Abstract
The automotive market is moving fast toward electrification. Changes in the consumer’s consciousness, government policies, and regulations have been driving consumers’ acceptance, and consequently the growth of electric vehicle sales. The existing barriers to such sales expansion tend to disappear with time, and it is expected that electric vehicles represent more than 30% of world sales by 2030. The participation by regions, however, should vary from country to country, and one of the main reasons is the insufficient charging infrastructure. The additional electricity demand and the unpredictable behavior of electric vehicle owners will significantly impact the electric energy distribution systems, with consequent instabilities and faults. This research work proposes a solution based on the metaheuristic Teaching-Learning-Based Optimization (TLBO) for the optimal charging of groups of electric vehicles. The proposed method aims to deliver the maximum energy possible to the batteries without violating the limits and constraints of the electric system. The TLBO is an efficient algorithm, which requires few parameters, and shows excellent exploration and exploitation characteristics. Simulation results will be shown for different charging situations and the good-quality results provided by TLBO will be discussed.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download conference paper PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
1 Introduction
A wide and efficient transportation system is crucial for the organization of modern society. Currently, this system is driven mostly by conventional vehicles powered by internal combustion engines (ICEs). As of 2018, transport accounted for 24% of the CO2 emissions from energy [1]. Still, according to [1], electrification technologies (including the use of hydrogen) applied to transportation systems could potentially provide significant decarbonization within decades. It is worth mentioning some important initiatives to urge governments to declare a climate emergency [2, 3] which would allow those governments to take decisive actions toward the planet’s decarbonization.
Electric vehicle (EV) production has been increasing in the last few years, mostly driven by government incentives and regulations that aim to reduce pollutant emissions and greenhouse effect gases. In 2019, EV sales represented about 3% of the world market, and the expectation is that this share would reach 32% by 2030 [4]. This evolution will occur at variable paces in different regions. For instance, the EV sales share in China will be close to 50%, while in the US they will not surpass 30%, as shown in Fig. 1.
A successful transportation electrification transition must overcome some crucial barriers, namely, the high prices of EVs, their low autonomy as compared to ICE-based vehicles, and an insufficient number of charging stations (CSs).
EV owners will charge their vehicles in dedicated CSs located at parking lots, shopping facilities, and mainly in their homes. As far as the public CSs, appropriately located CSs should meet the consumers’ needs by avoiding unnecessary trips and allowing the battery to be recharged before its minimum charge is reached. By plugging their EVs into a CS, the owners expect that the vehicles’ batteries be fully charged. Moreover, the charging process would be as fast as possible.
The authors in [5] evaluated actual data from more than 76 thousand EVs in Beijing, China, for one month. Most users charge their vehicles at night. Users in transit during daylight look for parking lots and specific CSs to charge their vehicles when the state of charge (SOC) is in the range of 20–90%.
Since CSs are supplied by the electrical energy distribution networks, which may impose some limitations on the charging process, optimal coordination is needed. Poor or non-existent coordination may significantly affect the distribution system operation, by increasing power losses and impacting the quality of the service. According to [6], power losses and voltage drops may reach respectively 6% and 10.3% at peak hours, assuming a 30% EV penetration.
In [7], it is shown that the impact of EVs on household consumption is limited, however, the distribution system demand peaks are considerable. A 50% EV penetration would result in a significant increase in the demand peak, as shown in Fig. 2.
Currently, most electrical networks are not prepared to handle this additional demand. The authors of [8] observed that non-coordinated EV charging may cause overloads in electrical network equipment. These overloads reduce equipment's useful lives, leading to precocious equipment replacements.
In [9], a second-order, conic programming method was proposed for the EV coordinated charging process. CSs were connected to the IEEE 32- and 136-bus test distribution systems. The goal was to maximize the EVs’ SOC and minimize the charging times. The authors show that non-coordinated charging may lead to distribution system violations, while coordinated charging do not, however, the charging process takes longer.
