Sustainable Energy, Grids and Networks 36 (2023) 101191

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Energy, Grids and Networks

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/segan

Assessment of hybrid transfer learning method for forecasting EV profile

and system voltage using limited EV charging data
Paul Banda, Muhammed A. Bhuiyan, Kazi N. Hasan *, Kevin Zhang
School of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The number of electric vehicles (EV) is increasing exponentially, significantly affecting the planning and oper­
Electric vehicle ation of future electricity grids, albeit the availability of EV data is very limited to perform power system studies.
Forecasting To overcome the poor forecasting accuracy associated with limited available data, this research proposes a time-
Transfer learning
series-based hybrid transfer learning forecasting approach, namely CNN-BiLSTM (Convolutional Neural Network
Time series
Voltage profile
– Bidirectional Long Short-Term Memory) to forecast EV charging profile. Additionally, the proposed algorithm
has been applied to forecast network voltage from the EV data without performing power flow. EV charging
demand datasets collected over a year for residential, slow commercial, and fast commercial charging stations
and their corresponding voltage profiles have been used to test the effectiveness of the proposed hybrid transfer
learning framework. The results confirm the improved accuracy of the proposed hybrid CNN-BiLSTM model
compared to the conventional CNN model, newly created models in predicting the EV charging demand and
voltage profiles.

1. Introduction separable-stationary data if the data is adequately prepared and the

The number of electric vehicles (EVs) adoption is expected to in­
crease exponentially in the next decade due to favourable government
policies, innovation and incentives [1]. Many countries in the world are
still in the race for early adoption of EVs. As the number of EVs increases,
the EV charging demand will increase, and hence, it would be chal­
lenging to manage the electricity grid with a high penetration of EVs [2].
Moreover, secure operation of the power grid would be challenging with
the deployment of large capacity fast EV charging stations [3]. There­
fore, forecasting the EV charging demand and estimating their likely
impact on the grid is critical for the secure operation of the electricity
grids.
1.1. Overview of the forecasting techniques
model is appropriately tuned [4].
On the other hand, AI-based methods involve using computers to do
tasks that typically require human intelligence, such as learning and
pattern recognition. The AI-based techniques include genetic program­
ming (GP), machine learning, reinforcement learning [5] and deep
learning-based methods, such as LR (Linear Regression), SVR (Support
Vector Regression), CNN (Convolutional Neural Network), and LSTM
(Long Short-Term Memory) methods [6]. The EV charging demand
forecasting has been conducted by using fuzzy clustering and back­
propagation neural network models [7], evolutionary optimisation
techniques [8], and various data mining techniques [9]. Early detection
of cyber attack on fast EV charging stations has been demonstrated by
using machine-learning approach [10]. Furthermore, decision trees,
multi-layer perceptron, and support vector machines have been imple­
mented for EV charging demand forecasting [9].

Data-driven forecasting techniques can be broadly classified into two

categories: (1) traditional time series (TS) models and (2) artificial in­
telligence (AI)-based techniques. The TS-based methods include ARMA
(Autoregressive Moving Average), ARIMA (Autoregressive Integrated
Moving Average), and SARIMA (Seasonal Autoregressive Integrated
Moving Average) models. Classical TS models perform best for linearly
1.2. Applications of deep and hybrid deep learning models
The deep learning methods are empowered by unprecedented
learning ability from extensive data analysis for solving challenging
forecasting tasks [11]. These methods [12,13] have shown outstanding

* Correspondence to: School of Engineering, RMIT University, 402 Swanston Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia.
E-mail address: kazi.hasan@rmit.edu.au (K.N. Hasan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.segan.2023.101191
Received 19 May 2023; Received in revised form 29 August 2023; Accepted 15 October 2023
Available online 24 October 2023
2352-4677/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc/4.0/).
P. Banda et al.
performance in pattern recognition [14], image classification, and
medical sciences [15–17].
There are applications of a hybrid lion algorithm, which is a com­
bination of CNN and LSTM, that has been used for EV charging load
forecasting [11,17]. Estimation of the EV import/charging and
export/discharging capability to the grid has been identified by using
deep learning and attention mechanism [18], and deep learning and
NANN (nonlinear autoregressive neural network) [19]. The bidirec­
tional LSTM has shown superior performance over the unidirectional
LSTM in applications such as phoneme classification [20], speech
recognition [21], stock market forecasting [22], and text classification
[23]. Studies implementing different architectures of the hybrid
CNN-BiLSTM have shown effective results in the speech recognition
domain [24,25]. EV charging demand data belongs to the time-series
domain, which has a different data structure (1-dimensional) to
speech recognition (2-dimensional); thus, it requires a different data
handling protocol.
1.3. Applications of transfer learning models
The advancement in the machine learning approaches leads to
transfer learning "that focuses on storing knowledge gained while
solving one problem and applying it to a different but related problem".
Such as the knowledge gained while learning to ’forecast residential EV
charging profile’ could be applied to ’forecast commercial EV charging
profile’. The advantage of the transfer learning approach is that it can
predict the system voltage profile by analysing the EV charging profiles
(without running a power flow solution), which may provide quick in­
puts to system operational decisions.
Transfer learning has attracted attention in image processing [26],
natural language processing tasks [27],[28], time-series classification
[29], and building energy forecasting [30]. These studies have mostly
applied the CNN model. Two encoder-decoder hybrid models were
proposed for parameter-sharing neural network transfer learning to
predict hourly residential EV energy using limited data [31]. In [31], the
authors proposed two hybrid transfer learning frameworks that out­
performed the conventional CNN model for EV charging demand pre­
diction using limited data. An extension to [31], in this study we
explore; (i) the effect of different feature extraction strategies to deter­
mine whether freezing only the CNN module or freezing both CNN and
BiLSTM modules and retraining the last dense layer can lead to different
results in EV charging demand prediction, and (ii) the CNN-BiLSTM
transfer learning is tested for voltage forecasting using limited data
and its performance is compared against its new and retrained
CNN-BiLSTM models.
1.4. Contributions of the study
The limited availability of the EV charging demand dataset is a
barrier to accurate EV charging profile prediction, which adversely af­
fects power systems. This study proposes a solution to this latter problem
by using a hybrid transfer learning strategy that improves EV charging
demand and voltage profiles’ prediction with a limited dataset using the
knowledge learned from a data-rich EV charging/voltage dataset (such
as ’forecasting residential EV charging profile’). Dependencies in the
charging demand or voltage profiles can be leveraged to forecast a
related dataset (such as ’forecasting commercial EV charging profile’ or
’forecasting system voltage profile caused by the residential EV charging
profile’).
To the best of our knowledge, no study has applied the CNN-BiLSTM
hybrid transfer learning model to predict EV loads and subsequent
network voltage profiles. This prediction study would benefit future grid
planning and operational decision-making while the scarcity of EV data
exists.
With the rapid integration of EVs into the grid, the total energy de­
mand will increase, and subsequent voltage profiles of the low-voltage
2
Sustainable Energy, Grids and Networks 36 (2023) 101191
networks will be significantly affected. The low-voltage network is
spread over a wide geographical area that spans the street level – home-
to-home. It is impossible to perform power flow studies for such a large
network to maintain the operational limits (as defined by the grid
codes). In such a case, the transfer learning approach could be per­
formed to analyze the EV profiles for predicting the network voltage
profiles. This approach will be used for screening purposes to identify
the likely voltage problems in the network. Once the vulnerable part of
the network is identified, a power flow simulation could be performed
for the selected part of the network where the voltage problem is
identified by the transfer learning approach. This sequential approach
will reduce the computational requirement and time for the whole
network simulation.
Therefore, this research presents the following significant
contributions:
• Exploring feature extraction strategies using the hybrid CNN-BiLSTM
transfer learning model’s architectural variations to apply for (resi­
dential to commercial and vice versa) EV charging demand predic­
tion with limited available data.
• Demonstration of network voltage profile prediction by using the
hybrid CNN-BiLSTM transfer learning models. This would enable
quick prediction of the system voltage without performing a power
flow study.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows: Section 2 discusses the
proposed transfer learning modelling approach, Section 3 provides a
highlight of the dataset, Section 4 outlines the results and discussion,
and Section 5 presents the conclusions and future works.
2. Proposed transfer learning modeling approach
2.1. Transfer learning
Transfer learning is the process of using information gathered during
a task (TS ) from a source domain (DS ) to improve a task (TT ) in the target
domain (DT ). Transfer learning differs from conventional machine
learning approaches that assume similar data distributions in the
training and test datasets. The goal of transfer learning is to reduce the
amount of data and computation costs associated with the creation of
customised data-driven models.
The transfer learning formal expression using a single source and
target domain is given as: a domain comprises feature space X and label
space Y, thus the source and target domains are expressed as in (1) and
(2), respectively.
Ds = {(xs1 , ys1 ), (xs2 , ys2 ), ⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅(xsi , ysi ) (1)
DT = {(xT1 , yT1 ), (xT2 , yT2 ), ⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅(xTi , yTi ) (2)
where, xsi and ysi represent the input and corresponding output data
instances in the source domain, respectively. Similarly, xTi and yTi are
input and output instances from the target domain.
Four major approaches can be used to transfer knowledge learnt
from the source domain, namely feature-based, instance-based,
parameter-based, and relation-based strategies [32,33]. The
feature-based approach common with heterogeneous transfer learning
aims to create coincident variables through feature transformation
processes [33]. The instance-based method utilises weighting tech­
niques to weight source data. It assigns greater weights to data sources
more similar to the target domain. The parameter-based transfer
learning reprocesses the model parameters learnt from the source
domain in the target domain. Deep learning models are easily adaptable
to these techniques and have thus seen a more widespread application. A
limited amount of data in the target domains is utilised for fine-tuning
the model. This study has adopted this fine-tuning-based
P. Banda et al. Sustainable Energy, Grids and Networks 36 (2023) 101191

parameter-sharing approach for all transfer learning experiments.
Relational-based transfer learning primarily handles relational data,
where logical relationships and rules are transferred across domains.
Fig. 1 shows a schematic representation of transfer learning, showing
how knowledge transfer differentiates it from the customised traditional
machine learning workflow. In machine learning, EV demand prediction
is per individual datasets (1 and 2). However, in transfer learning,
knowledge learnt while processing EV dataset 1 is transferred in pre­
dicting EV dataset 2, as seen in Fig. 1. This knowledge can be in the form
of model parameters, features, data instances etc. The procedure of the
transfer learning is shown in Fig. 2.
2.2. Deep learning-based models
The deep learning models employ hierarchical processing using
many layers of architecture and extract features directly from the data
without the need for manual feature extraction [12]. Two deep
learning-based models implemented in this study are discussed below.
2.2.1. Convolutional neural network (CNN)
In performing the EV demand/voltage forecasting, a predetermined
number of EV demand and system voltage data are fed into the con­
volutional layers. In the first step, a one-dimensional convolution of this
data is performed. Then in the next step, the final processing would be
performed by passing the output data from the convolution operation to
the fully connected layers. A CNN operation is expressed, as shown in (3)
[34].
s = (x ∗ w) (3)
where, s is the output (feature map) of the convolution operation, x
represents the input function, and w denotes the weighting function
(kernel). The vector representing the predicted next hour can be
expressed as (4).
̅→
y = yt + yt+1 (4)
̅→
Where y t denotes the predicted EV charging demand at the given
timestep t.
gate, output gate, and forget gate. The three gates control the flow of
information from and into the memory cell [35]. The input gate man­
ages input activations into the memory cells, while the output gate
controls output activations. The forget gate works to keep useful infor­
mation from the previous timestep while filtering out irrelevant
information.
The hidden vector (ht ) in LSTM, which differentiates it from the RNN
(recurrent neural network), can be obtained using the (5− 9) below [36].
it = σ (Wxi xt + Whi ht− 1 + Wci ct− 1 + bI ) (5)
ot = σ ( Wxo xt + Who ht− 1 + Wco ct + b0 ) (6)
( )
ft = σ Wxf xt + Whf ht− 1 + Wcf ct− 1 + bf (7)
ct = ft ct− 1 + it tanh( Wxc xt + Whc ht− 1 + bC ) (8)
ht = ot tanh(ct ) (9)
where it, ot, and ft represent the input gate, output gate, and forget gate
values, respectively. Ct is the memory cell, bi, bo, bf, and bc are the cor­
responding bias values, and σ is the sigmoid function. Wx(i,o,f) , Wh(i,o,f) )
and Wc(i,o,f) represents the weights between input nodes and hidden
nodes, weights between hidden nodes and memory cells, and weights
between the memory cell and output nodes, respectively. The network
output yt is then obtained as expressed in (10) below [36].
yt = Why ht + by (10)
in which,
ht = F(Wxh xt + Whh ht− 1 + bh ) (11)
where xt and yt represent the input and output at time step t, ht and ht− 1
are the hidden states at the time step t and t-1, respectively, Wxh , Whh and
Why are the weight matrices between input and hidden vectors,
different time steps of the hidden vectors and hidden vectors to the
output vectors, bh and by represents the corresponding bias vectors of
weight matrices Whh and Why , respectively. F represents the nonlinear
activation function for hidden nodes, for which the rectified linear unit
function has been implemented [37].

2.2.2. Long short-term memory (LSTM)

The basic unit of the LSTM block comprises the memory block, input

EV dataset 1 Machine Learning

Model I
EV demand
Knowledge prediction I
Transfer

EV dataset 2 Machine Learning

Model II
EV demand
prediction II

Fig. 1. Schematic layout of the operations of transfer learning.

3
P. Banda et al. Sustainable Energy, Grids and Networks 36 (2023) 101191

Compare
predictions
Target domain
EV demand/Voltage Predict using same EV dataset
dataset
Target EV
prediction Target Ev
label prediction

Collect and
Preprocess Source
Train on andCNNBiLSTM
target domainRegression
temporal Hybrid
Analyse predictor:

Fine tuning
feature
data
data dataset and calendar
extractor inputs
dense layer model fine
tuning
Source EV
prediction Training
label pretrained
hybrid model
Source domain
EV demand/ voltage
dataset Target EV
test dataset

Fig. 2. Transfer learning workflow using the proposed CNN-BiLSTM model.

2.2.3. Bidirectional LSTM (BiLSTM)
The operation of the general LSTM works in such a way that remains
unidirectional. In case of the bidirectional LSTM (BiLSTM), it has two
groups of EV sequence – one in the positive time direction and another in
the negative time direction. However, the hidden layers of these two
groups are independent of each other. In such a process, the outputs are
concatenated and linked to the same output layer.
In the BiLSTM architecture, the underlying mathematical represen­
tation is the same as that of the unidirectional LSTM, however the
BiLSTM creates two hidden states at timestep t. The hidden steps are the
f
forward and backward hidden states, which are presented by, Ht and Hbt ,
f directions. The LSTM usually remember the short-term and long-term
respectively. The hidden states Ht and Hbt constitutes the final hidden
state, as follows [38]:
Ht = H ft + H bt
2.3. Proposed hybrid deep CNN-BiLSTM inspired transfer learning
The proposed hybrid CNN-BiLSTM model is developed by fusing
CNN and BiLSTM models discussed above with a fully connected layer
(artificial neural network), as shown in Fig. 3. It is a hybrid model that
accumulates the powerful feature extraction capabilities of the 1D- CNN
module and excellent temporal sequence modelling traits of the LSTM,
which are processed bidirectionally. The 1D-CNN with a BiLSTM model
aims to solve the vanishing gradient problem. In this hybrid system, a
convolutional operation is done by the encoder 1D-CNN module
responsible for interpreting the input sequence from the EV charging
demand/voltage time series. The CNN encoder model outputs a
sequence which is then passed on for interpretation to the BiLSTM model
(decoder) and further temporal sequencing in forward and backward
temporal sequences; thus, by combining the CNN and BiLSTM, which
automatically learns features from sequence data, the hybrid CNN-
(12) BiLSTM model offers improved accuracy.
The CNN-BiLSTM architecture for voltage prediction is discussed as
the one for EV charging demand is similar to the one implemented in
[31] as this work extends this previous work. Fig. 3 illustrates the hybrid
CNN-BiLSTM used for EV voltage-transfer learning. The hybrid
CNN-BiLSTM expect the input EV demand data to have a 3D form

EV database

Fixed Feature extraction Fixed Sequence learning

Max
pooling Bi-LSTM Bi-LSTM

Bi-LSTM Bi-LSTM

Data Bi-LSTM Bi-LSTM

Pre-
Process Conv. Conv.
…….

ing Conv. (32 filters) (16 filters) ……...

(64 filters) Bi-LSTM Bi-LSTM

Flattening
Dense
Convolution & pooling operation BiLSTM operation layer

Fig. 3. Implemented CNN-BiLSTM model for EV voltage prediction and transfer learning.

4
P. Banda et al.
(sample, input, and timestep). The simulated system voltage with and
without EV penetration are input into the CNN encoder architecture for
reading. The first convolutional layer reads across this input sequence
using a filter of size three timesteps (1×3) and then projects its output
onto 32 feature maps. The second convolutional layer performs a similar
operation on the previous layer’s output in an attempt to expose more
salient features.
The max-pooling layer simplifies the feature map sizes while pre­
serving the most significant signal values. The final extracted features
maps from the max-pooling layer are flattened into a vector. The vector
is passed to the BiLSTM decoding module, which processes the cell state
forward and backwards before passing the output to the fully connected
layer for forecasting. The decoding BiLSTM model was defined as a
single layer BiLSTM model with 100 neurons. The fully connected layer
with 30 neurons interpreted the features learnt by the BiLSTM layer, and
lastly, the output layer predicts the next hour EV voltage value.
2.4. Input processing
The CNN-BiLSTM model takes the EV time series data and performed
supervised learning. The sliding window method is used to reframe the
EV sequence into input-output variable pairs [39]. The inputs of the
algorithm is the current EV observation at time t and previous EV ob­
servations at times t1, t2, ..., tn, which predict the output EV observation
at time t + 1. The length of the sliding window is defined based on [39].
2.5. Performance evaluation criteria
The assessment of the accuracy of the models has been evaluated
using the root means square error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE),
and R2 evaluation metrics, as presented in (13− 15), where y is the
observed EV charging load, y′ is the predicted EV charging load, and N is
the number of data pairs considered.
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√
√1 ∑ N training the new model (limited data).
RMSE = √ [y − y′]2 (13)
N i=1
1 ∑N
MAE = |y′ − y| (14)
N i=1
Residential EV
EV data
repository
Commercial slow EV
Commercial fast EV
Fig. 4. Conceptual framework of the transfer learning approach for network voltage prediction from EV charging dataset.
5
Sustainable Energy, Grids and Networks 36 (2023) 101191
∑
(y − y′)2
R2 = 1 − ∑ − (15)
(y − y)2
3. Simulation procedure and data collection
3.1. Simulation procedure
The conceptual framework of the transfer learning simulation pro­
cedure has been presented in Fig. 4. The EV charging stations dataset
from many residential, slow commercial, and fast commercial EV
charging stations have been deposited into a data repository. These
datasets are then used for simulation and validation.
A power flow simulation has been performed in a parallel work­
stream using an IEEE test network. The error (RMSE) of the forecasting
has been calculated for all scenarios.
This study highlights the limitations of forecasting with a limited
number of datasets. Hence, it proposes a new hybrid transfer learning
model for EV charging and voltage prediction to overcome that limita­
tion. Therefore, the trajectory of the error with respect to the granularity
of the datasets has been presented in the results.
This section outlines transfer learning implementation using the
discussed hybrid model in the preceding section. The first procedure
involves forecasting residential EV/voltage with a full data complement
in the source domain and saving the weights of this model. To do this,
data is pre-processed, which includes data cleaning, identifying outliers
and filling in missing data and normalisation to allow efficient training.
The saved model is then re-loaded and initialised using saved weights
during training (fine-tuning) with limited data from the target domain
(slow EV/voltage and fast EV/voltage). Test data from the target domain
is used to validate the pre-trained models, and performance is measured
using the evaluation metrics discussed above. The test data sizes range
from almost 0% to full data complement. The selected data size ranges
allow for tracking model performance with increasing data size. The
data size is limited to less than 50%, which presents challenges for
3.2. Electric vehicle (EV) dataset
The EV charging demand dataset is collected over an entire year from
01/09/2017–31/08/2018, equating to 8760 data points, representing
hourly EV charging power (in kilowatt, kW) of a year [40]. The three
Power system approach
System
voltage
profile
Power Flow
Data analytics approach
EV Voltage
forecasting forecasting
Transfer Learning
P. Banda et al.
types of EV charging station data were collected from (i) aggregated
residential [41], (ii) slow commercial [40], and (iii) fast commercial
[40] charging stations. The database records 8760 hourly data points
throughout the entire annual cycle. Table 1 describes the EV charger
types and statistical parameters of the dataset. As a single residential EV
profile is highly random, collective residential EV profiles were created
by grouping data from 100 single residential profiles. The slow com­
mercial profile is collected from a shopping centre. Fast commercial EV
charging station profiles were created from roadside charging station.
The weekday-hourly EV charging demand and the corresponding
voltage profiles are given in Fig. 5 and Fig. 7. The residential EV
charging demand is the highest during weekdays between 5 p.m. and
8 p.m., which coincides with the time most people come home from
work. The lowest EV demand is between 4 a.m. and 8 a.m., when most
people will have stopped charging their EVs. Slow commercial EV
charging demand is highest midweek around 1 p.m., as most people use
their lunch break for a quick charge. The lowest EV demand is on
weekends for slow commercial EV stations. Fast commercial EV demand
shows an irregular demand pattern, with peak demand experienced on
weekdays and weekends. The irregular patterns reflect the random na­
ture in which people charge their vehicles since fast EV charging stations
provide fast charging. The irregular charging patterns cause challenges
during both modelling and transfer learning. In contrast, voltage profiles
in Fig. 7 show the lowest and highest voltage values at the exact times
when the charging demand was highest and lowest, respectively. More
details on this dataset are given in [31].
3.3. System voltage profiles
Power flow studies have been performed using the developed EV
profiles in the IEEE 33 bus test network (Fig. 6) to obtain the voltage
profiles. To illustrate the impact of the consumption of EV charging
stations on the system voltage profile, power flow simulation has been
performed in MATPOWER [42], followed by data processing in MAT­
LAB. Fig. 7 presents the voltage profiles of the power network based on
the 30% EV penetration from residential, slow, and fast EV, respectively,
which is the average of one-year data. The details of the voltage profile
analysis have been presented in [43].
The challenges of voltage forecasting from the EV data are well un­
derstood. The voltage is a local phenomenon of a power network
depending on the network topology, feeder characteristics, system
loading and several other parameters. This study applies a transfer
learning approach to forecast EV charging demand and voltage profiles.
Hence, this voltage forecasting will capture the general trend of EV
loading on the network and its link with system voltage.
4. Results and discussion
Transfer learning is tested in two phases; firstly, from residential EV
(source domain) to fast commercial (target domain) and then to slow
commercial (target domain). The aim is to enhance forecasting in the
target datasets with limited labelled data. Secondly, transfer learning is
tested for voltage forecasting (that is influenced by high EV charging)
using transformed EV datasets. In this experiment, transfer learning is
tested on the voltage profiles caused by residential EVs to fast
Table 1
Different Types of EV Charging Stations and Their Information [40,41].
EV charging EV charger type
stations
Residential In-home plug-in electric vehicle recharging profiles associated with 100
households.
Slow Shopping Centre. Free to park and charge.
Commercial
Fast Roadside charging. Park and ride.
Commercial
6
Sustainable Energy, Grids and Networks 36 (2023) 101191
commercial EVs and vice versa.
The initial training results of the three models on commercial EV
forecasting and voltage forecasting before transfer learning are shown in
Table 2. Both the conventional CNN and hybrid CNN-BiLSTM models are
evaluated during EV forecasting. For the subsequent voltage-transfer
learning experiments, only the proposed CNN-BiLSTM model is
considered and compared against a newly developed and pre-trained
hybrid CNN-BiLSTM. The expectation is for the transfer-based model
to outperform both the new and pre-trained models. Outperforming the
new models will validate the need for transfer learning, and out­
performing the pre-trained model demonstrates that the data distribu­
tions of the source and target datasets are different, which is a
prerequisite for transfer learning.
Algorithms have been implemented in the Python programming
language. The deep learning models have been built using the Keras
(https://keras.io/) library with Tensorflow (https://www.tensorflow.
org/) backend. All experimental tasks have been conducted on a macOS
Mojave (2.90 GHz Intel Core i9 16 GB 2400 MHz DDR4) machine.
4.1. Model definitions
The baseline transfer learning-based model (CNN-T) is compared
against the proposed hybrid CNN-BiLSTM-T transfer learning-based
model to determine which model is superior for the transfer learning
task. The CNN-BiLSTM-Dt model is a pre-trained model created in the
source domain (Table 2) that directly predicts the target dataset and has
no access to the target dataset. The performance of the CNN-BiLSTM-Dt
is expected to be unstable as it does not utilise any data from the target
domain and thus does not account for the differences in data distribution
between the source and target datasets. The newly created CNN-N and
CNN-BiLSTM-N models are non-transfer learning newly created models
compared against the earlier defined transfer learning models. If a new
model without transfer learning can outperform the transfer learning-
based models, we can conclude that transfer learning may not be
necessary; thus, we may need to fine-tune the transfer learning model to
perform better or abandon it. Tested models’ accuracies are evaluated
and compared using the RMSE, MAE, and R2 metrics.
4.2. EV charging forecasting using hybrid transfer learning
The next-hour residential EV charging demand forecast has been
implemented as discussed in [31] using the previous 47 h of historical
residential EV charging demand and calendar inputs, namely, the hours
of the day, the days of the week, the weeks of the year, the months of the
year, the quarters of the year, weekend or not weekend, the days of the
month, and the days of the year.
The data has been split into 70% training, 10% validation, and 20%
testing while maintaining the temporal order of the residential EV de­
mand time series. The developed models have been implemented to
perform forecasts for the next hour. Input data is standardised using the
min-max scaler function [44].
The tested models demonstrated similar performance in predicting
the next-hour charging load for the residential EV (source domain), and
the results are shown in Table 2. The CNN and CNN-BiLSTM models
have comparable RMSE scores of 27.87 kWh and 27.17 kWh.
Nonzero values Maximum Mean Median Mode
(%) (kW) (kW) (kW) (kW)
8739 (99%) 357 130 46
131
8402 (95%) 17 0.55 00
1.33
1455 (16%) 107 00 00
4.77
P. Banda et al. Sustainable Energy, Grids and Networks 36 (2023) 101191

Fig. 5. Weekly hourly EV charging demand patterns for residential, slow commercial, and fast commercial charging stations.

Fig. 6. Single line diagram of the IEEE 33-bus radial distribution system.

Fig. 7. Weekly hourly voltage profiles for residential, slow commercial, and fast commercial charging stations.

Table 2 dominates the baseline CNN-T model in both limited data and adequate
Testing phase results for best-selected models for the residential EV and voltage data availability situations at both tested transfer learning scenarios.
forecasting. The results in Table 3 have also been published in the previous paper
Model RMSE MAE R2 [31]. However, to smoothen the reader’s understanding and for refer­
EV forecasting
ence to the following discussed sections, we briefly summarise the
CNN 27.87 22.13 0.86 results.
CNN-BiLSTM 27.17 21.25 0.87
Voltage forecasting 4.2.2. Comparing the different hybrid model architectures on transfer
CNN-BiLSTM-Residential 0.006 0.005 0.79
learning
CNN-BiLSTM-Fast commercial 0.006 0.004 0.33
CNN-BiLSTM-Slow commercial 0.008 0.006 0.25 In this study segment, an investigation was set up to determine which
feature extraction strategy is more effective for EV charging prediction
using transfer learning. Precisely, two feature extraction strategies were
4.2.1. Performances for EV forecasting using transfer learning tested, freezing only the encoder module (CNN part of the hybrid model)
In this section, a comparison is made between two transfer learning while retraining the dense layer. The second strategy involves freezing
methods to show which transfer learning method performs better. the weights of both the encoder and decoder modules and retraining
Table 3 shows the findings from this trial. only the fully connected layers (dense layer) weights using target data.
When comparing the transfer learning-based models, it is observed The investigation is tested on the residential EV to slow commercial EV
that the hybrid-based transfer learning models outperform the baseline and residential EV to fast commercial EV transfer learning scenarios, and
CNN-T model at most tested data sizes (17 out of 20 instances). The the results are shown in Table 4.
latter points to the effectiveness of the hybrid model’s architecture in According to Table 4, for the residential to slow commercial transfer
enhancing transfer learning. The hybrid CNN-BiLSTM-T model learning scenario, freezing both the CNN and BiLSTM modules resulted

7
P. Banda et al. Sustainable Energy, Grids and Networks 36 (2023) 101191

Table 3
Comparison of the best performing transfer learning methods.

Residential EV to slow EV Residential EV to fast EV

Data
CNN-T CNN-BiLSTM -T CNN-T CNN-BiLSTM -T
size
RMSE MAE RMSE MAE RMSE MAE RMSE MAE
12 44.87 39.23 0.08 0.07 22.64 18.54 42.9 36.33
24 0.26 0.25 0.39 0.39 57.77 51.74 32.29 29.58
36 1.05 1.04 0.42 0.41 44.24 36.35 19.7 18.7
48 2.56 2 0.82 0.04 45.77 39.07 42.14 36.02
60 0.27 0.26 0.24 0.19 27.13 19.05 12.82 10.21
72 1.69 1.5 1.43 1.11 33.3 26.81 22.51 17.92
96 2.17 1.21 2.32 1.32 27.67 20.95 18.73 15.24
120 2.37 1.58 2.27 1.62 25.18 20.06 22.95 18.01
1200 1.25 0.65 1.4 0.62 28.03 21.38 25.9 20.28
6961 1.99 1.17 1.38 0.98 26.2 20.13 24.58 19.61

Table 4
Comparing the transfer learning strategies.

Residential to slow commercial EV Residential to fast commercial EV

Data Freeze CNN Freeze CNN + Freeze CNN Freeze CNN +
size only BiLSTM only BiLSTM
RMSE MAE RMSE MAE RMSE MAE RMSE MAE
12 0.15 0.13 0.08 0.07 29.06 29.06 42.9 36.33
24 0.66 0.66 0.39 0.39 47.57 47.57 32.29 29.58
36 0.06 0.05 0.42 0.41 48.94 48.94 19.7 18.7
48 0.8 0.45 0.82 0.04 101.59 101.59 42.14 36.02
60 0.1 0.09 0.24 0.19 40.25 40.25 12.82 10.21
72 1.56 1.25 1.43 1.11 21.88 21.88 22.51 17.92
96 2.87 1.69 2.32 1.32 22.15 22.15 18.73 15.24
120 3.77 2.62 2.27 1.62 25.11 25.11 22.95 18.01
1200 1.51 0.8 1.4 0.62 26.6 26.6 25.9 20.28
6961 1.47 1.03 1.38 0.98 26.74 26.74 24.58 19.61

