Applied Energy 286 (2021) 116515

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Taxi trajectory data based fast-charging facility planning for urban electric
taxi systems
Hua Wang, De Zhao, Yutong Cai, Qiang Meng ∗, Ghim Ping Ong
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, National University of Singapore, 117576, Singapore

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This study develops a taxi trajectory data based fast-charging facility planning model for an urban taxi system
Electric taxi by considering battery degradation and vehicle heterogeneity in driving range. The developed model comprises
Taxi trajectory three functional modules: (i) fast-charging location determination, (ii) fast-charging facility deployment (FCFD)
Fast-charging facility deployment
and (iii) FCFD solution tuning. Under the FCFD module, charging demand prediction considering battery
Battery degradation
degradation and vehicle heterogeneity, charging demand allocation and charger configuration optimization
Vehicle heterogeneity in driving range
Multi-objective planning
are executed sequentially. The FCFD solution is tuned by an effective backward elimination method to find
a more economic and practical planning solution where the minimal number of chargers at each station
can be specified. A case study in Singapore is thoroughly conducted, and insightful policy implications are
revealed: policy-makers could use the tuning mechanism to significantly save investment and reduce total
waiting time for charging; overlooking battery degradation and vehicle heterogeneity will yield a biased electric
taxi charging facility planning.

1. Introduction
In the new century, electric vehicles (EVs) has attracted an increas-
ing attention from car consumers, manufacturers and transport sectors
because of potential merits of energy saving, zero exhaust emission and
lower maintenance cost. Thanking to continuous national-wide policy
support such as purchase subsidy and license incentive, the EV industry
has experienced an explosive development, where the top three EV
markets (China, the US and Norway) contribute to about 1.5 million EV
sales in 2018. The report ‘‘Global EV Market Outlook 2019’’ released
by Frost & Sullivan indicated that the global EV fleet in 2018 hit
5.1 million, up 2 million from the last year and nearly doubling the
quantity of new sales [1]. According to the market forecasting made by
Electric Power Research Institute [2], consumers have more purchase
choices in EV brands and EV models in near future, as about 132 new
models will be projected by 2022. ‘‘Global EV Outlook 2019’’ also
optimistically predicted in its EV30@30 scenario of future development
that EV sales around the world will reach 43 million and the stock
number will greater than 250 million by 2030.
In context of a prosperous development of EV industry and the
Paris Agreement of controlling climate change in this century, quite a
few governments worldwide make electrification plans to reduce car
exhaust emissions, one of which is to replace gasoline cars by EVs.
For example, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the US
forecasted that more than 30 million (24%) passenger vehicles in the
US will be electrified by 2040 [3]. Of course, EVs have been gaining
an increasing acceptance in taxi industry and is also paving a way to
achieve the goal of high electrification and automation. For example,
Tesla’s products are becoming popular with taxis in European countries
such as Netherlands, Sweden and Norway, and Tesla Model 3 is the first
full-electric vehicles to be approved for use as New York City yellow
cab in 2019. In Singapore, a similar development tendency appears.
ComfortDelgro (a local taxi magnate), Grab Taxi (a new IT ride-hailing
operator) and the HDT Taxi (a taxi firm who fully utilizes EVs) are
looking to a rapid rollout for more new green vehicles. For example,
the HDT Taxi has deployed more than one thousand electric-powered
cabs.
It is worth noting that the average travel mileage of an taxi is often
over 300 km per day and as a result heavy emission pollutants will be
generated given a large taxi fleet in a city, e.g., over 23,000 operating
taxis in Singapore. In predictable future, decision-makers from urban
planning and transport authorities would have to consider an electrifi-
cation upgrading of urban taxi system. Although vehicle electrification
has been viewed as a sound solution to control exhaust emissions and
alleviate fossil fuel reliance [4–6], it still needs to overcome several key
challenges regarding battery technology and charging infrastructure

