Quantifying the Gap Between Laboratory Battery Test Patterns and Field Duty Profiles
Laboratory battery tests provide the main empirical basis for battery performance and degradation studies, but their operating patterns do not directly represent field duty profiles. This paper quantifies the gap by comparing six accessible evidence sources covering controlled cycling, drive-cycle testing, dynamic cycling, NMC811 laboratory ageing, a real electric-vehicle charging trace, and fleet-scale electric-vehicle state-of-health (SOH) data. The analysis combines usage frequency, usage intensity, usage C-rate, and a duty-structure index (DSI) based on normalized current dispersion and ramping. The representative single-segment DSI ranges from 0.630 for the field source trace and 0.699 for NASA to 2.936 for Oxford and 2.855 for Imperial, while usage C-rate ranges from 0.14-0.40 for Imperial, NASA, Stanford, and Hyundai to 2.00 for Oxford. Long-term ageing also differs: the 80 percent retention region occurs near 351 NASA cycles, 6292 Oxford checkpoints, and 1019 Stanford cycles. In chemistry-aligned NMC/NCM evidence, Imperial retains 0.813 under standard cycling and 0.865 under drive-cycle ageing, while the field source has median SOH 0.889 with visible dispersion. Field operation further shows a median use intensity of 137.2 km/day and 56.9 percent of charges ending at or above 95 percent SOC. These results show that battery performance metrics are conditional on the duty pattern that generated them; application-oriented studies should report explicit duty-profile descriptors together with chemistry, capacity, and ageing metrics.