Coordinated Electric Vehicles Fast-Charging

Considering Time and Location Management

Saleh M. Al-Thanya1, Ahmed Massoud
Department ofElectrical Engineering,
Qatar University, Doha, Qatar
2021 7th International Conference on Electrical Energy Systems (ICEES) | 978-1-7281-7612-3/20/$31.00 ©2021 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/ICEES51510.2021.9383753

1Sal805051@,qu.edu.qa

Abstract—Recently, the trend towards increasing the
utilization of Electric Vehicles (EVs) is becoming essential and
encouraged by all governments worldwide to reduce carbon
emission and pollution. This paper studies EV charging stations'
effect on the grid performance in both conventional and fast
charging modes. Charging EVs without coordination leads to
grid problems such as increased energy losses and voltage
deviations. Therefore, coordinated charging is crucial to
minimize these issues to increase grid efficiency, stability, and
reliability. The optimization technique used in this paper to
meet the above requirements is genetic algorithm (GA). The
work reported in this paper provides a comprehensive
comparison between conventional and fast charging of EVs with
coordination, considering the effect of EVs penetration level on
the grid performance is considered. An optimal solution aiming
to minimize grid losses and achieve reduced voltage fluctuations
is provided for charging EVs in the two cases by coordinating
the charging time and identifying each connected vehicle's
charging location on the distribution grid. Simulation results are
provided to elucidate the presented concepts.
Keywords—Electric Vehi cles, Fast Chargi ng, Uncoordi nat ed
Charging, Coordinated Charging.
I. In t r o d u c t io n
In recent years, Electric Vehicles (EVs) have been
dominating headlines and are a hot topic of discussion in the
research field due to their development needs and being a
lucrative alternative invented to replace conventional
vehicles. One of EVs' main advantages is reducing fossil
fuels' usage, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions [1].
Nevertheless, EVs are more costly over their lifecycle than
conventional vehicles, along with the possibility of creating
some challenges for the grid, especially with increased
penetration level.
A. EVs charging Methods
EVs have been considered one of the most favorable
choices to propel transport electrification, moderated air
pollution, global warming, and energy crisis [1]. However,
charging EVs had two main challenges; the first challenge
was when charging EVs as a conventional charging and their
impact on the grid, and the client satisfaction in terms of the
duration of charging the EV. The second issue was when fast
charging facility is considered, which can charge EV in less
than an hour. The uncoordinated EV charging may negatively
affect the grid, where uncoordinated charging mode indicated
that the EVs' batteries were charged when plugged in or after
a fixed time delay [2]. However, the coordinated mode can
be defined as charging EVs at a particular time, which can be
mainly off-peak or with varied charging levels, which
reduces the impact of loading on the grid. The coordinated
EVs charging is surveyed and described extensively in
literature.
In [2], a study was conducted on PHEVs and the impact of
charging infrastructure on the residential grid. The paper's
main aim was to investigate the energy losses and voltage
drops/deviations during the charging stage of these vehicles
with coordinated Ref [3] attempted to study other factors such
as overloading, reduced efficiency, power quality, and
voltage regulation using coordinated charging. In [4], a
coordinated method was used to enable PHEVs to be charged
fast without delaying the customer and improving smart grid
performance with high PHEVs penetration. This approach
was achieved by spreading vehicles to different zones and
within a priority scheme using real-time smart load
management systems. Another study was based on the
coordinated vehicles charging for a large population of PEVs
using a finite charging interval [5]. Ref [6] studied the
relationship between load factor, feeder losses, and load
variance related to coordinated EV charging, where three
ideal charging algorithms were developed. This method
minimized the effects of PHEV charging on the distribution
system.
Demand response (DR) helps the users in shifting their
electricity demand from peak times. As a result, DR plays an
essential role in matching supply and demand. A real-time
charging scheme was proposed in [7]. When in the station,
the users (EV owners) can be involved in the DR program
and benefit from the utility. The schedules of the charging
were expressed as a binary optimization problem. Figure 1
represents an EV parking station's system model that
participates in the DR [7]. Ref [8] suggested a multi-objective
management strategy for the EV fleet to be integrated. This
integration is into the smart grid using the state of charge
model and controlling the power flow (coordination
technique). Figure 2 illustrates the hierarchy of EV agents in
a power distribution network.
Fig. 1: System model ofEV parking station that participates in the DR [7].

