Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 423

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of prognostic algorithms for estimating remaining useful life of batteries

Saha, Bhaskar, Goebel, Kai, Christophersen, Jon·2009·Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control

Abstract

The estimation of remaining useful life (RUL) of a faulty component is at the centre of system prognostics and health management. It gives operators a potent tool in decision making by quantifying how much time is left until functionality is lost. RUL prediction needs to contend with multiple sources of errors, like modelling inconsistencies, system noise and degraded sensor fidelity, which leads to unsatisfactory performance from classical techniques like autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) and extended Kalman filtering (EKF). The Bayesian theory of uncertainty management provides a way to contain these problems. The relevance vector machine (RVM), the Bayesian treatment of the well known support vector machine (SVM), a kernel-based regression/classification technique, is used for model development. This model is incorporated into a particle filter (PF) framework, where statistical estimates of noise and anticipated operational conditions are used to provide estimates of RUL in the form of a probability density function (pdf). We present here a comparative study of the above-mentioned approaches on experimental data collected from Li-ion batteries. Batteries were chosen as an example of a complex system whose internal state variables are either inaccessible to sensors or hard to measure under operational conditions. In addition, battery performance is strongly influenced by ambient environmental and load conditions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0142331208092030

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 423

Metadata

Authors
Saha, B., Goebel, K., & Christophersen, J.
Venue
Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control
Published
2009-06
Volume
31
Issue
3-4
Pages
293-308
ISSN
  • 0142-3312 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0369
OpenAlex
W2007655149
Cited by
423
References
1
FWCI
14.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of prognostic algorithms for estimating remaining useful life of batteries. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0142331208092030
The paper
Saha, B., Goebel, K., & Christophersen, J. (2009). Comparison of prognostic algorithms for estimating remaining useful life of batteries. Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142331208092030

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.