energies
Article
Load Forecast of Electric Vehicle Charging Station Considering
Multi-Source Information and User Decision Modification
Zhiyuan Zhuang 1 , Xidong Zheng 1 , Zixing Chen 1 , Tao Jin 1 and Zengqin Li 2, *
Citation: Zhuang, Z.; Zheng, X.;
Chen, Z.; Jin, T.; Li, Z. Load Forecast
of Electric Vehicle Charging Station
Considering Multi-Source
Information and User Decision
Modification. Energies 2022, 15, 7021.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en15197021
Academic Editor: Anna Rita Di Fazio
Received: 24 June 2022
Accepted: 15 September 2022
Published: 24 September 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Energies 2022, 15, 7021. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15197021
1 College of Electrical Engineering and Automation, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350116, China
2 China Railway Electric Industry Co., Ltd., Baoding 071051, China
* Correspondence: 200120006@fzu.edu.cn
Abstract: In view of the current multi-source information scenario, this paper proposes a decision-
making method for electric vehicle charging stations (EVCSs) based on prospect theory, which
considers payment cost, time cost, and route factors, and is used for electric vehicle (EV) owners to
make decisions when the vehicle’s electricity is low. Combined with the multi-source information
architecture composed of an information layer, algorithm layer, and model layer, the load of EVCSs
in the region is forecast. In this paper, the Monte Carlo method is used to test the IEEE-30 model
and the traffic network based on it, and the spatial and temporal distribution of charging load in the
region is obtained, which verifies the effectiveness of the proposed method. The results show that
EVCS load forecasting based on the prospect theory under the influence of multi-source information
will have an impact on the space–time distribution of the EVCS load, which is more consistent with
the decisions of EV owners in reality.
Keywords: load forecast; electric vehicle; prospect theory; multi-source information
1. Introduction
At present, energy from fossil fuels is becoming scarce. With the development of re-
newable energy generation and electric vehicle (EV) power battery technology, all countries
are vigorously promoting the popularity of EVs to promote the clean energy of transporta-
tion [1,2]. Unlike residential or industrial loads, which have strong periodicity, the high
volatility of EV charging demands poses more challenges to the power grid [3]. Therefore,
it is of great importance to predict EV load and formulate demand response plans [4].
The prediction of electric vehicle charging station (EVCS) scenarios are often based on
existing historical data. Vehicle GPS data [5] and historical electricity price data [6] can be
collected to make a decision after car owners’ comparison. Reference [7] applied hierarchical
methods after dimensionality reduction, and data were input into multiple benchmark
prediction models. According to Reference [8], the behavior of car owners charging EVs
cannot be controlled, so the ARIMA model is used to aggregate and forecast the demand
for charging equipment in the road network. Gilanifar et al. analyzed the flexible load
from multiple charging stations, learned a Gaussian process for each node, and updated
the Gaussian process parameters through the square error of k-means clustering in the
iteration [9]. In Reference [10], a long and short-term memory network is applied to predict
vehicle travel behavior and cluster departure and arrival time to realize load forecast.
However, in the absence of historical load data, it is very important to analyze the
user’s behavior to predict the load in the region. Different probability distribution functions
are used to match the vehicle’s daily mileage, the probability distribution of charging [11],
driving distance, and number of battery replacements per hour [12], which are highly
subjective. Moon et al. [13] analyzed consumers’ preferences for fast and slow charging,
and [14] further divided users’ charging habits into multiple behavioral clusters to analyze
the flexibility of EV charging load.
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
 [11], driving distance, and number of battery replacements per hour [12], which are highly
subjective. Moon et al. [13] analyzed consumers’ preferences for fast and slow charging,
Energies 2022, 15, 7021 2 of 13
and [14] further divided users’ charging habits into multiple behavioral clusters to analyze
the flexibility of EV charging load.
Reference [15] matches the vehicle SOC monitored by the Internet of Things (IoT)