978-1-7281-7612-3/21/$31.00 ©2021 IEEE 123

Authorized licensed use limited to: Carleton University. Downloaded on May 29,2021 at 21:33:33 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Fig. 4: Loadprofile for IEEE 33 node test feeder along 24 hours.

Fig. 2: Hierarchy of EV agents in a power distribution network [8].

Detailed mathematical models such as synchronized charging

at various timescales, i.e., real-time or a day ahead, were
available. Three levels, along with municipal, provincial, and
charging station levels, were suggested. The PEV charging
strategy has jointly optimized the device's load profile and
charging costs while considering customer charging
requirements [8],
Ref [9] considered V2G and G2V to enhance the grid's
performance, such as stability, reliability, and efficiency. The
voltage support of the energy storage and reactive power
supplied by the EVs via the V2G operation was considered in
[10]. It helped reduce the need for strengthening the grid and
the successful reduction of electricity. To produce reactive
power and perform voltage control, the authors have II. IMPACT OF EV CHARGING STATION ON THE DISTRIBUTION
introduced an optimization and control system to monitor and NETWORK
control the available storage. The work reported in [11] This section discusses the impact of EV charging station on
suggested the coordination of V2G services for the load­ the distribution network. This section starts with the analysis
serving entity (LSE) with energy trading. There was a high of the distribution systems used. A radial distribution network
risk of trading in energy in the electricity market, especially is considered where the IEEE 33 bus network is used to
for randomly used energy networks. Balancing costs, investigate the effect of PEVs on the grid. Conventional
uncertain energy prices, stochastic energy supply, and charging is considered, then fast charging.
demand have been the key reasons for this problem. A
A. IEEE 33 bus network:
strategy for coordinating unidirectional V2G services with
energy trading was proposed in this study to optimize the The study in this paper is based on the IEEE 33 node test
projected profits of the LSE to reduce trading risks. This feeders. The data of each bus load (P+jQ) and the line
coordination also reduced EV integration's cost into the impedances are adapted from the IEEE 33 standard data
system and the cost of EV ownership to the consumers [12]. available in [15]. In this part, the IEEE 33 bus system's load
In [13], the authors have first formulated a centralized finite- flow is determined for 24 hours using the backward-forward
horizon or limited distance control problem for EV sweep method. Here, the power flow analysis is conducted to
coordinated charging. The demand load by the customer’s explore the standard IEEE 33 node test feeder's response
EV and transformer/distribution grid capacity constraints without EV charging station [14]. Figure 4 shows the load
were considered to maximize the charging service provider's profile for the tested system for 24 hours. This is considered
total efficiency. as the base case. Figure 5 presents each bus's voltage profile

124 2021 7th International Conference on Electrical Energy Systems (ICEES 2021)

