Transportation Research Part C 103 (2019) 261–280

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part C

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

Vehicle-to-vehicle wireless power transfer: Paving the way toward

T
an electrified transportation system
Mojtaba Abdolmaleki, Neda Masoud , Yafeng Yin
⁎

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 48109, United States

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: To date, three major hurdles have hindered widespread adoption of electric vehicles (EVs): the
Electric vehicles high cost of batteries, insufficient public charging infrastructure, and the limited driving range of
Connected vehicle technology EVs. This study overcomes these three hurdles by introducing a new concept of vehicle-to-vehicle
Autonomous vehicle technology wireless power transfer (V2V WPT) between EVs to facilitate frequent, real-time, and on-demand
Wireless power transfer
charging. V2V WPT is enabled by the connected and automated vehicle technology and the
Peer-to-peer energy transfer
Sharing economy
sharing economy, and facilitates transfer of power between peer EVs. We formulate the problem
of routing, scheduling, and matching vehicles in a V2V WPT platform on a energy-time expanded
network, and devise a dynamic programming solution methodology to find the solution effi-
ciently. We quantify the impact of adopting this technology in terms of system-wide energy
savings, charging infrastructure requirements, and travel times, and investigate the possibility of
reducing battery capacity in EVs as a result of this technology.

1. Introduction

As the transportation landscape is moving towards a connected and automated future, Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs)
are focusing on battery- and hybrid-electric autonomous cars. The prospect of autonomous cars has extended the appeal of battery-
electric propulsion beyond a commitment to environmentalism due to regulatory, engineering, and practical benefits of using
electricity to power autonomous cars. First, for the federal government’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards
(Corporate average fuel economy (cafe) standards) to be met, a significant portion of vehicles sold by OEMs need to be electrified.
Secondly, the x-by-wire technology deployed in electric cars is structurally compatible with automated driving. Lastly, it is envisioned
that autonomous cars will be mostly deployed in fleets within dense urban areas, and managed by shared-use mobility providers such
as Uber. Stringent emission guidelines in such areas coupled with lower operational costs of electric vehicles (EVs) have motivated
efforts for electrifying autonomous vehicles.
Despite these benefits, high battery cost, extensive energy requirement of autonomous vehicles for powering sensor systems to
collect a wide variety of data as well as processing the collected data, limited driving range of EVs, and lack of adequate charging
infrastructure (e.g., charging stations) are challenges that need to be addressed before electric autonomous cars can be deployed.
Deploying larger batteries in EVs is one possible solution to pave the way towards widespread adoption of EVs. Oversized
batteries, however, introduce a number of challenges. Battery cost constitutes a significant proportion of cost in EVs. In addition to
higher cost, larger batteries come at the cost of lower energy efficiency (Smith et al., 2011). Not only the battery weight, but also the
additional structural weight needed to support a larger battery, increase the ultimate vehicle weight, requiring more power for

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mojtabaa@umich.edu (M. Abdolmaleki), nmasoud@umich.edu (N. Masoud), yafeng@umich.edu (Y. Yin).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2019.04.008
Received 24 September 2018; Received in revised form 9 February 2019; Accepted 8 April 2019
0968-090X/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Abdolmaleki, et al. Transportation Research Part C 103 (2019) 261–280

driving the vehicle. Increasing the charging stations throughout the network is another possible strategy to promote EV use. However,
grid upgrades required for deploying charging stations can be prohibitively expensive at large scale. Charging infrastructure in-
vestment is arguably the most challenging obstacle preventing widespread adoption of EVs, since availability of charging stations is
currently very limited outside of California and pockets along the east coast.
Alternative solutions being considered to address the inadequate charging infrastructure include dedicated charging lanes and
battery swapping. Chen et al. (2017) and Jang et al. (2016) conducted a revenue comparison between charging stations and charging
lanes. Chen et al. (2018) also compared charging stations and lanes with battery swapping for supporting electric bus operations.
These studies suggest that although charging lanes provide benefits in terms of energy and time efficiency, they require extensive
infrastructure investment. As such, it is not economically efficient to establish a charging lane as long as the market penetration of
electric vehicles is below a certain threshold. At the same time, the market penetration would not increase if the charging facilities are
not available for potential EV users, creating a chicken and egg problem. Another concern regarding investments for constructing
stationary chargers (whether in form of charging lanes or charging stations) is that in case of changes in travel patterns, it is
expensive, if not impossible, to change the location of stationary charging facilities. For battery swapping, although the construction
cost is low compared to charging lanes, the functionality of the system depends on the distribution of a large number of batteries for
swapping, making it economically inefficient, and in some cases impractical.
In this paper we introduce the V2V wireless power transfer (V2V WPT) platform as an innovative solution that can address the
challenges impeding wide adoption of EVs, while providing system-level energy efficiency at the same time. V2V WPT provides a
platform for vehicles in demand of electric power to receive energy from peer electric vehicles, or a designated mobile charger, when
stopped (i.e., parked or stopped at a red light) or while traveling. The supplier of power can be compensated based on the level of
charge they provide. Although the non-contact transfer of power in the V2V WPT platform can lead to energy loss (compared to
contact transfer), eliminating the need for detours to reach charging stations can create energy savings. As such, the net energy
efficiency would depend on the efficiency of the non-contact power transfer technology as well as the density of charging stations in
the network. Apart from energy efficiency, the V2V WPT platform offers multiple additional benefits. First, the platform can curb the
pressure on the electric grid during the day when the electricity demand is the highest, since the supplier vehicles are typically
charged during the night, thereby maximizing use of electricity generation resources. Additionally, the V2V WPT platform does not
require any grid enhancements, since it outsources its power source from other EVs. As such, the V2V WPT can be conceptualized as a
platform for crowd-sourcing mobile, on-demand, and distributed energy storage units.
V2V WPT is a generalization of the previously proposed concept of using mobile charging services for EVs. Huang et al. (2015)
propose using a set of mobile chargers to supply energy for the vehicles in stationary mode. In this context, V2V WPT utilizes the
concept of the sharing economy to expand the set of electric power providers to all peer EVs, thereby substantially increasing the
availability of the platform while at the same time eliminating the need for extensive investment to purchase, operate, and maintain
mobile chargers. Furthermore, the V2V WPT platform allows for transfer of power in mobile mode, when the supplier and recipient
vehicles are traveling, increasing the value of time (VOT) of the individuals engaged in the charging activity.
Even only a few years ago a discussion about V2V electric power transfer, especially while in motion, was not remotely plausible.
Today, this capability is enabled by the precise vehicle coordination and alignment with small inter-vehicle gaps of Connected and
Automated Vehicle (CAV) technology. With CAV technology, vehicles can drive with very small gaps between them, able to form and
maintain platoons of connected vehicles that can supply power to each other.
Inductive charging, also known as wireless charging, was first introduced by Tesla (1891). Near field Wireless power transfer
techniques can be categorized into magnetic induction (IPT) and electrostatic induction (CPT). The IPT techniques for electric vehicle
charging have been investigated in Huh et al. (2011) for a air gap of 20 cm, with promising results. IPT techniques have progressed to
achieve 90% efficiency (Ning et al., 2013). CPT techniques for WPT were studied for a low power scale in Hu et al. (2008), and have
progressed to consider a high power scale load in Dai and Ludois (2015), showcasing the technological feasibility of the V2V WPT
platform. It is worth mentioning that the technology has been already deployed for small scale unmanned automated vehicle (UAV)
systems. See (Wang and Ma, 2016) for a thorough discussion on the deployment of wireless power transfer for UAVs.
From an optimization point of view, V2V WPT bears similarities with the problem of routing electric vehicles considering their
fuel capacity and a set of stations available throughout the network for recharging. Ichimori et al. (1981) was the first to model this
problem, and provided polynomial-time solution schemes. Artmeier et al. (2010) generalized the problem by allowing vehicles to
recharge while travelling in dedicated charging lanes. Adler et al. (2016) considered the case where the length and fuel components
for any arc in the network are equal, and provided polynomial-time algorithms for the case where there is no limit on the number of
refueling stops, as well as the case where a max number of stops are assumed. Masoud and Jayakrishnan (2017) and Smith et al.
(2012) studied a more general case where the fuel requirement to traverse a link is not linear with the link length.
Another well studied problem in the literature which is closely related to the V2V WPT problem is the ridesharing problem with
transfers. The resemblance between the two platforms is due to the fact that both leverage sharing economy to facilitate providing
and receiving a services between peer community members. See Coltin and Veloso (2014) and Masoud and Jayakrishnan (2017) for a
thorough overview of the Ridesharing problem with transfers. The V2V WPT can be considered as a general case of the ridesharing
problem with transfers. The recipient and supplier vehicles in the V2V WPT system correspond to riders and drivers in a mutli-hop
ridesharing system, respectively. While in a ridesharing system a rider can only travel when accompanied with a driver, in the V2V
WPT system a recipient vehicle can use the energy stored in its own battery to travel, and does not need to be accompanied by a
supplier vehicle at all points in time. That is, a rider in a ridesharing system is equivalent to a recipient vehicle with battery capacity
of zero. As such, the ridesharing problem can be considered as a special case of the V2V WPT problem.
The contributions of this paper are fourfold: (i) we introduce the V2V WPT platform, which takes advantage of the sharing

