ArticlePDF Available

Charging Station Allocation for Electric Vehicle Network Using Stochastic Modeling and Grey Wolf Optimization

Authors:
  • United Health Services Hospitals

Abstract and Figures

Optimal placement of Charging stations (CSs) and infrastructure planning are one of the most critical challenges that face the Electric Vehicles (EV) industry nowadays. A variety of approaches have been proposed to address the problem of demand uncertainty versus the optimal number of CSs required to build the EV infrastructure. In this paper, a Markov-chain network model is designed to study the estimated demand on a CS by using the birth and death process model. An investigation on the desired number of electric sockets in each CS and the average number of electric vehicles in both queue and waiting times is presented. Furthermore, a CS allocation algorithm based on the Markov-chain model is proposed. Grey Wolf Optimization (GWO) algorithm is used to select the best CS locations with the objective of maximizing the net profit under both budget and routing constraints. Additionally, the model was applied to Washington D.C. transportation network. Experimental results have shown that to achieve the highest net profit, Level 2 chargers need to be installed in low demand areas of infrastructure implementation. On the other hand, Level 3 chargers attain higher net profit when the number of EVs increases in the transportation network or/and in locations with high charging demands.
Content may be subject to copyright.
sustainability
Article
Charging Station Allocation for Electric Vehicle Network Using
Stochastic Modeling and Grey Wolf Optimization
Rawan Shabbar 1, Anemone Kasasbeh 1and Mohamed M. Ahmed 2, *


Citation: Shabbar, R.; Kasasbeh, A.;
Ahmed, M.M. Charging Station
Allocation for Electric Vehicle
Network Using Stochastic Modeling
and Grey Wolf Optimization.
Sustainability 2021,13, 3314. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su13063314
Academic Editors:
Karim El-Basyouny and Tae J. Kwon
Received: 8 February 2021
Accepted: 12 March 2021
Published: 17 March 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1Department of System Science and Industrial Engineering, State University of New York at Binghamton,
Binghamton, NY 13902, USA; rshabba1@binghamton.edu (R.S.); akasasb1@binghamton.edu (A.K.)
2Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071, USA
*Correspondence: mahmed@uwyo.edu; Tel.: +1-(307)-766-5550; Fax: +1-(307)-766-2221
Abstract:
Optimal placement of Charging stations (CSs) and infrastructure planning are one of
the most critical challenges that face the Electric Vehicles (EV) industry nowadays. A variety of
approaches have been proposed to address the problem of demand uncertainty versus the optimal
number of CSs required to build the EV infrastructure. In this paper, a Markov-chain network model
is designed to study the estimated demand on a CS by using the birth and death process model.
An investigation on the desired number of electric sockets in each CS and the average number of
electric vehicles in both queue and waiting times is presented. Furthermore, a CS allocation algorithm
based on the Markov-chain model is proposed. Grey Wolf Optimization (GWO) algorithm is used to
select the best CS locations with the objective of maximizing the net profit under both budget and
routing constraints. Additionally, the model was applied to Washington D.C. transportation network.
Experimental results have shown that to achieve the highest net profit, Level 2 chargers need to be
installed in low demand areas of infrastructure implementation. On the other hand, Level 3 chargers
attain higher net profit when the number of EVs increases in the transportation network or/and in
locations with high charging demands.
Keywords:
electric vehicles; charging stations; metaheuristic optimization; GWO algorithm; allocation
1. Introduction
Electric Vehicles (EVs) are a promising solution to resolve the greenhouse emission
issue as well as the fossil fuels scarcity problem in the future. Even though the demand
for EVs is expected to increase in the next few years, it is still constrained by many factors
including gasoline prices, battery costs, and the availability of Charging Station (CS)
infrastructure. On the other hand, investors are willing to invest in CS infrastructure if and
only if enough number of consumers are available in the network.
To address the problem above, also called the “chicken-egg problem”, many design
parameters related to the available CS in the EV transportation network were studied in
the literature [
1
3
]. Such parameters need to be involved to determine the best Electric
Vehicle Charging Station (EVCS) infrastructure. These parameters include: location, level,
and size and capacity of the available CSs as discussed below:
Location:
Several candidate locations for installing CS were suggested in previous
studies which can be categorized into:
I.
The frequent stopping locations, such as refueling stations and parking lots [
4
6
].
II.
The EV possible stopping locations based on route-distance tracking and/or
grid network availability [7,8].
Level:
Three charging levels were investigated and considered in the infrastructure
planning designs and algorithms in a few studies [8]:
I. Level 1 (standard): operating at 120 V, 15 or 20 A, and 1.44 kW.
II. Level 2 (commercial): operating at 240 V, single-phase, 40 A and 6 kW.
Sustainability 2021,13, 3314. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063314 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2021,13, 3314 2 of 20
III.
Level 3 (Fast Charger): operating at high-voltage, high-current (D.C.) and 90 kW.
Size and Capacity
: While many papers refer to the size of CS as CS capacity, the
two terms are defined differently in this paper. CS capacity is defined as the number
of EVs the CS can handle at a time including both EVs that are being served at the
moment in addition to the EVs waiting in the queue. Whereas, CS size is determined
by the number of available charging sockets at the station [
9
]. The CS Level affects the
service time, while the capacity and the size affects the queuing time at the CS [
10
].
Many constraints need to be taken into consideration when developing the optimiza-
tion algorithm of allocating EVCSs. Based on related work in the literature, these
constraints can be classified as: (I) Budget-related constraints including demand and
cost constraints, and (II) Route-related constraints including available routes between
candidate locations, the distance EV can go before next charge, traffic, weather, etc.
In this paper, both budget and route-related constraints are considered. A Markov-
chain based model is proposed to study the relation among the demand on CS, the size
and the capacity of the CS, and the quality of service represented by the mean length of the
queue in the CS. In addition, a CS infrastructure design is presented. The infrastructure is
based on the net profit estimated by the proposed model and under both route and budget
constraints using a metaheuristic Grey Wolf Optimization (GWO) algorithm.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: First, a literature review on EVCSs’
allocation algorithms and infrastructure planning is introduced. Second, the proposed
methodology is presented including the stochastic modeling approach, a brief overview
of the GWO algorithm, and the implementation of EVCSs’ allocation as an optimization
problem using GWO. Third, a simulation on the proposed model is demonstrated and
experimental results are examined. Then, work significance and limitations are discussed.
Finally, conclusions, future work, and recommendations are drawn.
2. Literature Review
Many approaches have been proposed to address the optimization problem of allo-
cating EVCSs. Proposed models in the literature can be categorized into flow-capturing
models and node-serving models.
In flow-capturing models, the demand is represented by vehicle flow in any route.
CSs need to be allocated in the route between the origin and the destination. Mainly, the
optimization problem in flow-capturing is formulated as a Mixed Integer Programming
Problem (MIP), where the objective is to maximize the EV flow in all available routes
within the EV transport network, and the constraints are either route- or demand-related
constraints or both. The model was first proposed by Kuby and Lim [
11
] and named flow-
refueling location model (FRLM) [
12
]. FLRM extends flow-intercepting model [
13
,
14
] which
aims at maximizing the traffic flow given the number of facilities. However, instead of
allocating a single refueling station, FLRM can allocate multiple stations based on demand
and maximum allowable travel distance [
12
,
15
]. Since then, several mathematical models
for FLRM were proposed [
1
,
12
,
15
,
16
]. Nevertheless, flow-capturing models still suffer
from several limitations such as: (I) inflexibility: it is very hard to capture all information
needed to simulate a realistic EV network, (II) high-complexity: the complexity of the
model increases when the size of the EV network, the available tours, and/or the number
of available CSs increase, and (III) centrality: the model does not address the problem of
decentralized networks.
On the other hand, node-serving models aim at maximizing EVCS coverage by either
maximizing the demand or minimizing the travel distance for specific refueling locations
(nodes). Liu [
17
] proposed an algorithm to deploy the three levels of CSs in an EV network.
The algorithm was developed based on demand in each area and aimed at minimizing the
separation distance between CS nodes [
6
]. Shi and Zheng [
18
] proposed another approach
where fuzzy c-mean clustering method was used to cover EV charging demands in each
cluster [
19
]. Node-serving models showed great performance in solving EVCS allocation
in urban areas, where many constraints are needed to be defined and uncertain/different
Sustainability 2021,13, 3314 3 of 20
demand levels exist for each node in the EV network. However, EV network should be
modeled carefully so that all constraints are stated, and a feasible yet realistic solution
is applied.
To solve EVCS allocation, mathematical programming models were primarily used in
the literature. However, for such models, when the number of constraints and/or decision
variables increases, the computational complexity increases. Hence, finding an optimal
solution becomes challenging. On the other hand, metaheuristic algorithms are used to find
global (near-optimal) solution with less computational effort. For this reason, metaheuristic
algorithms show higher flexibility when it comes to simulating realistic scenarios in EV
network. For instance, Vazifeh et al. [
20
] defined the optimization problem of EVCS
allocation as a non-deterministic polynomial-time hard (NP-Hard) problem [
21
]. To solve a
NP-Hard problem, the total area was partitioned into small square cells. The optimization
problem was solved using Genetic Algorithm (GA). In addition to GA, swarm-intelligence
metaheuristic algorithms were also used in a number of studies in the literature such
as the work by Rahman et al. [
22
], and Vasant et al. [
23
] who used Gravitational Search
Algorithm (GSA) and Particle swarm Optimization (PSO) to implement a CS infrastructure
considering energy prices and battery capacity constraints [24,25].
To estimate the demand for EVCS, big data and surveys were mainly used [
4
,
6
,
8
,
21
].
The problem with the existing methods is that demand uncertainty is not captured. For this
reason, Markov-chain theory was applied in a few studies to stochastically model the arrival
rate of EVs at a CS [
9
,
11
,
26
,
27
]. For instance, a death-and-birth process model was proposed
by Farkas and Prikler [
26
]. A mathematical model for the average waiting rate and the
mean queue length was calculated based on the steady-state probabilities. Birth-and-death
rates are represented by the arrival rate of EVs and the charging rate, respectively.
To summarize the above discussion, EVCS allocation is a challenging problem and
is extremely crucial to the EV industry. Although flow-capturing models are the most
popular solutions proposed in literature. These models suffer from inflexibility, high-
complexity, and centrality. On the other hand, node-serving models such as the models
proposed by Vazifeh et al. [
20
], Rahman et al. [
22
], and Vasant et al. [
23
] showed better
flexibility and were able to simulate realistic scenarios for an EV network. However,
none of these models captured the uncertainty of EV demand. Estimating EV demand
has been studied using different methods in the literature. The demand uncertainty is
captured using Markov-chain model. However, none of the proposed models to estimate
demand uncertainty using Markov-chain were utilized in allocating EVCS. In this paper,
we combine the Markov-chain theory with node-serving approach to allocate EVCS.
First, Markov-chain model is proposed to provide a relation between the demand and
the desired number of sockets per CS, as well as the desired number of CSs in an urban
area to maintain the best quality of service. Then, the work of Farkas and Prikler [
26
] was
extended by considering the balking parameters; EVs will enter with a probability
α
in the
case when the served EVs in the CSs equals the total number of charging slots.
Secondly, a node-serving model to allocate the best CS locations was developed. A
Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO) was utilized to find the best set of CSs from all available
locations. The set of CSs were selected under routing constraints. The Markov-chain model
was used to estimate the net profit of the selected set of CSs at each time iteration and is
applied to the GWO as an objective function. The network was optimized by selecting the
best CS locations for the EVCS infrastructure that provide the maximum estimated profit
under predefined routing constraints.
The proposed algorithm is different from related work in that a Markov-chain model
is combined with a metaheuristic algorithm to capture realistic scenarios of CS demands,
costs, quality of service, and the corresponding profit. GWO is used to solve the EVCS
allocation problem. Compared to other metaheuristic algorithms such as GA and PSO,
GWO is considered as one of the fastest and the most efficient metaheuristic algorithms for
the reason of using three solutions at the convergence to achieve better global solution [
28
].
Finally, both budget and routing constraints are also considered including the cost of
Sustainability 2021,13, 3314 4 of 20
building a CS, waiting time at the CS, available routes between CSs, and the maximum
distance an EV can go after a full charge. The worst-case scenario was considered for EV
distance range with battery capacity set to 20 kWh and adding the consumption caused by
traffic, weather, and using radio.
Contributions are summarized below:
(I)
The proposed algorithm simulates the stochastic behavior of EVCS infrastructure
including demand and cost uncertainty using Markov-chain processes.
(II)
The parameters affecting the CS quality of service and the achieved profit of EV
network were investigated using birth-and-death model and sensitivity analysis.
(III)
GWO is proposed to optimize the NP-hard allocation problem. GWO is known for
lower complexity and higher flexibility compared to other solutions proposed in the
literature to address the EVCS infrastructure problem.
(IV)
Both budget and routing constraints are considered in the optimization model.
(V)
Unlike FLRM, state of charge (SOC) uncertainty is included in the proposed model.
Sustainability can be achieved using the proposed model by gradually implement-
ing the network in multiple phases according to current demand. Therefore, both EV
consumers and CS investors are satisfied.
3. System Model
This section provides a detailed description of the proposed Markov-chain-based
model of EVCS, an overview of GWO algorithm, and EVCS allocation using GWO.
3.1. Markov-Chain of EV Charging Station
Queuing in CS can be modeled as a birth-and-death process, where the birth rate is
the arrival rate of EVs to the CS, the death rate is the charging rate, and the state represents
the number of EVs at the CS at time t.
The arrival time of EV to the CS is assumed to follow a Poisson process with
λ
rate,
and the charging rate is following exponential process with
µ
rate [
17
,
26
]. CS has c sockets
available for EVs, and a maximum capacity of N vehicles. The model is also modified to be
a reneging model in which the EV driver will enter the CS with probability
α
if (s)he found
the CS full at arrival time. Hence, the Markov-chain is modeled as in Figure 1.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 20
The proposed algorithm is different from related work in that a Markov-chain model
is combined with a metaheuristic algorithm to capture realistic scenarios of CS demands,
costs, quality of service, and the corresponding profit. GWO is used to solve the EVCS
allocation problem. Compared to other metaheuristic algorithms such as GA and PSO,
GWO is considered as one of the fastest and the most efficient metaheuristic algorithms
for the reason of using three solutions at the convergence to achieve better global solution
[28]. Finally, both budget and routing constraints are also considered including the cost
of building a CS, waiting time at the CS, available routes between CSs, and the maximum
distance an EV can go after a full charge. The worst-case scenario was considered for EV
distance range with battery capacity set to 20 kWh and adding the consumption caused
by traffic, weather, and using radio.
Contributions are summarized below:
(I) The proposed algorithm simulates the stochastic behavior of EVCS infrastructure in-
cluding demand and cost uncertainty using Markov-chain processes.
(II) The parameters affecting the CS quality of service and the achieved profit of EV net-
work were investigated using birth-and-death model and sensitivity analysis.
(III) GWO is proposed to optimize the NP-hard allocation problem. GWO is known for
lower complexity and higher flexibility compared to other solutions proposed in the
literature to address the EVCS infrastructure problem.
(IV) Both budget and routing constraints are considered in the optimization model.
(V) Unlike FLRM, state of charge (SOC) uncertainty is included in the proposed model.
Sustainability can be achieved using the proposed model by gradually implementing
the network in multiple phases according to current demand. Therefore, both EV consum-
ers and CS investors are satisfied.
3. System Model
This section provides a detailed description of the proposed Markov-chain-based
model of EVCS, an overview of GWO algorithm, and EVCS allocation using GWO.
3.1. Markov-Chain of EV Charging Station
Queuing in CS can be modeled as a birth-and-death process, where the birth rate is
the arrival rate of EVs to the CS, the death rate is the charging rate, and the state represents
the number of EVs at the CS at time 𝑡.
The arrival time of EV to the CS is assumed to follow a Poisson process with λ rate,
and the charging rate is following exponential process with µ rate [17,26]. CS has c sockets
available for EVs, and a maximum capacity of N vehicles. The model is also modified to
be a reneging model in which the EV driver will enter the CS with probability α if (s)he
found the CS full at arrival time. Hence, the Markov-chain is modeled as in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Markov-chain of EV (Electric Vehicle) Charging Station.
The steady-state probabilities are evaluated as below, where 𝑃,𝑘 0,1,,𝑁 is
the probability that there will be exactly k EVs at the CS at a time [29]:
Figure 1. Markov-chain of EV (Electric Vehicle) Charging Station.
The steady-state probabilities are evaluated as below, where
Pk
,
k{0, 1, . . . , N}
is
the probability that there will be exactly k EVs at the CS at a time [29]:
λP0=µP1(1)
P1=λ
µP0(2)
P2=1
2λ
µ2
P0(3)
P3=1
3! λ
µ3
P0(4)
Sustainability 2021,13, 3314 5 of 20
. . .
Pc=1
c!λ
µc
P0(5)
Pc+1=α
c
1
c!λ
µc+1
P0(6)
Pc+2=α
c21
c!λ
µc+2
P0(7)
It can be concluded that the steady-state probability
Pn
can be obtained from the
following formula:
Pn=
1
n!λ
µnP0f or n c
1
c!λ
µnα
cncP0f or n >c
(8)
It is known that: N
k=0
Pk=1 (9)
Hence, the steady-state probability of state 0 can be calculated as follows:
P0=1
1+c
k=11
k!λ
µk+N
k=c+1α
ckc1
c!λ
µk(10)
The average number of EV drivers in the CS (L):
L=
N
k=0
k Pk(11)
Average amount of time the EV driver spends in the CS is (
W
) which follows Lit-
tle’s low:
W=L/λa(12)
where
λa
is the average arrival rate of entering EV drivers considering only actual arrivals:
λa=λ(1PN)(13)
The average number of customers waiting in queue is (Lq):
Lq=
N
k=c
(kc)Pk(14)
Average amount of time the EV driver spends in the queue is (
Wq
) which follows
Little’s low:
Wq=Lq/λa(15)
Expected net profit (Pro f i t):
Pro f it =λ(1PN)×cu (16)
where cu is the operating cost of the CS per minute and is the profit per a single EV.
3.2. Grey Wolf Optimization (GWO)
GWO is one of the swarm intelligence optimization algorithms. The basic concept of
metaheuristic algorithms is to generate high-quality solutions based on an initial random
Sustainability 2021,13, 3314 6 of 20
population of possible solutions and a fitness function (or objective function). The genera-
tion is inspired by natural systems behaviors and performed until a termination condition
has been reached.
The basic idea of the metaheuristic swarm intelligence GWO algorithm is to simulate
the hunting procedure done by grey wolves in the wildlife [
30
]. Basically, four types of
wolves are simulated: alpha wolves (
..
α)
, beta wolves (
..
β)
, gamma wolves (
..
δ)
and omega
wolves (
..
ω)
ordered from the strongest to the weakest. To obtain a new solution, the best
three solutions represent the first three types of wolves respectively cooperating in hunting
the prey and achieving a better solution.
The social hierarchy, tracking, encircling, and attacking prey by grey wolf are sim-
ulated and mathematically modeled using GWO. It can be obtained by considering the
best solution as
..
α
, second-best solution as
..
β
, third-best solution as
..
δ
, and the rest of the
solutions as ..
ω.
Encircling prey is modeled as below [30]:
D=|C·
Xp(t)
X(t)|(17)
X(t+1)=
Xp(t)A·
D(18)
where
t
is the current iteration,
A
and
C
are coefficient vectors,
Xp
is the position vector of
the prey, and
Xis the position vector of a grey wolf.
The coefficient vectors Aand Care obtained from the equations below:
A=2a r1a(19)
C=2r2(20)
where
r1
and
r2
are random values uniformly distributed between 0 and 1, and
a
is a
linearly decreasing coefficient from 2 to 0.
a=2t2
Maxiter (21)
For hunting, alpha wolves (
..
α)
are leading the rest of wolves. While beta and sigma
(
..
β
,
..
δ
) wolves are also participating the hunting process. The first three solutions are always
saved and used for forming the new solution.
X1=
X..
αA1·
D..
α(22)
X2=
X..
βA2·
D..
β(23)
X3=
X..
δA3·
D..
δ(24)
where:
D..
α=|C1·
X..
α
X|(25)
D..
β=|C2·
X..
β
X|(26)
D..
δ=|C3·
X..
δ
X|(27)
The new position (solution) is formed by combining the three best positions:
X(t+1)=
X1+
X2+
X3
3(28)
Sustainability 2021,13, 3314 7 of 20
It can be observed that the new solution is positioned in a random place within the
circle of the three top solutions: alpha (
..
α)
, beta (
..
β
), and gamma (
..
δ
). In other words, the
three top solutions determine the new solution position.
3.3. GWO for EV Charging Station Allocation
Assume that the possible CS locations are given with all the needed information about
demand in each area (represented by the arrival rate of EV drivers), the cost for locating a
CS in each location ($ per minute), and a specific available size per each CS. GWO initialize
a population of random solutions. Each solution includes a subset of the candidate CSs
available for the desired infrastructure. First, each solution in the population is evaluated
using a fitness function. The fitness function calculates the achieved profit when using
the selected subset of CSs based on the Markov-chain process with a pre-known arrival
rate and operating cost for each CS. In addition, the total number of selected CSs is added
to the objective function to minimize the number of selected CSs. Then, a new group of
solutions (positions) are generated based on the method explained in the previous section
and then evaluated using the fitness function. The procedure is repeated until meeting
stopping criteria, which, in our case, is the maximum number of iterations. Finally, the best
solution (subset of CSs selected) is studied under routing constraints. In other words, the
EV is guaranteed to accomplish a complete route between selected CSs. This is done by
using different techniques: (I) Calculating the distance between CSs. The distance between
each CS and the closest one should be less than or equal to half the maximum distance an
EV can go with a full charge without recharge. This is a valid assumption in the routing
problem and has been used in FRLM and other routing models to address EV routing
problem in the literature [
12
16
,
19
,
22
,
31
]. The assumption is based on allocating CSs in the
middle of the EV origin to distention O-D path. The worst-case scenario was considered
in terms of EV driving distance to address urban area traffic, weather, and using radio;
(II) Capturing the uncertainty of State of Charge (SOC). The uncertainty is added to the
charging rate (µ) when the model is implemented.
The proposed algorithm is shown in Equations (29)–(33); the objective function (fitness)
aims at maximizing the profit while minimizing the total number of selected CSs. Where
Pro f it
is the net profit after implementing the EVCS network,
|I|
is the total number of
selected CSs,
|S|
is the total number of potential CS locations, and
ω1
,
ω2
are weights
(priority ratios). The first constraint evaluates the net profit following Equation (16) where
λi
,
PN,i
, and
cui
are the arrival rate, steady-state probability, and the operating cost
per minute at CS
i
, respectively. Second and third constraints evaluate the steady-state
probability at CS
i
. Where
Ni
and
ci
represent the capacity and size of CS
i
, respectively.
ε
represents the uncertainty of SOC and is a random variable. The fourth constraint ensures
that the driving distance between any two selected CSs in the network (
di,j
) to be less than
half the distance the EV can go (
dEV
). The last two constraints guarantee that the subset
of the selected CSs (
I
) is part of the potential CS location set (
S
), and that both sets are
integers representing the CS id. It is worth mentioning that the set of selected CSs
(I)
at any
time represents the position (solution) formed by GWO
(
X)
and represents the decision
variable.
min (f=ω11
Pro f i t +ω2×|I|
|S|)(29)
s.t.
Pro f it =
I
i
(λi(1PN,i)×cui)(30)
PN,i=Nci
n
1
n!λi
µ+εn
P0,i+Ni>ci
n
1
ci!λi
µ+εnα
cinci
P0,iiI(31)
Sustainability 2021,13, 3314 8 of 20
P0,i=1
1+ci
k=11
k!λi
µ+εk+Ni
k=ci+1α
cikci1
ci!λi
µ+εkiI(32)
di,j1
2dEV i,jI,i6=j(33)
IS(34)
I,SZ(35)
4. Experimental Results
To simulate the proposed model, python 2.7 [
32
] is used with Bokeh package for
visualization [
18
]. The following parameters are considered in the proposed mathematical
model. These parameters have been used and estimated by Farkas and Prikler [26]:
N
: Number of parking slots (including sockets) = maximum allowable number of EVs
in the CS (Maximum Capacity) = EVs being served + EVs waiting in the queue
c: Number of charging sockets
µ: Charging rate (service rate) (1/min)
λ: EV arrival rate to the CS (1/min)
α: The entering probability when the CS is full (0.3 for all experiments).
It is worth mentioning that the birth-and-death model is following the queuing theory,
the M/M/c (in complete Kendall’s notation) queue [
33
]. This is a queue with Poisson
arrivals, and
c
servers with exponentially distributed service times with
N
places in the
queue. When the customer/EV driver is served by a slot
ci
, the slot
ci
is considered busy,
otherwise, ciis considered idle (waiting for a new customer).
As an illustrative example, the algorithm is performed on Washington D.C. trans-
portation network. The possible locations of CSs were assumed to be the refueling station
locations in the city. The data of refueling station locations were extracted from Socrata [
34
],
while the routing driving distance (in meters) between different locations was evaluated
based on Google API [
35
]. Strictly speaking, the driving distance from station A to station
B is not the same driving distance from station B to A. Finally, costs and rates at each CSs
were estimated based on (District of Columbia Open Data [
9
]; Smith and Castellano [
33
];
Davis et al. [
8
]) as follows. Cost is proportional to Average Standardized Land Price per
Square Foot in D.C. [
23
]. Installation and electricity costs of charging stations were added
to the estimated cost of land based on Smith and Castellano [
33
] who estimated annual
electricity and installation costs to be $686/yr and $1270/yr for Level 2, respectively, and
$1128 and $5100 for Level 3, respectively. Finally, the arrival rate is estimated to be propor-
tional to the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) in D.C. [
36
]. Figure 2illustrates demand
and cost distribution based on the available data. It can be observed that D.C. highway
towards Maryland have the highest traffic compared to other areas. On the other hand,
costs are considered higher around downtown areas.
Two types of experiments are held. First, the algorithm is performed under the
assumption that SOC level is 0.5 (constant). This assumption was considered in most
FRLM-based approaches [
9
,
12
16
,
19
,
22
]. Then, the algorithm is performed under SOC
level uncertainty [20].
Parameters used in the experiment are described in Table 1. Table 1a shows GWO
parameters. Solutions of GWO are represented by bit vectors (continuous version). Each
bit in the vector corresponds to a CS in the network. When the bit (rate) is greater than 0.5,
the CS is selected. Otherwise, the CS is neglected.
Sustainability 2021,13, 3314 9 of 20
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 20
Figure 2. Demand and cost by potential CS location.
4.1. Sensitivity Analysis
To study the effect of the assumptions on the network model, the model was tested
while varying the independent variables α, , c, N, and λ. All statistical analyses have
been performed using Minitab 18 under 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference. In
other words, samples are considered significantly different if the p-value is less than 0.05.
4.1.1. Single Charging Station
Table 1b summarizes the parameter settings for a CS built in a refueling station in an
urban area [9,26,38,39]. The maximum CS capacity of the CS (N) is 10 EVs, the number of
sockets available for charging (c) ranges between 1 and 5, the arrival rate of EVs (λ) equals
one EV every 60 min to one EV every 10 min, and the service rate (µ) is based on charging
levels. For instance, for CS level 1, charging may last for 2 h. Hence, the service rate is
1/120 (1/min). The entering probability (α) is kept to 0.3. This means that the probability
of an EV to enter a CS, if it arrives at the station when it is full (N cars are currently in the
station), is 30%.
Level 1 (service time 120 min), Level 2 (service time 60 min), and Level 3 (service time
30 min) chargers are compared in Figure 3. It can be observed that when the arrival rate
is low, all charging levels will provide similar performance including blocking rate, wait-
ing time, and the number of vehicles in the queue. Whereas, the performance differs when
the arrival rate increase and/or the number of sockets minimized. Additionally, an inves-
tigation on the best pricing is held for two different arrival rate scenarios (Figure 3c,d).
The operating cost per minute is assumed to be 1$/min [39]. On the other hand, to achieve
positive net profit, the gross profit per EV should be greater than $10, and $20 for high
and for low arrival rates, respectively. The effect of number of sockets (c) were studied
(Figure 3e,f). When the number of sockets in the CS increases, the arriving EVs will have
higher possibility to find an available slot to charge. The waiting time decreases. Hence,
the blocking rate decreases. Finally, the entering probability effect was investigated (Fig-
ure 3h,i). The higher the probability the EV enters the CS, the higher the queue length
(Figure 3h). Whereas, since the arrival rate is higher than the charging rate for Levels 1
and 2, and when the entering probability is high, the arriving EVs leave when they find
the CS capacity is full. The possibility of serving new customers reduces. Hence, the net
profit decreases (Figure 3i). It is worth mentioning that, for the sake of comparison be-
tween the three levels, the operating cost was assumed to be equal for all charging levels
Figure 2. Demand and cost by potential CS location.
Table 1.
Experiment parameter settings: (
a
) GWO parameter settings; (
b
) Charging Station parameter settings in an urban
area; (c) Charging Station parameter settings for Washington D.C.
(a) GWO parameter settings
Lower Bound 0
Upper Bound 1
Dimension Number of possible CSs
Population Size 50
Number of Generations 20
(b) Charging Station parameter settings in an urban area
N 10
c 5
µ[1/30, 1/60, 1/120]
λ[1/60, 1/10]
cu ($) 5 (Level 2), 10 (Level 3)
($) 50 (Level 2), 70 (Level 3)
α0.3
(c) Charging Station parameter settings for Washington D.C.
N 10
c 5
µ[1/30, 1/60]
λProportional to Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) in D.C. [36]
Low: [0.002–0.08], High: [0.01–0.4]
Installation & Electricity Cost ($ per min) 0.0057 (Level 2), 0.018 (Level 3) [37]
Operating Cost ($ per min)
Proportional to Average Standardized Land Price per Square Foot in D.C. [
23
]
[0.15–0.5]
cu ($) Operating Cost + Installation & Electricity Cost
($) 15 (Level 2), 18 (Level 3)
α0.3
Sustainability 2021,13, 3314 10 of 20
There are limited locations to build CSs. Hence, the capacity of the CS and the number
of available sockets will also be limited. Furthermore, the number of EVs will be growing
exponentially and expected to be very small at the first stage of implementing the EVCS
infrastructure [22]. Hence, the arrival rate in the first stages is expected to be low.
4.1. Sensitivity Analysis
To study the effect of the assumptions on the network model, the model was tested
while varying the independent variables
α
,
, c, N, and
λ
. All statistical analyses have been
performed using Minitab 18 under 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference. In other
words, samples are considered significantly different if the p-value is less than 0.05.
4.1.1. Single Charging Station
Table 1b summarizes the parameter settings for a CS built in a refueling station in an
urban area [
9
,
26
,
38
,
39
]. The maximum CS capacity of the CS (N) is 10 EVs, the number of
sockets available for charging (c) ranges between 1 and 5, the arrival rate of EVs (
λ
) equals
one EV every 60 min to one EV every 10 min, and the service rate (
µ
) is based on charging
levels. For instance, for CS level 1, charging may last for 2 h. Hence, the service rate is
1/120 (1/min). The entering probability (
α
) is kept to 0.3. This means that the probability
of an EV to enter a CS, if it arrives at the station when it is full (N cars are currently in the
station), is 30%.
Level 1 (service time 120 min), Level 2 (service time 60 min), and Level 3 (service
time 30 min) chargers are compared in Figure 3. It can be observed that when the arrival
rate is low, all charging levels will provide similar performance including blocking rate,
waiting time, and the number of vehicles in the queue. Whereas, the performance differs
when the arrival rate increase and/or the number of sockets minimized. Additionally, an
investigation on the best pricing is held for two different arrival rate scenarios (
Figure 3c,d
).
The operating cost per minute is assumed to be 1$/min [
39
]. On the other hand, to achieve
positive net profit, the gross profit per EV should be greater than $10, and $20 for high
and for low arrival rates, respectively. The effect of number of sockets (c) were studied
(Figure 3e,f). When the number of sockets in the CS increases, the arriving EVs will
have higher possibility to find an available slot to charge. The waiting time decreases.
Hence, the blocking rate decreases. Finally, the entering probability effect was investigated
(
Figure 3h,i
). The higher the probability the EV enters the CS, the higher the queue length
(Figure 3h). Whereas, since the arrival rate is higher than the charging rate for Levels 1
and 2, and when the entering probability is high, the arriving EVs leave when they find
the CS capacity is full. The possibility of serving new customers reduces. Hence, the net
profit decreases (Figure 3i). It is worth mentioning that, for the sake of comparison between
the three levels, the operating cost was assumed to be equal for all charging levels in this
experiment, while the actual operating cost of Level 3 is supposed to be higher than that
for Level 2. This assumption is relaxed for the rest of the paper.
Sustainability 2021,13, 3314 11 of 20
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 20
in this experiment, while the actual operating cost of Level 3 is supposed to be higher than
that for Level 2. This assumption is relaxed for the rest of the paper.
Figure 3. Birth-and-Death Markov-chain sensitivity analysis: (a) Waiting Time (𝑐=5); (b) Queue Length (𝑐=5); (c) Net Profit (𝑐=
5,𝜆=1/20); (d) Net Profit (𝑐=5,𝜆=1/10); (e) Blocking Probability (𝜆=1/20); (f) Waiting Time (𝜆=1/20); (g) Queue Length (c =
5, 𝜆=1/10); (h) Net Profit (c = 5, 𝜆=1/10).
4.1.2. Multiple Charging Stations
In the previous section, the effect of independent variables on the performance of a
single charging station with birth-and-death Markov model was investigated. Similarly,
sensitivity analyses are applied on the proposed network model applied to Washington
D.C. network in high arrival rate (Table 1c). It is worth mentioning that the GWO model
is a metaheuristic algorithm, which means that the solution is a global solution which
might slightly change every time the algorithm is executed depending on the search pop-
ulation and the starting position. For this reason, the model was performed twenty-five
times and statistical analysis was applied to evaluate the significance based on ANOVA
(summarized in Table 2a). Overall results represent the average output of the twenty-five
model performances.
First, the effect of varying the entering probability is studied, statistically. Figure 4a,b
show that varying α does not show significant effect on the net profit nor number of se-
lected charging stations. However, as discussed in Section 4.1.1., the possibility of having
CSs full is higher, and the possibility of serving new customers reduces. Hence, the net
(a) Waiting Time (𝑐=5) (b) Queue Length (𝑐=5)
(f) Waiting Time (𝜆=1/20)
(c) Net Profit (𝑐=5,𝜆=1/20)
(d) Net Profit (𝑐=5, 𝜆=1/10) (e) Blocking Probability (𝜆=1/20)
(g) Queue Len
g
th (c = 5, 𝜆=1/10) (h) Net Profit (c = 5, 𝜆=1/10)
Figure 3.
Birth-and-Death Markov-chain sensitivity analysis: (
a
) Waiting Time (
c=
5); (
b
) Queue Length (
c=
5); (
c
) Net
Profit (
c=
5,
λ=
1
/
20); (
d
) Net Profit (
c=
5,
λ=
1
/
10); (
e
) Blocking Probability (
λ=
1
/
20); (
f
) Waiting Time (
λ=
1
/
20);
(g) Queue Length (c = 5, λ=1/10); (h) Net Profit (c = 5, λ=1/10).
4.1.2. Multiple Charging Stations
In the previous section, the effect of independent variables on the performance of a
single charging station with birth-and-death Markov model was investigated. Similarly,
sensitivity analyses are applied on the proposed network model applied to Washington
D.C. network in high arrival rate (Table 1c). It is worth mentioning that the GWO model
is a metaheuristic algorithm, which means that the solution is a global solution which
might slightly change every time the algorithm is executed depending on the search
population and the starting position. For this reason, the model was performed twenty-five
times and statistical analysis was applied to evaluate the significance based on ANOVA
(summarized in Table 2a). Overall results represent the average output of the twenty-five
model performances.
Sustainability 2021,13, 3314 12 of 20
Table 2. (a) Sensitivity analysis: ANOVA test. (b) Sensitivity analysis: t-test charging levels.
(a)
Parameter Measure Adj SS Adj MS F-Value p-Value (<0.05)
Entering Probability (α) Net Profit 60.76 15.19 1.37 0.247
Entering Probability (α)Number of CS
Selected 253.6 63.39 2.11 0.084
Gross Profit per EV () Net Profit 20,959 6986.31 489.88 0.000
Gross Profit per EV ()Number of CS
Selected 3685 1228.40 41.10 0.000
CS Capacity (N) Net Profit 17.75 5.916 0.72 0.545
CS Capacity (N) Number of CS
Selected 105.7 35.24 1.13 0.339
(b)
Measure CS Level Mean StDev T-Value p-Value (<0.05)
Net Profit—High Rate Level 2 46.58 2.68 6.81 0.000
Level 3 53.50 4.32
Net Profit—Low Rate Level 2 2.42 1.10 3.98 0.000
Level 3 3.73 1.22
Number of Selected CS—High Rate
Level 2 29.60 5.35 2.06 0.045
Level 3 26.60 4.94
Number of Selected CS—Low Rate Level 2 7.60 3.33 3.72 0.001
Level 3 11.56 4.15
Net Profit—High Rate Level 3 53.5 4.32 1.71 0.100
Level 3 SOC 61 21.6
Net Profit—Low Rate Level 3 3.73 1.22 0.19 0.850
Level 3 SOC 3.8 1.25
Number of Selected CS—High Rate
Level 3 26.6 4.94 0.03 0.977
Level 3 SOC 26.56 4.93
Number of Selected CS—Low Rate Level 3 11.56 4.15 0.51 0.610
Level 3 SOC 10.96 4.12
First, the effect of varying the entering probability is studied, statistically.
Figure 4a,b
show that varying
α
does not show significant effect on the net profit nor number of
selected charging stations. However, as discussed in Section 4.1.1., the possibility of having
CSs full is higher, and the possibility of serving new customers reduces. Hence, the net
profit decreases. On the other hand, when the entering probability is high, more EVs are
expected to enter the CS.
Figure 4c,d show how gross profit per EV (
) significantly affect both the net profit
and the number of selected CSs. When the gross profit per EV increases, the net profit
increases. As a result, the number of charging stations needed to obtain the desired positive
net profit decreases.
Number of slots (c) and CS capacity (N) are studied in Figure 4e–h. Results show
that the model is flexible to be adjusted to overcome the lower capacity in CSs by slightly
increasing the number of charging stations selected.
Finally,
µ
and
λ
effect on the proposed model are examined in Figures 5and 6and
Table 2b. At the first stages of infrastructure planning, the arrival rate is expected to be as
low as one EV per 8 h. In this experiment, the arrival rate was set to be in the range of one
EV per 12.5 min for first stages (low arrival rate), and in the range of one EV per 2.5 min
(high arrival rate) for later stages when the EV number in the network increases. In both
stages, the arrival rate is set to be proportional to AADT as discussed earlier in this section.
Sustainability 2021,13, 3314 13 of 20
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 20
profit decreases. On the other hand, when the entering probability is high, more EVs are
expected to enter the CS.
Figure 4c,d show how gross profit per EV () significantly affect both the net profit
and the number of selected CSs. When the gross profit per EV increases, the net profit
increases. As a result, the number of charging stations needed to obtain the desired posi-
tive net profit decreases.
Number of slots (c) and CS capacity (N) are studied in Figure 4e–h. Results show that
the model is flexible to be adjusted to overcome the lower capacity in CSs by slightly in-
creasing the number of charging stations selected.
Finally, µ and λ effect on the proposed model are examined in Figures 5 and 6 and
Table 2b. At the first stages of infrastructure planning, the arrival rate is expected to be as
low as one EV per 8 h. In this experiment, the arrival rate was set to be in the range of one
EV per 12.5 min for first stages (low arrival rate), and in the range of one EV per 2.5 min
(high arrival rate) for later stages when the EV number in the network increases. In both
stages, the arrival rate is set to be proportional to AADT as discussed earlier in this section.
(b) Effect of α on Number of Selected CSs
(a) Effect of α on Net Profit
(d) Effect of on Number of Selected CSs
(c) Effect of on Net Profit
(e) Effect of c on Net Profit (f) Effect of 𝑐 on Number of Selected CSs
(g) Effect of 𝑁 on Net Profit (h) Effect of 𝑁 on Number of Selected CSs
Figure 4.
GWO (Grey Wolf Optimization) sensitivity analysis: (
a
) Effect of
α
on Net Profit; (
b
) Effect of
α
on Number of
Selected CSs; (
c
) Effect of
on Net Profit; (
d
) Effect of
on Number of Selected CSs; (
e
) Effect of
c
on Net Profit; (
f
) Effect of
con Number of Selected CSs; (g) Effect of Non Net Profit; (h) Effect of Non Number of Selected CSs.
At first stages, and assuming SOC level to be half-full, and comparing the implementa-
tion of a network of only Level 2 chargers (
µ
= 1/60), and a network of only Level 3 chargers
(
µ
= 1/30), the average number of selected CSs is 7.6, and 11.56 out of 151 total available
locations at Washington D.C., respectively. The aggregate net profit is $2.43 and $3.73 per
minute for Level 2 and 3, respectively. According to the sensitivity analysis presented in
Table 2b, the effect of charger level is significant (p-value < 0.05). It can be concluded that
slow chargers can achieve better performance with respect to the number of CSs selected
and comparable net profit when installed in the first infrastructure implementation stages
(Figure 5and Table 2b).
Sustainability 2021,13, 3314 14 of 20
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 20
Figure 4. GWO (Grey Wolf Optimization) sensitivity analysis: (a) Effect of α on Net Profit; (b) Effect of α on Number of
Selected CSs; (c) Effect of on Net Profit; (d) Effect of on Number of Selected CSs; (e) Effect of c on Net Profit; (f)
Effect of 𝑐 on Number of Selected CSs; (g) Effect of 𝑁 on Net Profit; (h) Effect of 𝑁 on Number of Selected CSs.
At first stages, and assuming SOC level to be half-full, and comparing the implemen-
tation of a network of only Level 2 chargers (µ = 1/60), and a network of only Level 3
chargers (µ = 1/30), the average number of selected CSs is 7.6, and 11.56 out of 151 total
available locations at Washington D.C., respectively. The aggregate net profit is $2.43 and
$3.73 per minute for Level 2 and 3, respectively. According to the sensitivity analysis pre-
sented in Table 2b, the effect of charger level is significant (p-value < 0.05). It can be con-
cluded that slow chargers can achieve better performance with respect to the number of
CSs selected and comparable net profit when installed in the first infrastructure imple-
mentation stages (Figure 5 and Table 2b).
On the other hand, when the network grows and the number of EVs increases in the
network, the fast (Level 3) chargers achieve higher net profit than the slow (Level 2)
chargers with $53.50 compared to $46.58. The average selected number of CSs is 26.6, and
29.6 for Level 3, and Level 2, respectively.
Uncertain SOC level is investigated in Figure 6. For Level 3 chargers and high arrival
rate, the average number of CSs selected is around 26.6 for both models (assuming fixed
SOC and uncertain SOC). However, the net profit achieved by uncertain SOC model is
$61.03 compared to $53.50 achieved by assuming a half-full SOC model. Which, in turn,
shows that uncertain SOC level might affect the selection of the best CS location and the
estimated net profit, while the model and CS level performances remain the same at the
same arrival rate according to t-test shown in Table 2b (p-value > 0.05).
Figure 5. Comparison between Level 2 and Level 3 under low and high arrival rates.
2.42
46.58
3.73
53.50
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Low Rate High Rate
Aggregate Profit ($ per min)
Level 2 Level 3
7.6
29.6
11.56
26.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Low Rate High Rate
Number of CS Selected
Level 2 Level 3
Figure 5. Comparison between Level 2 and Level 3 under low and high arrival rates.
Figure 6. Comparison between fixed and uncertain SOC Level 3 under low and high arrival rates.
On the other hand, when the network grows and the number of EVs increases in
the network, the fast (Level 3) chargers achieve higher net profit than the slow (Level 2)
chargers with $53.50 compared to $46.58. The average selected number of CSs is 26.6, and
29.6 for Level 3, and Level 2, respectively.
Uncertain SOC level is investigated in Figure 6. For Level 3 chargers and high arrival
rate, the average number of CSs selected is around 26.6 for both models (assuming fixed
SOC and uncertain SOC). However, the net profit achieved by uncertain SOC model is
$61.03 compared to $53.50 achieved by assuming a half-full SOC model. Which, in turn,
shows that uncertain SOC level might affect the selection of the best CS location and the
estimated net profit, while the model and CS level performances remain the same at the
same arrival rate according to t-test shown in Table 2b (p-value > 0.05).
4.2. CS Allocation Using GWO
Finally, to validate GWO performance, both selected CS locations and the convergence
are illustrated in Figure 7. The convergence of GWO is plotted for both profit and number
of CS selected for all previous scenarios. The proposed GWO is a multi-objective algorithm
that counts for both the number of selected CSs, and the net profit. The fitness function
(Equation (29)) value is a standardized ratio that combines a weighted value of both
objective metrics, where the weights for the number of CS, and profit were 0.1, and
0.9, respectively.
Sustainability 2021,13, 3314 15 of 20
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 20
Level 3—Low
Level 2—Low
Potential Location Selected Location by Level 3
(a) GWO selection of Level 3 CSs in low arrival rate network.
(b) GWO selection of Level 2 CSs in low arrival rate network.
Selected Location by Level 2
Figure 7. Cont.
Sustainability 2021,13, 3314 16 of 20
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 20
Level 3—Hi
g
h
Level 2—Hi
g
h
(d) GWO selection of Level 2 CSs in high arrival rate network.
(c) GWO selection of Level 3 CSs in high arrival rate network.
Potential Location Selected Location by Level 3 Selected Location by Level 2
Figure 7. Cont.
Sustainability 2021,13, 3314 17 of 20
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 20
Figure 7. GWO Performance. EV charging station allocation (left); GWO Convergence (right).
5. Research Significance and Limitations
The proposed algorithm provides a framework to address the EVCS allocation prob-
lem. The model is flexible and shows high convergence. Unlike mathematical program-
ming-based approaches, the proposed algorithm can optimize an EV network with large
number of potential CS locations. Demand uncertainty and routing constraints are also
captured in the proposed model. On the other hand, the model can only be utilized to
allocate a single CS level at a time. The model needs to be modified to be able to select
which level is suitable to which location. Additionally, while it is impossible for mathe-
matical programming models to be utilized to allocate CSs in a large network due to the
extremely high number of combinations, the model needs to be compared with similar
node-serving approaches which utilized metaheuristic algorithms such as GSA and PSO.
Finally, prioritizing between the number of CSs to be located versus the total cost of im-
plementation needs to be investigated.
6. Conclusions
A stochastic model for charging stations of electric vehicles is proposed. The model
is based on birth-and-death Markov-chain process where the arrival rate of EVs is the
birth rate, and the charging rate is the death rate. When the number of EVs in the CS is
greater than the number of sockets available, then the EV drivers enter the CS with prob-
ability α. The Markov-chain model is used to estimate the expected net profit and is ap-
plied as an objective function to the GWO to select the best CSlocations out of all possible
Level 3 – Hi
g
h Rate -
Selected Location by Level 3 Selected Location by Level 2
Potential Location
(e) GWO selection of Level 3 CSs - ROC in high arrival rate network.
Figure 7. GWO Performance. EV charging station allocation (left); GWO Convergence (right).
In the equation above, higher weight is given to net profit because the installation costs
of CS are included. This means that the more the CSs selected, the higher the installation
costs, and the lower the achieved net profit. Hence, net profit also depends on the number
of selected CSs. Nevertheless, these weights can be tuned based on the infrastructure
design priorities. It can be observed from the figure that the number of selected CSs will
be reduced until the achieved net profit is maximized. The best solution is the one that
balances both the number of CSs and the net profit as shown in the figure. Additionally,
it can be shown from Figure 7that mostly CSs at higher demand rates and lower costs
are the ones that will mostly be selected. From the figure, selected CS locations do not
reflect demand. The locations are selected based on the combination of demand, cost, and
travel distance. According to the model, the travel distance constraint is still achieved if
the demand is low and can be covered by a CS that is built away from the downtown area.
The model avoids selecting a location within that area due to high installation costs.
5. Research Significance and Limitations
The proposed algorithm provides a framework to address the EVCS allocation prob-
lem. The model is flexible and shows high convergence. Unlike mathematical programming-
based approaches, the proposed algorithm can optimize an EV network with large number
of potential CS locations. Demand uncertainty and routing constraints are also captured
in the proposed model. On the other hand, the model can only be utilized to allocate
a single CS level at a time. The model needs to be modified to be able to select which
level is suitable to which location. Additionally, while it is impossible for mathematical
programming models to be utilized to allocate CSs in a large network due to the extremely
high number of combinations, the model needs to be compared with similar node-serving
Sustainability 2021,13, 3314 18 of 20
approaches which utilized metaheuristic algorithms such as GSA and PSO. Finally, prior-
itizing between the number of CSs to be located versus the total cost of implementation
needs to be investigated.
6. Conclusions
A stochastic model for charging stations of electric vehicles is proposed. The model is
based on birth-and-death Markov-chain process where the arrival rate of EVs is the birth
rate, and the charging rate is the death rate. When the number of EVs in the CS is greater
than the number of sockets available, then the EV drivers enter the CS with probability
α
.
The Markov-chain model is used to estimate the expected net profit and is applied as an
objective function to the GWO to select the best CSlocations out of all possible locations.
The proposed algorithm was applied to Washington D.C.’s transportation infrastructure,
where fueling stations are suggested to be the candidate locations of CSs, and the distance
between target locations was calculated based on driving distance.
The model can simulate realistic scenarios and can provide accurate estimation of the
net profit. To achieve the best planning for the EVCS infrastructure, slow CSs of Level 2
need to be installed in the areas with low arrival rates of network implementation, and fast
CSs (Level 3) can be used to achieve higher profit in later stages and/or high demand areas
in the early stages.
For future work, the algorithm can be improved by considering other factors such
as the chicken-egg problem, which can be addressed by performing the model in a multi-
period manner by increasing the demand gradually. Further improvement can be achieved
by considering different types and sizes of charging stations including the charging rate for
each type along with SOC level uncertainty. Finally, demand variation effect on pricing can
be investigated to maximize the net profit of EVCS.
Author Contributions:
The authors confirm the contribution to the paper as follows: study concep-
tion and design, R.S., A.K, and M.M.A.; data preparation and reduction, R.S., and A.K.; analysis and
interpretation of results, R.S., A.K. and M.M.A.; draft manuscript preparation, R.S., A.K. and M.M.A.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement:
The data presented in this study are openly available in District of
Columbia open data. Gas Stations. 2015. Available online: https://opendata.dc.gov/ (accessed on
15 May 2019).
Acknowledgments:
The authors would like to thank Sung Hoon Chung for his generosity in sharing
his knowledge to explain the EVCS chicken-egg problem and Markov-chain process modeling, as
well as for his comments on earlier drafts of the paper. All opinions and results are solely those of
the authors.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Andrenacci, N.; Ragona, R.; Valenti, G. A demand-side approach to the optimal deployment of electric vehicle charging stations
in metropolitan areas. Appl. Energy 2016,182, 39–46. [CrossRef]
2.
Bayram, I.S.; Michailidis, G.; Devetsikiotis, M.; Granelli, F. Electric Power Allocation in a Network of Fast Charging Stations.
IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 2013,31, 1235–1246. [CrossRef]
3.
Berman, O.; Larson, R.C.; Fouska, N. Optimal Location of Discretionary Service Facilities. Transp. Sci.
1992
,26, 201–211. [CrossRef]
4.
Bokeh Development Team. Bokeh: Python Library for Interactive Visualization. 2018. Available online: https://bokeh.pydata.
org/en/latest/ (accessed on 18 April 2018).
5.
Cai, H.; Jia, X.; Chiu, A.S.; Hu, X.; Xu, M. Siting public electric vehicle charging stations in Beijing using big-data informed travel
patterns of the taxi fleet. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2014,33, 39–46. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021,13, 3314 19 of 20
6.
Chen, T.D.; Kockelman, K.M.; Khan, M. The Electric Vehicle Charging Station Location Problem: A Parking-Based Assignment
Method for Seattle. In Proceedings of the 92nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, USA,
13–17 January 2013.
7.
Chung, S.H.; Kwon, C. Multi-period planning for electric car charging station locations: A case of Korean Expressways. Eur. J.
Oper. Res. 2015,242, 677–687. [CrossRef]
8.
Davis, M.A.; Oliner, S.D.; Pinto, E.J.; Bokka, S. Residential land values in the Washington, DC metro area: New insights from big
data. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 2017,66, 224–246. [CrossRef]
9. District of Columbia Open Data. Gas Stations. 2015. Available online: https://opendata.dc.gov/ (accessed on 15 May 2019).
10.
Dong, J.; Liu, C.; Lin, Z. Charging infrastructure planning for promoting battery electric vehicles: An activity-based approach
using multiday travel data. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2014,38, 44–55. [CrossRef]
11.
Kuby, M.; Lim, S. The flow-refueling location problem for alternative-fuel vehicles. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci.
2005
,39, 125–145.
[CrossRef]
12.
Eberle, U.; Von Helmolt, R. Sustainable transportation based on electric vehicle concepts: A brief overview. Energy Environ. Sci.
2010,3, 689–699. [CrossRef]
13.
Emary, E.; Zawbaa, H.M.; Hassanien, A.E. Binary grey wolf optimization approaches for feature selection. Neurocomputing
2016
,
172, 371–381. [CrossRef]
14.
Farkas, C.; Prikler, L. Stochastic modelling of EV charging at charging stations. Renew. Energy Power Qual. J.
2012
, 1046–1051.
[CrossRef]
15.
Franke, T.; Krems, J.F. Interacting with limited mobility resources: Psychological range levels in electric vehicle use. Transp. Res.
Part A Policy Pr. 2013,48, 109–122. [CrossRef]
16.
Google Developers. Getting Started with the Google Places API for Work. 2017. Available online: https://developers.google.com/
(accessed on 27 July 2017).
17.
Liu, J. Electric vehicle charging infrastructure assignment and power grid impacts assessment in Beijing. Energy Policy
2012
,51,
544–557. [CrossRef]
18.
Shi, Q.S.; Zheng, X.Z. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Optimal Location Based on Fuzzy C-Means Clustering. Appl. Mech.
Mater. 2014,556-562, 3972–3975. [CrossRef]
19. Hodgson, M.J. A Flow-Capturing Location-Allocation Model. Geogr. Anal. 2010,22, 270–279. [CrossRef]
20.
Vazifeh, M.M.; Zhang, H.; Santi, P.; Ratti, C. Optimizing the deployment of electric vehicle charging stations using pervasive
mobility data. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pr. 2019,121, 75–91. [CrossRef]
21.
Jeff Desjardins. Visualizing the Rise of the Electric Vehicle. 2018. Available online: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/rise-
electric-vehicle/ (accessed on 2 July 2019).
22.
Rahman, I.; Vasant, P.M.; Singh, B.S.M.; Abdullah-Al-Wadud, M. Swarm Intelligence-Based Smart Energy Allocation Strategy for
Charging Stations of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles. Math. Probl. Eng. 2015,2015, 1–10. [CrossRef]
23.
Vasant, P.M.; Rahman, I.; Singh, B.S.M.; Abdullah-Al-Wadud, M. Optimal power allocation scheme for plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles using swarm intelligence techniques. Cogent Eng. 2016,3. [CrossRef]
24.
Jing, W.; An, K.; Ramezani, M.; Kim, I. Location Design of Electric Vehicle Charging Facilities: A Path-Distance Constrained
Stochastic User Equilibrium Approach. J. Adv. Transp. 2017,2017, 1–15. [CrossRef]
25.
Kendall, D.G. Stochastic Processes Occurring in the Theory of Queues and their Analysis by the Method of the Imbedded Markov
Chain. Ann. Math. Stat. 1953,24, 338–354. [CrossRef]
26.
Kim, J.; Son, S.-Y.; Lee, J.-M.; Ha, H.-T. Scheduling and performance analysis under a stochastic model for electric vehicle charging
stations. Omega 2017,66, 278–289. [CrossRef]
27.
Kuby, M.; Lim, S. Location of Alternative-Fuel Stations Using the Flow-Refueling Location Model and Dispersion of Candidate
Sites on Arcs. Netw. Spat. Econ. 2006,7, 129–152. [CrossRef]
28.
Lee, Y.-G.; Kim, H.-S.; Kho, S.-Y.; Lee, C. User Equilibrium–Based Location Model of Rapid Charging Stations for Electric Vehicles
with Batteries that have Different States of Charge. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2014,2454, 97–106. [CrossRef]
29. Mirjalili, S.; Mirjalili, S.M.; Lewis, A. Grey Wolf Optimizer. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2014,69, 46–61. [CrossRef]
30.
Pinto, F.A.V.; Costa, L.H.M.K.; De Amorini, M.D. Modeling spare capacity reuse in EV charging stations based on the Li-ion
battery profile. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Connected Vehicles and Expo (ICCVE), Vienna, Austria,
3–7 November 2014; pp. 92–98. [CrossRef]
31.
Python Software Foundation. Python Language Reference, Version 2.7. 2013. Available online: https://www.python.org/
(accessed on 20 July 2017).
32. Ross, S.M. Introduction to Probability Models, 20th ed.; Academic Press: Oxford, UK, 2009. [CrossRef]
33.
Smith, M.; Castellano, J. Costs Associated with Non-Residential Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment: Factors to Consider in the Implementa-
tion of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations; NewWest Technologies: Portland, OR, USA, 2015.
34.
Socrata. About Gas Stations in Washington DC. 2011. Available online: https://opendata.socrata.com/dataset/Gas-Stations-in-
Washington-DC/ (accessed on 27 July 2019).
35.
Tan, X.; Sun, B.; Tsang, D.H.K. Queueing network models for electric vehicle charging station with battery swapping. In
Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Conference on Smart Grid Communications (SmartGridComm), Venice, Italy,
3–6 November 2014. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021,13, 3314 20 of 20
36.
Tian, Z.; Hou, W.; Gu, X.; Gu, F.; Yao, B. The location optimization of electric vehicle charging stations considering charging
behavior. Simulation 2018,94, 625–636. [CrossRef]
37.
Vardakas, J.S. Electric vehicles charging management in communication controlled fast charging stations. In Proceedings of
the 2014 IEEE 19th International Workshop on Computer Aided Modeling and Design of Communication Links and Networks
(CAMAD), Athens, Greece, 1–3 December 2014. [CrossRef]
38.
Wang, S.; Bi, S.; Zhang, Y.-J.A.; Huang, J. Electrical Vehicle Charging Station Profit Maximization: Admission, Pricing, and Online
Scheduling. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2018,9, 1722–1731. [CrossRef]
39.
Wu, F.; Sioshansi, R. A stochastic flow-capturing model to optimize the location of fast-charging stations with uncertain electric
vehicle flows. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2017,53, 354–376. [CrossRef]
... Metaheuristics in this area promote applicable solutions to increase the percentage of sustainable vehicles used in transportation and logistics. Since energy costs are lower, specific algorithms such as Grey Wolf Optimization, using stochastic modeling, have improved the net gain of companies by optimizing charging station allocation problems in electric vehicle networks [67]. This positively impacts waiting times and energy consumption in transportation, with cases reporting a 69.9% reduction in waiting times and a 48.03% decrease in fuel consumption [68]. ...
... In turn, economic sustainability gains strength through the use of algorithms using sustainable transport, such as electric vehicles. The Grey Wolf Optimization (GWO) algorithm is used to select the best charging station locations with the aim of maximizing net gain in both budget and routing constraints [67]. This gives strength to the arguments that the advance of metaheuristics implies maximization of benefits and increasing search for sustainability. ...
Article
Full-text available
Importance: This bibliometric analysis of the application of metaheuristics in transportation and logistics examines over two decades of research (1999–present), aiming to uncover global trends, anticipate future directions, and highlight how interconnections between key factors facilitate the development of practical and sustainable solutions for the industry. Methodology: A quantitative approach is employed to analyze the evolution of the discipline by reviewing an extensive database of relevant research and key authors and utilizing advanced data processing tools. This analysis enables the assessment of advances in the optimization of metaheuristic models, with an impact on time and cost savings from an economically sustainable perspective. Results: The use of metaheuristics optimizes the efficiency and competitiveness of the transportation sector while promoting a positive economic impact on companies. The main areas of application are optimization and metaheuristic methods, cost and operational efficiency, planning and scheduling, logistics and transportation, supply chain and logistics networks, energy and sustainability, and demand and users. Additionally, genetic algorithms stand out as particularly important. Conclusions: This research provides a comprehensive and detailed view of the impact of metaheuristics on the transportation sector, highlighting their current and future trends (such as artificial intelligence) and their economic relevance.
... This collaborative exploration helps them to overcome the disadvantages of single-solution approaches. Some of the popular PBMA algorithms are Genetic Algorithm (GA) [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], Differential Evolutionary Algorithm (DE) [92], Harmony search [93], [94], Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) [95], [96], Artificial Bee Colony Algorithm (ABC) [97], Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO) [103], [104], Firefly Algorithm [105][105], Cuckoo Optimization Algorithm (COA) [106], Gravitational Search Algorithm (GSA) [107], Artificial Hummingbird Algorithm (AHA) [108], , Whale Optimization Algorithm (WOA) [109], Grasshopper Optimization Algorithm (GOA) [110], Artificial Fish Swarm Algorithm (AFS) [111], Chicken Swarm Optimization (CSO) [112], Teaching Learning-Based ...
... Regression analysis aims to predict the continuous value of a target variable based on the observed values of one or more independent variables. This involves [89] Charging capacity maximization, Power loss reduction [90] ▪Differential Evolution (DE) EV battery swapping station placement [92] →Nature Inspired ▪Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) Optimal power utilization [97] ▪Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) EV route optimization [95], [96] ▪Artificial Fish Swarm (AFS) Network loss minimization [111] Operational cost minimization [110] ▪Gravitational Search Algorithm (GSA) Power loss minimization [107] ▪Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO) Operational cost minimization [103] EV charging station placement [104] ▪Harmony Search (HS) Unit Commitment [93] EV charging station planning [94] ▪Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) ...
Article
Full-text available
The transportation sector is one among the key sources of greenhouse emissions (GHGs) leading to climate change and global warming. Energy transition through electrified transportation is one of the solutions to tackle the issues. Electric vehicles (EVs) offer significant environmental and economic advantages against the conventional internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. EVs are called mobility loads and their connectivity to the utility grid for charging is unpredictable. The large penetration of such unpredictable loads into the utility grid will lead to undesirable impacts on the utility service. This paper highlights the importance of managing and optimizing the charging schedules. The optimization of EV charging has diverse aspects, and the perspectives of EV charging differ among consumers, aggregators, and utility services. Proper planning and management of EV charging is essential to achieve harmony amongst these stakeholders. A comprehensive review on the objectives of electric vehicle charging optimization from various perspectives is presented and discussed in this paper. EV charging optimization techniques including mathematical programming, meta heuristics algorithms and machine learning techniques are explored. The main objectives, constraints, strength, and limitations of different charging optimization techniques are analyzed in detail. A brief discussion on the communication strategies for data exchange in EV charging framework is presented and the need for a communication security constrained EV charging scheduling is also emphasized.
... These approaches are typically validated using simulation models or alternative algorithms. Shabbar et al. (2021) proposed a profit-maximizing model using Grey Wolf Optimization (GWO) and a Markov-chain model to simulate demand. Later, Jordán et al. (2022) developed an optimized charging infrastructure based on GA, validated through agentbased simulation. ...
Article
Full-text available
In urban India air pollution is a critical environmental issue with the transportation sector being a major contributor. Transitioning to electric vehicles is one essential policy decision that can reduce emissions, thus, necessitating a robust network of public charging stations. This study proposes a facility-based Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) analysis integrated with Geographical Information System (GIS) to address site selection issues for EV charging stations. The methodology involves three steps to determine the optimal locations for EVCs: (i) defining 12 sub-criteria and weighting them using both CRiteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation (CRITIC) and ENTROPY, (ii) generating a suitability map for potential EVCSLs via GIS, and (iii) ranking the performance levels of EVCSLs based on the suitability map using Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) and Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment (WASPAS) methods. The comprehensive model is illustrated in Fig. 1. A case study in Telangana, India, with existing charging stations, validates the proposed approach. Sensitivity and comparative analyses demonstrate that criteria weight changes significantly impact the solution, underscoring the importance of proper criteria identification and accurate weight assignment. Among the methods compared (TOPSIS-CRITIC, TOPSIS-Entropy, WASPAS-CRITIC, WASPAS-Entropy), TOPSIS-CRITIC outperforms others in 10 out of 13 scenarios, offering larger service areas for a given number of charging stations for the given case study. The results indicate that the proposed MCDM framework is stable, reliable, and effective for EVCS location selection incorporating a holistic criteria-based framework, supporting India's goal of full EV adoption by 2030 as per its Paris Agreement commitments.
... For example, ref. [33] found that transport hubs, parking spaces, and urban points of interest were important aspects to station selection through the use of a spatial model function and stakeholder interviews. Other studies regarding this topic even took an optimization approach, such as [34]. Here, a gray wolf optimization algorithm based off a Markov chain network model was proposed with the objective to maximize net profit in order to determine charging station locations. ...
Article
Full-text available
With the proliferation of vehicular mobility traces because of inexpensive on-board sensors and smartphones, utilizing them to further understand road movements have become easily accessible. These huge numbers of vehicular traces can be utilized to determine where to enhance road infrastructures such as the deployment of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. As more EVs are plying today’s roads, the driving anxiety is minimized with the presence of sufficient charging stations. By correctly extracting the various transportation parameters from a given dataset, one can design an adequate and adaptive EV charging network that can provide comfort and convenience for the movement of people and goods from one point to another. In this study, we determined the possible EV charging station locations based on an urban city’s vehicular capacity distribution obtained from taxi and ride-hailing mobility GPS traces. To achieve this, we first transformed the dynamic vehicular environment based on vehicular capacity into its equivalent urban single snapshot. We then obtained the various traffic zone distributions by initially utilizing k-means clustering to allow flexibility in the total number of wanted traffic zones in each dataset. In each traffic zone, iterative clustering techniques employing Density-based Spatial Clustering of Applications with Noise (DBSCAN) or clustering by fast search and find of density peaks (CFS) revealed various area separation where EV chargers were needed. Finally, to find the exact location of the EV charging station, we last ran k-means to locate centroids, depending on the constraint on how many EV chargers were needed. Extensive simulations revealed the strengths and weaknesses of the clustering methods when applied to our datasets. We utilized the silhouette and Calinski–Harabasz indices to measure the validity of cluster formations. We also measured the inter-station distances to understand the closeness of the locations of EV chargers. Our study shows how CFS + k-means clustering techniques are able to pinpoint EV charger locations. However, when utilizing DBSCAN initially, the results did not present any notable outcome.
... But, the DN parameters are overlooked in [7,8]. Recognizing the importance of integrating both road and distribution network, researchers in [9,10] have incorporated parameters from both RN and DN to optimize CS allocation. Still, focusing solely on RN and DN parameters does not ensure optimal CS allocation without considering uncertainties. ...
Article
Full-text available
The increase in electric vehicle sales has necessitated more charging stations. However, the converters in these stations impact the power quality of the network by generating harmonics, which must be maintained within specified limits according to IEEE 519 standard. Hence, this paper focuses on optimal allocation of electric vehicle charging stations (EVCSs) while ensuring the satisfaction of power quality and other constraints of the network. The power filters are also placed optimally, keeping their installation costs reasonable, when optimal allocation of EVCSs alone does not resolve the power quality issues. The problem is formulated as a multi-objective problem. The effectiveness of the proposed mathematical model is validated on a practical 40-bus superimposed road and distribution network. To perform the power quality analysis, harmonic spectrum data of a practical EVCS is captured with the help of a power quality analyzer. The optimization is conducted using the marine predator algorithm (MPA) in MATLAB. The best non-dominated solution is identified using the interactive fuzzy satisfying (IFS) method. The outcomes show that the proposed approach is effective and is capable of evaluating the location of charging stations for any practical distribution network, keeping power quality constraints within limit.
... In the above-mentioned studies significance of the road network has been undervalued. In [6], [7], road and distribution network both are considered in order to optimally allocate the charging stations by maximizing the profit of the service provider. In [8], EVCSs are strategically placed in a superimposed distribution and road network by optimizing the power loss of the distribution network. ...
Article
Efficient allocation of electric vehicle charging stations (EVCSs) is crucial to promote widespread adoption of electric vehicles, to support sustainable transportation, and to reduce range anxiety. Thus, it enhances energy security and mitigates environmental impact. In this work, EVCSs are optimally distributed across a superimposed road and distribution network with a focus on electric vehicle (EV) user's convenience to reach charging station. The allocation problem has primarily been solved by taking into account nodal cost and vehicular uncertainty. The process also considered minimizing fundamental energy and harmonic losses in the distribution network. The quantity of charging ports is a crucial consideration that is frequently overlooked during the allocation process. Optimal port allocation not only helps in determining the waiting time of each EV user reaching that charging station but also reduces the burden on the distribution network of excessive port in a charging station. In this instance, the cost of installing the charging port is taken into account and optimized. An additional fee to the charging station has been imposed as an additional expenditure for the distribution losses caused by the inclusion of the charging station in the network. The suggested method has been implemented on MATLAB platform and tested on a practical distribution network with 40 buses. Outcomes are encouraging and the methodology may be applied to solve similar problems for practical systems
Article
Full-text available
Location of public charging stations, range limit, and long battery-charging time inevitably affect drivers’ path choice behavior and equilibrium flows of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) in a transportation network. This study investigates the effect of the location of BEVs public charging facilities on a network with mixed conventional gasoline vehicles (GVs) and BEVs. These two types of vehicles are distinguished from each other in terms of travel cost composition and distance limit. A bilevel model is developed to address this problem. In the upper level, the objective is to maximize coverage of BEV flows by locating a given number of charging stations on road segments considering budget constraints. A mixed-integer nonlinear program is proposed to formulate this model. A simple equilibrium-based heuristic algorithm is developed to obtain the solution. Finally, two numerical tests are presented to demonstrate applicability of the proposed model and feasibility and effectiveness of the solution algorithm. The results demonstrate that the equilibrium traffic flows are affected by charging speed, range limit, and charging facilities’ utility and that BEV drivers incline to choose the route with charging stations and less charging time.
Article
Full-text available
The rapid emergence of electric vehicles (EVs) demands an advanced infrastructure of publicly accessible charging stations that provide efficient charging services. In this paper, we propose a new charging station operation mechanism, the JoAP, which jointly optimizes the EV admission control, pricing, and charging scheduling to maximize the charging station's profit. More specifically, by introducing a tandem queueing network model, we analytically characterize the average charging station profit as a function of the admission control and pricing policies. Based on the analysis, we characterize the optimal JoAP algorithm. Through extensive simulations, we demonstrate that the proposed JoAP algorithm on average can achieve 330\% and 531\% higher profit than a widely adopted benchmark method under two representative waiting-time penalty rates.
Article
Full-text available
Green technologies gain popularity to reduce the pollution and give higher penetration of renewable energy source in the transportation. This research induce that the extensive involvement of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) requires adequate charging allocation strategy using a combination of smart grid systems and smart charging infrastructures. It is also noticed that daytime charging station are necessary for daily usage of PHEVs due to the limited all-electric-range. Most of the researches in the past have been stated that only proper charging control and infrastructure management can assure the larger participation of PHEVs. Therefore, researchers are trying to develop efficient control mechanism for charging infrastructure in order to facilitate upcoming PHEVs penetration in highway. Nevertheless, most of the past researcher already aware with the issue related to intelligent energy management. Yet, these studies could not fill the gap of the problem associated with intelligent energy management and require formulation of mathematical models with extensive use of computational intelligence-based optimization techniques to solve many technical problems. The outcome of this research study provides four optimization techniques that include Hybrid method within swarm intelligence group for the State-of-Charge (SoC) optimization of PHEVs. The finding of this research simulation results obtained for maximizing the highly nonlinear objective function evaluate the comparative performance of all four techniques in terms of best fitness, convergence speed, and computation time. Finally, the hybridization method (PSOGSA) presented in this dissertation uses the advantages of both PSO and GSA optimization and thus produce higher best fitness values. This study evaluates the performance of standard PSO, then Accelerated version of PSO (APSO), GSA algorithm and then Hybrid of PSO and GSA. The hybridization method (PSOGSA) uses the advantages of both PSO and GSA optimization and thus produce higher best fitness values. However, PSOGSA method takes much longer computational time than single methods because of incorporating two single methods in one algorithm. This research study suggests that PSOGSA method is a great promise for SoC optimization but it takes much longer computational time.
Article
The electric vehicle is seen as an effective way to alleviate the current energy crisis and environmental problems. However, the lack of supporting charging facilities is still a bottleneck in the development of electric vehicles in the Chinese market. In this paper, the cloud model is used to first predict drivers’ charging behavior. An optimization model of charging stations is proposed, which is based on waiting time. The target of this optimization model is to minimize the time cost to electric vehicle drivers. We use the SCE-UA algorithm to solve the optimization model. We apply our method to Dalian, China to optimize charging station locations. We also analyze the optimized result with or without behavior prediction, the optimized result of different numbers of electric vehicles, and the optimized result of different cost constraints. The analysis shows the feasibility and advantages of the charging station location optimization method proposed in this paper.
Article
We use a new property-level data set and an innovative methodology to estimate the price of land from 2000 to 2013 for nearly the universe of detached single-family homes in the Washington, DC metro area and to characterize the boom-bust cycle in land and house prices at a fine geography. The results show that land prices were more volatile than house prices everywhere, but especially so in the areas where land was inexpensive in 2000. We demonstrate that the change in the land share of house value during the boom was a significant predictor of the decline in house prices during the bust, highlighting the value of focusing on land in assessing house-price risk.
Article
It is reasonable to suppose that not every electric car will be charged at home sockets: some vehicle owners will eventually use charging stations. There are two options for such a charging station: it can be built either at the parking lots of shopping centers, or along highways, similar to the gas stations of today. These charging stations of course require additional feed-in of electric energy. To calculate the necessary capacity of such infeed one has to know the main operating parameters of the charging stations, such as the number of charging sockets or the parking capacity of the station. Another important parameter is the time needed to charge the battery. People do not like waiting, so a charging station must be designed taking these constraints into consideration. In this article the mathematical model of charging stations is proposed, followed by the results of the numerical simulations based on stochastic modelling of EV charging.
Article
We develop a model to optimize the location of public fast charging stations for electric vehicles (EVs). A difficulty in planning the placement of charging stations is uncertainty in where EV charging demands appear. For this reason, we use a stochastic flow-capturing location model (SFCLM). A sample-average approximation method and an averaged two-replication procedure are used to solve the problem and estimate the solution quality. We demonstrate the use of the SFCLM using a Central-Ohio based case study. We find that most of the stations built are concentrated around the urban core of the region. As the number of stations built increases, some appear on the outskirts of the region to provide an extended charging network. We find that the sets of optimal charging station locations as a function of the number of stations built are approximately nested. We demonstrate the benefits of the charging-station network in terms of how many EVs are able to complete their daily trips by charging midday—six public charging stations allow at least 60% of EVs that would otherwise not be able to complete their daily tours without the stations to do so. We finally compare the SFCLM to a deterministic model, in which EV flows are set equal to their expected values. We show that if a limited number of charging stations are to be built, the SFCLM outperforms the deterministic model. As the number of stations to be built increases, the SFCLM and deterministic model select very similar station locations.
Article
Despite all the acknowledged advantages in terms of environmental impact reduction, energy efficiency and noise reduction, the electric mobility market is below expectations. In fact, electric vehicles have limitations that pose several important challenges for achieving a sustainable mobility system: among them, the availability of an adequate charging infrastructure is recognized as a fundamental requirement and appropriate approaches to optimize public and private investments in this field are to be delineated. In this paper we consider actual data on conventional private vehicle usage in the urban area of Rome to carry out a strategy for the optimal allocation of charging infrastructures into portions (subareas) of the urban area, based on an analysis of a driver sample under the assumption of a complete switch to an equivalent fleet of electric vehicles. Moreover, the energy requirement for each one of the subareas is estimated in terms of the electric energy used by the equivalent fleet of electric vehicles to reach their destination. The model can be easily generalized to other problems regarding facility allocation based on user demand.
Conference Paper
Lithium-ion batteries, widely used in electric vehicles (EVs), have a specific charging profile where the power consumed varies over time and defines the amount of power the charging station needs to deliver. Achieving a proper tradeoff between charging levels, number of vehicles, and electric capacity of the plant is challenging. In order to give a solid basis for the deployment of efficient charging systems, we propose a bi-dimensional Markov chain model that considers the practical characteristics of Li-ion charging profiles. To this end, we build two scenarios that differ in their capacity to handle idle slots. We show through extensive numerical analysis that the use of spare sockets in different sizes of charging stations contributes to better energy utilization. Moreover, we apply the proposed model to the case of the city of Rio de Janeiro and show that, in a foreseeable future, if all ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) vehicles were replaced by EVs, the adoption of charging station with spare sockets will produce significantly better results in terms of availability of the station, number of admitted vehicles, and energy utilization.