See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330324909

Smart Charging and Discharging of Plug-in Electric Vehicles for Peak Shaving
and Valley Filling of the Grid Power

Conference Paper · December 2018

DOI: 10.1109/MEPCON.2018.8635173

CITATIONS READS

17 573

4 authors:

Hassanien Ramadan Abdelfatah Ali

South Valley University South Valley University
9 PUBLICATIONS   140 CITATIONS    62 PUBLICATIONS   786 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Morsy Nour Csaba Farkas

Aswan University Budapest University of Technology and Economics
13 PUBLICATIONS   300 CITATIONS    27 PUBLICATIONS   318 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Evaluation and Mitigation of Electric Vehicles Charging Impacts on Distribution Networks View project

Investigation and mitigation of PEVs impacts on the distribution system View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hassanien Ramadan on 21 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 2018 Twentieth International Middle East Power Systems Conference (MEPCON), Cairo University, Egypt

Smart Charging and Discharging of Plug-in Electric

Vehicles for Peak Shaving and Valley Filling of the
Grid Power.
Hassanien Ramadan1,2, Abdelfatah Ali1,2, Morsy Nour2,3, and Csaba Farkas2
1Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, South Valley University, Qena 83523, Egypt
2Department of Electric Power Engineering, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Informatics, Budapest University of Technology and
Economics, Budapest 1111, Hungary
3
Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Energy Engineering, Aswan University, Aswan 81528, Egypt

h.ramadan@eng.svu.edu.eg, abdelfatah.mohamed@vet.bme.hu, morsy.abdo@aswu.edu.eg, farkas.csaba@vet.bme.hu

Abstract—From the power grid perspective, the widespread
of plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) integration into the electric
networks rises concerns regarding power system components
overloading and power quality issues. However, PEVs would
bring beneficial opportunities to the power system in the future.
In order to alleviate the negative effects of PEVs, smart
charge/discharge scheduling algorithms are developed.
Moreover, with PEVs smart scheduling, the vehicles fleet can be
used to support the power grid through vehicle-to-grid (V2G)
technology by injecting power into the grid during peak periods.
This paper presents a centralized smart charge/discharge
scheduling algorithm to optimize the charging/discharging of
PEVs with the aim to achieve peak shaving and valley filling of
the grid load profile subjected to various power grid and PEVs
constraints. The solution of the optimization problem is realized
using a particle swarm optimization (PSO) technique. The
algorithm of charge/discharge scheduling is developed and
tested within MATLAB environment. The simulation results
verify the potential of the algorithm to achieve the objective
function and satisfy the various constraints which in turn lessen
the adverse impacts of PEVs charging.
Keywords—plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs), PEVs smart
scheduling, V2G technology, peak shaving and valley filling,
particle swarm optimization (PSO).
I. INTRODUCTION
Due to energy shortages and environmental pollution, the
plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) without emission, low noise,
and high efficiency is an unavoidable choice for vehicular
sustainable development. The industry of automotive is
heavily investing in electric vehicles (PEVs and plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles (PHEVs)) to reduce the emission of
greenhouse gases and fossil fuel dependency of current
automotive technology. PEVs are getting more widespread as
a long-term vehicular technology to decrease the dependency
on fossil fuel and the CO2 emission. However, with an
increase in penetration of PEVs, uncoordinated charging can
lead to additional problems on the distribution power grid.
The large-scale adoption of PEVs will elevate the load
demand which represents new challenges to the electric power
grid. Therefore, extensive studies have been conducted on the
adverse impacts of PEVs charging on the power grid. These
impacts include grid equipment overloading, power system
losses and power quality issues such as voltage deviation,
voltage unbalance and harmonics distortion [1]–[3]. To
alleviate these impacts, smart or coordinated charge
scheduling algorithms are developed. Moreover, with PEVs
smart charge scheduling, several services such as peak
shaving, load leveling, voltage regulation and frequency
regulation can be provided by PEVs using V2G technology.
In the literature, several algorithms have been presented to
manage the charge scheduling of PEVs with different
objective functions. Authors in [4] developed an algorithm
with an objective function to minimize the network losses due
to PEVs charging by optimizing the charging times and
powers. Research works in [5], [6] scheduled PEVs charging
to achieve power grid load profile flattening and minimizing
the load variance. Other research studies focused on
minimizing the PEVs owner charging cost or maximizing
PEVs aggregator profit as in [7] and [8], respectively.
This paper presents the development of a smart
charge/discharge scheduling algorithm of PEVs with an
objective to achieve peak shaving and valley filling of the grid
load profile. This is accomplished by allowing PEVs to
discharge their available energy storage during the peak
periods and conduct charging during the valley times
subjected to various power grid and PEVs constraints. The
optimization problem is handled using particle swarm
optimization (PSO) algorithm within MATLAB environment.
The IEEE 33-bus distribution test system is used to evaluate
the algorithm for different case studies. The obtained
simulation results show the ability of the algorithm to achieve
power grid base load flattening objective and satisfy the
various constraints.
The organization of this paper is managed as follows.
Section II presents a detailed formulation of the optimization
algorithm objective function, constraints, PEVs modeling, and
the PSO method. In section III, a description of the power grid
topology is provided. Section IV discusses the simulation
results. Finally, conclusions are drawn in sections V.
II. PROBLEM FORMULATION
A. Objective Function
The goal of the optimized charge/discharge scheduling is
to achieve grid load profile flattening. Knowing the grid load
curve, the optimal load curve which can be realized by shaving
the peak period and filling the valley period can be
constructed. Then, the optimizer task is to minimize the
difference between base load curve and optimized load curve

