Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract— As the penetration level of plug-in hybrid electric As opposed to these works, this paper concentrates on
vehicles (PHEVs) increases, the stress on the distribution sys- PHEV charging in public infrastructure such as shared parking
tem will become more pronounced. We concentrate on PHEV lots in large office and university campuses, or in shopping
charging in public infrastructure, such as shared parking lots in
commercial office campuses and shopping malls. In such clustered malls. Sole reliance on residential charging imposes severe
scenarios, PHEV charging demand can vary significantly and constraints on driving patterns and increases required vehicle
stochastically with time, and the overall system performance is depletion range, thus hindering the popularity of PHEVs.
a trade-off between the peak load on the distribution system For example, assuming no charging infrastructures other than
and the consumer specified deadlines that are met successfully. that at the owner’s residence, the required minimum vehicle
However, unlike distributed residential charging, this situation
permits a centralized scheduler based control of the vehicles depletion range is estimated to be 40 miles. Using alternative
that are charged at any time. This paper considers the design of infrastructure, this can be lowered to 27 miles. This will lead
scheduling algorithms to optimize the system performance. We to a reduction of over $8,000 in the cost of each PHEV [14].
show that through proper design of the scheduling algorithms, Establishing public infrastructure for PHEV charging will be
the parking lot owner can balance distribution system load and an effective way to persuade people to adopt PHEVs.
quality of charging service.
Coordination of charging in public infrastructure presents
I. I NTRODUCTION both unique opportunities and challenges. The charging de-
Electrification of the vehicle fleet offers a great potential mand in such locations is highly variable depending on the
to reduce both greenhouse gas emissions [1] and the daily stochastic customer arrival process. An uncoordinated charg-
transportation cost [2]. Moreover, the prospect also means ing strategy may lead to a load profile with a high peak to
increased revenue for both auto manufacturers and utility average power level. On the other hand, imposing a strict
companies. Accordingly, there is a great interest among both peak power constraint may lead to many vehicle charging
policy makers and industrial players to promote a higher level deadlines not being met. On the other hand, the coordination
of penetration of plug in hybrid electric vehicles and plug-in of the vehicle charging need not be done in a decentralized
electric vehicles (denoted by PHEVs from hereon). fashion, as in residential environments. Rather, a centralized
controller which schedules the charging time of PHEVs can be
However, significant technical hurdles towards reaching that
designed to optimize the system performance, by considering
goal still remain. One of the most important challenge is that
both the load profile and the consumer demands. We design
the distribution system of the electric grid may be severely
and analyze the performance of such scheduling algorithms.
stressed as the PHEV penetration level increases. High pene-
Note that, we do not consider the possibility of either smart
tration of PHEVs (as new loads) will add significant electricity
charging through two-way communication or the usage of
demand. More importantly, the introduction of these loads is
PHEVs as distributed storage devices and generation resources
highly correlated in both time (for instance, most PHEVs will
(also known as vehicle-to-grid (V2G)) in this paper, since both
be plugged in for charging after the commute from office in
are considered to be unlikely in the near term.
the evening) and space (for instance, in large office parking
lots, many PHEVs will be clustered together for charging).
Thus, even though the generation system may be able to supply Contributions: This paper develops and analyzes central-
enough energy to charge the PHEVs, the distribution system ized scheduling strategies for PHEV charging at public infras-
may still be stressed temporally and spatially [2]–[4] if the tructure. Specifically, we consider coordinated PHEV charging
PHEVs are introduced as conventional loads and serviced in for two models, namely large corporate parking plazas (that
an uncoordinated manner (see also [5]–[7]). may provide PHEV charging to their employees as a benefit)
Coordinated charging through scheduling the time at which and shopping mall parking plazas (that may provide PHEV
different PHEVs are charged has been proposed to miti- charging as a promotion or attraction to potential customers).
gate these issues [8], [13]. Many works have studied co- We introduce a stochastic model for the charging demand
ordinated charging of PHEVs at consumer residences with at these locations and formulate the problem of balancing
various control strategies, such as time of usage (TOU) based charging demand with system load. We design and analyze
charging [12], convex linear and quadratic programming [8], the performance of many scheduling algorithms for PHEV
sequential quadratic optimization [3], [9], particle swarm op- charging at large parking plazas. In particular, for some cases,
timization [10], non-cooperative games [11], and so on. we are able to identify the optimal scheduling algorithm.