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: hwang191901@gmail.com (H. Wang), ceezde@nus.edu.sg (D. Zhao), e0133218@u.nus.edu (Y.T. Cai), ceemq@nus.edu.sg (Q. Meng),
ceeongr@nus.edu.sg (G.P. Ong).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.116515
Received 6 November 2020; Received in revised form 6 January 2021; Accepted 13 January 2021
Available online 22 January 2021
0306-2619/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Wang et al.
planning, both of which have lagged to match the cracking pace set
with the prosperous EV market. Decision-makers need to make tangible
charging facility deployment schemes that addresses a set of issues in
the running of vehicle electrification for taxi systems. For instance,
how to make a high-quality forecasting of charging demand of electric
taxis (ETs) and is it possible to do a time-dependent charging demand
estimation based on existing taxi trajectories? Based on the estimated
charging demand, we need to figure out the locations of charging
stations and the respective number of chargers to be deployed at each
station. In addition, how to balance different planning objectives when
deploying charging facilities? This is defined as the charging facility
deployment (CFD) problem (or called charging location problem) in
the literature. Our research focus/scope in this paper is restricted to
urban ET system, while in the following we still make a comprehensive
literature review to elaborate the theoretical gaps.
1.1. Literature review
In the literature, there are two prevailing research paths for the CFD
problem, namely optimization models and data-driven methods. As for
the optimization research line, Nozick [7] is the first one to formulate
the CFD problem with coverage constraints as a mixed integer linear
programming model. In spirit of this seminal work, a large number
of optimization models are formulated to solve the CFD problem,
which are further categorized into two mathematical programming
groups. On one hand, dozens of bi-level programming models are
developed for the CFD problem so as to model EV users’ routing and
charging behaviors [8–11]. At the upper level, policy-makers/planners
aim to maximize charging network’s performance (e.g., travel cost
minimization or service coverage rate maximization) by determining
optimal charging locations and/or charger configuration. At the lower
level, a user equilibrium (UE) model is always applied to depict users’
travel decisions, such as route and charging choices [12]. On the other
hand, quite a few scholars focus on developing single-level optimization
models for the CFD problem [13–19]. For this research stream, integer
linear programming models are proposed to pursue optimal coverage of
charging infrastructure and/or maximize total EV travel mileage with
a budget constraint. In some cases, such models could be simplified to
a shortest path procedure that assigns EVs to desirable charging points.
The optimization models have also been extended to address a
series of complicated traffic scenarios, for example, the CFD prob-
lem with stochastic demand [18,19], wireless charging infrastruc-
ture planning [9], the CFD problem with particular EV types (EV
buses/taxis) [15,20], the sizing optimization of workplace charging
stations considering probabilistic reactive power support for plug-in
hybrid EVs [21] and the CFD problem with driving range anxiety [19].
One of the main challenges that restricts the adoption of optimization
models for solving CFD problems in real world is the efficiency of
solution algorithms. Both global solution algorithm and meta-heuristics
are investigated in the literature. For example, Arslan and Karaşan [16]
proposed a Benders decomposition algorithm to solve the CFD problem
in California road network. Lee and Han [22] put forward a Benders-
and-Price algorithm with column generation procedure to solve the
CFD model. Genetic algorithm is also widely used for solving the CFD
optimization models [17,18,23,24].
Recently, data-driven methods have received a rising attention and
extensive empirical investigations are made [15,20,24–33]. For exam-
ple, public charging station locations for ET systems were studied based
on historic taxi trajectories in Beijing [25] and Vienna, Austria [15]. In
addition, EV bus charging station planning in Stockholm is analyzed
by Xylia et al. [20]. Zhang et al. [14] developed a set covering model
to choose the minimum set of the candidate charging locations to
serve possible routes as many as possible, where vehicle travels were
extracted from the 2000 California Household Travel Survey and the
shortest paths between the known geographic positions were deter-
mined by the ArcGIS platform. Andrenacci et al. [28] applied a cluster
2
Applied Energy 286 (2021) 116515
analysis approach to find the optimal EV charging locations based on
actual data of conventional private car travels within the urban area of
Rome. He et al. [27] performed a case study on Beijing road network
to test three CFD models (the set covering model, maximal covering
location model and p-median model). Wang et al. [34] proposed an
easy-to-perform four-step CFD method based on macroscopic planning
statistics regarding residential carparks, private EVs and ETs and val-
idated the method through a case study in Singapore. Vazifeh et al.
[24] put forward a data-driven optimization approach for EV charging
location problem, in which the geographical area is divided into equal
grids and the number of trips stopping in a cell is counted based
on EV individuals’ travel records. Baresch and Moser [29] examined
the distribution of future charges across various types of charging
stations in Austria so as to assess the need for charging infrastructure,
i.e. its number, design and cost-effectiveness. Grote et al. [30] proposed
a GIS based analytical method by using routinely available census
and parking data to identify suitable street-side charging points, and
made an application in Southampton, UK. Jochem et al. [31] used an
arc-cover-path-cover flow-refueling location model to determine the
minimal number of fast charging stations along European highway
network based on the dataset of passenger car trips in Europe. Dong
et al. [33] developed a two-step method to optimize charging locations
by combining spatial statistics and maximal coverage location model,
and explored the deployment of charging points in London. Huang et al.
[32] put forward a novel GIS assisted charging infrastructure planning
model for high-density cities where the life-cycle cost of charging
stations subject to a pre-set coverage rate was minimized, and made
an empirical validation in Hong Kong.
In addition, decision-making approaches are employed for solving
EV charging infrastructure planning problems. For example, Guo and
Zhao [35] proposed a multi-criteria fuzzy TOPSIS (Technique for Order
of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) method to determine the
optimal EV charging locations from sustainability perspective.
1.2. Research motivation and the position of our work
We below make some remarks on the above literature review,
highlight the important gaps that are imperative to be filled in the CDF
problem for ET systems, and clarify the position of our work.
We first look at research path of optimization models. Although
there are a large number of optimization models for the CFD problem,
they would be inapplicable for the ET charging infrastructure planning
due to the following reasons. First, almost all bi-level optimization
models in the literature are based on the rush-hour commuting pat-
tern during morning or evening peak and rely on the equilibrium
assumption; while ET fleet is operating in a different manner — pickup-
delivery pattern. In fact, as pointed out by Xu et al. [36], Muratori et al.
[37] and Baresch and Moser [29], the majority of commuting driving
of private EV users (over 85%) could be well catered for home-based
charging. However, ETs, particularly the two-shift ones, will replenish
depleted energy during operational duration and thus behave in an en-
route charging manner. This implies that charging demand predication
mechanisms for two patterns are totally different. Besides, bi-level opti-
mization models are rarely applied for real large-size networks because
of heavy computational burden (see more details in Section 3.2). This
also restricts applying them for solving CFD problems for ET systems
in practice. Second, the single-level optimization models in previous
studies highly rely on two assumptions: all EVs on roads are under con-
trol by a central operator and no queue exists at charging point. Even
though ET fleets belong to limited taxi firms, and ET drivers can receive
booking requests and suggested charging strategies from the control
centers of respective firms, they might still make own decisions based
on their personal perception on road/traffic condition and operational
experience on battery state. The system optimum derived from a full
cooperation might be hardly achieved due to self-motivated manners
of ET drivers.
H. Wang et al.
We then move to another research branch, data-driven methods.
These methods mainly focused on determining suitable charging lo-
cations by statistical and/or cluster-similar analyses based on parking,
trip and trajectory data. They seldom concern on the second key issue
of the CFD problem — charging capacity/charger configuration at
each station, but simply assume equal/uncapacitated charging service
capacity for each station [24,27].
More importantly, an undeniable truth is that the models/methods
in both research branches fail to characterize complex charging de-
cisions since charging demand forecasting has not received adequate
attention (it is either assumed to be known and given, or improp-
erly derived based on travel demand between given origin–destination
pairs). On one hand, without an accurate temporal–spatial distribution
of charging demand, it is almost impossible to account for queuing
effect and turnaround time at each charging point. As a result, the exact
charger number and level of charging service of the CFD scheme cannot
be well determined and assessed. On the other hand, missing a proper
charging demand prediction procedure, it is hard to consider the impact
of practical influential factors, such as battery degradation, charging
preference and vehicle difference, and thus a biased CFD plan might be
obtained. It is easy to understand that the amount of charging demand
will be definitely underestimated if battery degradation is neglected,
since the actual travel mileage of a full charge is shorter than ideal
state of a new battery. Additionally, vehicle heterogeneity should not
be ignored since more than hundred EV brands exist in the actual
market and they exhibit distinct vehicle particulars, especially in driv-
ing range. There are two driving forces behind vehicle heterogeneity
in ET market: (i) taxi operators periodically deploy new batches of
EVs of various brands/generations to upgrade their own fleet, and (ii)
within individual ET firm, a certain proportion of drivers operate with
their own EVs of diverse models. The importance of considering these
factors has been highlighted in the literature, for example, for the EV
battery life predication [38,39] and energy consumption analysis [39–
41]. For example, Wang et al. [40] reported that more than 10%
energy consumption estimation bias occurs if battery degradation is not
considered. In reality, it is also worth noting that the availability of ETs’
real-time trajectories creates a nice chance to forecast time-dependent
charging demand.
To fill the above research gaps, we in this study are devoting
to proposing a data-driven optimization method for solving the CFD
problem for ET systems that combines the merits of two research
paths. Moreover, we in this paper focus on balancing multiple sys-
tem objectives of ET charging infrastructure planning and understand-
ing/quantifying the impact of battery degradation and vehicle hetero-
geneity in driving range.
1.3. Objectives and contributions
The objective of this research is to find the optimal fast charging
facility deployment plan that determines suitable charging station lo-
cations and specifies the best charger configuration (the number of fast
chargers) for each station to support operation of urban electric taxi
(ET) system.
To achieve this goal, we propose a three-module electric taxi fast-
charging facility deployment (ET–FCFD) method that addresses multi-
ple charging system objectives and incorporates the impact of battery
degradation and vehicle heterogeneity in driving range. The proposed
method consists of a module of charging point selection with coverage
rate requirement, a three-step FCFD module and a refinement module.
For the second core module, we develop an ET trajectory based charg-
ing demand estimation by taking into account battery degradation and
vehicle heterogeneity, and propose an allocation model to determine
the temporal–spatial distribution of charging demand and thus get the
charging request arrival pattern for each station. With the assigned
demand, we formulate an optimization model of determining optimal
3
Applied Energy 286 (2021) 116515
charger number with an objective to minimize the weighted sum of
total waiting time and total cost of constructing charging stations.
This study makes the following substantial contributions to the
literature of the CFD problem.
(1) To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first attempt to
integrate data-driven analysis of charging demand estimation
and optimization model together for solving the CFD problem
for ET systems. It could fill the gap and well address the above
mentioned limitations in the literature.
(2) The proposed method could balance multiple charging system
objectives in ET charging infrastructure planning, including
charging service coverage rate, level of charging service (mea-
sured by total waiting time for charging) and total construction
cost. As a result, a more tangible and reasonable FCFD scheme
could be obtained.
(3) We incorporate the two most important influential factors –
battery degradation and vehicle heterogeneity – into charging
demand estimation. This would help to design an unbiased FCFD
plan for ET systems.
(4) We propose a refinement mechanism to iteratively improve the
ET–FCFD scheme and thus an more economic and reasonable
plan could be ensured.
(5) Last but not least, we validate the developed method by ap-
plying it to a Singapore case study. Some insightful findings
are unveiled: (i) the refinement mechanism could help to save
investment and enhance system performance in reducing to-
tal waiting time for charging; and (ii) overlooking the two
influential factors will lead to a biased planning of charging
infrastructure and the system objectives will be optimistically
overestimated, up to 19% of overestimation of reducing the total
waiting time.
The structure of the remaining paper is stated below. The problem
is explained in detail in Section 2, followed by a conceptual ET–FCFD
optimization model in Section 3 and our research methodology in
Section 4. In Section 5, a case study in Singapore is carried out. The
last section concludes the paper.
2. Problem description
In this paper, we focus on the fast-charging facility deployment
problem for an electric taxi system (called ET–FCFD problem hereafter)
by taking into account multi-dimensional considerations, including
multiple objectives and impacts of battery degradation and vehicle het-
erogeneity (multi-type taxis with different driving ranges).1 In general,
ET drivers would prefer using fast chargers to recharge the batteries so
as to save more time for their business, such as passenger searching,
passenger pick up and delivery. Although this study focuses on fast-
charging facility planning, the proposed method could be adapted to a
general case with multi-type chargers.
To make a tangible ET–FCFD plan, several important and practical
factors shall be taken into account. In this study, we incorporate vehicle
heterogeneities in terms of battery degradation and driving range into
the ET–FCFD problem. Both factors exert crucial impacts on ETs’ charg-
ing demand distribution on the network. First, battery degradation is
1
We in this study focus on the fast-charging facility planning exclusively for
ET system for the following considerations. Different from fuel/petrol stations,
the ET charging infrastructure is seldom open for other types of EVs, such as
private EVs and electric buses. Typically, ET firms operate with their own EV
fleets and establish exclusive charging infrastructure. To develop an economic
charging infrastructure network, each ET operator would maintain a high
utilization rate of its infrastructure and thus would not be likely to share its
charging services with other types of EVs, especially with the consideration of
infrastructure maintenance.
H. Wang et al. Applied Energy 286 (2021) 116515