978-1-5386-6654-8/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE

through proper scheduling of PEVs charging/discharging. In
16
this study, minimization of the squared deviation between the
desired load curve and base load curve at each time instant is 14
formulated according to equations (1) and (2). 12

min 𝑓𝑡 𝑠. 𝑡. 𝛩 (1) 10

PEVs (% )
8
𝑓𝑡 = (𝑃𝑏,𝑡 − 𝑃𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑡,𝑡 )2 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡 = 1: 𝑇 (2) 6

where 𝛩 is a set of constraints, 𝑇 is the number of intervals 4

throughout a day, 𝑃𝑏,𝑡 is the base load demand at time instant 2

t and 𝑃𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑡,𝑡 is the target or desired load demand at time 0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
instant t. Arrival Time (h)
Fig. 1. Arrival time distribution of PEVs.
B. Constraints
PEVs charge/discharge scheduling problem constraints 0.35
can be divided into vehicle-related constraints, power flow
0.3
constraints, and grid technical constraints. The power flow and
network technical constraints are basically the power equation 0.25

Probability
at each bus in the system and the grid technical limits such as 0.2
the voltage minimum and maximum values and lines thermal
limits. The developed charge/discharge scheduling algorithm 0.15
consider the following vehicle-related constraints: 0.1

1) Charging and discharging rate must be limited to a 0.05

maximum and minimum values to avoid battery degradation 0
which is expressed as follows: 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOC (% )
𝑃𝑚𝑖𝑛 ≤ 𝑃𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑟 ≤ 𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥 (3)
A maximum charging/discharging rate of 4 kW is considered Fig. 2. Probability distribution of PEV battery SOC at charging start
in this study, which represents the typical supply power of a time.
slow charging socket. charging/discharging of the battery cannot be performed at
2) Battery must be charged up to a maximum state of the same time.
charge (SOC) limit and when discharged a depth of discharge The charging/discharging power of each PEV is estimated
(DOD) limit which represent the minimum SOC must be by an aggregator at each charging station based on the
satisfied which can be set by the vehicle owner. required/available energy of PEV and the total
𝑆𝑂𝐶𝑃𝐸𝑉,𝑚𝑖𝑛 ≤ 𝑆𝑂𝐶𝑃𝐸𝑉 ≤ 𝑆𝑂𝐶𝑃𝐸𝑉,𝑚𝑎𝑥 (4) charging/discharging energy of the charging station
The battery DOD is 60%, this means that when vehicles determined by solving the previous optimization problem.
participate in V2G operation, their SOC will not decrease This is given by (6-7).
below 40%.
𝐸𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑞,𝑛 = 𝐶 ∗ ∆𝑡(𝑆𝑂𝐶𝑓𝑢𝑙𝑙 − 𝑆𝑂𝐶𝑡𝑛 ) (6)
