Battery cycle-calendar life model updated to use sum not min #1239
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I modified the cycle calendar model to take the sum instead of the min. Here are the results of 25-yr battery capacity percent (replacements are off) across the different chemistries and models. Overall, there are 6675 cycles. Average DOD is ~50%
The table models have more degradation now.
However, whereas in the Old column, the NMC/Gr table and algebraic model both had more degradation than LFP, in the New version, the LFP table has less degradation than NMC/Gr Alg. The LMO/LTO table doesn’t change because the calendar loss is 0.
This is fine because the calendar-cycle models aren’t comparable to the algebraic ones—apples and oranges.