an indispensable factor. ETs in a taxi transport system would exhibit charging requests of ETs.2 We can formulate a generalized optimization
obvious diversity in served life, including new cars and different-year model for the ET–FCFD problem as follows.
vehicles, and their battery degradation levels are of course different. ( 𝑚 )
⎧ ⎫
On one hand, ETs’ charging frequencies are influenced by vehicles’ ⎪max𝑦𝑚𝑖 𝑓coverRate 𝑦𝑖 , ( , ) ⎪
⎪min 𝑚 𝑓 𝑚 ⎪
battery degradation levels. It is easy to understand that, to fulfill the (ET–FCFD model) constructCost (𝑦𝑖 ) (1)
⎨ 𝑦𝑖
( ( ))⎬
same travel mileage, a new ET needs less times of re-charging and an ⎪min 𝑚 𝑚 𝑓waitTime 𝑦 , 𝑖 𝑥 , 𝑦
( ) 𝑚 𝑚 𝑚 ⎪
ET with a terrible degraded battery has to re-charge more frequently. ⎪ 𝑥𝑞,𝑖 ,𝑦𝑖 𝑖 𝑞,𝑖 𝑖 ⎪
⎩ ⎭
On the other hand, an ET’s temporal–spatial distribution of charging
s.t.
demand depends on its actual driving range which is closely related to
its battery status. 𝑦𝑚
𝑖 ∈ {0, 1}, ∀ 𝑖 ∈ , 𝑚 ∈  ∶= {1, 2, … , 𝑀},
Second, the disparity of vehicles’ driving ranges is also important. (2)
∑
As reported by EPRI in 2019, customers can find an EV in almost 𝑦𝑚
𝑖 ≥ 𝑦min , ∀ 𝑖 ∈ , (3)
all vehicle classes, with about 41 new models available now and 132 𝑚∈
projected by 2022. This unveils a fact that a variety of ET models will ∑ ∑
𝑥𝑚 𝑚
𝑞,𝑖 𝑦𝑖 = 1, ∀ 𝑞 ∈ , (4)
exist on the road network, which possess unique driving ranges. For 𝑖∈ 𝑚∈
instance, a 2019 Nissan Leaf has a 40 kWh battery and a range of 151 ∑ ∑
𝑥𝑚
𝑞,𝑖 = 1, ∀ 𝑞 ∈ , (5)
miles, while the long range version of Tesla model reaches a range 𝑖∈ 𝑚∈
of 310 miles. As pointed out by Wang et al. [41], a biased result of
𝑥𝑚
𝑞,𝑖 ∈ {0, 1}, ∀ 𝑞 ∈ , 𝑖 ∈ , 𝑚 ∈ , (6)
charging demand estimation would be obtained if a mean driving range
is used. where the binary variable 𝑦𝑚
is the decision variable for charging
𝑖
To sum up, because the optimization of ET–FCFD is based on ET facility planning that 𝑦𝑚 𝑖 = 1 if the 𝑚th fast charger at the 𝑖th charging
charging demand distribution, the above two influential factors should station will be built, 𝑦𝑚
𝑖 = 0 otherwise.∑ The total number of fast chargers
not be neglected. In order to account the two factors, we in this paper deployed at charging station 𝑖 is 𝑦𝑖 = 𝑚∈ 𝑦𝑚 𝑖 . Constraint (3) specifies
assume ETs’ battery degradation levels follow a known probability a practical requirement of minimal number of chargers (𝑦min ) to be
distribution and consider a probabilistic grouping in driving range deployed at charging station 𝑖 so as to enjoy economics of scale and
based on ET/EV market penetration forecasting. ensure a more cost-efficient and reasonable plan where system resource
For an ET system in a city, we in this study focus on solving three such as land and electrical grids could be well utilized.
problems for its fast-charging facility deployment: (i) time-dependent It is worth noting that the developed optimization model simultane-
charging demand estimation based on taxi trajectories, (ii) locations to ously determines optimal ET–FCFD plan (charging location, number of
build fast charging stations for ETs and (iii) number of fast chargers fast chargers at each station) and charging demand assignment scheme.
to be deployed at each station, by considering the impacts of battery Binary variables 𝑥𝑚 𝑞,𝑖 are defined for decision-making of charging re-
degradation and vehicle heterogeneity in driving range. Different from quest assignments that 𝑥𝑚 𝑞,𝑖 = 1 if a charging request 𝑞 ∈  will be
fulfilled at the 𝑚th charger at charging station 𝑖, 𝑥𝑚 𝑞,𝑖 = 0 otherwise.
previous studies, we here will address multiple system objectives for
Constraints (4) and (5) guarantee that each charging request 𝑞 will be
the ET–FCFD problem, including the overall coverage rate of charging
served only one time.
services, level of charging service (measured by the total waiting time
As shown in Eq. (1), we consider three optimization objectives. The
at charging station) and total construction cost.
first one is to maximize the coverage rate of charging facilities with a
given service radius for an urban transportation network denoted by
3. A conceptual optimization model ( , ) where  is the set of nodes and  is the set of directed links
(road segments). As for the second system optimization objective, we
We in this section present a conceptual optimization model for aim to minimize the total construction cost of charging infrastructure,
the ET–FCFD problem, and discuss technical intractability for apply- including equipment cost, installation cost and maintenance cost over
ing the optimization model to solve large-scale ET–FCFD problems whole charger lifetime. The last objective function is to enhance the
in real world. Although this conceptual optimization model has little level of charging service of ET charging system, which is measured by
value for solving real ET–FCFD problems (see detailed reasons in the total waiting time here. The waiting time at a charging station not
Section 3.2), we develop it to illustrate the modeling components such only depends on charger configuration 𝑦𝑚 𝑖 at the station
( but) also relies
as decision variables, system objectives and practical constraints of on arrival pattern of real-time charging requests 𝑖 𝑥𝑚 𝑚 (see more
𝑞,𝑖 , 𝑦𝑖
the ET–FCFD problem, which will facilitate the understanding of the details in Section 4.2.2).
logic and working principle of our proposed research methodology in
Section 4. 3.2. Challenges and application intractability of the ET-FCFD optimization
model
3.1. A conceptual ET-FCFD optimization model
Theoretically speaking, we could find the best solution for the ET–
FCFD problem by solving the formulated integer optimization (IP)
The ET–FCFD problem is to satisfy charging demand of ETs and
model (1)–(6). However, it is technically impossible to extend to large-
maximize the charging system performance from various perspectives,
scale problems in real life due to several intractable challenges. First,
including coverage rate of charging service network, level of charging
there exists a computational intractability issue for the large-scale IP
service measured by total waiting time and charging infrastructure
optimization model. Take a realistic planning scenario in Singapore
construction cost (equipment cost, installation cost and life-time main-
as an example. Consider 150 of candidate charging sites, the maximal
tenance cost) by determining optimal number of fast chargers at each
charging point. Let 𝑀 be a sufficiently large integer to denote the
maximum number of chargers that is feasible to deploy at a charging 2
Each charging request has both time and location attributes. The former
station subject to physical conditions (e.g., land-use, parking space determines the arrival sequence of charging requests at each charging station.
and electrical grid impact). Let  be the set of candidate sites to The latter influences the actual SoC of the charging request when arriving at
build charging stations and  be the set of spatio-temporal-dependent its desirable charging station.