C. PEVs Modeling
𝐸𝑡𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙,𝑛 = 𝐶 ∗ ∆𝑡(𝑆𝑂𝐶𝑡𝑛 − 𝐷𝑂𝐷) (7)
For modeling PEVs, the charging start time and battery
initial SOC must be determined. In this paper, the last journey 𝐸𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑞,𝑛
arrival time is used as PEVs charging start time which is 𝑃𝑡𝑐ℎ,𝑛 = ∗ 𝑃𝑡𝑐𝑠 (8)
determined according to National Household Travel Survey- ∑𝑚𝑗=1 𝐸𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑞,𝑗
2009 (NHTS-2009) conducted by the American Federal
Highway Administration as shown in Fig. 1 [9]. 𝐸𝑡𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙,𝑛
𝑃𝑡𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐ℎ,𝑛 = ∗ 𝑃𝑡𝑐𝑠 (9)
Battery initial SOC depends on the average daily travel ∑𝑚𝑗=1 𝐸𝑡𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙,𝑗
distance. Fig. 2 presents a probability distribution of PEV
battery SOC at charging start time which has an average of where 𝐸𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑞,𝑛 , 𝐸𝑡𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙,𝑛 , 𝑃𝑡𝑐ℎ,𝑛 , 𝑃𝑡𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐ℎ,𝑛 are the required energy,
50% as assumed in [10]. Depending on the action of PEV available energy, charging power and discharging power of
(charging or discharging), the SOC is updated at each time the nth PEV at time instant t. m is the number of PEVs in the
instant according to equation (5).
charging station (CS) and 𝑃𝑡𝑐𝑠 is the CS total injected or
𝑆𝑂𝐶𝑡𝑛 = 𝑆𝑂𝐶𝑡−1
𝑛 + 𝜂𝑐ℎ,𝑛 𝑃𝑡𝑐ℎ,𝑛 ∆𝑡𝐶𝑡𝑛 absorbed power. This allocation of power among PEVs is
(5) done subjected to equations (3) and (4).
− 𝜂𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐ℎ,𝑛 𝑃𝑡𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐ℎ,𝑛 ∆𝑡𝐷𝑡𝑛
where 𝑆𝑂𝐶𝑡𝑛 , 𝑃𝑡𝑐ℎ,𝑛 and 𝑃𝑡𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐ℎ,𝑛 are the SOC, charging power D. PSO
and discharging power of the nth PEV at time instant t, PSO technique is applied to handle the optimization
problem which is proposed in the subsections A and B. In
respectively. 𝜂𝑐ℎ,𝑛 and 𝜂𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐ℎ,𝑛 are the charging and
PSO, according to fitness values calculated for each particle,
discharging efficiencies, respectively. 𝐶𝑡𝑛 and 𝐷𝑡𝑛 are the the particle best position, global best position particle speed,
charging and discharging schedules of the nth PEV at time and new position are estimated according to equations (10-13)
instant t ( 𝐶𝑡𝑛 , 𝐷𝑡𝑛 ∈ {0, 1} ), where 𝐶𝑡𝑛 ∗ 𝐷𝑡𝑛 = 0 because [11], [12].
 Charging station

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Charging station

Grid
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Charging station

19 20 21 22

Fig. 3. Single line diagram of the test grid.