262
M. Abdolmaleki, et al. Transportation Research Part C 103 (2019) 261–280

economy to promote a greener transportation system. V2V WPT facilitates transfer of electric power between peer electric vehicles,
turning any electric vehicle into a mobile source of energy; (ii) we introduce a mathematical program to optimize the logistics of the
V2V WPT system. The proposed mathematical program routes supplier and recipient vehicles by placing them in spatio-temporal
proximity of each other to facilitate transfer of power between them; (iii) We propose a solution methodology that comprises con-
structing a energy-space expanded network, a dynamic programming solution methodology to find the optimal vehicle routes on this
expanded network, and a matching method to translate the aggregate routing solutions to pairs of recipient and supplier vehicles that
can engage in transfer of power; and (iv), we conduct a series of numerical studies, using commuter and long-distance trips from the
state of Michigan, and quantify the degree to which the V2V WPT technology can reduce dependency of electric vehicles on charging
infrastructure.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we introduce the concept of V2V WPT. Section 3 presents the math-
ematical formulation of the problem, which is followed by a dynamic programming solution methodology in Section 4. In Section 5
we conduct a numerical study of the V2V WPT platform based on commuter and long-distance traveler data from the state of
Michigan, and highlight the circumstances under which the V2V WPT platform can lead to energy efficiency and lower travel times,
among other benefits. Section 6 presents a sensitivity analysis to showcase the potential of the proposed platform to allow for battery
capacity reduction in EVs, while maintaining their current traveling range. This section also looks into the role the flexibility of
travelers’ schedules play on the performance of the platform. Sensitivity analysis over a larger set of parameters are presented in the
appendices. We conclude the paper in Section 7.

2. Problem overview

A V2V WPT system contains a set of connected and/or automated EVs making a set of trips, denoted by D. Each vehicle/trip d D
can be characterized with an origin and a destination, denoted by OSd and DSd , respectively, an earliest departure time, denoted by
TdED , and a latest arrival time, denoted by TdLA . For now, we assume that each vehicle makes a single trip, although we discuss in
Section 3 how this assumption can be relaxed to cover itineraries with multiple stops. Each vehicle/trip d also provides the system
with its corresponding energy level at the onset of the trip, denoted by ed , and its battery capacity, denoted by d . We divide D into
two mutually exclusive sets, D1 and D2 , to denote supplier and recipient trips, respectively. Supplier trips are trips who are in the
position of providing energy to their peers, to whom we refer as recipient trips. In order to engage in V2V power transfer, the supplier
and recipient vehicles need to form/join a platoon, and maintain their platoon memberships for the entire duration of the charging
episode. Platoon formation is an integral part of the V2V WPT platform, since platoon members are committed to traveling with small
gaps between them for a period of time, ensuring continuous and efficient transfer of power. Platoon formation and maintenance can
be accomplished with connectivity and partial autonomy.

3. Mathematical formulation

The goal of the V2V WPT platform is to enable as many trips as possible, while minimizing the total energy cost across all system
users. We formulate the problem in a time-energy expanded network. As such, we discretize the study time horizon into time intervals
of length t , the spatial network into a set of discrete spatial nodes, and the energy level into units of length h . Let us define sets
T , S , and H to contain indices of time intervals, spatial nodes, and energy units in the study region during the study time horizon,
respectively. We define a node n in a time-energy expanded network as a triple n = (t , s, h) T × S × H , specifying the location, s,
and energy level, h, of a vehicle in each time interval. Furthermore, we define a link l as tuple of nodes, i.e.,
l = (ni , nj ) = (ti, si, hi , t j, sj , hj ) . For a vehicle to travel on link l, it has to leave spatial node si at time interval ti and with energy level
hi , and arrive at spatial node sj at time interval t j and with energy level hj . Due to restrictions on trip time window and vehicle battery
size, a vehicle would not have access to the entire time-energy expanded network. Therefore, to reduce the complexity of network-
based computations, we identify the sub-network that is accessible to each vehicle by identifying the feasible time-space-energy links,
i.e., the set of links on which the vehicle can travel, given its time and energy constraints.
Definition. A link l is time-feasible for vehicle d if the vehicle can leave spatial node si at time interval ti , and reach spatial node sj in
time interval t j .
Definition. A link l is supplier-energy-feasible for a supplier vehicle d iff:

1. e (si, sj ) hi hj e (si , sj ) + (t j ti ) , where e (si, sj ) is the energy required to travel from location si to location sj , and is the
rate of power transfer
2. 0 hj hi d

This definition states that on a given trip leg, a supplier vehicle’s energy consumption can take its lower bound when the vehicle is
not engaged in the V2V WPT platform, and its upper-bound when the vehicle transfers power to a peer EV for the entire length of the
leg.
Definition. A link l is recipient-energy-feasible for a recipient vehicle d iff:

1. e (si, sj ) (t j ti ) hi hj e (si, sj ) , where 0 1 is the efficiency of energy transfer

263
M. Abdolmaleki, et al. Transportation Research Part C 103 (2019) 261–280

2. 0 hi d
3. 0 hj d

This definition states that the energy difference between the start and end of a trip leg for a recipient vehicle could be as much as
the energy consumption on the leg (i.e., e (si, sj ) ), and as little as e (si, sj ) (t j ti ) if the vehicle receives energy for the entirely of
the trip leg.
A subnetwork for a supplier vehicle can be constructed based on the subset of links that are both time-feasible and supplier-energy-
feasible. Similarly, a subnetwork for a recipient vehicle is composed of links that are both time-feasible and recipient-energy-feasible.
Note that stationary chargers can be modeled as supplier trips using links with si = sj = s , where s is the location of the charging
station, t j ti accounts for the duration of the charging activity, and hj hi indicates the number of energy units received by the
vehicle being charged.
As a pre-processing step and before formulating the optimization problem, we use an extension of the Ellipsoid Spatio-Temporal
Accessibility Method (ESTAM) (Masoud and Jayakrishnan, 2017) to eliminate the infeasible spatial-temporal-energy links for each
vehicle, thereby reducing the size of the feasible region of the optimization problem that determines the logistics of the V2V WPT
platform. Note that ESTAM eliminates a subset of links that are not accessible to the vehicle, hence reducing the size of the feasible
region, but does not eliminate any feasible links, thereby preserving the optimality of the solution found by the optimization problem.
The output of the ESTAM algorithm for each vehicle d is a subnetwork, denoted by Gd . We denote the set of nodes in Gd by Nd . To be
self-contained, the pseudo-code for ESTAM is presented in Appendix B. To mathematically model the V2V WPT platforms, we define
two sets of decision variables:

xld = {10 Otherwise

Ifvehicledtravelsonlinkl
(1)

