Tag Archive for: State of Energy

1. Beyond SOC: The Full BMS Algorithm Stack

Most talk about BMS algorithms stops at State of Charge. SOC matters. But it is only one output from a stack of six or more BMS algorithms running at once.

For a foundational breakdown of core hardware topologies and functionalities, see our comprehensive guide on how a Battery Management System (BMS) is explained.

For a deeper dive into OCV lookup, Coulomb counting, and Extended Kalman Filter SOC methods, see our dedicated guide: BMS SOC Estimation Methods Explained. This article picks up where those leave off, covering the advanced firmware algorithms that drive aging, dispatch limits, safety, and long-term asset value.

A BESS operator or EPC should understand what each BMS algorithm actually calculates. Marketing language often overstates what firmware really runs. The sections below walk through each algorithm layer in build order: health first, then power and energy limits, then balancing, then safety, then long-term prediction.

2. SOH Algorithms: How BMS Algorithms Track Battery Aging

State of Health (SOH) is the second most important number a BMS produces after SOC. It is also far harder to calculate correctly. SOH shows how much usable capacity and performance remain compared to a new cell. A cell rated at 100 Ah that now delivers 92 Ah has an SOH of roughly 92%.

Unlike SOC, SOH cannot reset with one charge cycle. The BMS must infer it from long-term trends. This makes SOH-focused BMS algorithms fundamentally different from SOC algorithms.

Capacity Fade Tracking Algorithm

The simplest SOH algorithm compares measured full-charge capacity against rated nameplate capacity. The BMS records the Ah delivered between two known SOC points, typically 100% to 0%. It then compares that figure against the original rated capacity.

This method is accurate but slow. It produces one new SOH data point per full cycle. Many BESS installations rarely complete a true 100–0% cycle. Partial-cycle capacity fade algorithms estimate the fade rate from partial cycles instead, using coulomb-counted throughput and known depth-of-discharge. These partial-cycle BMS algorithms carry more uncertainty than full-cycle measurements.

Incremental Capacity Analysis (ICA) Algorithm

Incremental capacity analysis is a more advanced SOH algorithm. It examines the shape of the voltage curve, not just its endpoints. As a cell ages, specific peaks in its incremental capacity curve (dQ/dV) shift and shrink. Each shift pattern correlates with a specific degradation mechanism: lithium plating, active material loss, or electrolyte decomposition.

ICA-based BMS algorithms can tell different aging causes apart, not just report one percentage. This matters for warranty claims and second-life valuation. A cell degrading from normal calendar aging is a very different asset than one degrading from a manufacturing defect or thermal abuse event.

The tradeoff is cost. ICA needs high-resolution voltage sampling during specific charge segments. Not every BMS platform captures this data by default.

DCIR-Based SOH Algorithm

DC internal resistance (DCIR) rises as a cell ages, mostly independent of capacity fade. A DCIR-based SOH algorithm applies a known current pulse and measures the resulting voltage drop. It then calculates internal resistance using Ohm’s law, and compares that value against a baseline resistance-versus-age curve for the specific cell model.

DCIR-based SOH algorithms run faster than capacity-fade methods, since a short current pulse is enough — no full cycle required. This makes them useful for spotting outlier cells early, often before capacity fade becomes visible.

The limitation is temperature sensitivity. DCIR shifts a lot with cell temperature. An accurate DCIR-based BMS algorithm must correct every reading against a resistance-versus-temperature-versus-age model calibrated for the exact cell in use.

SOH Algorithm Comparison

Most premium BMS platforms combine all three algorithms: DCIR for fast, frequent checks; capacity fade tracking as the long-term anchor; and ICA for diagnostic deep-dives when a cell shows early warning signs.

3. SoP Algorithm: What BMS Algorithms Tell the Inverter

State of Power answers a different question than SOC or SOH. It asks not “how much energy is stored,” but “how much power can this pack safely deliver or accept right now.” The SoP algorithm calculates the maximum charge and discharge power available for a set time window, typically 1, 10, or 30 seconds. It weighs current SOC, temperature, cell voltage limits, and internal resistance.

This number goes straight to the inverter or PCS and to the energy management system (EMS). Without an accurate SoP algorithm, the EMS either under-dispatches or over-dispatches. Under-dispatching leaves revenue on the table during a frequency regulation or peak-shaving event. Over-dispatching triggers a protection cutoff mid-event, which is worse for grid-service contract compliance.

SoP gets harder to calculate at temperature and SOC extremes. A pack at 10% SOC or −5°C has much lower discharge SoP than the same pack at 50% SOC and 25°C, even with similar energy content. A well-designed SoP algorithm accounts for voltage sag under load. It does not rely on static cell voltage limits alone, and it uses the same internal resistance data the SOH algorithm tracks.