Authorized licensed use limited to: Carleton University. Downloaded on May 29,2021 at 21:33:33 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
of the IEEE 33 system for hours 14, 15, and 16. The voltage
is rated as 12.66 kV. Figure 6 shows the real power losses
within the system for 24 hours. The presented results are
without including EV's effect to elucidate the base case for
the system.
B. Uncoordinated Charging:
In uncoordinated charging, the EVs are connected, assuming
two different charging methods: conventional and fast
charging. The charging is conducted without coordination,
which means that the EV battery immediately charges when
plugged in without any system to balance the load to avoid
impacting the grid. This charging can be at any time, and it
might be coincident with the peak time, which is likely to
have more impact on the grid. To study a broad spectrum of
performance, two levels of electric vehicle penetrations are
considered (namely, 10% and 50%) of the distribution
network's highest real power to investigate the impact of
charging EVs on the grid in terms o f voltage deviations and
power losses.
Fig. 7: Flowchart for the optimization process.
C. Conventional and Fast charging assumptions:
There w ill be scenarios for these types of charging to examine B. Objective function:
the system's behavior when adding EVs load. To simulate Two main techniques can be used to optimize the losses of
both charging methods, the duration for each EV to be fully the IEEE bus system. The first one is to optimize the losses
charged is considered 3 hours for the conventional type, while using time management. The second one is to optimize the
the fast charging is considered only one hour to reach full losses by connecting the EVs at optimal buses (locations) for
power. EV load is assumed to have a rated power of 93 kW charging. The objective function and constraints for both
[16], To identify the number of buses for each scenario, the techniques are the same. The objective/fitness function is as
following equation can be used: follows:
24 32
Number o f buses
_ Penetration level X Highest real power of distribution network (2)
EV load on each bus t= l ¡=1
(i)
The above equation is the optimization's objective function,
III. O p t im iz a t io n Tec h n iq u e s
which measures the loss. These optimization algorithm’s
restrictions are that the voltage magnitude should stay within
This paper's main objective is to introduce the optimization
reasonable limits. The upper voltage stability limit is set at
techniques that can be used to achieve coordinated EV
1.05 p.u, and the reduced voltage stability limit is set at 0.9
charging either according to time and/or location. In this
p.u. So for all buses, the first constraint is:
paper, the optimization algorithm determines an optimal
Knin < Vi < Vmax where i = 1,2,3,.....33
charging profile minimizing the targeted objective function
Whereas Vmmis 0.9 p.u, and Vmax is 1.05 p.u.
and satisfying the set o f constraints.
Then, the second constraint w ill be time,
A. Genetic Algorithm (GA): Tmin < T X < Tmax where Tx = f 2,3,..... 24
The genetic algorithm is a viral global optimization algorithm The last constraint w ill be the bus selection,
based on the natural evolution process. Off-spring for the next Lb < x < Ub where Tx = 1,2,3,.....24
iteration is produced based on the fittest solution, and the best The flow chart in figure 12 highlights the optimization
characteristics o f the parents w ill be added to the next approach.
offspring. So the off-spring w ill have a better solution, and C. Optimization with respect to time management:
this process w ill continue until the optimal solution is
The first method is to optimize the losses with respect to time
achieved [17], The GA algorithm operates by initially
management of the charging of EVs. Therefore, the losses
selecting the first solution population. Then the fitness score
w ill be minimized by finding the suitable optimal charging
of each individual is calculated using the objective function
time for each EV using GA. It provides the optimal solution
value. In this case, the solution that has the lowest objective
o f the charging time, that when we charge the EVs at that
value has the highest score. The solution that has the best
specific time, the overall losses of 24 hours w ill be minimum.
fitness score has more chance of selection to produce off­
For this specific technique, the selection parameters for the
spring for the next generation. The selected individuals are
optimization w ill be the time of charging, which means the
crossed over each other, and mutation is applied [18], This
time at which we should charge that specific EV. So the
process continues using the genetic algorithm technique until
optimization w ill set Tn (best time to charge the EV) for each
the solution is converged to the minimum value o f the
penetration level (10% and 50%). There w ill be lower and
objective function.
upper bounds on these parameters.

2021 7th International Conference on Electrical Energy Systems (ICEES 2021) 125

Authorized licensed use limited to: Carleton University. Downloaded on May 29,2021 at 21:33:33 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Fig. 8: Best minimized energy losses result. Fig. 10: Conventional charging power losses for both charging modes.