1 Ifrecipientdriverdcancompletehertrip
zd =
0 Otherwise (2)

The objective of the V2V WPT platform is to facilitate as many trips as possible while maximizing energy efficiency at the system
level. The objective function (3) is defined accordingly as a linear combination of the number of served trips and the total energy
consumption across all system users. The first term in Eq. (3) denotes the number of served trips, the second term denotes the energy
loss as a result of energy transfer between vehicles, and the last term denotes the travel energy cost for the system. We introduce the
parameter as the weight for the first term in Eq. (3), to emphasize the importance of the number of served trips in the objective
function.
Constraint sets (4)–(11) collectively define the V2V WPT platform—these constriants find itineraries for supplier and recipient
vehicles that respect the time windows and energy requirements of their corresponding trips.
Constraint sets (4)–(6) route recipient vehicles in the network. constraint sets (4) and (5) ensure that each participant in the
recipient set will depart from their origin and arrive at their destination, respectively, only if they can complete their trip. Constraint
set (6) is the flow conservation constraint. Similarly, constraint sets (7)–(9) route supplier drivers in the network. Constraint sets (7)
and (8) ensure that a supplier vehicle will depart from their origin and enter their destination, respectively. Constraint set (9) is the
flow conservation constraint for the supplier vehicles. Finally, constraint set (10) ensures the energy conservation law holds for each
spatio-temporal link. The expression on the right hand side of this constraint indicates thenegative of total energyreceived by the
recipient vehicles, either by the supplier vehicles through the V2V power transfer platform, or through charging stations. The
parameter m indicates the energy efficiency of the charging method. This parameter takes the constant value of for all transfers
taking place within the V2V WPT platform, and a constant higher value for charging through charging stations.The expression on the
left hand side of constraint (10) indicates thenegative of total energyprovided by thesupplier vehicles on a time-expanded link.-
Constraint sets (11) are feasibility constraints for the decision variables.
It is worth mentioning that energy consumption depends on both routing decisions (e.g., the length of the link) and individual
vehicle characteristics (e.g., fuel economy). In its current form, e (si, sj ) can only capture the dependency of fuel consumption on travel
distance. However, by extending e (si, sj ) to e (si, sj, d ) , we can easily extend this function to incorporate individual vehicle char-
acteristics.

max Z = zd + 1 xld= (ti, si, hi, t j, sj, hj) hj + e si, sj hi xld hj hi

d D2 l Gd d D1 l Gd;d D (3)

s. t : xld xld = z d , d D2
l Gd: l Gd:
si = OSd sj = OSd (4)

xld xld = z d, d D2
l Gd: l Gd:
sj = DSd si = DSd (5)

264
M. Abdolmaleki, et al. Transportation Research Part C 103 (2019) 261–280

d D2
(t , s , h) Gd:
xld xld = 0,
ti, si, hi : t j, sj, hj : s {OSd DSd}
l = (ti, si, hi , t , s, h) Gd h H
l = (t , s, h, t j, sj , hj ) Gd (6)

xld xld = 1, d D1
l Gd: l Gd:
si = OSd sj = OSd (7)

xld xld = 1, d D1
l Gd: l Gd:
sj = DSd si = DSd (8)

d D1
(t , s, h) Gd:
xld xld = 0,
ti, si, hi : t j, sj, hj : s {OSd DSd}
l = (ti, si, hi , t , s, h) Gd h H
l = (t , s, h, t j, sj , hj ) Gd (9)

d
m xl hj + e si, sj hi xld hj + e si , sj hi
d D1 d D2
l = (ti, si, hi , t j, sj , hj ) Gd l = (ti, si , hi , t j, sj, hj ) Gd

, (ti, si, t j, sj ) T×S×T×S (10)

xdl {0, 1}, (d , l ) D × Gd;z d {0, 1}, d D2 (11)

Note that the primary objective in the optimization problem (3)–(11) is to serve the maximum number of trips, and minimizing
fuel efficiency is only a secondary objective incorporated to ensure that the primary objective is accomplished in the most energy-
efficient way. It is possible to shift the priority of the optimization problem from maximizing the service rate to a more balanced
objective of maximizing fuel efficiency while satisfying a certain level of demand. This can be accomplished by eliminating the term
d D2 d from (3), and adding a hard constraint on the number of served trips as
z

zd m,
d D2 (12)
where m is a parameter indicating the lowest desirable service rate, and should satisfy m Z to ensure feasibility. Another straight-
froward extension of the model concerns the definition of trips. Recall that we started the problem statement section by assuming that
each vehicle makes a single trip. Note that this assumption does not preclude modeling vehicles who have itineraries with multiple
stops. This can be easily addressed in the pre-processing stage, where the ESTAM algorithm is used to generate feasible sub-networks
for vehicles based on the spatio-temporal constraints of their itineraries.
The above formulation ensures that the energy conservation law holds for all the vehicles traveling along the same road piece
during the same time period. Therefore, this formulation may prescribe a solution with multiple recipient vehicles receiving energy
from multiple supplier vehicles on the V2V WPT platform. Implementing such a solution would require complex coordination efforts
to form, and dynamically update, platoons of arbitrary sizes. Hence, for the sake operational feasibility, we only consider platoons of
size two. In Lemma 3.1, we prove that for each spatio-temporal link (ti, si , t j, sj ) , it suffices that constraint set (10) holds to make sure
that the solution is also feasible for the practical case, where there is a limit of two on the platoon size.
Lemma 3.1. For any optimal solution of the optimization problem (3)–(11), there exists an equivalent optimal solution with platoon size two.
Proof. For each spatio-temporal link (ti, si , t j, sj ) , let us discretize the period [ti, t j] in the link (ti, si , hi , t j, sj, hj ) to get the set of time
tj ti
intervals ti, ti + 1 , …, t j 1, t j = ti + 1 , in which 1 is the time required for transferring one unit of energy. Let us define the
1
bipartite multigraph G, with supplier and recipient vehicleswho pass through the corresponding link forming two disjoint sets of
vertices in G. Let an edge between a supplier and a recipient vertex indicate the transfer of one unit of energy between the
corresponding supplier and recipient vehicles. Fulfilling constraint (10) with platoons of size 2 is equivalent to identifying, and
t j ti
coloring, a set of edges, E, in G with colours 1, …, such that:
1

1. The degree of each supplier vehicle d equates to the number of energy units d has to provide, as prescribed in the optimal solution.
2. The degree of each recipient vehicle r equates to the number energy units r has to receive, as prescribed in the optimal solution.
3. All edges incident to a vertex (supplier or recipient) in G have different colors assigned to them.

Conditions 1 and 2 ensure that constraint (10) is fulfilled, while condition 3 places a limit of two on the platoon size. The colour of

265
M. Abdolmaleki, et al. Transportation Research Part C 103 (2019) 261–280

each edge between a supplier vehicle and the recipient vehicle r indicates the time interval ti + r 1
1 (
, ti + r
1 ) tj
, during
ti tj ti

which the two vehicles form a platoon. As such, in order to make sure that a platoon size does not exceed two, we need to ensure that
all the edges incident to a vertex in G have different colors.
In order to find a one-to-one assignment of supplier and recipient vehicles during each time interval under the optimal solution,
we need to solve a minimum-cost flow problem in a bipartite multigraph. It is a well-known fact that edges of a bipartite multigraph
can be coloured with at most colours, where is the maximum degree of vertices of G (König, 1916). Cole et al. in (Cole et al.,
2001) provide a polynomial time (O (Elog )) algorithm to find this optimal edge colouring. □
Solving the proposed optimization problem is computationally prohibitive, even for small instances of the problem. Therefore, in
the next section we devise a dynamic programming algorithm to solve the problem efficiently.