in lower error scores except for data size instances 36, 48 and 60 (3 out
of 10). In the residential to fast commercial transfer learning scenario, 8
out of 10 instances had lower error scores if the CNN and BiLSTM
modules were frozen and only the dense layer was retrained. The results
generally show better performance if both the CNN and the BiLSTM
model’s weights were frozen while retraining the dense layers weights
with the target dataset. These results further support the importance of a
hybrid model in enhancing transfer learning compared to using the in­
dividual CNN model. The combined encoder and decoder modules act as
feature extractors in this architecture and have better information
abstraction capabilities than a single CNN feature extractor. The com­
bined frozen CNN and BiLSTM feature extraction strategy is adopted for
voltage forecasting and subsequent transfer learning experiments. The
dark colour in Table 4 represents the frozen layers of the CNN-BiLSTM
model.
In the residential EV to fast commercial EV transfer learning
schemes, the most influential architecture involves freezing the weights
of both the encoder and decoder models and retraining the dense layer.
The results confirm this strategy’s effectiveness as most data size in­
stances (8 out of 10) outperformed the other approach (freezing the CNN
weights only) except at data instances 12 and 72. In the residential EV to
slow commercial EV scheme, 7 out of 10 findings confirm the superiority
of freezing both the encoder and decoder weights during the training of
hybrid models. While no clear trend could be observed, freezing both the
encoder and decoder modules and retraining the dense layers is
preferred when using hybrid architectures in transfer learning settings.
This approach is adopted for transfer learning in voltage forecasting
tasks discussed below.
4.3. Voltage forecasting using hybrid transfer learning
The next-hour voltage forecasting was the most challenging for the
tested models. This can be attributed to many electrical appliances
having different electrical usage signatures (at different times). As such,
they present significant challenges during modelling. As seen in Table 2,
predicting residential voltage profiles (source domain) was relatively
easier for the CNN and CNN-BiLSTM models, while the fast and com­
mercial EV voltage profiles were particularly challenging. The R2 scores
for predicting the next hour of voltage profile for residential, fast, and
slow voltage profiles are 0.79, 0.35, and 0.23, respectively. The poor
performance during fast and slow voltage prediction is expected to
negatively impact transfer learning results since the models were not
adequately trained.
The initial transfer learning test for voltage forecasting involved
comparing the transfer learning-based CNN-BiLSTM-T model’s perfor­
mance against the newly created CNN-BiLSTM-N model. The rationale is
that a transfer learning-based model should better predict the target
dataset than a newly developed model since it uses ’knowledge’ learned
from the source dataset. The results from this experiment are given in
Table 5 and illustrated in Fig. 8.

8
P. Banda et al. Sustainable Energy, Grids and Networks 36 (2023) 101191

Table 5
RMSE Comparison of a new and transfer learning-based models for voltage forecasting.

Scenario 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 200 250 300 450 500 550 600 800 1200 4200 6200
CNN-
Residential EV commercial EV
Fast commercial Residential EV

0.334 0.548 0.363 0.047 0.041 0.032 0.077 0.014 0.017 0.018 0.017 0.023 0.019 0.038 0.008 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.007 0.014 0.018 0.014
BiLSTM-T
CNN-
to fast

0.749 0.822 0.064 0.139 0.129 0.232 0.312 0.257 0.196 0.125 0.165 0.068 0.074 0.057 0.010 0.013 0.005 0.022 0.018 0.018 0.008 0.006
BiLSTM-N
CNN-
0.031 0.018 0.024 0.035 0.031 0.035 0.030 0.033 0.033 0.034 0.033 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.032 0.033 0.048 0.055
BiLSTM-Dt
CNN-
0.499 0.594 0.465 0.024 0.053 0.020 0.083 0.028 0.035 0.025 0.043 0.015 0.015 0.023 0.017 0.013 0.016 0.016 0.018 0.012 0.006 0.011
BiLSTM-T
CNN-
EV to

0.337 0.436 0.095 0.010 0.085 0.221 0.080 0.043 0.033 0.040 0.055 0.042 0.027 0.046 0.026 0.027 0.011 0.022 0.036 0.008 0.006 0.008
BiLSTM-N
CNN-
0.077 0.059 0.058 0.060 0.059 0.067 0.062 0.058 0.059 0.057 0.055 0.058 0.059 0.055 0.061 0.060 0.059 0.060 0.054 0.058 0.055 0.053
BiLSTM-Dt

Residential EV to Fast Commercial EV Forecasting Fast Commercial EV to Residential EV Forecasting

1 1

0.1 0.1
RMSE

RMSE
0.01 0.01

0.001 0.001
1200
4200
6200
12
24
36
48
60
72
84
96
108
120
132
200
250
300
450
500
550
600
800

1200
4200
6200
48
12
24
36

60
72
84
96

200
108
120
132

250
300
450
500
550
600
800
CNN-BiLSTM-T CNN-BiLSTM-N CNN-BiLSTM-Dt CNN-BiLSTM-T CNN-BiLSTM-N CNN-BiLSTM-Dt

Fig. 8. RMSE comparison between the fast commercial EV to slow commercial EV and slow commercial EV to fast commercial EV.

4.3.1. Transfer learning for residential EV voltage to the fast-commercial
EV voltage
According to the RMSE scores presented in Table 5, the transfer
learning-based CNN-BiLSTM-T outperforms the newly created model
CNN-BiLSTM-N. Interestingly it outperformed (for a limited time) the
CNN-BiLSTM-Dt model trained on a residential dataset but is not
exposed to the target dataset labels. The target data samples before the
4th day did not provide valuable information to enhance transfer
learning. However, at the 96th-hour mark (four days) and beyond, the
CNN-BiLSTM-T model supersedes the CNN-BiLSTM-Dt model for all
tested samples. The transfer learning-based model outperformed the
new model at all data instances except the 36th-hour data size instance
and at 4200 and 6200 training samples (almost 50%). After 4200 h, the
new model (CNN-BiLSTM-N) outperforms the CNN-BiLSTM-T model.
The latter is expected as the new model will have seen adequate data
samples (50%) as in the traditional model prediction scenarios. Since in
transfer learning, the interest is in instances where there is limited data
size (below 4200), this finding suggests that the effect of weight initi­
alisation outweighed the differences in data distribution, thus validating
the use of transfer learning.
Fig. 8 shows a visual representation of how the RMSE values for the
three models vary as the training data size increases. A sharp decline in
the RMSE score is observed after 24 h for the CNN-BiLSTM-T model, and
it continues to decline. The new model remains with the highest RMSE
until the last two data instances, where it records the least RMSE scores,
demonstrating the importance of adequate data in learning a good
model. The pre-trained model remains constant throughout.
4.3.2. Transfer learning for fast commercial EV voltage to residential EV
voltage
The results of a reverse transfer learning scheme in which knowledge
learned from the fast commercial EV voltage prediction is transferred to
predict the next-hour residential EV voltage profile are shown in Table 5
and Fig. 8. In comparison to the new model, the CNN-BiLSTM T model
starts with higher RMSE scores but recovers after 48 h. The transfer-
based model dominates the new model until the 1200th data size
instance and an isolated high RMSE point at the 550th sample size.
Beyond 1200 h the new model dominates again as expected as it will
have amassed adequate training examples. A similar trend with earlier
transfer learning schemes is also observed, where the CNN-BiLSTM-Dt
dominates the CNN-BiLSTM-T model on the first data instances up to
the 36th hour and at the 84th hour after which the transfer-based model
takes over superiority. While the pre-trained model CNN-BiLSTM-Dt
maintained very low RMSE scores at tested data instances, it is
observed that it also has the least standard deviation on its RMSE scores
on both transfer learning schemes. This low standard deviation on the
RMSE score shows no improvement in model performance as data size
increases (or decreases), which is attributed to non-exposure to the
target data (as per experiment design).
4.4. Main findings and underlying justification
The experiments conducted led to three main findings, which are
summarised below:
1) The proposed hybrid transfer learning (CNN-BiLSTM) model per­
forms better than the baseline CNN-N transfer learning model, new
and pre-trained CNN-BiLSTM models in predicting the EV charging
and network voltage profiles.
2) A transfer learning feature extraction strategy involving freezing
both the encoder and decoder models and retraining only the dense
layer weights yielded better results as opposed to just freezing the
encoder CNN module of the CNN-BiLSTM model. Understanding

9
P. Banda et al.
transfer learning training strategy is useful for improving accuracy,
model design and interpretability.
3) The proposed approach could be used for a limited number of
datasets. However, a very low number of data size instances (below
36 h for EV charging demand and below 48 for voltage prediction)
could not provide enough helpful information to enhance prediction
in the target domain (transfer learning) in the studied datasets.
5. Conclusions and future works
This paper presents a novel hybrid transfer learning approach to
predict EV charging demand and network voltage profiles using EV
charging datasets. The CNN model is the standard model for transfer
learning in various domains due to its enabling properties. Experiments
using EV charging demand datasets and voltage profiles were set up to
determine the performance of the hybrid CNN-BiLSTM in transfer
learning settings. The transfer-based hybrid model was then compared
to the commonly used CNN transfer-based model, a newly created
hybrid model and a pre-trained hybrid model in the designed transfer
learning experiments. Improved accuracy has been achieved by the
proposed hybrid model compared to newly created, pre-trained hybrid
models and the standard CNN model by employing the proposed method
on datasets with as low as 48 h of charging demand for EV forecasting
and 60 h for voltage forecasting.
This research has demonstrated the following contributions:
• Demonstration of the feature extraction strategies using the hybrid
CNN-BiLSTM transfer learning model’s architectural variations to
apply for (residential to commercial and vice versa) EV charging
demand prediction with limited available data.
• Demonstration of network voltage profile prediction by using the
hybrid CNN-BiLSTM transfer learning models. This would enable
quick prediction of the system voltage without performing a power
flow study and subsequently reduce the computational burden for
power grid operation.
With high integration of EVs into the grid, the total system load will
increase significantly. Subsequently, the voltage profile of the low-
voltage networks will be affected. As the low-voltage network is
spread over a wide geographical area and the size of the distribution grid
is significantly large – it would not be possible to perform power flow
simulation for the whole network. The transfer learning approach
described in this paper will be performed to train models with the EV
profiles to predict the voltage profiles. This approach will be used for
screening purposes to identify the likely voltage problems in the
network. Then, a power flow simulation will be performed for the
selected part of the network where the voltage problem is identified by
the transfer learning approach. Consequently, the voltage regulating
equipment could be installed into the network where required as veri­
fied by the power flow simulation. This sequential approach will reduce
the computational requirement and time for the whole network
simulation.
This study pioneers transfer learning in EV charging demand and
subsequent network voltage forecasting (without using power system
simulation). Future work involves using additional variables that affect
the EV dataset such as meteorological variables, and socio-economic
factors data to EV forecasting which consequently improves transfer
learning. Defining a similarity index between the source and target
datasets will help identify which datasets are similar as transfer learning
is enhanced when datasets are similar. Introducing more transfer
learning models to provide a comprehensive assessment of transfer
learning-based models helps in model selection and designing models
for improved prediction under limited data.
10
Sustainable Energy, Grids and Networks 36 (2023) 101191
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data Availability
Data will be made available on request.
References
[1] M. Grubb, C. Vrolijk, D. Brack, Routledge revivals: kyoto protocol. A Guide and
Assessment, Routledge, 1999–2018.
[2] D. Hilson, Managing the impacts of renewably powered electric vehicles on
distribution networks, Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) (2019).
[3] C. Zhang, Z. Yang, K. Li, Modeling of electric vehicle batteries using RBF neural
networks, in 2014 International Conference on Computing, in: Management and
Telecommunications (ComManTel), IEEE, 2014, pp. 116–121.
[4] R. J. Hyndman and G. Athanasopoulos, Forecasting: principles and practice, 2013,
URL: https://www. otexts. org/fpp [accessed 2018–02-15][WebCite Cache ID
6xFJlXCQI], 2017.
[5] M. Ahrarinouri, M. Rastegar, K. Karami, A.R. Seifi, Distributed reinforcement
learning energy management approach in multiple residential energy hubs, ISSN
2352-4677, Sustain. Energy, Grids Netw. Volume 32 (2022), 100795, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.segan.2022.100795.
[6] M.Q. Raza, A. Khosravi, A review on artificial intelligence based load demand
forecasting techniques for smart grid and buildings, Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. vol.
50 (2015) 1352–1372.
[7] W.G. Zhang, F.X. Xie, M. Huang, J. Li, Y.F. Li, Research on short-term load
forecasting methods of electric buses charging station, Power Syst. Prot. Control
vol. 41 (4) (2013) 61–66.
[8] D. Niu, T. Ma, H. Wang, H. Liu, Y. Huang, Short-term load forecasting of electric
vehicle charging station based on KPCA and CNN parameters optimised by NSGA
II, Electr. Power Constr. no. 3 (2017) 12.
[9] S. Xydas, C. Marmaras, L.M. Cipcigan, A. Hassan, and N. Jenkins, Electric vehicle
load forecasting using data mining methods, IET Hybrid and Electric Vehicles
Conference, 06-07 November, London, UK, 2013.
[10] Z.S. Warraich, W.G. Morsi, Early detection of cyber–physical attacks on fast
charging stations using machine learning considering vehicle-to-grid operation in
microgrids, ISSN 2352-4677, Sustain. Energy, Grids Netw. Volume 34 (2023),
101027, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.segan.2023.101027.
[11] J. Zhu, et al., Electric vehicle charging load forecasting: a comparative study of
deep learning approaches, Energies vol. 12 (14) (2019) 2692.
[12] Y. LeCun, Y. Bengio, G. Hinton, Deep learning, nature, 521 (7553) (2015)
436–444.
[13] S.G. Kim, J.Y. Jung, M.K. Sim, A two-step approach to solar power generation
prediction based on weather data using machine learning, Sustainability 11 (5)
(2019) 1501.
[14] J. Long, E. Shelhamer, and T. Darrell, Fully convolutional networks for semantic
segmentation, in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and
pattern recognition, 2015, pp. 3431–3440.
[15] D. Cireşan, U. Meier, J. Schmidhuber, Multi-column deep neural networks for
image classification, Prepr. arXiv 1202 (2012) 2745.
[16] Z. Liang, G. Zhang, J.X. Huang, Q.V. Hu, Deep learning for healthcare decision
making with EMRs, in 2014, in: IEEE Int. Conf. on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine
(BIBM), IEEE, 2014, pp. 556–559.
[17] Y. Li, Y. Huang, M. Zhang, Short-term load forecasting for electric vehicle charging
station based on niche immunity lion algorithm and convolutional neural network,
Energies vol. 11 (5) (2018) 1253.
[18] M. Longo, S.M. Miraftabzadeh, High-resolution PV power prediction model based
on the deep learning and attention mechanism, ISSN 2352-4677, Sustain. Energy,
Grids Netw. 34 (2023), 101025, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.segan.2023.101025.
[19] H.S. Nogay, Estimating the aggregated available capacity for vehicle to grid
services using deep learning and Nonlinear Autoregressive Neural Network, ISSN
2352-4677, Sustain. Energy, Grids Netw. 29 (2022), 100590, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.segan.2021.100590.
[20] A. Graves, J. Schmidhuber, Framewise phoneme classification with bidirectional
LSTM and other neural network architectures, Neural Netw. vol. 18 (5–6) (2005)
602–610.
[21] A. Graves, N. Jaitly, A.-rA. R. Mohamed, Hybrid speech recognition with deep
bidirectional LSTM, 2013 IEEE Workshop Autom. Speech Recognit. Underst.
(2013) 273–278 (IEEE).
[22] K. A. Althelaya, E. S. M. El-Alfy, and S. Mohammed, Evaluation of bidirectional
lstm for short-and long-term stock market prediction, in 2018 9th international
conference on information and communication systems (ICICS), 2018, pp.
151–156: IEEE.
[23] G. Liu, J. Guo, Bidirectional LSTM with attention mechanism and convolutional
layer for text classification, Neurocomputing vol. 337 (2019) 325–338.
[24] V. Passricha, R.K. Aggarwal, A hybrid of deep CNN and bidirectional LSTM for
automatic speech recognition, ( Engl. ), J. Intell. Syst. 29 (1) (2020) 1261, 01 Jan.
2020.
P. Banda et al.
[25] Q. Zhang, Y. Li, Y. Hu, X. Zhao, An encrypted speech retrieval method based on
deep perceptual hashing and CNN-BiLSTM, IEEE Access, 8 (2020) 148556–148569.
[26] C. Szegedy et al., Going deeper with convolutions, in Proceedings of the IEEE
conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2015, pp. 1–9.
[27] D. Bahdanau, K. Cho, and Y. Bengio, Neural machine translation by jointly learning
to align and translate, [1409.0473] (arxiv.org), 2014.
[28] I. Sutskever O. Vinyals Q. V. Le Sequence to sequence learning with neural
networks (neurips.cc) 2014.
[29] H.I. Fawaz, G. Forestier, J. Weber, L. Idoumghar, P.A. Muller, Transfer learning for
time series classification, 2018 IEEE Int. Conf. Big Data (Big Data) (2018)
1367–1376.
[30] C. Fan, et al., Statistical investigations of transfer learning-based methodology for
short-term building energy predictions, Applied Energy 262 (2020), 114499.
[31] P. Banda, M.A. Bhuiyan, K.N. Hasan, K. Zhang, A. Song. Timeseries based deep
hybrid transfer learning frameworks: A case study of electric vehicle energy
prediction, International Conference on Computational Science, Krakow, Poland,
2021, pp. 259–272, 16–18 June.
[32] S. J. Pan, Q. Yang, A survey on transfer learning, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge
and Data Engineering, 22(10), 1345 - 1359, 2010.
[33] O. Day, T.M. Khoshgoftaar, A survey on heterogeneous transfer learning, Journal of
Big Data, 4 (1) (2017) 1–42.
[34] T.Y. Kim, S.B. Cho, Predicting residential energy consumption using CNN-LSTM
neural networks, Energy vol. 182 (2019) 72–81.
[35] F.U.M. Ullah, A. Ullah, I.U. Haq, S. Rho, S.W. Baik, Short-term prediction of
residential power energy consumption via CNN and multi-layer bi-directional
LSTM networks, IEEE Access, vol. 8 (2019) 123369–123380.
11
Sustainable Energy, Grids and Networks 36 (2023) 101191
[36] Y. LeCun, Y. Bengio, Convolutional networks for images, speech, and time series,
Handb. brain Theory Neural Netw. vol. 3361 (10) (1995) 1995.
[37] F.A. Gers, J. Schmidhuber, Recurrent nets that time and count, in: Proceedings of
the IEEE-INNS-ENNS International Joint Conference on Neural Networks. IJCNN
2000. Neural Computing: New Challenges and Perspectives for the New
Millennium 3, IEEE, 2000, pp. 189–194.
[38] S. Hochreiter, J. Schmidhuber, Long short-term memory, Neural Comput. vol. 9 (8)
(1997) 1735–1780.
[39] V. Nair, G.E. Hinton. Rectified linear units improve restricted boltzmann machines,
ICML, 2010.
[40] Dandee_City_Council. (2019). Electric Vehicle Charging Data. Available: https://
data.dundeecity.gov.uk/ dataset/ev-charging-data.
[41] M. Muratori, M.J. Moran, E. Serra, G. Rizzoni, Highly-resolved modeling of
personal transportation energy consumption in the United States,, Energy vol. 58
(2013) 168–177.
[42] R.D. Zimmerman, C.E. Murillo-Sanchez, R.J. Thomas, MATPOWER: steady-state
operations, planning and analysis tools for power systems research and education
(Feb), IEEE Trans. Power Syst. vol. 26 (1) (2011) 12–19 (Feb).
[43] K. N. Hasan, K. M. Muttaqi, P. Borboa, J. Scira, Z. Zhang, M. Leishman,
Measurement-based electric vehicle load profile and its impact on power system
operation, 9th International Conference on Power and Energy Systems (ICPES), p.
1–6, Perth, Australia, Dec 10–12, 2019.
[44] F. Pedregosa, et al., Scikit-learn: machine learning in python, J. Mach. Learn. Res.
vol. 12 (Oct) (2011) 2825–2830.