MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Time-of-Use-Aware Priority-Based Multi-Mode Online Charging Scheme for EV Charging Stations

2022· article· en· W4310584419 on OpenAlexaff
Md. Navid Bin Anwar, Rukhsana Ruby, Yijun Cheng, Jianping Pan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharging stationElectric vehicleMode (computer interface)Computer scienceAutomotive engineeringScheme (mathematics)Trickle chargingProfit (economics)Power (physics)ElectricitySimulationElectrical engineeringEngineeringBattery (electricity)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS) play a vital role in providing charging support to EV users. In order to facilitate users in terms of charging speed, two different charging modes (L2 and L3) are currently available at public charging stations. L3 mode provides quick charging with higher power, whereas L2 mode offers moderate charging speed with low power. The integration of an EVCS into the power grid requires coordinated charging strategies in order to reduce the electricity bill for a profitable operation. However, the effective utilization of the multi-mode charging strategy to serve the maximum number of EVs for a small charging station with limited charging capacity and spots is an open issue. To this end, we propose a priority-based online charging scheme, namely PBOS, which is based on real-time information and does not depend on future knowledge. The objective is to serve as many vehicles as possible in a day while fulfilling their charging requirements under a multi-mode EVCS setting and reducing the charging costs by utilizing the time-of-use pricing based demand response strategy. Simulation results show that the proposed algorithm can increase profit for EVCS by up to 42% with a 20% lower rejection rate when compared with other schemes.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score0.636

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.256
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectric Vehicles and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207