4. SoE Algorithm: Usable kWh, Not Just Percentage

SOC gives you a percentage. The SoE algorithm gives you the actual usable kilowatt-hours remaining. It factors in current SOH, temperature derating, and the depth-of-discharge limits set for the system. Two BESS units showing 60% SOC can have very different SoE if one has degraded to 85% SOH and the other sits near 98% SOH.

For asset owners running dispatch contracts or virtual power plant participation, SoE is the number that actually sets revenue capacity. A BMS that only reports SOC forces the EMS to apply a separate correction factor for aging, and that workaround adds error. A BMS with a proper SoE algorithm reports usable energy directly, already corrected for real-world capacity.

5. SoR and SoF Algorithms: Diagnostic and Dispatch-Readiness Checks

Two less-discussed BMS algorithms round out the state-estimation stack.

State of Resistance (SoR) tracks internal resistance as its own diagnostic metric, separate from its role as a SOH input. Rising resistance in a single string or module is often the earliest sign of an emerging fault. It can flag a loose busbar connection or accelerated local aging before it shows up in the pack-level SOH number.

State of Function (SoF) is a composite go/no-go algorithm. It combines SOC, SOH, SoP, temperature, and active fault flags into one dispatch-readiness signal. The EMS checks this signal before committing the BESS to a grid-service event. A pack can have fine SOC and SOH individually and still fail SoF — for example, if a temperature sensor reads near its fault threshold. SoF exists to stop the EMS from dispatching a unit that has energy on paper but should not be trusted for that event.

6. Cell Balancing Algorithms: Passive vs Active Control Logic

Cell balancing keeps every cell in a series string at a matched voltage and SOC. The control logic behind it is itself a BMS algorithm worth understanding, not just a hardware feature.

This balancing logic is especially vital—and complex—when dealing with the flat voltage plateaus of LFP chemistry; for a deeper look at hardware and balancing nuances there, read our specific guide on BMS for LiFePO4 batteries.

Passive Balancing Algorithm Logic

A passive balancing algorithm finds the highest-voltage cell in a string during charge. It then switches a bleed resistor across that cell, burning off excess energy as heat until the cell matches the pack average. The control logic usually triggers balancing only above a voltage or SOC threshold, commonly near the top of charge, where cell mismatch matters most for safety and full-charge capacity.

Design choices matter more than the hardware here. A poorly tuned threshold balances too aggressively, wasting energy and building unnecessary heat. Too conservative a threshold lets mismatch build up for many cycles.

Active Balancing Algorithm Logic

An active balancing algorithm moves charge from higher-voltage cells to lower-voltage cells, using inductors, capacitors, or switched-capacitor networks. It does not just burn off the difference as heat. The control logic is more complex: it must sequence several transfer paths at once, avoid oscillation between cells close in voltage, and decide when further balancing no longer justifies the switching losses.

For grid-scale BESS with thousands of series-parallel cells, the balancing algorithm’s efficiency affects round-trip efficiency and effective cycle life directly. A well-balanced pack ages its weakest cells more slowly, since those cells spend less time at voltage extremes.

7. Contactor and Isolation BMS Algorithms

Two safety-critical BMS algorithms operate below the level most BMS content ever discusses. They matter a great deal for BESS commissioning and daily operation.

Pre-Charge Sequencing Algorithm

When a BESS connects to its inverter or DC bus, a large voltage gap between the battery and a discharged bus can spike current high enough to weld contactor contacts or blow fuses. The pre-charge sequencing algorithm closes a smaller pre-charge contactor through a current-limiting resistor first. It watches the bus voltage rise toward battery voltage, and only closes the main contactor once the gap falls within a safe threshold, typically a few percent.

The algorithm must also set a timeout and a fault response. If bus voltage fails to rise as expected in time, that signals a downstream fault. A well-designed sequence aborts the connection instead of forcing the main contactor closed anyway.

Isolation Monitoring Algorithm

High-voltage BESS strings must stay electrically isolated from chassis ground. The isolation monitoring algorithm injects a small test signal, or measures leakage current, between the HV bus and chassis ground. It then calculates an isolation resistance value. A common safety threshold is 500 ohms per volt of system voltage — a 750V BESS string needs at least 375,000 ohms of isolation resistance under this rule.

A slowly degrading isolation reading, even one still above the fault threshold, is an early warning worth flagging. It usually points to moisture ingress, insulation wear, or a developing ground fault well before it trips a hard fault.

8. Safety Diagnostic Algorithms: MAVD, RdV, and Early Fault Detection

Beyond voltage, current, and temperature thresholds, advanced BMS platforms run pattern-based diagnostic algorithms. These catch failure modes before they reach a hard safety limit.

Maximum Allowable Voltage Deviation (MAVD) algorithms compare each cell’s voltage against the pack average in real time. A cell drifting outside its expected deviation band can signal an internal short, a connection fault, or local degradation — even while it stays within absolute safe voltage limits. Because MAVD looks at relative deviation, not absolute thresholds, it often catches faults earlier than simple over-voltage or under-voltage protection.

