MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224925155 · doi:10.3389/fenrg.2022.773440

Smart EV Charging Strategies Based on Charging Behavior

2022· article· en· W4224925155 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Energy Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsSoftware deploymentIdleScheduling (production processes)Load shiftingSmart gridElectricityGridComputer sciencePeak demandDemand responseAutomotive engineeringElectric vehicleReliability engineeringElectrical engineeringEngineeringPower (physics)Operations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coming years, the number of electric vehicles (EVs) shall increase significantly, so the demand for electricity for charging EVs will proportionately increase as well. Thus, the growing energy requirements for charging these EVs might put huge burden on the electricity generation and supply infrastructure. Such a huge load growth opportunity for utilities if integrated successfully, or if not, a significant challenge to operate and balance grid loads in the future. Customarily, the increase in adoption of EVs in recent years has yielded challenges to the utilities as the electricity demand of EVs occurs mostly during peak hours. In some cases, a sojourn time may be longer than a charging time, that means, EVs will be connected to the charging station without charging. However, the load shifting potential of EVs may be consequential and might subsequently be used to alleviate challenges to the electric grid system. Considering charging behaviors for EV scheduling is crucial, as they depend on uncertainties of EV availabilities (i.e., sojourn time and energy required). Such uncertainties would impact substantially on the deployment of feasible EV charging scheduling. To address above-mentioned issues, firstly, we define an idle time ratio, which is basically load shifting potential. Consequently, we develop a heuristic EV charging scheduling scheme with an emphasis on inevitable charging behaviors of the EV users. Such a scheduling incorporates priority determination using the idle time ratio and TOU period as well as priority-based time slot allocation. Moreover, accurate prioritization of EVs is realized by predicting the energy demand and idle time ratio. Minimization of charging cost is perhaps the most perceptive objective, such that, the EV charging scheduling is done when TOU tariff is low. Performance evaluation shows that the proposed flexible smart charging scheduling outperforms the baseline scheduling in terms of the charging power and charging cost.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.621

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it