Numerical examples illustrate the effectiveness of proper
Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Notre Dame, Notre scheduling strategy on balancing the utilization level of power
Dame, IN 46556. jhuang6,vgupta2,huang@nd.edu resources and customer perceived quality of service.
Central [0, T1 ] so that λ(t) is defined as
Controller (
λ t ∈ [0, T1 ]
λ(t) = (1)
0 otherwise.
−4
10
−5
10 SCFS
500 FCFS
−6
10 (np)EDF
(p)EDF
−7
10
0 −8
0 2 4 6 8 10 10
0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Time (h) Utilization factor ρ
Fig. 2. A particular realization of coordinated charging and noncoordinated Fig. 4. Performance comparison among the four scheduling strategies for
charging (ρ = 0.8 for both FCFS and LCFS) the mall scenario (p): preemptive, (np): non-preemptive
0
10
10
their deadlines. The EDF strategies give preference to the
10
−2 jobs which have the earliest deadline. Figure 4 shows the
performance of the four scheduling strategies. The preemptive
10
−3 EDF strategy outperforms the others when the utilization factor
is smaller than 1.15. To maintain good quality of service, the
−4 SCFS system needs to operate with low probability of missing dead-
10 FCFS
McN
lines. If the service provider sets the probability of missing
10
−5
LCFS deadlines to be 10−6 , the preemptive and non-preemptive EDF
strategies can handle utilization factors around 1 and 0.97,
10
−6 while the FCFS and SCFS strategies only support utilization
0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 factors around 0.82 and 0.73. Therefore, the preemptive EDF
Utilization factor ρ strategy has the best capability of balancing quality of service
Fig. 3. Performance comparison among four scheduling strategies for the
and utilization level among the four strategies.
office scenario
V. C ONCLUSIONS AND F UTURE W ORK
when 4 charging meters are present. The results indicate that This paper considered the problem of scheduling PHEV
for the case when multiple cooperating charging meters are charging in shared commercial parking lots when the arrival
present, no scheduling strategy is optimal under all the load of the PHEVs is stochastic and consumers have individual
conditions. The SCFS strategy outperforms others at a high deadlines. When there is no cooperation among different
load level while the LCFS strategy performs the best at a low charging meters, this paper provides and analyzes optimal
load level. However, a suitably selected scheduling strategy scheduling strategies which minimize the number of missed
can always outperform the unscheduled FCFS strategy. deadlines. For multiple charging meters with cooperation, this
paper numerically evaluates the performance of several typical
B. Mall Scenario strategies and provides suggestions for service providers on
In the mall scenario, customers arrive at the mall parking what regime the system should be operated in to balance
plaza during 8am and 8pm as a Poisson process with mean as system impacts, profit and quality of service.
one thousand per day. PHEVs are plugged into the charging This paper has only considered scheduling of the time
meters during this time range. The demand for each PHEV for charging different PHEVs with a constant charging rate.
and the charging rate follow the same setting as in the Future work will consider scheduling both the time and the
office scenario. Each PHEV has a unique deadline uniformly charging rate (different levels of charging rates) which intro-
distributed in the range of 0 and 2 hours after the arrival of duces another degree of freedom and potential performance
the PHEV. Note that whether a PHEV is charged or not, it is improvement. Future work can also incorporate the fact that
assumed to leave the system at the completion of its deadline. the realistic physical charging rate is usually not constant and
We also compare four scheduling strategies for the mall varies with time and consider scheduling with a discretized
scenario. Other than the FCFS and LCFS strategies, we also model with several levels of rates which approximates the
consider both non-preemptive and preemptive earliest deadline realistic charging rate model.