withReference
the status [15] matches
of EVCSs andthe vehicle
makes SOC monitored
charging choices forbyusers.
the Internet
Charging of scenarios
Things (IoT) are
with the status
classified of EVCSs[16,17],
by References and makes charging
and users’ choices
charging for users.
behaviors Charging
in different scenarios
scenarios underare
classified by References
different charging powers [16,17],
and and users’
driving charging
modes behaviorsthrough
are analyzed in different scenarios
maps. However,under in
different charging powers and driving modes are analyzed through maps.
the practical application of the above articles, some users may be worried about data pri- However, in the
practical
vacy andapplication
unwilling to ofupload
the above articles,
relevant some users
information formay be worried about data privacy
analysis.
and unwilling to upload relevant information for analysis.
The stochastic framework based on unscented transform in Reference [18] models
The stochastic
the uncertain framework
variables based
of plug-in on unscented
vehicles, such astransform
charging in Reference
strategy and[18]
the models
numberthe of
uncertain variablestoofbe
vehicles needing plug-in
charged.vehicles, such as
Reference charging
[19] proposesstrategy
a methodand the number
based on SOCof vehicles
combi-
needing to be charged.
nation, which Reference
dynamically [19] proposes
distributes a method
the charging powerbased on SOC combination, which
of EVCSs.
dynamically distributes the charging power of EVCSs.
This paper proposes a load forecast model for EVCSs based on multi-source data and
This theory.
prospect paper proposes
Firstly, thea load
travelforecast model for
characteristics EVCSs car
of private basedandon multi-source
taxi owners are data ana-
and
lyzed to construct a travel chain. Secondly, the velocity of different roadstaxi
prospect theory. Firstly, the travel characteristics of private car and owners
in the are
road net-
analyzed to construct a travel chain. Secondly, the velocity of different
work at different times is calculated in the traffic flow model. Then, when the car owner roads in the road
network at different
has charging demand,times
theisprospect
calculated in theistraffic
theory used flow model.the
to analyze Then, when thefactors
influencing car owner
and
has
modify the decision that has been made at a particular node in choosing a charging and
charging demand, the prospect theory is used to analyze the influencing factors sta-
modify the decision
tion. Finally, thatthe
based on hasdecisions
been made made at aby
particular
each carnode in choosing
owner, a charging station.
the spatio-temporal distri-
Finally, based on the decisions made by each car owner, the spatio-temporal distribution
bution prediction of EVCS load is constructed.
prediction of EVCS load is constructed.
The content of this paper is arranged as follows. Chapter 2 proposes the multi-source
The content of this paper is arranged as follows. Section 2 proposes the multi-source
information interaction system and the load forecast model framework of EVCSs. Chapter
information interaction system and the load forecast model framework of EVCSs. Section 3
3 proposes the decision-making model of EV owners based on prospect theory. Chapter 4
proposes the decision-making model of EV owners based on prospect theory. Section 4
conducts calculation example analysis and Chapter 5 concludes the paper.
conducts calculation example analysis and Section 5 concludes the paper.
2. Framework
2. Framework of of EVCS
EVCS Load
Load Forecasting
Forecasting Model
Model Based
Based on on Multi-Source
Multi-Source Information
Information
and Prospect Theory
and Prospect Theory
At present, with
At withthe
thedevelopment
development of of
thethe
internet of vehicles
internet technology
of vehicles [20], car
technology [20],own-
car
ers can intuitively
owners obtain
can intuitively various
obtain typestypes
various of information through
of information mobilemobile
through phonephone
apps before
apps
and during
before the journey,
and during such as such
the journey, congestion of route,of
as congestion electricity price of EVCSs,
route, electricity price ofand even
EVCSs,
the queuing
and even thesituation. All this information
queuing situation. will exert will
All this information a great influence
exert on the decision-
a great influence on the
making scenario of
decision-making EV owners
scenario of EVin owners
choosingincharging
choosingplaces, thusplaces,
charging affecting theaffecting
thus distribution
the
of charging loads
distribution to a certain
of charging loads extent.
to a certain extent.