4. Dynamic programming solution methodology

The Dynamic Programming (DP) algorithm formulated in this section finds the most energy efficient trajectory for a recipient
vehicle and a set of supplier vehicles who transfer energy to this vehicle throughout its trajectory. The trajectories are constructed
under time, space, and energy constraints. The recipient vehicle’s trajectory takes the vehicle from its origin to its destination within
its specified time window, while at the same time ensuring the proposed path is energy-feasible. The DP algorithm will be applied for
all recipient vehicles, on a first-come, first-served basis, or any other pre-arranged order, enabling it to scale to the system level. After
finding the optimal trajectory for a recipient vehicle and identifying the set of supplier vehicles who contribute to this trajectory, we
update the routing constraints of the supplier vehicles, ensuring that they meet the new set of constraints that arises from their
current assignment. These supplier vehicles will be considered as potential supplier vehicles for other recipient vehicles under these
constraints.
Let us define a state in our DP algorithm as a triple (t , s, h) . Furthermore, let F (t , s , h) be the minimum energy cost for the system
to deliver the recipient vehicle d from its origin to spatial node s at time interval t, with energy level h. As each state (t , s, h) is
reachable just by states (t , s , h ) with t t , there exists a topological order for the states based on their t component. The goal is to
find min (t , s, h) Nd :s = DSd F (t , s, h).
We define three tensors, K , E and G, to ensure the feasibility of the optimal path and facilitate the retrieval of the optimal path
after the cost of the optimal path is found. Each element of the tensor K (t , s, h) is the indicative vector of the set of supplier vehicles
who have contributed to the itinerary of the recipient vehicle d, in the optimal path to the state (t , s, h) . Each element of the tensor
G (t , s, h) is a state (t , s , h ) which precedes state (t , s, h) in the optimal path to state (t , s, h) . Each element of the tensor E (t , s, h) is a
pair (d1, h1) which shows the ID of the supplier vehicle, d1, providing energy to d on link (G (t , s, h), (t , s, h)) , and the energy level of d1
at the end of the link. (Note that this value can be null in case d does not receive energy on the link.) We define the cost of the link
((t , s , h ), (t , s, h)), denoted by e ((t , s , h ), (t , s , h)) , as the energy cost for the system to deliver the recipient vehicle d from (t , s , h )
to (t , s, h) using the supplier vehicle d1 {(D1 K (t , s , h )) E (t , s , h )(1)} . The total cost includes the energy cost of the potential
detour the supplier vehicle has to take to pass through the segment ((s , t ), (s , t )) , the energy loss due to the inefficiency of power
transfer from d1 to d, and the energy cost of traveling from (s , t ) to (s, t ) for vehicle d. Each of these three components are elaborated
in the following.
To compute the detour cost for a supplier vehicle d1, we subtract the shortest path cost for vehicle d1 from the travel cost of the
alternative path that places vehicle d1 on segment ((s , t ), (s , t )) . To compute the energy loss due to the inefficiency of power transfer,
we multiply the amount of energy transferred to d by a factor (1- ). If there is no feasible alternative to enable vehicle d to reach state
(t , s, h) from state (t , s , h ) , we set e ((t , s , h ), (t , s , h)) to infinity. Lack of a feasible alternative could be attributed to restrictions on
power transfer rates, either within the V2V WPT platform or the stationary charging infrastructure, as well as the unavailability of
supplier vehicles/stationary chargers in the required time-space prism.
To initialize the dynamic program, we set the value of F (t , s , h) with states {(t , s , h): s = OSd} equal to zero. Next, we traverse the
states in the topological order of nodes to find the value function for each state. The Bellman equation displayed in (13) describes how
we update the value function in each step. The set Nd1 (t , s, h) in this equation contains all nodes in set Nd that directly connect to node
(t , s , h ) .

F t , s, h = min F t,s,h + e ((t , s , h ), (t , s , h))

(t , s , h ) Nd1 (t , s, h): t t (13)

Remark 4.0.1. The number of operations needed for the proposed dynamic programming algorithm is O ( D S T L 2 ( 1 + T ) 2) , in
which 1 is the maximum degree for the spatial graph of the network, and 2 is the maximum number of supplier vehicles passing
through a given state.
Proof. The number of operations needed for the dynamic programming model is less than or equal to:
#recipient vehicles × #states × maximum # of reachable states from a given state×

maximum number of operations needed for each update of DP

We have #states = S T L . Moreover, the maximum # of reachable states from a given state is( 1 + T ) L , and the maximum number
of operations needed for each update of DP is (1) 2 , with (1) being a constant number of computations, which completes the proof. □

266
M. Abdolmaleki, et al. Transportation Research Part C 103 (2019) 261–280

Fig. 1. An example to demonstrate a sub-optimal solution by the original dynamic programming method.

The Bellman equation described in (13) contains two sources of sub-optimality. First, the DP model does not consider the ar-
rangement in which suppliers can contribute to the itinerary of a recipient vehicle d1. To clarify, an example is shown in Fig. 1.
Assume that vehicle d1, the only recipient vehicle in this example, is traveling from origin1 to destination1, and requires two excess
units of energy to complete her trip. Moreover, d1 has a tight travel schedule restricting her route choice to a single route,
e1 e2 e3 e4 e5 . There are two supplier vehicles in the system, d2 and d3 . Vehicle d2 can take two route, one of which directly
uses e6 , and the other one follows the sequence e5 e2 e3 . According to the energy requirements for each link if d2 is assigned to the
second route, she would be able to provide one unit of energy for d1, either in e2 or e3. Moreover if d2 chooses the second route, she will
incur 1 unit of cost. Supplier vehicle d3, also, has two route choices, one to directly use e9 and the other to follow the sequence
e7 e2 e8 . According to the energy requirements for each link if d3 chooses the second route, she would be able to provide one unit
of energy to d1 in link e2 . If d3 chooses the second route, she will incur 2 units of cost. As such, in the dynamic programming solution
the optimal path to deliver the vehicle d1 to the end of e2 would contain d2 , since d2 incurs less cost. However, if d2 transfers power to
d1 in e2 , it would not be able to continue providing energy to d1 on e3, resulting in d1 not being served. On the other hand, if both
supply vehicles takes detours to travel through e2 , d3 and d2 can power d1 on e2 and e3, respectively, resulting in the recipient trip to be
served.
We can address this source of sub-optimality by extending the states of the dynamic program into a tuple (t , s, h, d1, …, dk ) , in
which d1…dk are the last k suppliers contributing in the itinerary of d. By doing so, we can consider different arrangements of supplier
vehicles in the itinerary of d, thereby eliminating the source of sub-optimality. In practice, it is likely that the supplier vehicles’ time
windows limit their reachable states, preventing them from contributing in two segments in the optimal path with more than C states
between them, where C is the maximum number of common states between the optimal path of the recipient vehicle in the dynamic
programming model and the reachable states for a supplier vehicle. In this case, we can use k = C + 2 to ensure that we have
considered all possible sequences by which suppliers can serve the recipient trip. To enable this extension, tensor E needs to contain
IDs of the last k drivers contributing to the optimal path of d, as well as their energy levels. Moreover, we need to modify the origin,
start time, and starting energy level of vehicles in E (t , s, h) accordingly.
Serving customers on a first-come, first-served basis is the second source of sub-optimality. A first-come, first-served system could
lead to sub-optimal solutions compared to solving a problem that includes all trips at once. In order to enable solving a large problem
that includes all trips, however, the system has to require participants to register their trips ahead of time. In practice, imposing such a
requirement could lead to fewer participants, negating its potential benefits. As such, although from a theoretical standpoint foregoing
the first-come, first-served rule with the same set of customers could create better solutions, in practice requiring advanced trip re-
gistration could lead to less perceived quality of service, and therefore less participation rates. Furthermore, serving request on a first-
come, first-served basis would provide incentives for individuals to register their trips earlier, providing the system with more op-
portunities to find matches for them. We would like to point out that peer-to-peer exchange (Masoud et al., 2017) has been introduced
in the ridesharing literature as a method to improve the solutions of a first-come, first-served system. Under P2P exchange, customers
are considered on a first-come, first-served basis, and their itineraries are announced to them. However, if another customer who joins
the system later can benefit more from a resource allocated to an earlier customer, they can purchase that resource. The monetary
exchange is designed to be individually rational and incentive compatible for both parties involved (Masoud et al., 2017).

5. Numerical study

In this section we conduct a number of numerical experiments to quantify the impact of the V2V WPT platform at the

267
M. Abdolmaleki, et al. Transportation Research Part C 103 (2019) 261–280

Fig. 2. Study region and heat map of trips. The lines show legs of trips through their shortest paths; thickness of a line indicates the frequency of the
leg being used in the shortest paths of the entire trip set; the circles denote the endpoints of trips, and the size of a circle indicates the number of trips
having one end point at its corresponding spatial node.

transportation network level. The experiments are conducted in the state of Michigan. We consider commuter trips to serve as energy
suppliers, and use long-distance inter-county trips to form the recipient vehicle set. We conduct our experiments for a 100 recipient
trips, randomly selected from the ‘Michigan inner state long distance trips’ dataset (Traveler analysis framework, 2016). We also use a
total of 323 supplier trips (1% of the total data), randomly selected from the commuter trips dataset published in (Nelson and Rae,
2016). In our experiments, we use system penetration rates that are small enough for them not to have a meaningful effect on link
travel times, and consequently travel patterns. To evaluate the impact of the V2V WPT platform with larger scale participation, the
proposed optimization model can be incorporated into a bi-level framework, where travel patterns and link travel times are optimized
for sequentially, and in an iterative process.
We consider half of the supplier trips to be made in the morning, and the other half in the evening. As such, we generate the
earliest departure times of supplier trips based on two normal density functions, one peaking in the morning rush hour and the other
in the evening rush hour. We use t = 6 min to discretize the time horizon, and h = 5 kW h to discretize energy level. We set the
maximum ride time of the supplier trips to twice their shortest path travel times, and assume recipient trips to be completely flexible
during the course of the day. Fig. 2 demonstrates a map of the study region (i.e., the state of Michigan Lower Peninsula). For all
problem instance in this section and the following ones, the highest solution time for each recipient vehicle, averaged over 10
simulation runs, is less than 10 s.
Let us define three base scenarios to assess the performance of the V2V WPT platform in isolation as well as in the presence of the
charging station platform. In all three base scenarios the vehicle battery capacity is assumed to be 30 kW h, with max driving range of
180 km. We assume vehicles start each trip with a full battery. We further assume a power transfer rate of 50 kW, and transfer
efficiency of 0.9 in the V2V WPT platform. These values are based on an initial feasibility study conducted by a multi-disciplinary
team of researchers at the University of Michigan. The three scenarios considered in this paper are listed below:

• Scenario 1: Both the charging station platform and the V2V WPT platform are available.
• Scenario 2: Only the charging station platform is available.
• Scenario 3: Only the V2V WPT platform is available.
In scenarios 1 and 2, which consider the charging station platform, level 3 charging stations throughout the state of Michigan are
considered. Fig. 2(c) shows the distribution of these chargers within the state of Michigan. For each scenario, we generate and
simulate 10 random instances based on the proposed dynamic programming solution methodology. We use the extended states
(t , s, h, d1) . Fig. 3 compares the performance of the three scenarios.
Fig. 3(a) displays the number of served trips under the three scenarios. This figure provides interesting insights on the lack of
maturity of our current charging infrastructure in serving the potential future demand for electric propulsion, which is considered by
many experts to be the preferred source of power for autonomous fleet. This figure shows that in scenario 2, where only the charging
station platform is available, about 8% of long-distance trips cannot be completed under the current system, confirming the legiti-
macy of concerns over range anxiety of electric vehicles. Another interesting observation is that under scenario 3, the V2V WPT
platform can alone serve about 78% of trips. Note that 32.6% of these trips can be served by only relying on vehicle batteries under all
three scenarios. Fig. 3(a) also shows that scenario 1, which includes both platforms, does not outperform scenario 2 in terms of the
number of served trips, which only considers the charging station platform. One explanation is that under the current state of
equilibrium in supply and demand, distribution of the supplier trips and charging stations in the network is the same, since there is a
correlation between establishing stations and frequency of trips over an area, and vice verse. Fig. 2 confirms this correlation.
Fig. 3(b) shows the total energy consumption for each scenario. Although Fig. 3(a) shows that the number of trips served by
scenarios 1 and 2 is similar, Fig. 3(b) shows that augmenting the charging platform with the V2V WPT platform in scenario 1 has led
to a 6% reduction in total energy consumption in scenario 1 compared to scenario 2. This reduction in energy consumption is due to

268
M. Abdolmaleki, et al. Transportation Research Part C 103 (2019) 261–280

Fig. 3. Box plots for the three scenarios.

the elimination of detours to use the stationary charging facilities. As the number of served trips in scenario 3 is different from the
other two scenarios, we cannot directly compare this scenario with scenarios 1 and 2; however, we will use these results later in the
sensitivity analysis section. Note that we cannot make the total energy consumption in all scenarios comparable by reporting the
average energy consumption per trip, since the majority of served trips in scenario 3 are shorter in length and therefore consume less
energy (see Fig. 3(d)).
Fig. 3(c) shows the total vehicle hours traveled (VHT) by all vehicles under the three scenarios. This figure shows that there is a 7%
reduction in total VHT in scenario 1, compared to scenario 2. This reduction can be attributed to two sources: (i) elimination of

269
M. Abdolmaleki, et al. Transportation Research Part C 103 (2019) 261–280

Fig. 4. Charging modes in the final solution. The lines denote the trip segments where the recipient vehicles receive energy from the supplier
vehicles. The thickness of the lines indicates the level of energy transfer via the V2V WTP platform. The circles denote used charging stations, and
their size corresponds to the level of energy used.

detours required to reach charging stations; and (ii) elimination of fueling time at charging stations. Note that in the V2V WPT
platform vehicles can charge while traveling. Similar to the previous case, direct comparison of scenarios 1 and 2 with scenario 3 does
not provide any insights, since fewer trips are completed under scenario 3.
Fig. 3(d) shows the average travel time per trip. This trend closely follows the trend observed in total VHT. Fig. 3(e) shows the
total charging time in charging stations. This figure demonstrates that Charging time in charging stations has reduced dramatically
(by 66% ) in scenario 1, compared to scenario 2. This result is expected as in the presence of the V2V WPT platform, a subset of
vehicles would be better off receiving energy while traveling, curbing the system’s total usage of charging stations. Finally, Fig. 3f
shows the total number of supplier vehicles that engage in transfer of energy on the V2V WPT platform. This figure suggests that even
in the presence of the charging station platform, a considerable number of supplier vehicles contribute energy to their peers.
Fig. 4 displays the extent to which each of the two platforms has been used in the optimal solution. This figure demonstrates that
in scenario 1 where both the V2V WPT and the charging station platforms are available, in many instances the vehicles’ optimal
routes involve foregoing the charging station platform in favor of the V2V WPT platform. As such, this figure demonstrates that the
V2V WPT platform has the potential to offer benefits at the system level.

6. Sensitivity analysis

In this section we perform two sets of sensitivity analyses on the three base scenarios. First, we study the impact of reducing the
battery capacity on the usage rate of the two charging platforms. Next, we investigate the degree to which trip flexibility affects the
performance of the two charging platforms in our three scenarios. The parameters over which sensitivity analysis is conducted are
displayed in Table 1. More extensive sensitivity analysis is presented in Appendix C.

6.1. Battery capacity

One of the envisioned long-term benefits of the V2V WPT platform is that by providing access to power any-where, any-time, it
would allow for reducing EV battery sizes. Since battery cost is a considerable portion of the cost of an EV, using smaller batteries
would reduce the cost of goods sold (COGS) by EV manufacturers. Lower COGS would shift the market supply curve to the right.
Furthermore, reducing the battery size would directly reduce the vehicle wight, thereby improving the fuel economy in EVs. By
improving fuel economy and, to some degree, addressing the range anxiety associated with EVs, V2V WPT can shift the market
demand curve to the right. By shifting both sides of the market, the V2V WPT technology has the potential to facilitate the shift
towards an all-electric transportation system. In this section, we investigate the degree to which a reduction in battery capacity can be
compensated by the V2V WPT technology.
Fig. 5 demonstrates the performance of the system with 20 kW h battery packs. With this reduced battery capacity, only 10% of the
recipient trips can be satisfied by relying solely on their batteries. Fig. 5(a) shows that the number of served trips under all three
scenarios has decreased compared to the base scenarios with 30 kW h battery capacity. This figure suggests that although each of the

Table 1
Parameter values evaluated in sensitivity analysis.
Parameter Section d d
Max ride time factor

Base 5 50 kW 30 kW h 0.9 2
Battery capacity 6.1 50 kW 20 kW h 0.9 2
Max ride time factor 6.2 50 kW 30 kW h 0.9 1.2, 1.5

270
M. Abdolmaleki, et al. Transportation Research Part C 103 (2019) 261–280

Fig. 5. Sensitivity analysis over battery capacity 20 kW h.

two platforms (V2V WTP and charging station) alone cannot compensate for the reduction in battery size, when combined their
service rate is only a few percentages less than the service rate of the base scenario 2. These results suggest that augmenting the
stationary charging platform with the V2V WPT platform makes it possible to reduce the battery size from 30 kW h to 20 kW h, and
still achieve a service rate that is comparable to our traditional system. Furthermore, this figure shows the same service rate for
scenarios 2 and 3, suggesting that the V2 WPT platform can match the traditional charging station platform in terms of coverage.
Although the difference in service rate of scenarios 2 and 3 is not statistically significant, Fig. 5(b) shows that the V2V WPT

271
M. Abdolmaleki, et al. Transportation Research Part C 103 (2019) 261–280

platform can offer substantial energy saving benefits (16%) compared to scenario 2. Fig. 5(c) suggests that this reduction in energy
consumption does not come at the cost of substantial larger system-wide VHT. While in scenario 2 the VHT is affected by the time
vehicles have to spend fueling in charging stations, in scenario 3 the same volume of time is spent on detours. Note that the time spent
on detours in highly affected by the assumed penetration rate of the V2V WPT platform, which is considered to be 1% of current trips
in this study. As the penetration rate of the V2V WPT platform, and consequently the market penetration of EVs, increase, the results
would favor the V2V WPT platform. Fig. 5(d) demonstrates that the average VHT is slightly higher in scenario 3 than 2, but not at a
statistically significant level. This figure also suggests that when the two platforms are both made available, they can offer the same
average travel time as in the case with 30 kW h battery capacity with only the charging station platform made available (i.e., base
scenario 2).
Comparing Fig. 5(d) and (e) suggests that although the average travel times are about the same in scenarios 1 and 2, most of this
time is due to detours in the V2V WPT platform. Furthermore, Fig. 5(e) shows that although scenario 1 serves 20% more trips
compared to scenario 2, the stationary charging time in scenario 1 is 47% less than scenario 2, due to introducing the V2V WPT
platform in scenario 1. Finally, Fig. 5(f) suggests that when using both charging platforms, more supplier trips in the V2V WPT
platform contribute to their peers, compared to scenario 3 where only the V2V WPT platform is made available to the travelers.

6.2. Trip flexibility of supplier vehicles

In our three base scenarios we assumed the supplier trips were extremely flexible, to the extent of spending twice as long as their
shortest path travel times in the network to provide power to their peers. In this section we conduct sensitivity analysis over the max
ride times of supplier trips to quantify the impact of their flexibility on the performance of the V2V WPT platform. In the experiments
in this section we consider the max ride times of supplier trips to be 1.2, 1.5, and twice as long as their shortest path travel times.
Results are demonstrated in Fig. 6. Note that this figure only demonstrates scenarios 1 and 3, as changing the supplier vehicle
flexibility does not impact scenario 2.
Fig. 6(a) shows that regardless of the max ride time, the number of served trips under scenario 1 is always higher than the number
of served trips under scenario 3. This observation is not surprising since scenario 3 makes both charging platforms available to the
recipient trips, thereby providing more opportunity for them to get served. This figure also suggests that the value of higher flexibility
in scenario 1 is negligible compared to scenario 3. This is due to the fact that scenario 1 is already benefiting from the charging station
infrastructure as well as the V2V WPT platform with ride time flexibility factor of 1.2, and therefore increasing the ride time
flexibility to a factor of 1.5, and even 2, does not provide as much additional benefit. Scenario 3, on the other hand, experiences a 2%
increase in the number of served recipient trips as a result of moving from a ride time max factor of 1.2 to 2.
Fig. 6(b) suggests that increasing the max ride time factor affects energy consumption, but not to a substantial degree. In scenario
3 the trend in energy consumption as we increase the max ride time closely follows the trend in the number of served trips. In
scenario 1, however, this trend is reverse—scenario 1 leads to a reduction of 0.5% in energy consumption when moving from max ride
time factor of 1.2 to 2, while at the same time slightly increasing the number of served trips. This is due to the fact that in scenario 1
the V2V WPT platform is augmenting the service provided by the charging station platform, creating a synergistic effect. Therefore,
the increased level of flexibility leads to a higher number of supplier trips powering an average recipient trip over multiple trip legs,
leading to each supplier trip taking shorter detours. This is confirmed by the tend in Fig. 6(f), which demonstrates an increasing trend
in the number of active supplier trips in scenario 1.
Fig. 6(c) and (d) demonstrate that the total and average VHT decrease as the max ride time increases. This result is very inter-
esting, as it shows that although on the surface increasing the max ride times may connote lower quality of service, in reality the
average and total travel times do not increase; instead, the introduced flexibility allows the more suitable supplier trips to serve the
demand, sparing both supply and recipient vehicles from having to take large detours.
Fig. 6(e) shows that charging time in charging stations decreases by 20% as the max ride time factor increases from 1.2 to 2. This is
due to the fact that with higher flexibility, the supplier trips have more opportunity to provide energy to the recipient vehicles. At the
same time, recipient vehicles prefer to use the V2V WPT platform over charging stations to save the time and energy they otherwise
would have to spend on traveling to charging stations, and the time they would have to spend refueling. Finally, Figure Fig. 6(f)
shows that the number of active supplier trips increases by 15% in scenario 1 as we move from max ride time factor of 1.2 to 2. The
change in the number of supplier trips is however negligible in scenario 3. As stated previously, this is due to the synergistic effect of
combining the two platforms in scenario 1.