4
H. Wang et al.
number of chargers to be deployed at each site 𝑀 = 30 and 6000 ETs
in urban transport system in 2025 that each re-charges twice everyday.
It is estimated that there are over 150 × 30 × 6000 × 2 = 54 millions of
binary decision variables. Even the state-of-art commercial IP solvers,
such as CPLEX and GUROBI, are unable to solve the problem within
an acceptable time. One may seek help from using some decomposition
techniques to make the problem solvable. However, the following extra
challenges hinder such movements.
Second, as discrete charging activities arrive in random at charging
points, each charging station should be treated as a queuing system
with deterministic arrival rate and deterministic service rate with sev-
eral chargers (D/D/S system). In this sense, it is technically challenging
to derive a continuous closed-form function of the waiting time at each
charger. Therefore, in the optimization model, it is almost impossi-
ble to define an analytical objective function containing waiting time
(𝑓waitTime (⋅)) that is derived upon discrete customer arrival rates and
first-come-first-served working principle. This implies the optimization
model makes little sense in practice.
Third, charging requests are also heterogeneous due to vehicle
heterogeneity in terms of battery degradation level and driving range.
So they may have charging tasks which require different service times
at desirable charging stations. This gives rise to an extra difficulty of
quantitatively measure queuing effect for objective function 𝑓waitTime (⋅).
To deal with the different customer types, we need to differentiate the
charging demand assigned to each charger (not each charging station).
Last but not least, addressing multiple objectives in the proposed
optimization model (1)–(6) also increase computational intractability
and difficulty in developing effective algorithms to find out optimal
solutions on Pareto frontier.
We so far explain the main challenges and intractability to ap-
ply the optimization model to solve large-scale ET–FCFD problems
in real world. We thus devote to proposing a tangible method for
the problem in next section that integrates optimization of multiple
system objectives, charging demand estimation and allocation, and
FCFD optimization together.
4. Our research methodology
In this section, we propose a tailored research methodology for
solving large-scale ET–FCFD problems. Fig. 1 presents our research
methodology that comprises three fundamental modules. The first mod-
ule is to filter out candidate charging sites for ET–FCFD, where a
pre-determined planning goal of spatial coverage rate (the 1st objective
𝑓coverRate (⋅)) is satisfied. In the second module, we propose a three-
step FCFD approach to optimize the number of fast chargers at each
charging site by taking into the impact of battery degradation and
vehicle heterogeneity in driving range, and balance the other two
optimization objectives (waiting time and construction cost). Module
3 aims to refine the charging locations in line with the practical
planning requirement of Constraint (3). Note that the proposed method
decomposes the ET–FCFD problem into several subproblems to make its
curse of dimensionality tractable. Although a global optimal solution
may not be ensured, it is indeed capable to find satisfactory solutions
for real large-scale ET–FCFD problems.
4.1. Module 1: Selection of candidate charging sites
In general, a suitable charging site should have adequate parking
space and good accessibility. At urban/traffic planning level, an effi-
cient and favorable ET charging network should ensure a high coverage
rate of charging service provision. In urban area, candidate charging
sites could be taxi depots, petrol stations and public carparks. If there
is a very large number of possible charging sites, we can also apply a
clustering analysis to facilitate the selection of candidate charging sites
where a pre-determined service coverage rate (the 1st objective of the
5
Applied Energy 286 (2021) 116515
ET–FCFD problem) of ET charging infrastructure could be satisfied.3
The specific procedure is given below:
Step 1: Prepare temporal and spatial distribution of charging demand
(more information of charging demand estimation will be
elaborated in next section), and location information of possi-
ble charging sites (depots, petrol stations and public carparks
etc.) and set 𝑘 = 1 (the value could be empirically set).
Step 2: Perform a K-means clustering analysis with 𝑘 clusters for the
given charging demand distribution. The K-means clustering is
a method of vector quantization that aims to partition all road
segments into 𝑘 clusters in which each road segment belongs
to the cluster with the nearest mean (cluster centers), serving
as a prototype of the cluster.
Step 3: Adjust the cluster centers to the locations included in the set of
possible charging sites according to a proximity rule; i.e., each
cluster center is re-aligned to its nearest available charging
site.
Step 4: Given a charging service radius (e.g., 1 km), examine the cov-
erage rate of the obtained cluster centers. If overall coverage
rate meets the pre-determined threshold (e.g., 85%), then stop
and get the candidate charging sites; otherwise, let 𝑘 = 𝑘 + 1
and go to Step 2.
We here use a geospatial coverage rate (i.e., to maximize percent
of network area covered) for the following reason. A geospatial cov-
erage rate provides a system metric from the planning perspective
which grants charging-infrastructure-to-road-infrastructure matching.
The adoption of this approach will not lead to an ET–FCFD scheme with
inferior charging request coverage. Once there are sparse taxi activities
as well as low charging requests around a candidate charging site,
our developed model (Module 2 in next subsection) will assign fewer
chargers at the particular charging station. In addition, we propose a
refinement mechanism (Module 3) to remove those candidate charging
sites with very few chargers (e.g., < 2) to ensure a more economic ET–
FCFD scheme. Therefore, our proposed method could ensure there is
no established charging station with very low charging demand.
4.2. A three-step fast charging facility deployment (FCFD) approach
In the second module, we are going to optimize the configuration
of charging infrastructure (i.e., the number of fast chargers) for each
charging site/station. As shown in Fig. 1, we in this module develop
a three-step FCFD approach by considering the impacts of battery
degradation and vehicle heterogeneity in driving range, and address-
ing two planning objectives. The proposed approach consists of three
components, namely charging demand estimation, charging demand
allocation model and an optimization model for charging capacity
determination. We in the following explain each of them in details.
4.2.1. Charging demand estimation
Charging demand distribution provides essential input data for
the modeling of charging facility deployment. Similar to travel trip/
demand estimation, survey tools such as questionnaire interview and
on-site video could be applied to obtain ET charging demand, including
daily charging frequency and charging preference in charging duration
and charging time period etc. But such survey is always labor intensive,
time consuming and also very costly, and in most cases only a biased
sample can be obtained.
For a city with relatively stable population, mature economic en-
tities and developed road infrastructure, travel pattern within urban
3
Of course, some facility location models such as maximal-coverage
location model could be used to determine the candidate charging sites,
particularly when there are not too many potential charging points in a city.
H. Wang et al. Applied Energy 286 (2021) 116515

Fig. 1. The research methodology.

transport system would remain consistent. This means that, in a pre- 𝑘

dictable future scenario, average daily travel mileage of a taxi could be
assumed based on current customers’ travel behaviors, no matter the
taxi is electric or gasoline-based. For a future ET planning scenario, taxi
electrification will follow the road map from land transport/urban plan-
ning authority, which sets the goal of ET penetration rate in the market
at each milestone, such as 30% in 2025. With the above explanations,
it becomes plausible to use existing taxi trajectories to estimate a
temporal–spatial ET charging demand distribution for a given planning
scenario and then produce a favorable charging infrastructure plan.
Here we will show how to estimate the time-dependent charging
demand based on existing ETs’ real-time trajectories. Based on ET
trajectories, we can track the real-time state of charge (SoC) of each ET
and thus predict when and where an ET will go to replenish energy.
The charging demand for an ET not only relies on its accumulative
travel mileage but also depends on its actual battery capacity (actual
driving range) related to vehicle type and battery state (level of bat-
tery degradation). In general, ETs undergo different levels of battery
degradation in real world due to drivers’ different operational behavior,
maintenance schemes and travel mileages. Therefore, we can define
the attributes of an ET 𝑣 by a triple 𝑣 ∶= (𝑑𝑣 (𝑡), 𝑅𝑣 , 𝜌𝑣 ) where 𝑑𝑣 (𝑡)
is the total distance traveled since time zero (i.e., accumulative travel
distance), 𝑅𝑣 is the driving range of the 𝑘th type of new ETs and 𝜌𝑣 is
the battery degradation rate of ET 𝑣.
Consider a dataset of ET trajectories over a time horizon  ∶=
{0, 1, … , 𝑇 } (e.g., one day or one week measured in second). Let 
be the set of ET types differentiated in default battery capacity (in
driving range as well) and  𝑘 be the set of 𝑘th type of ETs, 𝑘 ∈ .
As an ET fast charging infrastructure planning is always orientated to
future ET traffic scenarios, the status of ET battery degradation would
be unknown. Therefore, the ET’s battery degradation is assumed to
follow a truncated normal distribution, 𝜌𝑣 ∼ Nor(𝜇𝜌 , 𝜎𝜌2 , 𝑎, 𝑏), where 𝑎
and 𝑏 are the lower bound (𝑎 = 0 means new battery without capacity
loss) and upper bound, and 𝜇𝜌 and 𝜎𝜌 are, respectively, the mean and
standard deviation. In this study, we use a sampling approach to realize
the battery degradation distribution for ET fleet so as to characterize its
impact on charging facility planning.
Let 𝑞𝑣,𝑡,𝑗 be the charging request of 𝑘th type ET 𝑣, 𝑣 ∈  𝑘 at time 𝑡
(measured in second) at 𝑗th sample of battery degradation rate. The
charging demand 𝑞𝑣,𝑡,𝑗𝑘 can be estimated based on the accumulative
travel distance by
⎧ 𝜗̄ − 𝜗, if 𝑡 ≠ 𝑇 and 𝑑𝑣 (𝑡) mod
⎪ ( 𝑘 )
⎪ 𝑅𝑣 (1 − 𝜌𝑣,𝑗 )(𝜗̄ − 𝜗) = 0,
⎪ ( 𝑘 )
𝑘 ⎪ 𝑑𝑣 (𝑡) mod 𝑅𝑣 (1 − 𝜌𝑣,𝑗 )(𝜗̄ − 𝜗)
𝑞𝑣,𝑡,𝑗 =⎨ , if 𝑡 = 𝑇 and 𝑑𝑣 (𝑡) mod (7)
⎪ 𝑅𝑘𝑣 (1 − 𝜌𝑣,𝑗 )(𝜗̄ − 𝜗)
⎪ ( 𝑘 )
⎪ 𝑅𝑣 (1 − 𝜌𝑣,𝑗 )(𝜗̄ − 𝜗) ≠ 0,
⎪ 0, otherwise,
⎩
where 𝑅𝑘𝑣 is the driving range for the 𝑘th type of new ETs; 𝜌𝑣,𝑗 is the
battery degradation rate for ET 𝑣 at the 𝑗th sample; 𝜗 is the charging
threshold (i.e., when the SoC is lower than the threshold, the ET would
be re-charged); and 𝜗̄ is the charging target for each charge practice
(e.g., 80% is a typical achievable cap for fast charging). Eq. (7) shows
that, to fulfill the same travel mileage, an ET charges more frequently
if its battery degrades more severely.
4.2.2. Charging demand allocation
At the second step of Module 2, we aim to allocate the time-
dependent charging requests to desirable charging points so as to
minimize the total travel distance (energy depleted) from the instanta-
neous places of charging requests generated to charging stations. Given
the fast charging stations, the charging demand allocation is a classical
facility location problem. Let  be the set of selected candidate charging
sites,  be the set of samples of battery degradation and 𝑗 be the set
𝑗
of
( charging requests at the ) 𝑗th sample of battery degradation,  ∶=
𝑘 , 𝑣 ∈ , 𝑡 ∈  , 𝑘 ∈  . Let 𝑠
𝑞𝑣,𝑡,𝑗 be the travel distance between the
𝑞,𝑖
𝑘
instantaneous place of charging request 𝑞𝑣,𝑡,𝑗 occurred and the charging
station 𝑖. At the 𝑗th sample of battery degradation, the charging demand
allocation problem can be formulated by an integer programming (IP)
model as below:
∑ ∑
(Demand allocation model) min 𝑧𝑞,𝑖 𝑠𝑞,𝑖 (8)
𝑞∈𝑗 𝑖∈