2.1.
2.1. Establishment
Establishment ofof Multi-Source
Multi-Source Information
Information Interaction
Interaction System
System
The
The framework of the multi-source information interaction system
framework of the multi-source information interaction system proposed
proposed in
in this
this
paper can be divided into three layers: multi-source information layer, algorithm
paper can be divided into three layers: multi-source information layer, algorithm layer,layer, and
model layer,layer,
and model respectively, as shown
respectively, in Figure
as shown 1 below.
in Figure 1 below.

Multi-sourse Grid Info. Weather Info. Road Info.

Info. Layer Travel Info.
(Node coordinate) (Temperature) (Node coordinate)

Algorithm EVCS Info. Prospect Theory Trip Chain

Layer (Price, location) Decision Making Generation

EV Charging Path Calculation

Model (Dijkstra)

Model Layer
EV Power
EVCS Traffic Model
Consumption
Model (Crowdedness)
Model

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Framework
Framework of
of multi-source
multi-source information
information interaction
interaction system.
system.

In the multi-source information layer, travel information refers to the residence and
departure times of cars. Information on EVCSs includes location and time-of-use (TOU)
price. In the algorithm layer, the Dijkstra algorithm is used to calculate the shortest path.
When the EV battery is low, the proposed EVCS decision algorithm is adopted to select
the best charging station considering multiple factors. In the model layer, the velocity is
obtained by the number of cars on each road. After combining EVCS information with the
 In the multi-source information layer, travel information refers to the residence and
departure times of cars. Information on EVCSs includes location and time-of-use (TOU)
price. In the algorithm layer, the Dijkstra algorithm is used to calculate the shortest path.
Energies 2022, 15, 7021 When the EV battery is low, the proposed EVCS decision algorithm is adopted to 3select of 13
the best charging station considering multiple factors. In the model layer, the velocity is
obtained by the number of cars on each road. After combining EVCS information with the
decision of
decision of EV
EV owners,
owners, the
the EVCS
EVCS model
model can
can be
be obtained,
obtained, including
including the
the state
state of
of chargers,
chargers,
SOC of the vehicle, queuing, etc.
SOC of the vehicle, queuing, etc.

2.2. Framework
2.2. Framework of
of EVCS
EVCS Load
Load Forecasting
Forecasting Model
Model
First, the
First, thetravel
travelchain
chainof ofeach
eachvehicle
vehicleisisgenerated
generatedthrough
throughtravel
travelinformation.
information. There
There
arethree
are threetypes
typesofoftravel
travelchains
chainsforfor private
private cars:
cars: “simple
“simple chain”,
chain”, “special
“special chain”
chain” (round-
(round-trip
trip trips
trips to a to a special
special areaarea
afterafter going
going to the
to the original
original destination),and
destination), and“complex
“complexchain”,
chain”,as
as
shown
shownin inthe
thefollowing
followingFigure
Figure2.2.

Residence Residence Residence

Zone Zone Zone
(H) (H) (H)

Special Business
Work Zone Work Zone Work Zone
Zone Zone
(W) (W) (W)
(O) (E)

Simple Chain Special Chain Complex Chain

Figure2.2. Travel
Figure Travelchain
chainof
ofprivate
privatecars.
cars.

Departure
Departuretime
timefollows
followsaafunction
functionbased basedononWeibull
Weibulldistribution:
distribution:
 
 − t−ϕt γ−    , t ≥ γ
k k
f (t) = ϕk k t−ϕtγ− exp
  
(1)
f (t ) =   exp  −    ,t   (1)
       
where k is shape parameter. ϕ is scale parameter, and the unit is min. γ is a position
where k isin
parameter shape parameter. φ is scale parameter, and the unit is min. γ is a position pa-
minutes.
rameter in minutes.
In this paper, the departure time of private cars follows Formula (1) with k = 1.5,
γ = 360In and
this ϕ
paper,
= 100.the
Thedeparture timeinofworking
parking time private cars follows Formula
and commercial (1) withthe
areas follows k =normal
1.5, γ =
360 and φ = of
distribution 100. The parking
N~(540,15) andtime in working
N~(60,15), and commercial
respectively, areas
and parking follows
time the normal
in special areas
follows random
distribution distribution
of N~(540,15) in [20,60].
and N~(60,15), respectively, and parking time in special areas
Therandom
follows OD (Original-Destination) matrix method is used to generate the taxi travel chain;
distribution in [20,60].
that is, taxis have a different probability
The OD (Original-Destination) matrix of method
going toisdifferent
used todestinations
generate theattaxi
different
travel
times
chain;of theis,day,
that taxisashave
shown in Tableprobability
a different 1. In this of
paper,
goingdestinations are roughly at
to different destinations divided
differ-
into “residential
ent times area”,as“business
of the day, shown inarea”,
Table and
1. In“work area”destinations
this paper, to simplify the
areanalysis,
roughly and the
divided
probabilities are roughly
into “residential divided according
area”, “business area”, andto“work
the commuting time. the analysis, and the
area” to simplify
probabilities are roughly divided according to the commuting time.
Table 1. OD matrix at 22:00~7:00 (+1) on weekdays.
Table 1. OD matrix at 22:00~7:00 (+1) on weekdays.
Departure
Residence Work Business
\Departure
Destination
Residence Work Business
\Destination
Residence 0.8 0.1 0.1
Work
Residence 0.8
0.8 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.1
Business 0.7 0.1 0.2
Work 0.8 0.1 0.1
Business 0.7 0.1 0.2
Taxi departure time follows Formula (1) with parameters k = 1.15, γ = 360, and ϕ = 30,
and stay
Taxitime in different
departure time regions
followsvaries at different
Formula (1) with times. OD matrix
parameters and
k = 1.15, γ stay time
= 360, andofφtaxis
= 30,
are shown in the Appendix A.
and stay time in different regions varies at different times. OD matrix and stay time of
taxisIn the
are next step,
shown in thethe path and
Appendix A.road network speed model can be generated. In the
model of this paper, the generation of vehicle routes does not consider the influence of
drivers’ decision-making caused by congested road conditions, and the Dijkstra algorithm
is used to calculate the shortest route. Given the starting time and path of journey, the
modified Greenshields traffic flow model is used to obtain road speed:

