IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jcltec/v4y2022i4p78-1289d996176.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparison of the Use of Pontryagin’s Maximum Principle and Reinforcement Learning Techniques for the Optimal Charging of Lithium-Ion Batteries

Author

Listed:
  • Andreas Rauh

    (Group: Distributed Control in Interconnected Systems, School II—Department of Computing Science, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, D-26111 Oldenburg, Germany)

  • Marit Lahme

    (Group: Distributed Control in Interconnected Systems, School II—Department of Computing Science, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, D-26111 Oldenburg, Germany)

  • Oussama Benzinane

    (Group: Distributed Control in Interconnected Systems, School II—Department of Computing Science, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, D-26111 Oldenburg, Germany)

Abstract

Battery systems are one of the most important components for the development of flexible energy storage for future applications. These comprise energy storage in both the mobility sector and stationary applications. To ensure the safe operation of multiple battery cells connected in series and parallel in a battery pack, it is essential to implement state of charge (SOC) equalization strategies. Generally, two fundamentally different approaches can be distinguished. On the one hand, these are passive approaches for SOC equalization that are based on including additional Ohmic resistors in a battery back over which equalization currents flow as long as the correspondingly connected cells have different voltages. Despite the simple implementation of such equalization circuits, they have a major drawback, namely wasting stored energy to perform the SOC equalization. This waste of energy goes along with Ohmic heat production, which leads to the necessity of additional cooling for batteries with large power densities. On the other hand, active SOC equalization approaches have been investigated, which allow for an independent charging of the individual cells. Especially, this latter approach has big potential to be more energy efficient. In addition, the potential for a reduction of Ohmic heat production may contribute to extending the lifetime of battery cells. To perform the individual charging of battery cells in an energetically optimal manner, this paper provides a comparison of closed-form optimization approaches on the basis of Pontryagin’s maximum principle and approaches for reinforcement learning. Especially, their accuracy and applicability for the implementation of optimal online cell charging strategies are investigated.

Suggested Citation

  • Andreas Rauh & Marit Lahme & Oussama Benzinane, 2022. "A Comparison of the Use of Pontryagin’s Maximum Principle and Reinforcement Learning Techniques for the Optimal Charging of Lithium-Ion Batteries," Clean Technol., MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-21, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jcltec:v:4:y:2022:i:4:p:78-1289:d:996176
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2571-8797/4/4/78/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2571-8797/4/4/78/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Abhijit Gosavi, 2009. "Reinforcement Learning: A Tutorial Survey and Recent Advances," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 21(2), pages 178-192, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Voelkel, Michael A. & Sachs, Anna-Lena & Thonemann, Ulrich W., 2020. "An aggregation-based approximate dynamic programming approach for the periodic review model with random yield," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 281(2), pages 286-298.
    2. Fang, Jianhao & Hu, Weifei & Liu, Zhenyu & Chen, Weiyi & Tan, Jianrong & Jiang, Zhiyu & Verma, Amrit Shankar, 2022. "Wind turbine rotor speed design optimization considering rain erosion based on deep reinforcement learning," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    3. Dieter Hendricks & Diane Wilcox, 2014. "A reinforcement learning extension to the Almgren-Chriss model for optimal trade execution," Papers 1403.2229, arXiv.org.
    4. Wang, Xianjia & Yang, Zhipeng & Liu, Yanli & Chen, Guici, 2023. "A reinforcement learning-based strategy updating model for the cooperative evolution," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 618(C).
    5. Bunn, Derek W. & Oliveira, Fernando S., 2016. "Dynamic capacity planning using strategic slack valuation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(1), pages 40-50.
    6. Akshaj Tammewar & Nikita Chaudhari & Bunny Saini & Divya Venkatesh & Ganpathiraju Dharahas & Deepali Vora & Shruti Patil & Ketan Kotecha & Sultan Alfarhood, 2023. "Improving the Performance of Autonomous Driving through Deep Reinforcement Learning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-18, September.
    7. Puwei Lu & Wenkai Huang & Junlong Xiao & Fobao Zhou & Wei Hu, 2021. "Adaptive Proportional Integral Robust Control of an Uncertain Robotic Manipulator Based on Deep Deterministic Policy Gradient," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(17), pages 1-16, August.
    8. Jia, Liangyue & Hao, Jia & Hall, John & Nejadkhaki, Hamid Khakpour & Wang, Guoxin & Yan, Yan & Sun, Mengyuan, 2021. "A reinforcement learning based blade twist angle distribution searching method for optimizing wind turbine energy power," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 215(PA).
    9. Zhang, Xiaoshun & Chen, Yixuan & Yu, Tao & Yang, Bo & Qu, Kaiping & Mao, Senmao, 2017. "Equilibrium-inspired multiagent optimizer with extreme transfer learning for decentralized optimal carbon-energy combined-flow of large-scale power systems," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 157-176.
    10. M. Saqlain & S. Ali & J. Y. Lee, 2023. "A Monte-Carlo tree search algorithm for the flexible job-shop scheduling in manufacturing systems," Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 548-571, June.
    11. Li, Munan & Wang, Wenshu & Zhou, Keyu, 2021. "Exploring the technology emergence related to artificial intelligence: A perspective of coupling analyses," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    12. Hoai An Le Thi & Vinh Thanh Ho & Tao Pham Dinh, 2019. "A unified DC programming framework and efficient DCA based approaches for large scale batch reinforcement learning," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 73(2), pages 279-310, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jcltec:v:4:y:2022:i:4:p:78-1289:d:996176. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.