𝑥𝑝𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑘𝑖,𝑗 , 𝑖𝑓 𝑓(𝑥𝑘+1 𝑘 battery SOC and the voltage at the charging station are
𝑖,𝑗 ) > 𝑓(𝑥𝑝𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖,𝑗 )
𝑥𝑝𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑘+1
𝑖,𝑗
= { (10) examined. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed
𝑥𝑘+1
𝑖,𝑗 , 𝑒𝑙𝑠𝑒 algorithm, the results are compared with a dumb charging
scenario where PEVs will start charging immediately when
𝑥𝑔𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑘𝑗 = 𝑚𝑖𝑛{𝑥𝑝𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑘𝑖 } (11) connected to the power grid.
A. Study Case A
𝑣𝑘+1
𝑖,𝑗 = 𝑤𝑣𝑘𝑖,𝑗 + 𝑐1 𝑟1 (𝑥𝑝𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑘𝑖 − 𝑥𝑘𝑖,𝑗 )
(12) In this case, a target load profile is designed to reduce the
+ 𝑐2 𝑟2 (𝑥𝑔𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑘𝑖 − 𝑥𝑘𝑖,𝑗 ) difference between the peak and valley values of the grid load
profile from 2169 kW (in the base load profile, Fig. 4) to 1272
𝑥𝑘+1
𝑖,𝑗 = 𝑥𝑘𝑖,𝑗 + 𝑣𝑘+1
𝑖,𝑗 (13) kW.
𝑘+1
where 𝑖 is the particle number in the swarm, 𝑥𝑝𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖,𝑗 and The grid load profile with uncoordinated charging is
𝑘 shown in Fig. 4. It should be observed that with uncoordinated
𝑥𝑝𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖,𝑗 are the jth dimensional components in the search
space of the particle best solution in kth and k+1th iteration, charging the grid loading is increased at peak periods with a
𝑘+1
respectively. 𝑥𝑖,𝑗 is the jth dimensional components of the peak value of 4123 kW at 20:00, which correspond to an
increase of 11.56% from the base case. Fig. 5 shows the grid
particle position in the k+1th iteration. 𝑥𝑔𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑗𝑘 is the jth loading when the smart charging algorithm is applied. It can
dimensional component in the search space of the global best be noted that the load curve with PEVs smart charging is
𝑘 𝑘+1
position experienced by the swarm. 𝑣𝑖,𝑗 and 𝑣𝑖,𝑗 are the almost identical to the target load curve. Table 1 shows a
particle velocity at kth and k+1 iteration. w is the inertia comparison between the load profile characteristics values for
weight, 𝑐1 and 𝑐2 are acceleration parameters. 𝑟1 and 𝑟2 are the base case, PEVs uncoordinated charging and smart
random numbers with uniform distribution. charging. Generally, with smart charging, the decrease in the
peak load is 334 kW, and the increase in the valley load is 563
III. GRID TOPOLOGY kW. The difference between grid maximum and minimum
loading is reduced by about 57%.
The developed charge/discharge scheduling strategy
presented in this paper has been applied to the IEEE 33-bus
distribution system presented in Fig.3. The test system is base load uncoordinated PEVs charging

composed of 33 buses and 32 branches with 100 MVA and 4500

12.66KV base power and voltage, respectively. The active 4000
power consumption of the test system is 3715 kW, while the 3500
reactive power is 2300Kvar.. The complete data of the 3000
Power (kW)

network are detailed in [13]. Three CSs are connected to buses 2500
18, 21 and 30. Each CS has a capacity of 100 PEVs. The 2000
battery capacity of PEV is assumed to be 24 kWh and the 1500
maximum charging/discharging rate is 4 kW. 1000
500
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 0
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

The developed algorithm is evaluated considering two

Time (h)
study cases. In each case, a target load profile with certain
specification (e.g., peak shaving and valley filling percent) is Fig. 4. Grid loading with uncoordinated charging.
set and the load profile, power injected/absorbed by PEVs,
 Base load curve
700
Target load curve
600
Load curve with PEVs smart charging
500
4000
400
3500
3000 300

Power (kW)
Power (kW)

2500 200
2000 100
1500 0
1000

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
-100
500
0 -200
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
-300
Time (h) -400
Time (h)
Fig. 8. Grid loading with smart charging.
Fig. 5. PEVs total injected/absorbed power to the grid.

Table 1: Comparison of load profile characteristics values.