Q = − av2 + bv − c (2)

where Q is the volume of traffic flow, v is road speed, and a, b, c are the parameters.
Energies 2022, 15, 7021 4 of 13

The vehicle energy consumption model consists of two factors: mileage and air
conditioning state. The calculation interval in this paper is 1 minute. Wt represents energy
consumption of the vehicle, which is calculated as follows:

Wt = Wdriving + WAC (3)

where Wdriving is the power consumption of mileage.

As speed limits in urban areas are generally no higher than 60 km/h, in the case of
known NEDC (New European Driving Cycle) and battery capacity, the driving energy
consumption of the vehicle is deducted in the form of mileage. WAC is the power consump-
tion of air conditioning. Given the temperature curve, when the temperature is higher or
lower than a certain value, it is regarded that cold air or heating is turned on. The energy
consumption formulas are as follows:

d
Wdriving = · Cbattery (4)
NEDC
WAC = PAC · t (5)
where d is the mileage of vehicles; Cbattery is the capacity of battery; PAC is the power of air
conditioner, 1.2 kW and 1.5 kW, respectively, when cold or warm air is turned on.
When the SOC of the vehicle is lower than a certain value (this paper takes 0.05),
the EV owner will decide which charging station to charge based on the decision method
proposed in this paper. Thus, the load value of each EVCS can be predicted.

3. EV Owner Decision Model Based on Prospect Theory

3.1. Prospect Theory Decision Model
In the model of this paper, the endurance of private cars will be enough to support
daily commuting, so private car owners charge with slow chargers in residential areas. This
decision model is mainly aimed at owners of commercial vehicles (i.e., taxis).
The prospect theory considers factors that influence decision-making, makes risk
assessments by comparing with acceptable standards of consumers, calculates gain and
loss, and then calculates weighted prospect value to select the EVCS with the best prospect.
The process for EV owners is as follows:
First, the original decision matrix is defined in Formula (6):
 

xt,11 ... xt,1n
Xod = xt,ij m×n
=  ... ... ...  (6)
xt,m1 ... xt,mn

where xt,ij is the jth traffic characteristic value (TCV) of the vehicle going to the ith EVCS at
time t.
TCV is various factors that the EV owner needs to consider and convert into profit or
loss value. The calculation method of TCVs will be elaborated in Section 3.2.
The prospective values of various categories obtained from all EVCSs are arranged in
the direction from beneficial to unbeneficial to the EV owner, called xc1 , xc2 , . . . , xc,TCVValid .
The standard value of each TCV accepted by car owner (S) can be obtained by the following
Formula (7):
s1 s2 TCVValid
0.5 · ∑ xc + 0.3 · ∑ xc + 0.2 · ∑ xc
1 s1 +1 s2 +1
S= (7)
0.5 · s1 + 0.3 · (s2 − s1 ) + 0.2 · ( TCVValid − s2 )
where TCVValid is the number of reachable charging stations, while some EVCSs may not
be reachable due to insufficient endurance mileage.
To highlight the impact of decisions that are more beneficial, the TCV that is more
favorable to the EV owner has a greater weight, so the corresponding value is given a
Energies 2022, 15, 7021 5 of 13

weight of 0.5, 0.3, and 0.2. s1 , s2 are the intervals of weights, respectively, which are
calculated by the formulas below:

s1 = floor( TCVValid /3) − 1 (8)

s2 = TCVValid − [floor( TCVValid /3) + 1] (9)