ktion(samples) Fig. 11: Power losses for uncoordinated and coordinated charging.
Fig. 9: Energy losses when the optimal place is selected.
However, the energy losses have been reduced from 5865
Arbitrary three hours can be chosen for conventional kWh to 5777 kWh, only around 1.5%.
charging from 1st hour up to 21sthour. However, fast charging Optimization with respect to location/node of conventional
will have different lower and upper bands. charging:
D. Optimization with respect to location/node o f charging: Table II illustrates the optimal locations for conventional and
The second method is to optimize the losses with respect to a fast charging when a 10% penetration level is considered [Nl,
location where the EV should be charged. So in these N2, N3, N4], The losses have been reduced from 5850 kWh
techniques, losses will be minimized by finding the suitable to 5792 kWh. Although, the fast charging locations have
optimal place/node/bus for each EVs, where the EV should be reduced the losses from 5865 kWh to 5795 kWh.
connected, providing the optimal solution about the bus TABLE II. Op t ima l l o c a t io n s /n o d e s f o r c h a r g in g EVs
location. The overall losses of 24 hours will be minimum. For P a ra m e te r 10% p e n e tra tio n level
this specific technique, the optimization's input selection Optimum conventional Optimumfast charging
parameters will be the buses' location, where we have to charging location location
Nl 19 2
charge the EVs. So, optimization will give Nn (the optimal
N2 19 19
place to locate the EVs) for each penetration level (10% and N3 19 19
50%). There will be lower and upper bounds on these N4 19 19
parameters. The optimization supports selecting the location
to minimize the overall losses. The lower band is bus number Results after applying the best of location and timing:
1, and the upper band is bus number 33. Figure 10 shows that hours 14 to 16 have slightly higher
losses in uncoordinated charging mode, and by applying the
IV. Co o r d in a t e d Ch a r g in g Si m u l a t io n Re s u l t s
optimization technique of management by location of the
node, the losses are minimized as observed during
A. Results of a 10 % penetration level scenario: coordinated charging mode. Figure 11 shows the power
losses when optimal locations with time management are
Table I shows the optimization with respect to time
applied (coordinated charging). From figure 12, it can be
management for conventional and fast charging of 10%
noticed that the coordinated charging achieved a better
penetration with four selection parameters [Tl, T2, T3, T4],
voltage profile than the case for uncoordinated charging.
TABLE I. Bes t T ime f o r c h a r g in g EVs
P a ra m e te r 10% p e n e tra tio n level
B. Penetration of 50% penetration level scenario:
Optimum conventional O p tim u m f a s t C h a rg in g Optimization with respect to time management for
charging time tim e conventional charging:
Tl 18 18
T2 12 13 Table III explains the optimal timings for charging the 20
T3 18 12 EVs when a 50% penetration level for conventional and fast
T4 22 13 charging is considered. For conventional charging, the losses
have been reduced from 6427 kWh to 6351 kWh by almost
When considering the optimal conventional charging times
76 kWh. However, the losses have been reduced from 6950
for EVs, the losses have been reduced from 5850 kWh to
kWh to 6549 kWh when fast charging optimum timings are
5841.5 kWh, as shown in the convergence plot of figure 8.
considered.

126 2021 7th International Conference on Electrical Energy Systems (ICEES 2021)

Authorized licensed use limited to: Carleton University. Downloaded on May 29,2021 at 21:33:33 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 50% Power losses of conventional Charging
450
400

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time(Hrs)

Uncoordinated a Coordinated

Fig. 13: Power losses for 50% penetration level conventional charging.
Fig. 16: The total load for a 10% penetration level as conventional.