The EV charging process, especially considering a high EV penetration, cannot be ignored. Non-coordinated charging processes may affect their quality and efficiency as seen from both network and consumers’ standpoints.
This work aims to contribute to the development of an efficient charging process, by proposing an optimal, coordinated EV charging procedure that, at the same time, guarantees the fastest charging of all EVs plugged into a CS, and respects the electrical network constraints. To reach this goal, an optimization model is proposed and solved by using the metaheuristics Teaching-Learning Based Optimization (TLBO) [10]. TLBO is an efficient and easy-to-implement metaheuristic, which does not require problem-dependent parameters.
Simulation results will be shown using small-sized cases, to show the effectiveness of the proposed procedure, as well as large ones, to show its efficiency and robustness.
2 Mathematical Model
Consider that a certain number of EVs are connected to a CS. In its turn, the CS is connected to the electric power grid through a distribution transformer, as depicted in Fig. 3. It is assumed that a measuring device is installed and sends information about the transformer’s loading to a control circuit, which takes this information as well as information about the vehicles’ SOC and coordinates the energy delivered to the EVs within a predetermined time period. The objectives are twofold: (1) the SOC of each EV is the highest possible, and (2) the charging of each EV is as fast as possible.
The proposed mathematical model, based on [9], is
Equation (1) refers to the objective function, where \(NV\) is the number of EVs, \(SO{C}_{v}^{max}\) is the maximum state of charge of EV \(v\), so, it corresponds to the capacity of its battery. \(SO{C}_{v,T}\) is the state of charge of EV \(v\) at time instant \(T\) (end of the time period). \({x}_{v,t}\) is the parcel of \({P}_{v}\) (charging capacity of the battery of EV \(v\)) delivered to EV \(v\) at time period \(t\). The first term of the right-hand side is intended to charge the EVs’ batteries the most possible, while the second term forces the charging process to be as fast as possible. Matrix \(x\) contains the decision variables of the problem, and its elements are within the range \([\mathrm{0,1}]\), as defined by Eq. (6). Equation (2) guarantees that the power delivered to all batteries does not exceed the transformer capacity \({P}_{d,t}\) for each time period \(t\). Equations (3) and (4) establish a link between two consecutive time periods, considering the charging capacity of each battery (\({P}_{v}\)), the charging efficiency of the battery (\(\eta\)), and the battery self-discharge rate (\(\beta\)). Finally, Eq. (5) establishes the limits on the states of charge of the EVs.
3 Teaching-Learning-Based Optimization
Problems (1)-(6) can be solved by either conventional programming methods or metaheuristics. In this paper, the solution is obtained by the population-based metaheuristic Teaching-Learning-Based Optimization (TLBO), which was originally proposed by Rao, Savsani, and Vakharia [11]. TLBO is intended to find the optima of continuous functions and was inspired by the relationship dynamics in the classroom.
TLBO, as several other metaheuristics proposed in the literature, presents the ability to solve nonconvex, non-differentiable problems. Those kinds of problems can potentially pose numerical difficulties to conventional mathematical programming methods.
In TLBO the population corresponds to the class members. Each student represents a candidate solution to the optimization problem, that is, a set of decision variables. Students’ grades correspond to the fitness function. In the case of a minimization problem, the fitness of each individual is the inverse of his/her grade.
The algorithm is divided into two phases, namely the Teacher phase and the Student phase. In the Teacher phase, the teacher attempts to pass his/her knowledge to the students, while in the Student phase the students share their knowledge among themselves.
Different from other existing metaheuristics in the literature, TLBO does not require problem-dependent parameters to be tuned, which is an important advantage of the method. For instance, Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) [12] requires the tuning of inertia weight factors and acceleration constants. Also, the Firefly Algorithm (FA) [13] requires the adjustment of the light absorption and the attractiveness coefficients. The Genetic Algorithm (GA) requires the tuning of the mutation rate, the crossover probability, and the selection method [11]. TLBO does not require any such problem-specific parameters to be tuned [14] other than the population size and the number of iterations [10], which is a very interesting feature and makes its implementation much simpler.