Then, the prospect value function of car k choosing a charging station i in time period
t is:   α
 dkij , dkij ≥ 0
vtkij =  β (10)
− −d , dkij < 0
kij

where α and β are, respectively, risk sensitivity coefficients, both of which are set at 0.88 in
this paper [21], and dkij is the difference between jth TCV of charging station i chosen by
car k and the car owner’s acceptable standard.
The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is used to determine the proportion of each
traffic characteristic. The importance relation between each two TCVs is compared in
Table 2.

Table 2. Comparison of importance decided by AHP.

Array Payment Time Cost Route

Payment 1 1/2 2
Time Cost 2 1 3
Route 1/2 1/3 1

Where 1,2,3 indicate one factor is equally, slightly, or significantly more important
than the other, respectively. The reciprocal of each number means the opposite.
Acquired by calculation, the weights of payment cost, time cost, and route factor are
0.297, 0.540, and 0.163, respectively. The weight of TCV of item j is denoted as ω tj .
The weight function of the owner’s gain and loss can be obtained by calculation,
namely π tj + and π tj - :
γ
ωtj
+


πtj ωtj = h
γ i1/γ (11)
γ
ωtj + 1 − ωtj

ωtjδ
πtj− ωtj = h



δ i1/δ (12)
ωtjδ + 1 − ωtj

where γ is coefficient of risk-return attitude, which is 0.61, and δ is risk-loss attitude

coefficient, which is 0.69.
Then, the prospect value of car k choosing the ith charging station in time period t is:
m m
vtki = v+ −
tki + vtki = ∑ v+tkij · πtj+ + ∑ v−tkij · πtj− (13)
j j

Once the prospect value is calculated, EV owners will choose EVCSs with the highest
prospect value for charging.
However, with the changing traffic conditions, road congestion and EVCS conditions
will change in real-time. In this model, EV owners will make adjustments according to the
situation at every road node before arriving at the charging station after making a decision.

3.2. Determination of TCVs in Prospect Theory

When looking for social fast charging stations, EV owners will consider many factors,
such as TOU price, power consumption needed to get to EVCSs, and the queuing of
Energies 2022, 15, 7021 6 of 13

charging stations. The model in this paper classifies various factors into 3 TCVs, namely
payment cost, time cost, and route factor.
The payment cost refers to the electricity charge paid by the car owner after calculating
the expected queuing time, and the formula is as follows:

tcharging
x1 = ∑ Wcharging (t) E price (t) (14)
t=t EVCS

where Wcharging (t) is the amount of charge at the moment t, Eprice (t) is TOU electricity price at
the moment, tECVS is the time when the vehicle starts charging after arriving at the charging
station and passing the estimated queuing time, and tcharging is the estimated charging time.
Time cost refers to the waiting time in EVCS calculated according to the SOC state of
each charger and the queuing after browsing the status of EVCS. This time plus the time it
takes to charge, is converted into gain corresponding to loss.
 
x2 = tqueue + tcharging · v ave · ε (15)

where vave is the average traffic speed of all roads in the current road network. The paper
does not consider the variable currency sensitivity coefficient [22]; that is, it believes that
users have the same sensitivity when facing different sizes of gains and losses. Then ε is
the estimated profit per kilometer, which is set at RMB 2.8 in this paper.
Route factor, namely, the average benefit of the vehicle to pick up orders in the nearby
area after charging minus the loss of waiting time. If multiple regions are covered, the
average value is taken. Route factor is calculated as follows:
numdest
1
numdest ∑
x3 = [(ODdest · ddest − twait · v ave ) · ε] (16)
1

where ddest is the length to the destination, and ODdest is the OD matrix probability to the
corresponding destination.