TABLE IV. Op t ima l l o c a t io n s /n o d e s f o r EV s c h a r g in g

Parameter 50% penetration level

Optimum conventional Optmum fast
charging locat ion charging locat ion
N1 22 2
N2 23 19
N3 2 20
N4 19 25
N5 24 23
Fig. 14: Power losses for 50% penetration level fast charging. N6 25 23
N7 22 20
TABLE III. Op t ima l Timin g s f or EV s c h a r g in g N8 21 19
N9 2 20
Parameter 50% penetration level N10 19 2
Optimal conventional charging Optmal fast charging N il 24 23
t ime t ime N12 20 20
T1 5 21 N13 22 22
T2 13 21 N14 22 4
T3 18 22 N15 24 23
T4 2 22 N16 2 19
T5 8 1 N17 22 23
T6 22 22 N18 24 21
T7 15 22 N19 22 2
T8 12 2 N20 19 19
T9 10 21
T10 18 22 Results after applying the optimal location and timing:
T il 11 2
T12 7 1
The losses of the system before and after the optimization are
T13 19 2 shown in Figure 13. The plot shows that the optimization
T14 22 21 reduces the losses at 14th, 15th, 16th, 21st, 23rd, and 24thhours.
T15 21 21 The losses before and after optimization are shown in Figure
T16 21 1 14. The losses at the 14th and 22nd are reduced significantly
T17 16 2
by charging the EVs with coordination (spreading the EVs to
T18 17 1
T19 3 1 be charged at different timings). Figure 15 shows the voltage
T20 12 22 profile of hour 14 when 20 EVs are charged with and without
coordination. The voltage profiles for both charging types
Optimization with respect to location/node o f conventional (conventional and fast charging) are explained. It can be seen
charging: that coordinated charging results have a better voltage profile
Tables IV provides the best 20 places or locations for with almost 7% and enhanced more when compared with
charging the EVs (conventional & fast) to reduce the losses charging without coordination. Figure 16 illustrates the
and enhance the voltage regulation. When considering comparison of total power variation for the three cases,
conventional charging locations, the losses have been without EVs presence, with uncoordinated EVs charging, and
reduced to 6045 kWh from 6427 kWh with 382 kWh with coordinated EVs presence for a 10% penetration level
difference. While the fast charging locations can reduce the conventional charging case.
losses to almost 6104 kWh.

2021 7th International Conference on Electrical Energy Systems (ICEES 2021) 127

Authorized licensed use limited to: Carleton University. Downloaded on May 29,2021 at 21:33:33 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Total Load for 10% fast saves the time of charging at the cost of increased losses
compared to the conventional charging mode. Also, it was
observed that optimal location management has better results
_ 4500
^ 4300 compared to time management. The best result of the time
management and optimal locations are combined to identify

IlllllllllljJ lH lU lllllI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time(Hrs)
the optimal solution for charging the EVs at a specific time
with the right place to achieve the best voltage profile and
minimum possible grid losses.

B Base Case H Uncoordinated u Coordinated ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Fig. 17: 10% EV penetration level load with fast charging. This paper was made possible by NPRP grant NPRP (10­
0130-170286) from the Qatar National Research Fund (a
member of Qatar Foundation). The statements made herein
are solely the responsibility of the authors.

Ref er enc es

[1] Clement-Nyns, K., Haesen, E., & Driesen, J. (2010). The impact of
charging plug-in hybrid electric vehicles on a residential distribution
grid. IEEE Transactions onpower systems, 25(1), 371-380.
[2] Xu, Z., Su, W., Hu, Z., Song, Y., & Zhang, H. (2016). A hierarchical
framework for coordinated charging o f plug-in electric vehicles in
1 Base Case B Uncoordinated H Coordinated China. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 7(1), 428-438.
Fig. 18: 50% penetration level conventional charging total loads. [3] Kaur, K., Kumar, N., & Singh, M. (2019). Coordinated power control
T o ta l L o a d f o r 5 0 % F a s t o f electric vehicles for grid frequency support: MILP-based
7300 hierarchical control design. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 10(3),
69 0 0
6500 3364-3373.
_ GlOO [4] Malhotra, A., Binetti, G., Davoudi, A., & Schizas, I. D. (2017).
57 0 0
Distributed power profile tracking for heterogeneous charging of

J
" if 5 3 0 0
o 4900 electric vehicles. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 8(5), 2090-2099.