Peak load Valley load Peak-valley

Case
(kW) (kW) difference (kW)
Base 3693 1524 2169
Uncoord. charging 4123 1581 2542
Smart charging 3359 2087 1272

Fig. 6 shows the total injected/absorbed power by the three

CSs where positive values mean that PEVs are conducting
charging and negative values PEVs are being discharged. It
can be noted that the maximum injected power during peak
period is 313 kW at 20:00, and the maximum absorbed power
during valley period is 563 kW at 2:00. Fig. 6. PEVs SOC profiles for CS at bus 18.

In Fig. 7, the battery SOC profile is presented for PEVs at

base case Uncoordinated charging Smart charging
CS connected to bus 18. The straight lines at the beginning of
the simulation represent the initial SOC of the batteries, during 1

this period no charging or discharging is conducted by PEVs. 0.98

During the peak periods, the SOC of PEVs starts to decrease 0.96
Voltage (PU)

due to the discharging power injected by each CS to achieve 0.94

the peak shaving objective. It is important to note that during 0.92
the peak period only vehicles with SOC higher than 40% will
0.9
participate in the peak shaving. Also, it can be observed that
0.88
the DOD limit is satisfied (as none of the vehicles discharge
lower than the limit which is 40%). During the valley periods, 0.86
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

each CS will start to absorb power from the grid to meet the
target load profile. Consequently, the SOC of PEVs increases
and at 7:00 (end of the valley period) it approaches the
maximum limit (100%, which is the required final SOC).
The voltage profile at bus 18 is presented in Fig. 8.
Considering the maximum loading hour (t=20:00). In case of
uncoordinated charging, it can be noted that the voltage
reached 0.88 pu which violates the lower limit (0.9). On the
other hand, with smart charge/discharge scheduling, the
voltage remains within acceptable limits and with a lower
variation in the voltage value. As an example, at bus 18 the
voltage varies between 0.88 and 0.96 pu in case of
uncoordinated charging, while it varies between 0.91 and 0.95
pu with smart charging. Also, in the case of smart charging,
the voltage during the peak periods is enhanced compared to
the base case because of the power injected by PEVs during
this period. For example, the voltage at bus 18 has been
enhanced from 0.9 to 0.91 pu at 20:00.
B. Case study B
To further evaluate the developed algorithm and to show
the effect of the target load profile on the result, a target load
profile is designed with the difference between the peak and
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 Time (h)
Fig. 7. Voltage profile at bus 18.
valley values being reduced to 716 kW compared to 1272 kW
in the previous case. The new target load profile is shown in
Fig. 9.
The grid load profile with PEVs smart charging is depicted
in Fig. 9. In this case, the grid load profile does not track the
target profile at all time instants. For example, at the beginning
of the peak periods, the optimized load profile and target
profile are the same. That is to say, the PEVs available energy
for discharging is greater or equal to the energy required for
peak shaving. Then, almost after 19:00 the two profiles differ
because the available energy for discharging is lower than the
energy required to achieve peak shaving. In the valley periods,
whenever the PEVs energy charging requirement is greater or
equal to the required energy for valley filling, the optimized
load profile and target profile are exactly the same. After
(t=2:15) the PEVs load demand requirements are lower than
the energy to be absorbed to achieve the target valley filling,
this explains the difference between the two profiles. The total
power transfer between PEVs and the grid is shown in Fig. 10.
 V. CONCLUSIONS
Base load curve
Target load curve
In this study, a centralized smart charge/discharge
Load curve with PEVs smart charging
scheduling algorithm of PEVs which aims to flatten the grid
load profile through proper controlling the charging/
4000
3500
discharging power of PEVs has been developed and tested.
3000 PSO technique has been used to handle the optimization
Power (kW)

2500 problem. The IEEE 33-bus distribution system has been used
2000 as a test system. The test system modeling and algorithm
1500 development is realized within MATLAB environment. The
1000
500
simulation results demonstrate the ability of the proposed
0 algorithm to achieve the objective function and satisfy the
various constraints under different case studies. Moreover, the
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Time (h) advantages of smart charging compared to the uncoordinated
Fig. 9. Grid loading with PEVs smart charging. charging to reduce the voltage drop (the voltage is even
enhanced compared to the base case) and grid maximum
1000 loading is verified.
800 REFERENCES
600 [1] M. K. Gray and W. G. Morsi, “Power Quality Assessment in
Distribution Systems Embedded With Plug-In Hybrid and Battery
400
Power (kW)

