MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283724736 · doi:10.1016/j.est.2022.105197

Optimal operation of static energy storage in fast-charging stations considering the trade-off between resilience and peak shaving

2022· article· en· W4283724736 on OpenAlexaff
Asfand Yar Ali, Akhtar Hussain, Ju-Won Baek, Hak‐Man Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Energy Storage · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResilience (materials science)Peaking power plantReliability engineeringEnergy storageReduction (mathematics)Computer scienceElectric power systemAutomotive engineeringPower (physics)EngineeringMathematicsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Enhanced penetration of electric vehicles (EVs) poses several challenges to the power network, such as uncertain peak loads and resilience issues during outages. Both resilience and peak shaving functions can be achieved by using a local static battery energy storage system (BESS) in the charging stations. However, resilience and peak-shaving are contradictory, i.e. increasing one will deteriorate the other. Therefore, in this study, a resilience and peak shaving trade-off scheme is proposed to optimally utilize the static BESS. Firstly, a resilience window is formulated to determine the amount of energy to be stored in the BESS for the resilience of EVs in the case of any contingency. During peak hours of the day, more importance is given to peak-shaving, whereas in the off-peak hours, resilience is prioritized. Then, an optimization algorithm is developed to minimize the cost of the system while maintaining resilience and maximizing peak shaving. Using the proposed window method, an optimal window size has been determined via a normalization approach. Simulations have been carried out to show the effectiveness of the proposed scheme by considering the conflicting nature of resilience and peak shaving. With the help of the proposed strategy additional 3.9 % of peak shaving and 3.41 % reduction operational costs is achieved. Moreover, sensitivity analysis has been carried out by considering different factors (market price, size of EV fleet, and BESS size) that can affect the optimal size of the resilience window.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Energy StorageSame topicElectric Vehicles and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207