Jj
4 500
4100
37 0 0
3300 ldlH lllK lliliii^iH lM U ia ulU iililll«l
5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 0 2 1 22 2 3 24
T im o (llrs )
M Base Case U n c o o rd in a te d
Fig. 19: 50% penetration level fast charging loads with the base case.
Figure 17 compares the total load of 10% penetration level
fast charging for uncoordinated and coordinated charging
along with the base case. It can be noticed that at hour 14,
there is a sharp rise in total power for uncoordinated charging
due to the increased number of vehicles charged at this hour.
Figure 18 shows the base case's total loads, uncoordinated,
and coordinated charging when conventional charging mode.
It can be noticed that there is an increase in loads of
uncoordinated charging at the timings of 14, 15, 16, 22, 23,
and 24 hrs. This increase happened due to the number of EVs
charging simultaneously added to the base case. Figure 19
illustrates the total increased loads of uncoordinated charging
and coordinated charging of a 50% penetration level with fast
charging. Two durations have a considerable rise due to
uncoordinated charging (hours 14 and 22), minimized by
almost 25% with coordinated.
V. CONCLUSION
The effect of conventional charging and fast charging
scenarios on the distribution grid has been presented. Two EV
penetrations levels (10% and 50%) have been presented
considering both conventional and fast charging, addressing
the effect on power losses and voltage deviations. A
coordinated charging is conducted using the Genetic
Algorithm (GA) to minimize the losses and reduce the
system's voltage drops. For each penetration, both
conventional charging and fast charging models are analyzed.
Time management and optimal location are considered in the
optimization. It was observed that the fast charging mode
[5] Tang, W., Bi, S., & Zhang, Y. J. (2015). Online coordinated charging
decision algorithm for electric vehicles without future information.
IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 5(6), 2810-2824.
[6] Sortomme, E., Hindi, M. M., MacPherson, S. J., & Venkata, S. S.
H C o o rd in a te d (2011). Coordinated charging of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles to
minimize distribution system losses. IEEE transactions on smart grid,
2(1), 198-205.
[7] Yao, L., Lim, W. H., & Tsai, T. S. (2017). A real-time charging scheme
for demand response in electric vehicle parking stations. IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid, 8(1), 52-62.
[8] Mao, M., Ding, Y., Chang, L., Hatziargyriou, N. D., Chen, Q., Tao, T.,
& Li, Y. (2019). Multi-objective power management for EV fleet with
MMC-based integration into smart grid. IEEE Transactions on Smart
Grid, 10(2), 1428-1439.
[9] Yilmaz, M., & Krein, P. T. (2013). Review o f the impact o f vehicle-to-
grid technologies on distribution systems and utility interfaces. IEEE
Transactions on power electronics, 28(12), 5673-5689.
[10] Haghi, H. V., &Q u, Z. (2017). A Kernel-based predictive model o f EV
capacity for distributed voltage control and demand response. IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid, 9(4), 3180-3190.
[11] Al-Awami, A. T., & Sortomme, E. (2012). Coordinating vehicle-to-
grid services with energy trading. IEEE Transactions on smart grid,
3(1), 453-462.
[12] Shao, C., Wang, X., Wang, X., Du, C., & Wang, B. (2016).
Hierarchical charge control o f large populations o f EVs. IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid, 7(2), 1147-1155.
[13] Qi, W., Xu, Z., Shen, Z. J. M., Hu, Z., & Song, Y. (2014). Hierarchical
coordinated control o f plug-in electric vehicles charging in multifamily
dwellings. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 5(3), 1465-1474.
[14] Chang, G., Chu, S., & Wang, H. (2007). An Improved
Backward/Forward Sweep Load Flow Algorithm for Radial
Distribution Systems. IEEE Transactions On Power Systems, 22(2),
882-884. doi: 10.1109/tpwrs.2007.894848.
[15] Veerapaneni, S., Rahimian, A., Biros, G., & Zorin, D. (2011). A fast
algorithm for simulating vesicle flows in three dimensions. Journal O f
Computational Physics, 230(14), 5610-5634. doi:
10.1016/j.jcp.2011.03.045.
[16] Longest range EVs. Retrieved 5 February 2020, from
https://www.motortrend.com/news/longest-range-electric-cars-202Q-
19-evs-can-go-distance/
[17] Tanese, R. (1989). Distributed genetic algorithms for function
optimization.
[18] Alam, T., Qamar, S., Dixit, A., & Benaida, M. (2020). Genetic
Algorithm: Reviews, Implementations, and Applications.

128 2021 7th International Conference on Electrical Energy Systems (ICEES 2021)

Authorized licensed use limited to: Carleton University. Downloaded on May 29,2021 at 21:33:33 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.