Electric Vehicles,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 30, no. 2, pp.
200 663–671, Mar. 2015.
[2] F. Un-Noor, S. Padmanaban, L. Mihet-Popa, M. Mollah, and E.
0 Hossain, “A Comprehensive Study of Key Electric Vehicle (EV)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Components, Technologies, Challenges, Impacts, and Future

-200
-400
-600
Time (h)
Fig. 10. PEVs total injected/absorbed power to the grid.
Fig. 11. PEVs SOC profiles for CS at bus 18.
The SOC profiles of PEVs connected at bus 18 is shown
in Fig. 11. During the peak periods the SOC of PEVs start to
decrease as they inject power to grid, this discharging is
constrained with the DOD limit which is 60%. PEVs which
are connected during the peak period (at hours 19:00 and
20:00) will participate in the peak shaving for a shorter time.
Thereby, their battery SOC does not reach the minimum limit.
On the other hand, the charging of the vehicles is managed
during the valley period and at 7:00 all the vehicles are charged
to their maximum limit.
Direction of Development,” Energies, vol. 10, no. 8, p. 1217, Aug.
2017.
[3] M. Nour, H. Ramadan, A. Ali, and C. Farkas, “Impacts of plug-in
electric vehicles charging on low voltage distribution network,” in
2018 International Conference on Innovative Trends in Computer
Engineering (ITCE), 2018, pp. 357–362.
[4] E. Sortomme, M. M. Hindi, S. D. J. MacPherson, and S. S.
Venkata, “Coordinated Charging of Plug-In Hybrid Electric
Vehicles to Minimize Distribution System Losses,” IEEE Trans.
Smart Grid, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 198–205, Mar. 2011.
[5] Z. Wang and S. Wang, “Grid power peak shaving and valley filling
using vehicle-to-grid systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., vol. 28,
no. 3, pp. 1822–1829, 2013.
[6] M. A. López, S. de la Torre, S. Martín, and J. A. Aguado,
“Demand-side management in smart grid operation considering
electric vehicles load shifting and vehicle-to-grid support,” Int. J.
Electr. Power Energy Syst., vol. 64, pp. 689–698, Jan. 2015.
[7] X. Xi and R. Sioshansi, “Using Price-Based Signals to Control
Plug-In Electric Vehicle Fleet Charging,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid,
vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 1451–1464, 2014.
[8] J. Soares, Z. Vale, B. Canizes, and H. Morais, “Multi-objective
parallel particle swarm optimization for day-ahead Vehicle-to-Grid
scheduling,” in 2013 IEEE Computational Intelligence
Applications in Smart Grid (CIASG), 2013, pp. 138–145.
[9] J. Pouladi, M. B. Bannae Sharifian, and S. Soleymani, “A New
Model of Charging Demand Related to Plug-in Hybrid Electric
Vehicles Aggregation,” Electr. Power Components Syst., vol. 45,
no. 9, pp. 964–979, 2017.
[10] R.-C. Leou, C.-L. Su, and C.-N. Lu, “Stochastic Analyses of
Electric Vehicle Charging Impacts on Distribution Network,”
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 1055–1063, May 2014.
[11] K.-L. Du and M. N. S. Swamy, “Particle Swarm Optimization,” in
Search and Optimization by Metaheuristics, Cham: Springer
International Publishing, 2016, pp. 153–173.
[12] G. Celli, E. Ghiani, F. Pilo, G. Pisano, and G. G. Soma, “Particle
Swarm Optimization for minimizing the burden of electric vehicles
in active distribution networks,” in 2012 IEEE Power and Energy
Society General Meeting, 2012, pp. 1–7.
[13] M. E. Baran and F. F. Wu, “Network reconfiguration in distribution
systems for loss reduction and load balancing,” IEEE Trans. Power
Deliv., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1401–1407, Apr. 1989.

View publication stats