete assessment of the software packages in terms of accuracy, validity, and solver sensitivity. The careful selection of actual operating condition simulations and independent evaluation tests serves as a benchmark for LIB electrochemical simulation packages and can help users of these packages develop their analyses with confidence in the validity of their results. It is hoped that this paper will serve as a reference for new and established researchers and simulation engineers in LIB simulation to gain knowledge about the capabilities of existing lithium‐ion simulation packages.",
keywords = "software benchmarks, electrochemical models, lithium‐ion batteries (LIBs), battery simulations",
author = "Nwanoro, {Kenneth C.} and Mercer, {Michael P.} and Hoster, {Harry E.}",
year = "2025",
month = may,
day = "12",
doi = "10.1002/adts.202500302",
language = "English",
journal = "Advanced Theory and Simulations",
issn = "2513-0390",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessment and Comparative Study of Free and Commercial Numerical Software Packages for Lithium‐Ion Battery Modeling

AU - Nwanoro, Kenneth C.

AU - Mercer, Michael P.

AU - Hoster, Harry E.

PY - 2025/5/12

Y1 - 2025/5/12

N2 - Currently, several competing computational frameworks, including free, open‐source, and commercial packages exist, that enable users to perform purely electrochemical simulations based on the Doyle‐Fuller‐Newman (DFN) model or simulations additionally coupled with thermal/mechanical physics. In this paper, the performance of several numerical software packages is reviewed and evaluated based on the ease of model setup, spatial dimension capability, and model accuracy. In the absence of standardized benchmark tests, a series of discharge simulations under various operating conditions, such as static and dynamic electric vehicle driving cycle loads, as well as galvanostatic intermittent titration techniques (GITTs), provide rigorous test methods to evaluate and benchmark battery modeling software packages. Two different lithium‐ion battery (LIB) parameter sets enable complete assessment of the software packages in terms of accuracy, validity, and solver sensitivity. The careful selection of actual operating condition simulations and independent evaluation tests serves as a benchmark for LIB electrochemical simulation packages and can help users of these packages develop their analyses with confidence in the validity of their results. It is hoped that this paper will serve as a reference for new and established researchers and simulation engineers in LIB simulation to gain knowledge about the capabilities of existing lithium‐ion simulation packages.

AB - Currently, several competing computational frameworks, including free, open‐source, and commercial packages exist, that enable users to perform purely electrochemical simulations based on the Doyle‐Fuller‐Newman (DFN) model or simulations additionally coupled with thermal/mechanical physics. In this paper, the performance of several numerical software packages is reviewed and evaluated based on the ease of model setup, spatial dimension capability, and model accuracy. In the absence of standardized benchmark tests, a series of discharge simulations under various operating conditions, such as static and dynamic electric vehicle driving cycle loads, as well as galvanostatic intermittent titration techniques (GITTs), provide rigorous test methods to evaluate and benchmark battery modeling software packages. Two different lithium‐ion battery (LIB) parameter sets enable complete assessment of the software packages in terms of accuracy, validity, and solver sensitivity. The careful selection of actual operating condition simulations and independent evaluation tests serves as a benchmark for LIB electrochemical simulation packages and can help users of these packages develop their analyses with confidence in the validity of their results. It is hoped that this paper will serve as a reference for new and established researchers and simulation engineers in LIB simulation to gain knowledge about the capabilities of existing lithium‐ion simulation packages.

KW - software benchmarks

KW - electrochemical models

KW - lithium‐ion batteries (LIBs)

KW - battery simulations

U2 - 10.1002/adts.202500302

DO - 10.1002/adts.202500302

M3 - Journal article

JO - Advanced Theory and Simulations

JF - Advanced Theory and Simulations

SN - 2513-0390

M1 - e00302

ER -