TLBO has many advantages in addition to the need for a few parameters [14]. It is also a simple algorithm, easy to understand, computationally fast, provides high accuracy, and has good convergence ability. Moreover, TLBO is flexible, allowing the implementation of variations and improvements. The literature shows that TLBO has been used for solving several power-system-related problems, such as optimal capacitor placement in distribution systems [15], and distribution systems reconfiguration [16], among others.
Consider that the array \(X\) contains the decision variables of an optimization problem. Each individual \({X}_{i}\) is associated with a value of the objective function, say \({F}_{i}\). Also, consider that (a) \({X}_{m}\) is the mean value of all decision variables, and (b) individual \({X}_{T}\) is elected as the teacher since it bears the best value of the objective function, \({F}_{T}\).
In the Teacher phase, all students are moved toward the teacher according to
where \(r\) is a random scalar in the range \(\left[\mathrm{0,1}\right]\), and the teaching factor \({T}_{F}\) can be either 1 or 2, chosen randomly. The new individual replaces the current one if its objective function value shows improvement.
In the Student phase, a pair of students \({X}_{i}\) and \({X}_{j}\) is chosen arbitrarily and \({X}_{i}\) moves according to
\({X}_{i}^{new}\) replaces \({X}_{i}\) in case its objective function value shows improvement. The algorithm for TLBO is described below, where the population size is \({N}_{p}\).
4 Simulation Results
The proposed method for solving problems (1)-(6) through the TLBO algorithm was implemented using GNU Octave 7.2.0 [17], in a laptop with an i5 processor and 8GB RAM. A total of three simulation cases are shown to evaluate the performance of TLBO and the quality of the results.
Table 1 shows the parameters associated with each simulation. All parameters were defined in Sects. 2 and 3. Without loss of generality, the batteries are considered 100% efficient and do not self-discharge. A maximum of 1,000 iterations was set to allow a full appreciation of the evolution of the iterative process.
4.1 Case 1
In this simulation case, the power available from the transformer \({P}_{d}\) is less than the total power charging capacities of the batteries (\(150\, \text{kW}\)). The simulation results are summarized in Fig. 4. Figures 4(a)–4(c) show that the vehicles’ batteries are fully charged by time period 4. Figure 4(d) shows the evolution of the objective function along the iterations. The high values at the first iterations indicate that some constraints are violated. Afterward, TLBO converges quickly. Figure 4(e) shows a closer view of the evolution of the objective function. It is clear that 1,000 iterations are not necessary for obtaining very good quality solutions.
4.2 Case 2
In this case, the availability of the transformer decreased from 70 kW to 20 kW. Also, two vehicles present low initial SOCs, while the third one has a high SOC from start. Figure 5 shows the simulation results. The limitation in the availability of the supplying transformer implies a longer time for the batteries to fully charge.
4.3 Case 3
In this case, the transformer’s availability (\(70 \,\text{kW}\)) is larger than the total charging capacity of the batteries (\(45 \,\text{kW}\) altogether). Once more, two vehicles present low initial SOCs, while the third one has a high SOC from start. Also, the batteries have different charging power capacities. Figure 6 shows the simulation results. The batteries from vehicles 1 and 3 end up fully charged, however, the charging rates are different. Note that vehicle 1 is fully charged before vehicle 3. Also, vehicle 2 has a small charging power capacity, so its final SOC is around 60%.
The computational times for the three cases were 124, 132, and 131 s, respectively. Note that the program was implemented in an interpreted language and that 1,000 iterations were run for each case. Considering also that, according to Figs. 4–6, all cases converged after less than half the number of iterations, the performance of the proposed method was very good regarding its computational speed.