4. Case Study and Discussion

4.1. Model Construction
The road network model adopted in this paper contains 50 blocks, 72 nodes, and
120 roads [23] covering an area of 625 km2 ; there are 200,000 private cars and 2000 taxis.
All roads are divided into two classes. For the high street, the values of a, b, c in Formula
(2) are 5.4, 309.6, and 2761, respectively. For the collector streets, the three parameters are
taken as 4.65, 260.9, and 2092.4, respectively.
There are 12 fast EVCSs on the road network, as shown in the green circle in Figure 3.
According to different coverage areas, TOU prices of different levels are set, which are
shown in the Appendix A. Each station contains 30 chargers with a power rating of 60 kW.
The rated charging power of taxis is 50 kW.
The Greenshield model is applied to calculate speed in the road network, and the
results are shown in Figure 4. As can be seen, road speed in the network presents a double
valley shape caused by morning and evening rush hours.

4.2. Selection of Experiment Times and Accuracy Measure

In this paper, the Monte Carlo method is used to reduce the error of the results. The
variance coefficient method [23] is taken as the evaluation standard, and the formula used is:
( )
σt ( Mt )
E = maxEt = max √ – (17)
I · Mt
 There are 12 fast EVCSs on the road network, as shown in the green circle in Figure
3. According
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW to different coverage areas, TOU prices of different levels are set, which7are
of 13
shown in the Appendix A. Each station contains 30 chargers with a power rating of 60
Energies 2022, 15, 7021 7 of 13
kW. The rated charging power of taxis is 50 kW.
48
There are 12 fast EVCSs on the road network, as shown in the green circle in Figure
49 50 51 52 53 54

3. According
H2 to
W1 different coverage areas, TOU prices of different levels are set, which are
H1 W2 W3
– 3
4
5
72

where σ is the calculation

shown in the Appendix symbol1
E4 A. Each
W4 of standard
W5 station
7
deviation,
contains 30 Mt is the
chargers load
with
2
a value at
power
8 rating t, M
time of 60t
55 6 E5 9 10 11 71
is theH3The
mean E1 value of load at time t, and I is the number of Monte Carlo cycles. 16
kW.
H4 rated charging
H5
W6
power
W8
of
W7
taxis
12
is 50 kW.
13 14
15
56 E2 H6
18 19 E7 20 21 22
E6 17 70
48 49 E3 50 51
27 52 53 54
57 W11 H8 H7
H9 23 W9 H2 25
28
H1 29 4 W2H18
5
W3
W1 30 72
3
1 26 W14 31
58 24 2 W12 E4E9 W4 W569
W10 7 H13 8 E5 11
55 6 33 34 9 10 W15 71
H3 E1 W13
16 35 36
59 H10
H4 13 14H5 40
60 32 H12 E8 15 W643 W8
12 42 E10 W7
56
E13 37 E239
18
H64119E12E7 20
W17
21 44 22 68
E6 38 17 W16 45 70
61 H14 47 46 W18
57 H15 E3 W11 27
H11 E11 H16H8 H7 H17H18
H9 23 W9 25
28 29 30
62
58
63 64 26 W146531 66 67
W10 24
H13 W12 E9
69

33 34 W15
W13 35 36
Figure 3. Road
59
60 32 network
H12 E8
model and EVCS location.
H10 40

39 41
E12 42 E10 43 W17 68
E13 37
44
38 W16 45
61 H14 47 46 W18
The
H11 Greenshield
H15 model
E11 H16
is applied
H17 to calculate speed in the road network, and the
results are shown in Figure 4. As can be seen, road speed in the network presents a double
62
63 64 65 66 67

valley shape caused by morning and evening rush hours.

Figure 3. Road network model and EVCS location.

47
46
The Greenshield model is applied to calculate speed in the road network, and the
results
45 are shown in Figure 4. As can be seen, road speed in the network presents a double
Velocity (km/h)

44
valley
43 shape caused by morning and evening rush hours.
42
41
47
40
39 46
38 45
Velocity (km/h)

0 44 500 1000 1440

Time (min)
43
42
Figure
Figure 4. 4. Road
41 Road speed
speed derived
derived from
from Greenshield
Greenshield model.
model.
40
39
E ≤ 0.1
4.2. Selection regards convergence
of Experiment Times1000 of the point.
and Accuracy
38 MeasureThe results are evaluated in the form of
0 500 1440
accuracy (i.e., number of convergence
Time (min) points divided by all variance non-zero value points).
In this paper, the Monte Carlo method is used to reduce the error of the results. The
Monte Carlo experiments results conducted 500~15,000 times can be seen in Figure 5.
variance
Figure coefficient
4. Road method [23]
speed is Greenshield
taken as themodel.evaluation standard, and the formula used
For EVCSs with poorderived
results, from
15,000 times of experiments can greatly improve the accuracy,
is:
while some with better results do not improve significantly. In order to balance calculation
4.2. Selection ofand Experiment Times and the
Accuracy Measureobject of this paper will take Monte
performance prediction effect, comparison  t ( M t ) 
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW
CarloIncycles
this paper, the The
as 15,000. Monte E = max
Carlo
average Et of= forecast
method
value  accuracy
is used
max  with
to reduce the different
error of the 8 ofThe
(17) 13
results.
cycles is shown
variance
in following coefficient
Table 3.method [23] is taken as the evaluation 
 I  M 
t standard, and the formula used

is:
where σ is the calculation symbol of standard deviation, Mt is the load value at time t, M t
0.9
is the mean value of load at time t, and I is the number  tof( M t )
Monte Carlo cycles.
E = max
E ≤ 0.1 regards convergence of the point. The results
0.8 E t = max   evaluated in the form of
are (17)
 I  M t 
Accuracy
(1st Peak)

accuracy (i.e., number of convergence points divided by all variance non-zero value
0.7
points).
where σ is the calculation symbol of standard deviation, Mt is the load value at time t, M t
is the0.6mean value of load at time t, and I is the number of Monte Carlo cycles.
Monte
E ≤ 0.1 Carlo 2 experiments
1 regards 3 4 5
convergence 6results
7 of8conducted 10 11500~15,000
the9 point. The 12 resultstimes can be seen
are evaluated in Figure
in the form of
EVCS number
5. For
accuracy (i.e., number of convergence points divided by all variance non-zeroaccu-
EVCSs with poor results, 15,000 times of experiments can greatly improve the value
racy, while
0.8 some with better results do not improve significantly. In order to balance cal-
points).
culation performance and prediction effect, the comparison object of this paper will take
(2nd Peak)
Accuracy

Monte 0.6 Carlo cycles

Monte Carloas 15,000. The results
experiments averageconducted
value of forecast
500~15,000 accuracy
timeswith
can different
be seen incycles
Figure
is shown in following Table 3.
5. For0.4EVCSs with poor results, 15,000 times of experiments can greatly improve the accu-
racy, while some with better results do not improve significantly. In order to balance cal-
0.2
culation performance
1 2 3 4and 5 prediction
6 7
EVCS number
8 effect,
9 10the11comparison
12 object of this paper will take
Monte Carlo
Legendscycles
I = 500as I15,000.
= 1500 I The
= 3000 average
I = 5000 Ivalue
= 10,000 of forecast accuracy with different cycles
I = 15,000
is shown in following Table 3.
Figure 5.
Figure The relationship
5. The relationship between
between the
the number
number of
of Monte
Monte Carlo
Carlo cycles
cycles and
and forecast
forecast accuracy.
accuracy.

Table 3. Average prediction accuracy under different Monte Carlo cycles.

1st Peak Ave. 2nd Peak Ave. Operation

I in (17)
Accuracy(%) Accuracy(%) Time (min)
500 73.00 60.89 20
1500 77.30 68.85 58
 0.4

0.2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
EVCS number
Legends I = 500 I = 1500 I = 3000 I = 5000 I = 10,000 I = 15,000

Energies 2022, 15, 7021 Figure 5. The relationship between the number of Monte Carlo cycles and forecast accuracy. 8 of 13

Table 3. Average prediction accuracy under different Monte Carlo cycles.

