4.7 Article

A general corridor model for designing plug-in electric vehicle charging infrastructure to support intercity travel

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.trc.2016.04.016

关键词

Plug-in electric vehicle; Corridor model; Intercity travel; Metaheuristic; Simulated annealing

资金

  1. Institute of Sustainability and Energy at Northwestern (ISEN)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper proposes to optimally configure plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) charging infrastructure for supporting long-distance intercity travel using a general corridor model that aims to minimize a total system cost inclusive of infrastructure investment, battery cost and user cost. Compared to the previous work, the proposed model not only allows realistic patterns of origin-destination demands, but also considers flow-dependent charging delay induced by congestion at charging stations. With these extensions, the model is better suited to performing a sketchy design of charging infrastructure along highway corridors. The proposed model is formulated as a mixed integer program with nonlinear constraints and solved by a specialized metaheuristic algorithm based on Simulated Annealing. Our numerical experiments show that the metaheuristic produces satisfactory solutions in comparison with benchmark solutions obtained by a mainstream commercial solver, but is more computationally tractable for larger problems. Noteworthy findings from numerical results are: (1) ignoring queuing delay inducted by charging congestion could lead to suboptimal configuration of charging infrastructure, and its effect is expected to be more significant when the market share of PEVs rises; (2) in the absence of the battery cost, it is important to consider the trade-off between the costs of charging delay and the infrastructure; and (3) building long-range PEVs with the current generation of battery technology may not be cost effective from the societal point of view. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据