6
H. Wang et al.
s.t.
∑ is ready to accept the 𝜅th charging request. Therefore, the total waiting
𝑧𝑞,𝑖 = 1, ∀ 𝑞 ∈ 𝑗 , 𝑗 ∈  ,
𝑖∈
𝑧𝑞,𝑖 ∈ {0, 1}, ∀ 𝑞 ∈ 𝑗 , 𝑗 ∈  ,
where 𝑧𝑞,𝑖 are binary decision variables, where 𝑧𝑞,𝑖 = 1 if the charging
request 𝑞 is assigned to be served at charging station 𝑖, 0 otherwise. The
objective function (8) is to minimize the total travel distance that ETs
move to desirable charging stations. Constraints (9) require that each
charging request will be served once at only one charging station.
The above IP model could be relaxed to an equivalent linear pro-
gramming if the minimum element in the travel distance vector 𝐬𝑞 ∶=
(𝑠𝑞,𝑖 , 𝑖 ∈ ) is unique. If so, the IP model can be simplified into a shortest
path assignment problem.
Since there would be a certain distance from the place of an in-
stantaneous charging request to desirable charging station, we need to
calibrate the actual time and SoC of an ET arriving at the charging
station. The actual time of charging request 𝑞 arriving at charging
station 𝑖 can be calculated by
𝑡arr
𝑞,𝑖 = 𝑡𝑞 + 𝑠𝑞,𝑖 ∕𝑣,
̄ ∀ 𝑞, 𝑖,
where 𝑡𝑞 is the time when the charging request 𝑞 is generated and 𝑣̄ is
the average velocity of ETs on road network.
The SoC when ET 𝑣 (mapping to charging request 𝑞) arrives at the
charging station 𝑖 could be updated by
( )
SoC𝑞,𝑖 = 𝜗 − 𝑠𝑞,𝑖 ∕ 𝑅𝑘𝑣 (1 − 𝜌𝑣,𝑗 ) , ∀ 𝑞, 𝑖,
and thus the amount of energy (measured in SoC) to be replenished is
𝜗̄ − SoC𝑞,𝑖 .
𝑘
Let 𝑞𝑣,𝑡,𝑖,𝑗 be the charging request of ET 𝑣, 𝑣 ∈  𝑘 at time 𝑡 to
be fulfilled by charging station 𝑖 at the 𝑗th sample of battery degra-
dation. Let 𝑖,𝑗 be the set of charging demand allocated to charg-
ing
( station 𝑖 at the 𝑗th sample ) of battery degradation, i.e., 𝑖,𝑗 ∶=
𝑘
𝑞𝑣,𝑡,𝑖,𝑗 , ∀ 𝑘 ∈ , 𝑡 ∈  , 𝑣 ∈  𝑘 . We can thus obtain the arrival pattern
(arrival sequence in time series) of charging requests at charging station
𝑖. Fig. 2 gives an illustrative example of arrival pattern of charging
requests at charging station 𝑖.
4.2.3. Charging capacity optimization model
We in the third step propose an optimization model to determine the
optimal number of fast chargers (charging capacity) for each charging
station. The optimization objective includes the average total waiting
time (ATWT) accumulated during a given planning period and total
construction cost.
(1) 𝐷∕𝐷∕𝑠 queuing system with multiple chargers
We first look at the calculation of the ATWT. The charging service
process at each charging station is characterized by a 𝐷∕𝐷∕𝑠 queuing
system with multiple chargers (servers), where the first-come-first-
served principle is applied. Without loss of generality, the charging
requests 𝑖,𝑗 can be sorted in the order of arriving time. To facilitate
the narrative, the subscripts 𝑖 and 𝑗 are dropped hereafter, and the
following analysis focuses on queuing process at charging station 𝑖 at
the 𝑗th sample of battery degradation unless otherwise stated.
Let 𝐴(𝑡) be the accumulative arrivals of ET charging requests by time
𝑡, 𝐷(𝑡) be the cumulative number to enter for charging service by time 𝑡,
and 𝐷∗ (𝑡) be the cumulative departures to have left the charging servers
by time 𝑡. As shown in Fig. 3, the total waiting time in queue is the area
bounded by 𝐴(𝑡) and 𝐷(𝑡) and the total waiting time in system is the
area bounded by the two curves of 𝐴(𝑡) and 𝐷∗ (𝑡). The average time in
charging queue for ET drivers 𝚥 + 1 to 𝚥 + 𝑛 inclusive is given by
1 ∑ ′
𝜅=𝚥+𝑛
𝑤queue ≡ (𝑡 − 𝑡𝜅 ),
𝑛 𝜅=𝚥+1 𝜅
Applied Energy 286 (2021) 116515
where 𝑡𝜅 is the arrival time and 𝑡′𝜅 is the time that the charging server
(9)
time at the 𝑗th sample of battery degradation is
∑ 𝑖,𝑗
(10) 𝑇𝑊 𝑇 = 𝑤queue , ∀ 𝑗 ∈  , (12)
𝑖∈
and the ATWT is then given by
1 ∑ ∑ 𝑖,𝑗
𝐴𝑇 𝑊 𝑇 = 𝑤 , (13)
|𝐽 | 𝑗∈ 𝑖∈ 𝑞
where 𝑤𝑖,𝑗
queue is the average queuing time at charging station 𝑖 at the
sample 𝑗.
(2) Charging capacity optimization model
We now aim to determine an optimal decision of the number of fast
chargers to be deployed at each charging station so as to find a trade-off
between ATWT minimization and total construction cost minimization
under a given planning period (e.g., 5 years). Note that finite charging
requests will be fulfilled at each charging station. Therefore, there
would be no queue if a sufficiently large number chargers are provided.
In turn, building more chargers means more investment. Thus, we here
formulate a weighted sum optimization model to seek such trade-off
for each charging station:
𝑇plan
(Charging capacity model) min 𝛼𝐶𝐶(𝑦𝑖 ) + (1 − 𝛼) 𝜏𝐴𝑇 𝑊 𝑇 (𝑦𝑖 )
𝑦𝑖 𝑇
(14)
s.t.
𝑦𝑖 ∈ N ∶= {0, 1, 2, …}, (15)
𝑦𝑖 ≤ 𝑦̄𝑖 , (16)
where 𝑦𝑖 is the decision variable (the number of fast chargers at charg-
ing station 𝑖). It is defined as a nonnegative integer by Constraint (15).
Constraint (16) specifies a cap of the number of chargers (𝑦̄𝑖 ) that can
be deployed at charging station 𝑖. Coefficient 𝛼, 𝛼 ∈ [0, 1] is a weighted
parameter and 𝑇plan is the given period of charging infrastructure plan-
ning (e.g., 5 years) in line with agencies’ planning roadmap. Coefficient
𝜏 is the value of time ($/min) which is used to transform the second
objective of the ATWT into an equivalent monetary item. By this way,
the two objective components could be measured in the same unit and
time dimension. Function 𝐶𝐶(⋅) is used to calculate the investment of
establishing a fast charging station,
𝐶𝐶(𝑦𝑖 ) = 𝑦𝑖 ∗ 𝐸𝐼𝐶 + 𝑛year ∗ 𝐴𝑂𝐶 ∗ 𝑦𝑖 , (17)
where 𝐸𝐼𝐶 is the construction cost (equipment and installation cost)
to build a fast charger and 𝐴𝑂𝐶 is the annual operational cost (for
maintenance and infrastructure repair) for one charger; 𝑛year is the
planning year.
Note that the maximal number of chargers 𝑦̄𝑖 is an finite integer
and can be set as the number of parking lots at charging station 𝑖.
Since there exist limit feasible solutions subject to nonnegative integer
condition and the bound of 𝑦̄𝑖 , it is not difficult to solve the above
developed model (14) by using the enumeration method.
It is worth pointing out that, in Module 2, once the charging demand
assigned to each candidate charging site is determined, the optimiza-
tion model is applied to minimize the AWAT and construction cost by
determining an optimal charger number at each station. That means,
the network-level charging infrastructure planning problem is decom-
posed into hundreds of station-based sub-problems of charger number
optimization with given charging requests. Using this approach, the
computational intractability mentioned in Section 3 is greatly reduced
(11)
and the ET–FCFD problem becomes solvable.
7
H. Wang et al.
Fig. 2. An illustrative example of arrival pattern of charging requests at charging station 𝑖.
Fig. 3. Graphical representation of cumulative arrivals and departures from a charging queue.
4.3. Refinement of ET charging facility deployment
After implementing Module 2 with given candidate charging sites,
we can obtain the FCFD result for the ET system. However, some
charging stations may only have very few chargers, such as one charger.
Such situation means an unattractive scale of economics because mul-
tiple chargers often share a unified electrical grid system and the
same-purpose land use. Almost all stakeholders including ET operators,
government agencies, urban planning sectors and ET drivers would like
to enjoy the scale of economics of a certain degree of integrate charging
sites so as to save land use and construction cost, reduce management
challenges and maintenance cost, and enhance convenience and level
of charging service.4
To make a more reasonable and economic planning of charging
infrastructure, we propose the Module 3 to refine the FCFD via a
backward elimination method to ensure a minimum number of fast
chargers (e.g., 2 chargers) at every station. The specific procedure for
the refined module is elaborated below:
4
Build more chargers at one site would help to attract more ET users and
also avoid someones waiting too long time in high chance.
8
Applied Energy 286 (2021) 116515
Step 1: Examine if the charger numbers of all selected charging sta-
tions (denoted by a set of 𝛱) satisfy the pre-determined
requirement of minimal charger number; if yes, stop and
report the CFD result; otherwise, filter out the unsuitable ones
(denoted by a set of 𝛱 ′ ) and go to Step 2.
Step 2: Iteratively refine the charging locations based on backward
elimination and coverage rate examination.
Step 2.1: Choose one element from 𝜋 ∈ 𝛱 ′ and remove it from
the set of 𝛱, i.e., let 𝛱 ∶= 𝛱∖{𝜋}.
Step 2.2: Given the re-defined set of charging sites 𝛱 and