R EFERENCES
[1] Electric Power Research Institute, “Environment Assessment of Plug-
in Hybrid Electric Vehicles - Volume 1: Nationwide Greenhouse Gas
Emissions,” EPRI Report, Palo Alto, 2007.
[2] A. Ipakchi, and F. Albuyeh, “Grid of the Future,”
IEEE Power and Energy Magazine, vol. 7, pp. 52 - 62, March-April,
2009.
[3] K. Clement-Nyns, E. Haesen, and J. Driesen, “The impact of charging
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles on a residential distribution grid,” IEEE
Trans. Power Systems, vol. 25, pp. 371 - 380, 2010.
[4] L. Pieltain Fernandez, T. Gomez San Roman, R. Cossent, C. M. Domingo,
and P. Frias, “Assessment of the impact of plug-in electric vehicles on
distribution networks,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 26, pp. 206 - 213,
2011.
[5] J. Dowds, C. Farmer, P. Hines, R. Watts, and S. Blumsack, “A review
of results from plug-in hybrid electric vehicle impact studies,” working
paper, University of Vermont, December 2009.
[6] C. Farmer, P. Hines, J. Dowds, and S. Blumsack, “Modeling the Impact of
Increasing PHEV Loads on the Distribution Infrastructure,” 43rd Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), pp. 1-10, Jan.
2010.
[7] J. Taylor, A. Maitra, M. Alexander, D. Brooks, and M. Duvall, “Eval-
uation of the impact of plug-in electric vehicle loading on distribution
system operations,” Power & Energy Society General Meeting, pp. 1-6,
July 2009.
[8] E. Sortomme, M. M. Hindi, S. D. J. MacPherson, and S. S. Venkata,
“Coordinated Charging of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles to Minimize
Distribution System Losses,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 2,
pp. 198 - 205, 2011.
[9] A. Hajimiragha, C. A. Caizares, M. W. Fowler, and A. Elkamel “Opti-
mal Transition to Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles in Ontario, Canada,
Considering the Electricity-Grid Limitations,” IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Electronics, vol. 57, pp. 690 - 701, Feb 2010.
[10] A. Saber, and G. Venayagamoorthy, “Plug-in Vehicles and Renewable
Energy Sources for Cost and Emission Reductions,” IEEE Transactions
on Industrial Electronics, vol. 58, pp. 1229 - 1238, April 2010.
[11] Z. Ma, D. S. Callaway, and I. A. Hiskens, “Decentralized Charging
Control for Large Populations of Plug-in Electric Vehicles”, Proceedings
of the IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Atlanta Georgia, 2010.
[12] S. Shao, T. Zhang, M. Pipattanasomporn, and S. Rahman, “Impact
of TOU Rates on Distribution Load Shapes in a Smart Grid with
PHEV Penetration,” IEEE Transmission and Distribution Conference and
Exposition, pp. 1 - 6, 2010.
[13] K. Mets, T. Verschueren, W. Haerick, C. Develder, and F. De Turck,
“Optimizing smart energy control strategies for plug-in hybrid electric
vehicle charging,” Network Operations and Management Symposium
Workshops, pp. 293-299, April 2010.
[14] K. Morrow, D. Karner, and J. Francfort, “U.S. Department of Energy
Vehicle Technologies Program Advanced Vehicle Testing Activity Plug-in
Hybrid Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Review,” Final Report,
Battelle Energy Alliance, Contract No 58517, November 2008.
[15] H. Stark and J. W. Woods, Probability and Random Processes with
Applications to Signal Processing, 3rd edition, Prentice Hall, 2001.
[16] J. Medhi, Stochastic Models in Queuding Theory, 2nd edition, Academic
Press, 2003.
[17] F. Cottet, J. Delacroix, C. Kaiser, and Z. Mammeri, Scheduling in Real-
Time Systems, Wiley, 2002.
[18] P. P. Bhattacharya, and A. Ephremides, “Optimal scheduling with strict
deadlines,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 34, pp. 721 -
728, 1989.