Resistance-derivative or rate-of-change (RdV) algorithms track how fast a cell’s voltage or resistance is changing, not just its current value. A cell with rapidly climbing resistance is a different risk than one with stable but elevated resistance, even if both report the same SOH today. RdV algorithms flag the rate of change itself as its own alarm condition.

These diagnostic layers matter most for large-format BESS, where a single degrading cell among thousands can go unnoticed until it causes a string-level fault. Standards bodies such as the IEC publish safety requirements for stationary lithium battery systems that reference exactly this kind of deviation monitoring.

Furthermore, if you are deploying assets in the European market, these algorithmic diagnostics are critical for compliance; see our EU batteries regulation EU 2023 1542 complete guide for a full breakdown of the data and safety mandates.

Ask suppliers whether their BMS runs deviation and rate-of-change diagnostics on top of standard threshold protections — this is a real differentiator between a basic BMS and a genuinely safety-engineered one.

9. RUL Prediction Algorithms and Second-Life Value

Remaining Useful Life algorithms take SOH trend data and project forward. They estimate how many more cycles or years remain before the pack falls below an end-of-life threshold, commonly 70–80% of original capacity.

Three RUL Algorithm Approaches

Empirical RUL algorithms fit a degradation curve — often exponential, or a two-stage linear-then-accelerating shape — to historical SOH data for the specific chemistry and use profile. They then extrapolate forward. These are cheap to run and reasonably accurate for well-studied LiFePO4 chemistries with large datasets for a quick way to model these degradation curves yourself based on cycle depth and temperature, you can check out our interactive battery cycle life calculator. But they assume future use resembles the past.

Physics-based (electrochemical) RUL algorithms simulate the degradation mechanisms directly: lithium plating, SEI growth, active material loss. They predict RUL from first principles. These are more accurate under changing use conditions, but they need detailed cell-level parameters that cell suppliers do not always share.

Machine-learning RUL algorithms train on large fleets of historical degradation data. They predict RUL from current sensor patterns without an explicit physical or empirical formula. These can beat both other approaches when trained on a large enough fleet of the same cell type and use case. But they need a lot of historical data, and they can behave unpredictably outside the conditions they trained on.

Why RUL Algorithm Accuracy Matters for BESS Economics

RUL accuracy affects two commercial decisions directly: warranty reserve calculations for suppliers, and second-life asset valuation for owners. A BESS pack projected to hold 80% capacity for ten more years is worth much more on the second-life market than one with an uncertain or steeply declining RUL curve. Lower-demand second-life uses, like residential backup or slow-cycling grid support, depend on that projection being credible.

For utility-scale BESS operators planning eventual asset disposition, ask your BMS or EMS supplier which RUL modeling approach they use, and what fleet data backs it. Battery aging research from national labs such as NLR (National Laboratory of the Rockies) increasingly informs these models. Ask whether RUL confidence intervals are reported alongside the point estimate — a single RUL number with no range is hard to use for financial planning.

10. Questions to Ask Your BMS Supplier About Algorithms

Marketing language often claims “advanced algorithms” without saying which ones actually run in firmware. For a structured framework on auditing these capabilities during procurement, see our guide on BESS supplier BMS evaluation.

The following targeted questions will help you separate real algorithmic depth from a basic protection-only BMS with technical-sounding labels:

• Which SOH algorithm does the BMS use — capacity fade tracking, ICA, DCIR-based, or a combination? A BMS that only runs capacity fade tracking will be slow to catch outlier cells in systems that rarely complete full cycles.
• Does the BMS calculate SoP and SoE algorithms, or only SOC and SOH? Without SoP output, the EMS must apply conservative blanket power limits, which lowers dispatch revenue.
• What isolation resistance threshold does the algorithm enforce, and how is it temperature- and time-compensated? A static threshold with no trend monitoring misses slow isolation decay.
• Does the balancing algorithm run passive, active, or both, and what triggers a balancing cycle? Ask for the specific voltage or SOC threshold, not just “the BMS balances cells.”
• What RUL algorithm approach is used, and is a confidence interval reported? A point-estimate RUL number with no uncertainty bounds has limited use for financial and warranty planning.

Conclusion: Algorithm Depth Is the Real BMS Differentiator

SOC estimation gets most of the attention in BMS marketing. But the BMS algorithms that actually protect a BESS investment over its 10–20 year life sit one layer deeper. SOH tracking catches aging mechanisms early. SoP and SoE outputs maximize safe dispatch revenue. Balancing logic gets tuned for the specific pack architecture. Safety diagnostics catch deviation before it becomes a fault. RUL models come with defensible confidence intervals.

When you evaluate a BMS or a BESS supplier, ask specifically which of these BMS algorithms are implemented, and how they were validated. Do not settle for “the BMS monitors SOC and SOH.” The answer reveals whether you are buying genuine algorithmic engineering or a basic protection circuit with confident marketing copy.

Frequently Asked Questions About BMS Algorithms