examine the coverage rate by using Step 4 in Module
1. If the coverage rate is satisfactory, then do Module
2 again and go to Step 1; otherwise, let 𝛱 ′ ∶=
𝛱 ′ ∖{𝜋} and choose another element from 𝜋 ∈ 𝛱 ′
and go to Step 2.1 .
Step 2.3: Stop criterion: if 𝛱 ′ = 𝜙, stop and report the result
of refined FCFD scheme.
We have thus far elaborated our research methodology of the ET–
FCFD problem. In the next section, we will explain how to apply the
proposed method for solving a city case.
H. Wang et al.
5. An empirical study in Singapore
In this section, a case study on the road network in Singapore is
conducted to validate the proposed method. Some managerial insights
and policy implications in ET charging infrastructure planning are also
revealed. As suggested by Yang et al. [39], a 30% of battery degra-
dation limit is taken. It is assumed that the battery degradation rates
of ETs follow a truncated normal distribution Nor ∼ (0.1, 0.1, 0.0, 0.3)
and the sample size is 1000. Table 1 gives the parameter setting in
our case study, where ETs are divided into 9 groups according to their
driving ranges. We here explain more about the ET groups and the
weighted parameter. ET groups ideally can be determined according to
the future planning/roadmap for taxi electrification in Singapore. Since
such confidential information is inaccessible, the ET range categories
in this study are based on the state-of-the-art market information
(https://insideevs.com/electric-cars-us-price-range-comparison/). The
weighted parameter is used to inject flexibility so that one may pri-
oritize certain goal while balance two system objectives. We here
set 𝛼 = 0.3 to align with the recommendation from government
experts/planners, and our proposed methodology works well for any
𝛼 ∈ [0, 1].
In this case study, we consider an ET penetration rate of 30% to the
whole taxi fleet in Singapore. We here explain more on how to apply
the proposed model to address increasing taxi demand and/or electric
taxi penetration rate in the future. Based on future charging demand
distribution, it is easy to apply Module 1 to enrich the set of candidate
charging sites where the existing ones would be retained. As the taxi
demand or the number of ETs increases in every few years, planners and
policymakers from transport sectors could re-run Modules 2 and 3 to
build more chargers at the selected charging sites to meet the increasing
charging demand in the future.
In addition, it is worth noting that advancement in battery technol-
ogy is another important influential factor for future charging facility
planning. Once battery capacity is greatly improved over time, ETs will
have longer driving range and can re-charge less frequently. However,
this will increase the burden on grid network as higher power is needed
to maintain the same efficiency of fast charging. If such power needs
can be fulfilled, charging demand on the network will decrease by
some extent, which can be well tackled by Module 2. In turn, planners
shall retain sufficient buffer resources, such as buffer transformers at
electrical substations and/or land for upgrading the grid network to
provide more power for ET charging.
5.1. Description of the planning scenario
A brief description is made here to clarify our tested scenario. The
charging demand estimation in this study is based on the GPS dataset
of taxi trajectories in Singapore, which were collected in the second
week of December 2018 (December 9–15 2018). The total number
of regularly operating taxis is 20,434. As shown in Table 1, the ET
penetration rate in the taxi market is assumed to be 30%. We thus
generate the ET fleet by randomly choosing 6130 taxis from the taxis
pool. In the following, we introduce the pre-processing of ET trajectory
data and assess the sampling quality of ET fleet generation by some
fundamental statistical analyzes (frequency and fitting analyses).5
5
The charging behavior might slightly change the operation pattern and
daily travel mileages of taxis for an electrification taxi system. Such an
impact is, to great extent, negligible for our analysis due to the following
considerations. First, EV taxis have enough idle time (during off-service/shift-
changing periods) to replenish any depleted energy used during operations.
Second, as battery and fast charging technologies are advanced rapidly in
the near future, EV taxis would charge less frequently with a much reduced
charging duration per charge.
9
Applied Energy 286 (2021) 116515
5.1.1. Pre-processing of ET trajectories
A raw data processing is performed to clean some data noises. The
main principles/procedures used for data cleaning are listed below:
(1) Location Principle. We firstly clean the data points outside
the island according to real-time taxi positions. The geo-
graphic scope of Singapore is roughly bounded by the lati-
tude interval [1.2◦ , 1.5◦ ] and the longitude interval [102.5◦ ,
105◦ ]. The taxi trajectory records containing locations be-
yond the scope are thus eliminated accordingly.
(2) Speed Principle. We also remove the data noise based on
taxis’ real-time speed information. Taxi trajectory records
with speeds greater than 90 km/h (the speed limit for
highways in Singapore) will be cleaned.
(3) Interpolation. A linear interpolation of ET trajectories is
carried out in every 30 s to generate a standard dataset in
equal time intervals.
After the data pre-processing, we obtain the dataset of taxi trajecto-
ries and use it for the generation of ET trajectories and related charging
demand estimation. Fig. 4a plots the spatial distribution of half-hour
ET records (8:30 am–9:00 am, 09 December). The blank areas with
no/sparse taxi records include hills, nature reserve districts (forests
and reservoirs) and infrastructure under construction (e.g., the new
terminal of Changi airport in the eastern).
5.1.2. Statistical assessment of ET fleet generation
As mentioned above, the dataset of ET trajectories is generated
by randomly choosing some samples of vehicles from the whole taxi
pool. In this section, we assess if the ET fleet generation is statistically
effective by making a comparison analysis on daily travel mileages
between the ET fleet (the sample) and whole taxi fleet (the popula-
tion). As displayed in Fig. 4b, for both the sample and population,
their travel mileage data are categorized into equal interval groups of
30 km each and the occurrence frequency for each group in percent
is calculated. First, it can be seen that the grouping patterns of the
sample and population are very close. The mean daily travel mileage is
346.5 km for the sample dataset and 335.5 km for the whole popula-
tion. Second, we use Gauss curves to fit the frequencies of occurrence
of travel mileage groups for the sample and population. The statistics
of adjusted R-square for both fittings are greater than 0.98, which
indicate a very well goodness of fitting. As shown in Fig. 4b, the two
fitted Gauss curves almost overlap without any discernible gap and
the fitting parameters for their the probability density distributions
are very close. For example, the expectation for the distribution is
11.778% for the sample and 11.783% for the whole population. The
above discussions demonstrate the high-quality of EV fleet generation,
which is statistically satisfactory.
5.2. Charging demand estimation and its temporal–spatial distribution
We now look at the charging demand estimation. Based on the
obtained dataset of ET trajectories, Eq. (7) is used to estimate the
charging demand and the charging demand allocation model (8)–(10) is
applied to determine the temporal–spatial distribution of the charging
demand.
We here concisely interpret the results of charging demand es-
timation and allocation. Take the 1st group of battery degradation
samples for example. We obtain more than 27,770 charging requests.
For each sampling scenario of battery degradation, the charging re-
quests are divided into equal interval groups of 30 min each and the
frequency of occurrence for each group is analyzed. The box plotting
in Fig. 5 presents the temporal distribution of charging frequency
(i.e., the no. of charging requests falling into each time interval) of
all sampling scenarios. We are also interested in the result of charging
allocation — the spatial distribution of the charging requests. Similar
to the setting used in [34], 185 petrol stations scattering across the
H. Wang et al. Applied Energy 286 (2021) 116515

Table 1
The parameter setting for the case study.
Parameter Value/Setting
Taxi fleet 20,434 operating taxis in the dataset
ET fleet 6130 ≈ 30% (ET penetration rate) × 20, 434
Candidate charging sites 185 petrol stations across the island
Refinement principle At least 2 chargers for each charging station
ET groups Group No. Range (km) Battery size (kWh) Market share (%)
Group 1 143 25.5 16
Group 2 183 28 22
Group 3 200 33.2 25
Group 4 243 40 12
Group 5 354 50 8
Group 6 383 60 6
Group 7 415 64 5
Group 8 465 75 4
Group 9 500 80 2
Other parameters: Planning period 𝑛year = 5 years
Sample size 1000
Fast charging rate 1.2C
Weighted parameter 𝛼 = 0.3
Value of time 𝜏 = 0.5 S$/min
Unit construction costa 50,672 S$/charger
Unit annual operational costa 617 S$/charger
Required coverage rate (service radius of 2 km) 85%
a The unit costs are obtained from a technical report of Land Transport Authority in Singapore [42].

Table 2 more than 32 charging sites with only one charger under initial scheme
The optimized charging facility deployment results.
(solution without refinement) will be removed from the consideration
System indicators Solution without Refined solution of charging infrastructure planning. We here also compare the coverage
refinement
rate of charging service before and after implementing refinement. The
Deployment No. of stations 183 151
coverage rate with service radius of 2 km slightly drops from 88.7% to
indicators Total charger No. 808 786
Maximal charger 30 30 88.5% if the refinement technique is applied. We then focus on the two
No. at one station performance indicators. Through the refinement,
( the ATWT (measured)
Performance Coverage rate 88.7% 88.5% in daily waiting time) is reduced by 7.95% 7.95% = 297.808−274.135 and
indicators ATWT (h/day) 297.808 274.135
( 297.808 )
43.508−42.324
TCC (Million S$) 43.508 42.324
the TCC is saved by about 1.2 million S$ 2.72% = 43.508
. In
summary, the refinement helps to save investment and improve system
performance in reducing the ATWT. This is because that the refinement
yields a more aggregate FCFD scheme in which the utilization rate of
island are considered as the candidate fast charging points for ETs. To the charging infrastructure would be enhanced, compared to the initial
give a straightforward presentation, we plot the spatial distribution of scheme obtained by solving Module 2 once.
charging demand allocation in Fig. 6.
5.4. The importance of incorporating vehicle heterogeneity and battery
5.3. Fast charging facility deployment scheme for the ET system degradation

In this section, we focus on discussing the obtained solutions of fast

charging facility deployment. The solution before refinement is to per-
form Module 2 one time to find an optimal ET–FCFD scheme; whereas,
the refinement is to find a more economic solution by iteratively
eliminating the charging stations with only one charger.
Figs. 7a and 7b, respectively, show the optimal FCFD results before
and after the refinement. Table 2 compares two solutions by analyzing
various system indicators, such as the number of station built and total
construction cost.
We below explain more about the comparison so as to understand
the effect/value of the refinement. Five system indicators are provided
in Table 2, which are categorized into two groups — deployment indi-
cators and performance indicators. The deployment indicators include
the number (no.) of charging station built, total number of chargers
deployed and the maximal number of chargers at single station; the
performance indicators measure system performance in terms of the
average total waiting time (ATWT) and total construction cost (TCC).
We first go through the deployment indicators. The no. of stations
goes down from 183 to 151 (decrease by about 17%) and the total
no. of chargers declines from 808 to 786 (decrease by about 3%)
after implementing the refinement, although the maximal charger no.
keeps unchanged. This indicates that the refined solution makes an
aggregate optimization for the charging facility deployment, where
Here we make an attempt to understand the impact of driving range
heterogeneity and battery degradation on the ET charging infrastruc-
ture planning. The following four cases with different settings of driving
range and battery status are considered:
(1) SEG-NBD case: The first case is for a single ET group with
no battery degradation (called SEG-NBD case). In this case,
there is only one ET type that all ETs have the same driving
range of 𝑅𝑖𝑘 = 243 km (mean value). At the meantime, all
ETs are new; that is, there is no battery degradation for ETs.
(2) MEG-NBD case: In the second case, we consider multiple
ET groups as shown in Table 1 and assume that all ETs are
new vehicles. The case is dubbed as MEG-NBD case.
(3) SEG-BD case: In this case, battery degradation is addressed
and only single ET group with the mean driving range is
taken into account (called SEG-BD case).
(4) MEG-BD case: The fourth one is MEG-BD case, in which
both multi-type ETs and battery degradation are considered.
Table 3 provides the FCFD results (refined solutions) for the four
cases. We first examine the significance of incorporating vehicle het-
erogeneity into ET fast charging infrastructure planning. Let us make a
comparison between the SEG-NBD case and the MEG-NBD case. Under

10
H. Wang et al. Applied Energy 286 (2021) 116515

Fig. 4. Visualization of ET trajectories (8:30–9:00, Dec 9) and statistical assessment of ET sampling.

( )
786−718
the MEG-NBD case where multi-type ETs are addressed, 149 charging about 8.65% = . Accordingly, the ATWT and TCC are underes-
786 ( )
stations will be built and 718 fast chargers will be deployed across timated by 13.30% 13.30% = 274.135−237.666 and 8.65%
the island. As a result, the ATWT is 237.666 hours per day and TCC ( ) 274.135
42.324−38.662
is 38.662 million S$. If the vehicle heterogeneity is not taken into 8.65% = 42.324
. A similar trend can be obtained by the compar-
ison analysis between the SEC-NBD case and SEG-BD case. It implies
account, the number of charging stations and the total number of fast
that the FCFD plan will be also inaccurately determined if the bat-
chargers will, respectively, decrease to 142 and 681, and the ATWT
tery degradation is not considered. This is because that the charging
and TCC decline by 7.43% and 5.15% respectively. The lesson we learn
demand would be greatly underestimated without considering bat-
here is that overlooking vehicle heterogeneity will lead to a biased
tery degradation. As a result, fewer chargers and less investment are
planning of charging infrastructure and the system performance will required.
be optimistically overestimated. The same conclusion could be drawn We also gauge the gap if both factors are not addressed by compar-
and validated based on a comparison analysis between the SEG-BD case ing the MEG-BD case and SEG-NBD ( case. For the) FCFD results, the num-
and the MEG-BD case, although the degrees of overestimation in terms ber of stations is reduced by 6% 6% = 151−142 and the total number of
of the ATWT and TCC may be slight different, about 5.20% and 5.85% (151 )
chargers is underestimated by 13.36% 13.36% = 786−681 786
. Regarding
respectively.
the system performance,
( ) the estimation errors are more than 19.74%
We then move to explore the influence of battery degradation by
19.74% = 274.135−220.009 of the ATWT and 13.17%
comparing the results between the MEG-NBD case and MEG-BD case. ( 274.135 )
42.234−36.67
Under the MEG-BD case, 151 charging stations and 786 chargers will be 13.17% = 42.234
of the TCC. The absolute estimation error of
deployed, and the ATWT and TCC are respectively 274.135 hours/day the total construction cost even achieves 5.654 million S$. Based
and 42.324 million S$. When the battery degradation is neglected, on the above discussions, it can be concluded that a biased charging
the total number of faster chargers deployed sharply decreases to 718 infrastructure planning will be made if either factor is overlooked and

11
H. Wang et al. Applied Energy 286 (2021) 116515

Fig. 5. Daily charging frequency analysis.

Fig. 6. Spatial distribution of charging demand across 185 charging points (petrol stations).

Fig. 7. Fast charging facility deployment and the refined solution.

12
H. Wang et al.
Table 3
Comparison of charging facility deployment results (refined solutions) among the four cases.
Tested case
No. of stations
System indicator Total charger No.
Maximal charger No. at one station
ATWT (h/day)
TCC (Million S$)
the system performance will be remarkably overestimated especially
when both factors are not taken into account.
6. Concluding remarks
In this study, we propose a tangible FCFD method for ET systems
by taking into account multiple system optimization objectives, and
the impacts of battery degradation and vehicle heterogeneity in driving
range. The proposed method consists of three functional modules.
The first module is to select candidate charging sites for building
fast charging stations subject to a planning requirement of the pre-
determined coverage rate of charging service. In the second module,
we put forward a three-step FCFD approach based on ETs’ trajectories.
Module 2 thus comprises three functional procedures, namely the
charging demand estimation, charging demand allocation and charging
capacity optimization model. The charging demand estimation at the
first step is to predict temporal–spatial distribution of charging requests
based on ETs’ trajectories and by considering battery degradation and
multi-type vehicles in different driving ranges. The charging demand
allocation for the second step is to assign the forecasted charging
requests to desirable charging points. The third step is to formulate an
optimization model to minimize the weighted sum of the ATWT and
TCC by determining the optimal charging capacity for each station. The
last but also important module is to refine the charging locations by
using the backward elimination method and coverage rate examination
to ensure the number of chargers deployed at each station not less than
a required threshold (e.g. at least 2 chargers at every station so that the
scaling effect can be enjoyed and the land use could be saved).
An empirical case study in Singapore is performed to validate the
developed method and shed lights on the value of incorporating bat-
tery degradation and vehicle heterogeneity into charging infrastructure
planning. It is demonstrated that the proposed methodology performs
well in generating promising ET–FCFD scheme, although perhaps not
the system optimal one in some sense. Some insightful findings are
also obtained for policy-makings and charging infrastructure planning.
First, it is unveiled that the refinement mechanism could help to save
investment and enhance system performance in reducing the ATWT
for charging service. Second, the results show that, overlooking vehicle
heterogeneity and/or battery degradation will lead to a biased planning
of charging infrastructure and the system performance will be optimisti-
cally overestimated, up to an 19% of overestimation of reducing the
ATWT when both influential factors are not accounted for.
The research deserves more exploration in the future from multiple
dimensions and perspectives. First, we in this paper only consider
ETs and fast charging facilities. It is interesting to address a plan-
ning scenario with multi-ownership vehicles, such as private EVs and
ETs, and multi-type chargers including slow, fast and super-fast ones.
Second, although we have taken into account multiple optimization
objectives, e.g., coverage rate, the ATWT and TCC, the optimization
model could be extended to incorporate extra practical requirements,
such as the maximal turnaround/queuing time and the requirement
of minimal utilization rate. At last, although two important influential
factors (battery degradation and vehicle heterogeneity) are highlighted,
it would also be meaningful to consider the impact of ET users’ charging
preference.
Applied Energy 286 (2021) 116515
SEG-NBD case MEG-NBD case SEG-BD case MEG-BD case
142 149 147 151
681 718 740 786
31 27 29 30
220.009 237.666 259.879 274.135
36.670 38.662 39.847 42.324
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This research is supported by the Singapore Ministry of Transport,
Urban Redevelopment Authority, Land Transport Authority, Ministry of
National Development and the National Research Foundation, Prime
Minister’s Office, Singapore under the Land and Liveability National
Innovation Challenge (L2 NIC) Research Programme (L2 NIC Award
No. L2NICTDF1-2016-3). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or
recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s)
and do not reflect the views of the Singapore Ministry of Transport,
Land Transport Authority, Urban Redevelopment Authority, Housing
Development Board, Ministry of National Development and National
Research Foundation, Prime Minister’s Office, Singapore.
References
[1] Global Automotive & Transportation Team. Global electric vehicle market
outlook 2018. Tech. rep., Frost & Sullivan; 2018.
[2] EPRI. Consumer guide to electric vehicles. Tech. rep., Electric Power Research
Institute; 2019.
[3] EIA US. Annual energy outlook 2017: with projections to 2050. United States
Energy Information Administration; 2017.
[4] Coria J, Bonilla J, Grundström M, Pleijel H. Air pollution dynamics and the need
for temporally differentiated road pricing. Transp Res A 2015;75:178–95.
[5] Liu K, Wang J, Yamamoto T, Morikawa T. Modelling the multilevel structure
and mixed effects of the factors influencing the energy consumption of electric
vehicles. Appl Energy 2016;183:1351–60.
[6] Liu K, Wang J, Yamamoto T, Morikawa T. Exploring the interactive effects
of ambient temperature and vehicle auxiliary loads on electric vehicle energy
consumption. Appl Energy 2018;227:324–31.
[7] Nozick L. The fixed charge facility location problem with coverage restrictions.
Transp Res E 2001;37(4):281–96.
[8] Liu K, Yamamoto T, Morikawa T. Impact of road gradient on energy consumption
of electric vehicles. Transp Res D 2017;54:74–81.
[9] Riemann R, Wang DZ, Busch F. Optimal location of wireless charging facilities for
electric vehicles: Flow-capturing location model with stochastic user equilibrium.
Transp Res C 2015;58:1–12.
[10] Guo F, Yang J, Lu J. The battery charging station location problem: Impact of
users’ range anxiety and distance convenience. Transp Res E 2018;114:1–18.
[11] Wang Y, Shi J, Wang R, Liu Z, Wang L. Siting and sizing of fast charging stations
in highway network with budget constraint. Appl Energy 2018;228:1255–71.
[12] Xu M, Meng Q, Liu K. Network user equilibrium problems for the mixed battery
electric vehicles and gasoline vehicles subject to battery swapping stations and
road grade constraints. Transp Res B 2017;99:138–66.
[13] Sadeghi-Barzani P, Rajabi-Ghahnavieh A, Kazemi-Karegar H. Optimal fast
charging station placing and sizing. Appl Energy 2014;125:289–99.
[14] Zhang L, Shaffer B, Brown T, Samuelsen GS. The optimization of DC fast charging
deployment in california. Appl Energy 2015;157:111–22.
[15] Asamer J, Reinthaler M, Ruthmair M, Straub M, Puchinger J. Optimiz-
ing charging station locations for urban taxi providers. Transp Res A
2016;85:233–46.
[16] Arslan O, Karaşan OE. A benders decomposition approach for the charging
station location problem with plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Transp Res B
2016;93:670–95.
[17] Zhu Z-H, Gao Z-Y, Zheng J-F, Du H-M. Charging station location problem of
plug-in electric vehicles. J Transp Geogr 2016;52:11–22.
[18] Xie F, Liu C, Li S, Lin Z, Huang Y. Long-term strategic planning of inter-
city fast charging infrastructure for battery electric vehicles. Transp Res E
2018;109:261–76.
13
H. Wang et al.
[19] Yang W. A user-choice model for locating congested fast charging stations. Transp
Res E 2018;110:189–213.
[20] Xylia M, Leduc S, Patrizio P, Kraxner F, Silveira S. Locating charging
infrastructure for electric buses in stockholm. Transp Res C 2017;78:183–200.
[21] Hung DQ, Dong ZY, Trinh H. Determining the size of PHEV charging stations
powered by commercial grid-integrated PV systems considering reactive power
support. Appl Energy 2016;183:160–9.
[22] Lee C, Han J. Benders-and-price approach for electric vehicle charging
station location problem under probabilistic travel range. Transp Res B
2017;106:130–52.
[23] Efthymiou D, Chrysostomou K, Morfoulaki M, Aifantopoulou G. Electric vehicles
charging infrastructure location: a genetic algorithm approach. Eur Transp Res
Rev 2017;9(2):27.
[24] Vazifeh MM, Zhang H, Santi P, Ratti C. Optimizing the deployment of elec-
tric vehicle charging stations using pervasive mobility data. Transp Res A
2019;121:75–91.
[25] Shahraki N, Cai H, Turkay M, Xu M. Optimal locations of electric public charging
stations using real world vehicle travel patterns. Transp Res D 2015;41:165–76.
[26] Kara EC, Macdonald JS, Black D, Bérges M, Hug G, Kiliccote S. Estimating
the benefits of electric vehicle smart charging at non-residential locations: A
data-driven approach. Appl Energy 2015;155:515–25.
[27] He SY, Kuo Y-H, Wu D. Incorporating institutional and spatial factors in the
selection of the optimal locations of public electric vehicle charging facilities: A
case study of Beijing, China. Transp Res C 2016;67:131–48.
[28] Andrenacci N, Ragona R, Valenti G. A demand-side approach to the optimal
deployment of electric vehicle charging stations in metropolitan areas. Appl
Energy 2016;182:39–46.
[29] Baresch M, Moser S. Allocation of e-car charging: Assessing the utilization of
charging infrastructures by location. Transp Res A 2019;124:388–95.
[30] Grote M, Preston J, Cherrett T, Tuck N. Locating residential on-street elec-
tric vehicle charging infrastructure: A practical methodology. Transp Res D
2019;74:15–27.
14
Applied Energy 286 (2021) 116515
[31] Jochem P, Szimba E, Reuter-Oppermann M. How many fast-charging stations do
we need along European highways?. Transp Res D 2019;73:120–9.
[32] Huang P, Ma Z, Xiao L, Sun Y. Geographic information system-assisted optimal
design of renewable powered electric vehicle charging stations in high-density
cities. Appl Energy 2019;255:113855.
[33] Dong G, Ma J, Wei R, Haycox J. Electric vehicle charging point placement
optimisation by exploiting spatial statistics and maximal coverage location
models. Transp Res D 2019;67:77–88.
[34] Wang H, Zhao D, Meng Q, Ong GP, Lee D-H. A four-step method for electric-
vehicle charging facility deployment in a dense city: An empirical study in
Singapore. Transp Res A 2019;119:224–37.
[35] Guo S, Zhao H. Optimal site selection of electric vehicle charging station
by using fuzzy TOPSIS based on sustainability perspective. Appl Energy
2015;158:390–402.
[36] Xu M, Meng Q, Liu K, Yamamoto T. Joint charging mode and location choice
model for battery electric vehicle users. Transp Res B 2017;103:68–86.
[37] Muratori M, Elgqvist E, Cutler D, Eichman J, Salisbury S, Fuller Z, Smart J.
Technology solutions to mitigate electricity cost for electric vehicle DC fast
charging. Appl Energy 2019;242:415–23.
[38] Pelletier S, Jabali O, Laporte G, Veneroni M. Battery degradation and behaviour
for electric vehicles: Review and numerical analyses of several models. Transp
Res B 2017;103:158–87.
[39] Yang F, Xie Y, Deng Y, Yuan C. Predictive modeling of battery degradation and
greenhouse gas emissions from US state-level electric vehicle operation. Nature
Commun 2018;9(1):2429.
[40] Wang H, Zhao D, Cai Y, Meng Q, Ong GP. A trajectory-based energy consumption
estimation method considering battery degradation for an urban electric vehicle
network. Transp Res D 2019;74:142–53.
[41] Wang H, Zhao D, Meng Q, Ong GP, Lee D-H. Network-level energy consumption
estimation for electric vehicles considering vehicle and user heterogeneity.
Transp Res A 2020;132:30–46.
[42] ERI@N. E-MOBILITY. Tech. rep., Energy Research Institute @ Nanyang
Technological University (ERI@N); 2015.