5 Conclusion
The availability of charging stations is crucial to push forward the adoption of electric vehicles. Additionally, appropriate coordination of the charging processes can potentially increase the confidence of consumers. In this paper, optimal coordination of EVs’ charging processes was proposed. The resulting optimization model was solved by the metaheuristic Teaching-Learning-Based Optimization. This metaheuristic showed to be easy to implement and efficient. The simulation results showed that optimal coordination can minimize the non-delivered energy to the EVs’ batteries as well as the charging time. In this research, the focus was on the optimal charging coordination itself, and a constraint was added to guarantee that the charging process does not cause any violation in the distribution grid.
References
Ritchie H.: Cars, planes, trains: where do CO2 emissions from transport come from? (2020) https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-transport. (Accessed 12 Jul 2022)
The Climate Mobilization: Our leaders are asleep at the wheel (2022) https://www.theclimatemobilization.org/climate-emergency/. (Accessed 12 Jul 2022)
Climate Emergency Declaration (2022). https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/. (Accessed 22 Jul 2022)
Quak, E.: The Covid-19 pandemic and the future of Global Value Chains (GVCs) (2020)
Sun, M., Shao, C., Zhuge, C., Wang, P., Yang, X., Wang, S.: Uncovering travel and charging patterns of private electric vehicles with trajectory data: evidence and policy implications. Transportation , 1–31 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-021-10216-1
Clement-Nyns, K., Haesen, E., Driesen, J.: The impact of charging plug-in hybrid electric vehicles on a residential distribution grid. IEEE Trans. power Syst. 25, 371–380 (2009)
Muratori, M.: Impact of uncoordinated plug-in electric vehicle charging on residential power demand. Nat. Energy. 3, 193–201 (2018)
Verzijlbergh, R.A., Grond, M.O.W., Lukszo, Z., Slootweg, J.G., Ilic, M.D.: Network impacts and cost savings of controlled EV charging. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid. 3, 1203–1212 (2012)
Sá, S.M., Pereira, M.D.I., Franco, J.F.: Linear programming applied to the EV coordinated charging in distribution networks. In: Brazilian Congress on Automatics (CBA), pp. 1–8 (2020) [In Portuguese]
Rao, R.V., Savsani, V.J., Vakharia, D.P.: Teaching–learning-based optimization: an optimization method for continuous non-linear large scale problems. Inf. Sci. (Ny) 183, 1–15 (2012)
Rao, R.V., Savsani, V.J., Vakharia, D.P.: Teaching–learning-based optimization: a novel method for constrained mechanical design optimization problems. Comput. Des. 43, 303–315 (2011)
Gaing, Z.-L.: Particle swarm optimization to solving the economic dispatch considering the generator constraints. IEEE Trans. power Syst. 18, 1187–1195 (2003)
Yang, X.-S.: Firefly algorithm, stochastic test functions and design optimisation. arXiv Prepr. arXiv1003.1409 (2010)
Xue, R., Wu, Z.: A survey of application and classification on teaching-learning-based optimization algorithm. IEEE Access. 8, 1062–1079 (2020)
Sultana, S., Roy, P.K.: Optimal capacitor placement in radial distribution systems using teaching learning based optimization. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 54, 387–398 (2014)
Kumar, D., Gupta, V.K.: Optimal reconfiguration of primary power distribution system using modified Teaching learning based optimization algorithm. In: 2016 IEEE 1st International Conference on Power Electronics, Intelligent Control and Energy Systems (ICPEICES), pp. 1–5. IEEE (2016)
Eaton, J.W., Bateman, D., Hauberg, S.: GNU Octave version 3.0. 1 manual: a high-level interactive language for numerical computations. SoHo Books (2007)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Santos, E.B.P., Castro, C.A. (2023). Optimal Charging Coordination of Electric Vehicles Using the Teaching-Learning-Based Optimization Algorithm. In: Iano, Y., Saotome, O., Kemper Vásquez, G.L., de Moraes Gomes Rosa, M.T., Arthur, R., Gomes de Oliveira, G. (eds) Proceedings of the 8th Brazilian Technology Symposium (BTSym’22). BTSym 2022. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, vol 353. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31007-2_33
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31007-2_33
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-31006-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-31007-2
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)