7. Conclusion

In this paper we introduce the V2V WPT platform as an innovative solution to pave the way towards a fully electrified trans-
portation system. V2V WPT is built on the concept of sharing economy and enables peer electric vehicles to provide power to each
other on an on-demand basis, with little infrastructure investment requirements.
To assess the system-wide benefits of this technology, we simulate the V2V WPT platform. The goal of the V2V WPT platform is to
serve as much demand as possible, in the most energy-efficient manner. Hence, algorithms are required for routing, scheduling, and
coordination of peer vehicles to enable exchange of power between them. We formulate this problem as an integer programming
optimization problem, and devise a dynamic programming solution methodology that can handle large scale instances.
To assess the benefits of integrating the V2V WPT platform into our current transportation system, we conduct experiments using
real datasets from the state of Michigan. The results suggest that the V2V WPT platform can offer significant savings in total energy

272
M. Abdolmaleki, et al. Transportation Research Part C 103 (2019) 261–280

Fig. 6. Sensitivity analysis over max ride time of suppliers.

usage and travel time, when used along with the stationary charging mode,. Moreover, we investigate the feasibility of reducing the
battery capacity of EVs without affecting their driving range. Our results suggest that when used in conjunction with the current
charging station infrastructure, the V2V WPT platform can to a great extent compensate for the reduced battery capacity.
Furthermore, we investigate the degree to which flexibility of vehicles in their travel schedules affects the performance of the V2V

273
M. Abdolmaleki, et al. Transportation Research Part C 103 (2019) 261–280

WPT platform. Results suggest that more flexible travel schedules positively affect the performance of the V2V WPT platform;
however, this flexibility does not translate into higher travel time in the network. With higher levels of flexibility, vehicles in demand
of electric power receive energy from a wider set of donors along their travel paths. As such, the size of the detours undertaken by all
parties is reduced.

Appendix A. Table of notations

Table 2

Table 2
Table of notations.
Notation Definition

T Set of time intervals

S Set of special nodes
H Set of energy levels
The rate of power transfer
d Capacity of vehicle d
Efficiency factor for energy transfer at stations
d
Efficiency factor for energy transfer for either charging stations, mobile fast chargers or supplier vehicles d
xld The indicator variable that specifies whether or not a vehicle passes through a link
z d : (d D 2) The indicator variable that specifies whether or not a recipient vehicle will be served
User-specified parameter for the weight of the number of served trips in the objective function
1 Cap on the ratio of maximum energy consumption for a trip to the energy consumption on its shortest path, to be considered in the V2V WPT
platform

Appendix B. ESTAM algorithm

To be self-contained, we provide the ESTAM algorithm pseudo-code borrowed from Masoud and Jayakrishnan (2017):
Algorithm 1. ESTAM algorithm

Generate a link set Lp for participant p

01 Initialize
02 Ts = , L (s) = , s Gp
03 Step1. Forward movement
04 Sact = {OSp}
05 Sact =
T pED T pED T pED T pLA Tstatic (OSp, DSp )
06 TOSp = , + 1, + 2, …,
t t t t

07 While Sact
08 s1 Sact (1)
09 For s {S OSp}
10 Set Ts1 = Ts1 {t1} such that = (t , s, t1, s1) L (s ), (t , t1) Tp2
11 End For
12 Sact = Sact {s1}
13 Sact = Sact {s1}
14 For s2 S: (s1, s2) Gp
15 If s2 Sact =
16 Sact = Sact {s2}
17 For t Ts1
18 L (s2) = L (s2) {(t , s1, t + Tdynamic (t , s1, s2)†, s2)}
19 End For
20 Else
21 For t Ts1
22 If Ts2 {t + Tdynamic (t , s1, s2)}

23 L (s2) = L (s2) t , s1, t + T dynamic† t , s1, s2 , s2

24 End If
25 End For
26 End If
27 End For
28 End While
29 Step 2. Backward movement

274
M. Abdolmaleki, et al. Transportation Research Part C 103 (2019) 261–280

TpLA
30 Ldel = t1, s1, t2, s2 Lp : s2 = DSp t2 >
t

31 While Ldel
32 (t1, s1, t2, s2) Ldel (1)
33 Ldel = Ldel { }
34 Lp (s2) = Lp (s2) { }
35 For s1 Gp
36 For (t , s ): (t , s, t1, s1) Lp (s1)
37 Ldel = Ldel {(t , s, t1, s1)}
38 End For
39 End For
40 End While
41 Generating Link set Lp
42 Lp = s Gp L (s )

43 †T
dynamic (t , s1, s2 ) : travel time between stations s1 and s2 at time interval t

Appendix C. Sensitivity analysis extension

In this section we conduct sensitivity analysis over some of the less sensitive parameters of the V2V WPT platform, and measure
the impact of introducing maximum energy cost thresholds for recipient vehicles to participate in the platform. Table 3 summarizes
the parameter values used in each section.

Table 3
Parameter values evaluated in sensitivity analysis.
Parameter Section (kW) d (kW h) d 1 Max ride time factor Supplier vehicles

Base 5 50 30 0.9 2 323

Max energy cost threshold C.1 50 30 0.9 1.5, 2 2 323
Power transfer rate C.2 10, 20 30 0.9 2 323
Power transfer efficiency C.3 50 30 0.7 2 323
No. of supplier vehicles C.4 50 30 0.9 2 100, 500

C.1. Maximum energy cost threshold

Our dynamic programming model is designed to prioritize maximizing the total number of served trips. To generalize the model
to be more sensitive to energy efficiency, we can eliminate (i.e., not serve) the trips whose system-level energy cost exceeds a max
value. The maximum energy cost for a recipient vehicle can be computed as the product of a constant factor, 1, and the energy
required for the vehicle to travel through its shortest path. Results are demonstrated in Fig. 7. Note that this figure only demonstrates
scenario 1.
Fig. 7(a) shows that number of served trips will be highly affected by the parameter 1. This observation is not surprising, since
just 32.6% of recipient trips can be served by only relying on vehicle batteries. Serving the remaining trips comes at the cost of energy
loss due to detours and power transfer inefficiencies.
Fig. 7(b), (c), (d), and (e) demonstrate that increasing 1 substantially affects energy consumption, total VHT, average VHT, and
charging time in charging stations, respectively. These trends are not surprising, since the number of served trips increases as we
increase the value of 1. Finally, Fig. 7(f) shows that the number of active supplier trips increases by 78% at first, when we increase the
value of 1 from 1.5 to 2. Then it decreases by 8.3% when we increase 1 from 2 to , although the number of served trips increases by
7.5% . As demonstrated by Fig. 7(a), the total number of served trips increases as we relax the threshold for the max energy cost. As
such, it is expected that as we increase the value of 1 from 1.5 to 2, the platform requires more supplier vehicles to serve a higher
number of recipient vehicles. The decreasing trend in the number of supplier vehicles when increasing 1 from 2 to indicates that
with no limits on who can participate, the platform can serve more trips, and do that more efficiently by using fewer supplier vehicles.

C.2. Power transfer rate

Through out our previous analysis we considered a fixed power transfer rate of 50 kW for both the V2V WPT and the stationary
charging platforms. Here we conduct sensitivity analysis on the power transfer rate of the V2V WPT platform to quantify its impact on
system performance. In the experiments in this section we consider the power transfer rates of 10 kW, 20 kW, and 50 kW. Results are
demonstrated in Fig. 8. Note that this figure only demonstrates scenario 1.
Fig. 8(a), (b), and (f) suggest that the number of served trips, energy consumption, and the number of supplier trips who engage in
power transfer are not sensitive to the power transfer rate. Fig. 8(c), (d), and (e) suggest that increasing the power transfer rate

275
M. Abdolmaleki, et al. Transportation Research Part C 103 (2019) 261–280

Fig. 7. Sensitivity analysis over 1.

creates a decreasing trend on the total and average travel times and the charging time in stations, which is expected. Fig. 8(e)
demonstrate the most substantial drawback of decreasing the power transfer rate. As we decrease the power transfer rate we motivate
the recipient vehicles to obtain their power from the stations, resulting in an increase of 30% in the charging time at charging stations.

