Batteries must be able to hold enough usable energy, and have enough power to operate, for high power UAVs and electric VTOLs. But state-of-health based on capacity can deem resistance degraded batteries in good condition for use when there is significant voltage sag risk. This work proposes a dual-health protocol-aware model using both the reference-discharge capacity retention and resistance-derived power retention to assess and schedule the battery degradation. Chronological time, current, cumulative discharge capacity and pulse-resistance measurements were used to reconstruct cycling and reference-performance data for 22 Sony–Murata VTC6 cells based on different aviation duty protocols. The analysis resulted in 439 valid capacity checkpoints, 388 impedance checkpoints and 415 paired health states. A generalized estimating-equation model was used to quantify the nonlinear cycling and protocol effects and to account for the repeated within-cell observations. The leakage-safe leave-one-cell-out validation was used to assess a random-forest predictor. Although there was a strong association between the two degradation measures (Spearman coefficient of 0.882), capacity loss was strongly correlated with resistance growth. The trajectory of the capacity-health was down 2.468% points per 100 mission-equivalent cycles and was highly curved. At the last checkpoint observed, 20 out of 21 cells were resistance-limited for power retention and 1 cell was capacity-limited. The median dual-health scores at 500 cycles varied between 73.52% for extended cruise operation to 90.05% for lower voltage charging. The cell-wise validation showed a mean absolute error of 0.800% point, a root-mean-square error of 1.101% point and coefficient of determination of 0.975. The dual-health metric has the benefit of avoiding over-stating the operational fitness and capacity of a UAV, while providing a conservative state metric for battery eligibility screening, swapping, and risk-aware UAV mission allocation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Robin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: