Impact of Charging Electric Vehicles under Different State of Charge Levels and Extreme Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High penetration levels of Plug-in Electric Vehicles (PEVs) could cause stress on the network and might violate the limits and constraints under extreme conditions, such as exceeding power and voltage limits on transformers and power lines. This paper defines extreme conditions as the state of a load or network that breaks the limits of the constraints in an optimization model. Once these constraints are violated, the optimization algorithm might not work correctly and might not converge to a feasible solution, especially when the complexity of the system increases and includes nonlinearities. Hence, the algorithm may not help in mitigating the impact of penetrating PEVs under extreme conditions. To solve this problem, an original algorithm is suggested that is able to adapt the constraints’ limits according to the energy demand and the energy needed to charge the PEVs. Different case scenarios are studied for validation purposes, such as charging PEVs under different state of charge levels, different energy demands at home, and different pricing mechanisms. Results show that our original algorithm improved the profiles of the voltage and power under extreme conditions. Hence, the algorithm is able to improve the integration of a high number of PEVs on the distribution system under extreme conditions while preserving its stability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".