C.3. Efficiency of the V2V power transfer

In all previous sections we considered the energy efficiency factor of the V2V WPT platform to be 90% . In the experiments in this

276
M. Abdolmaleki, et al. Transportation Research Part C 103 (2019) 261–280

Fig. 8. Sensitivity analysis over power transfer rate.

section we consider the energy efficiency factor for transfers between vehicles to be 70% and 90% . Results are demonstrated in Fig. 9.
Note that this figure only demonstrates scenarios 1.
Fig. 9(a) and (b) show that decreasing the energy efficiency factor does not affect the number of served trips and energy con-
sumption significantly—the variation is less than 3% among all different values. This is an interesting observation, suggesting that
reducing charging efficiency to 70% does not come at the cost of higher energy consumption. Fig. 9(c) and (d) show that decreasing

277
M. Abdolmaleki, et al. Transportation Research Part C 103 (2019) 261–280

Fig. 9. Sensitivity analysis over transfer efficiency.

the energy transfer rate will result in increasing total and average VHT, by 5% . Fig. 9(e) demonstrates the most important effect of
changing the power transfer efficiency factor. Decreasing the energy efficiency factor prompts the recipient vehicles to use stationary
chargers at higher rates, resulting in 126% increase in the charging time at charging stations. This conclusion is confirmed in Fig. 9(f),
which suggests fewer supplier vehicles are actively participating in the V2V WPT platform as the transfer efficiency decreases.

278
M. Abdolmaleki, et al. Transportation Research Part C 103 (2019) 261–280

Fig. 10. Sensitivity analysis over number of supplier vehicles.

C.4. Number of supplier vehicles

Through out previous sections we considered the penetration rate of the supplier trips to be 1% of the commuter trips. Here we
conduct sensitivity analysis on the number of potential supplier trips on the performance of the V2V WPT system. In the experiments
in this section we consider the number of potentail supplier trips to be 100, 323, 500. Results are demonstrated in Fig. 10. Note that
this figure only demonstrates scenarios 1.
Fig. 10(a), (b), (c), and (d) show that the effect of number of supplier trips on the number of served trips, energy consumption,

279
M. Abdolmaleki, et al. Transportation Research Part C 103 (2019) 261–280

total VHT, and average VHT is not substantial—the variation is less than 4% among all different values. This is due to the fact that in
the base experiments over 90% of the recipient trips are served, leaving little room for improvement. Mild, and intuitive, trends,
however, exist, indicating that increasing the available resources (i.e., supplier vehicles) would lead to higher number of served trips,
less energy consumption, and lower travel times. Finally, Fig. 10(f) and (e) show that there is a saturation point for the number of
potential supplier trips, beyond which the rate of improvements slows down. As we increase the number of suppliers from 100 to 323,
we see a great reduction in total charging time in charging stations, and a considerable increase in the number of active suppliers.
While the same trend can be observed when increasing the number of supplier vehicles from 323 to 500, the amount of reduction in
the total charging time in charging stations and the increase in the number of active suppliers is not as significant.

References

Adler, J.D., Mirchandani, P.B., Xue, G., Xia, M., 2016. The electric vehicle shortest-walk problem with battery exchanges. Networks Spat. Econ. 16 (1), 155–173.
Artmeier, A., Haselmayr, J., Leucker, M., Sachenbacher, M., 2010. The shortest path problem revisited: optimal routing for electric vehicles. In: Annual Conference on
Artificial Intelligence. Springer, pp. 309–316.
Chen, Z., Liu, W., Yin, Y., 2017. Deployment of stationary and dynamic charging infrastructure for electric vehicles along traffic corridors. Transport. Res. Part C:
Emerg. Technol. 77, 185–206.
Chen, Z., Yin, Y., Song, Z., 2018. A cost-competitiveness analysis of charging infrastructure for electric bus operations. Technical report.
Cole, R., Ost, K., Schirra, S., 2001. Edge-coloring bipartite multigraphs in o (e log d) time. Combinatorica 21 (1), 5–12.
Coltin, B., Veloso, M., 2014. Ridesharing with passenger transfers. In: 2014 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2014). IEEE,
pp. 3278–3283.
Corporate average fuel economy (cafe) standards. < https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/corporate-average-fuel-economy > .
Dai, J., Ludois, D.C., 2015. Single active switch power electronics for kilowatt scale capacitive power transfer. IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron. 3 (1), 315–323.
Huang, S., He, L., Gu, Y., Wood, K., Benjaafar, S., 2015. Design of a mobile charging service for electric vehicles in an urban environment. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transport.
Syst. 16 (2), 787–798.
Hu, A.P., Liu, C., Li, H.L., 2008. A novel contactless battery charging system for soccer playing robot. In: 15th International Conference on Mechatronics and Machine
Vision in Practice, 2008. M2VIP 2008. IEEE, pp. 646–650.
Huh, J., Lee, S.W., Lee, W.Y., Cho, G.H., Rim, C.T., 2011. Narrow-width inductive power transfer system for online electrical vehicles. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 26
(12), 3666–3679.
Ichimori, T., Ishii, H., Nishida, T., 1981. Routing a vehicle with the limitation of fuel. J. Oper. Res. Soc. Japan 24 (3), 277–281.
Jang, Y.J., Jeong, S., Lee, M.S., 2016. Initial energy logistics cost analysis for stationary, quasi-dynamic, and dynamic wireless charging public transportation systems.
Energies 9 (7), 483.
König, D., 1916. Über graphen und ihre anwendung auf determinantentheorie und mengenlehre. Math. Ann. 77 (4), 453–465.
Masoud, N., Jayakrishnan, R., 2017. A decomposition algorithm to solve the multi-hop peer-to-peer ride-matching problem. Transport. Res. Part B: Methodol. 99,
1–29.
Masoud, N., Jayakrishnan, R., 2017. A real-time algorithm to solve the peer-to-peer ride-matching problem in a flexible ridesharing system. Transport. Res. Part B:
Methodol. 106, 218–236.
Masoud, N., Lloret-Batlle, R., Jayakrishnan, R., 2017. Using bilateral trading to increase ridership and user permanence in ridesharing systems. Transport. Res. Part E:
Logist. Transport. Rev. 102, 60–77.
Nelson, G.D., Rae, A., 2016. An economic geography of the united states: from commutes to megaregions. PloS One 11 (11), e0166083.
Ning, P., Miller, J.M., Onar, O.C., White, C.P., 2013. A compact wireless charging system for electric vehicles. In: Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition (ECCE),
2013 IEEE. IEEE, pp. 3629–3634.
Smith, R., Shahidinejad, S., Blair, D., Bibeau, E., 2011. Characterization of urban commuter driving profiles to optimize battery size in light-duty plug-in electric
vehicles. Transport. Res. Part D: Transport Environ. 16 (3), 218–224.
Smith, O.J., Boland, N., Waterer, H., 2012. Solving shortest path problems with a weight constraint and replenishment arcs. Comput. Oper. Res. 39 (5), 964–984.
Tesla, N., 1891. Experiments with alternate currents of very high frequency and their application to methods of artificial illumination. Trans. Am. Inst. Electr. Eng. 8
(1), 266–319.
Traveler analysis framework. u.s. department of transportation/federal highway administration (Accessed: 2016-02-10). < https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
policyinformation/analysisframework/01.cfm > .
Wang, C., Ma, Z., 2016. Design of wireless power transfer device for uav. In: 2016 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation (ICMA). IEEE, pp.
2449–2454.

280