Table 3. Average prediction1st Peak Ave.

accuracy 2nd
under different Peak
Monte Ave.
Carlo cycles. Operation
I in (17)
Accuracy(%) Accuracy(%) Time (min)
1st Peak Ave. 2nd Peak Ave. Operation
I in (17)
500 73.00 60.89 20 (min)
Accuracy(%) Accuracy(%) Time
1500 77.30 68.85 58
500 73.00 60.89 20
3000
1500 77.51
77.30 71.19
68.85 11058
5000
3000 75.77
77.51 75.51
71.19 189
110
5000
10,000 75.77
80.63 75.51
76.85 189
376
10,000
15,000 80.63
79.00 76.85
78.10 376
625
15,000 79.00 78.10 625

4.3. Validity Analysis of Prospect Theory Decision Making

4.3. Validity Analysis of Prospect Theory Decision Making
The comparison background of this section is a scenario where the penetration rate
Thetaxis
of electric comparison
(ETPR) background
is 50% (i.e., of thisofsection
1000 is a scenario
2000 taxis are EVswhere
in the the penetration
region). rate of
Compared
electric taxis (ETPR) is 50% (i.e., 1000 of 2000 taxis are EVs in the
with the proposed real-time decision-making method of EV owners based on prospectregion). Compared with
the proposed real-time decision-making method of EV owners based on
theory, there are two methods for comparison: 1) selecting the nearest EVCS for charging prospect theory,
there
(i.e., are two
Method methods
1), and for comparison:
2) making a decision only(1) selecting
once when thethe
nearest
vehicleEVCS
is lowfor
in charging (i.e.,
power (i.e.,
Method 1), and (2) making a decision only once when the vehicle is low in power (i.e.,
Method 2).
Method 2).
As can be seen from Figure 6, charging stations usher in the first concentrated charg-
As can be seen from Figure 6, charging stations usher in the first concentrated charging
ing after 12:00. It can be obtained from the OD matrix that most taxis gather towards work
after 12:00. It can be obtained from the OD matrix that most taxis gather towards work
areas at this time. Therefore, charging stations with an obvious queuing phenomenon are
areas at this time. Therefore, charging stations with an obvious queuing phenomenon are
located in work and central areas, i.e., EVCS 3, 2, and 7(at nodes 5, 9, and 34).
located in work and central areas, i.e., EVCS 3, 2, and 7(at nodes 5, 9, and 34).
Queue (num)

100

80

Method 1
Queue (num)

60

40

Method 2
20
Queue (num)

Proposed Method

Figure 6. 6.
Figure Comparison of of
Comparison queuing at at
queuing EVCSs under
EVCSs different
under forecast
different methods.
forecast methods.

In reality, queuing at charging stations for a long time inevitably affects drivers’ income.
After applying prospect theory to make decisions, the queues in some EVCSs are more
evenly distributed. Furthermore, when EV owners make adjustments at each road node,
the number of vehicles queued is reduced to 44, and the time for all EVCSs to end queuing
is advanced from 15:53 to 15:03.
At the same time, some EVCSs with queuing vehicles in Method 1 have higher
charging costs for drivers due to higher electricity prices, resulting in a reduction in the
number of queuing vehicles (e.g., EVCS 4 at node 23) when using the proposed method.
From the point of view of the load curve shown in Figure 7, the load of each EVCS can
be more evenly distributed, avoiding that some EVCSs are still at peak load for a long time
while some of them have no vehicles in charge.
The comparison results of the three indicators of the load prediction method proposed
in this paper are shown in Table 4. The three indicators are the first peak number of vehicles
queuing, the time when vehicles end queuing at the first peak, and the time difference
between EVCSs that enters the no-load state first and last.
 At the same time, some EVCSs with queuing vehicles in Method 1 have higher charg-
ing costs for drivers due to higher electricity prices, resulting in a reduction in the number
of queuing vehicles (e.g., EVCS 4 at node 23) when using the proposed method.
From the point of view of the load curve shown in Figure 7, the load of each EVCS
can be more evenly distributed, avoiding that some EVCSs are still at peak load for a long
Energies 2022, 15, 7021 9 of 13
time while some of them have no vehicles in charge.

Load (kW)
Method 1

Load (kW)

Method 2
Load (kW)

Proposed Method

Figure 7. Load comparison of charging stations under different forecast methods.

Figure 7. Load comparison of charging stations under different forecast methods.
Table 4. Peak number of queuing vehicles, finish queuing time, and idle time difference comparison.
The comparison results of the three indicators of the load prediction method pro-
this paper are shown 1st
posed inMethods in Peak
Table 4. The three1st Queue are the firstIdle
indicators EVCS
peak number
of vehicles queuing, the timeQueue
whenValue Finish Time
vehicles end queuing Timeand
at the first peak, Difference
the time
difference between
Method 1 EVCSs that enters
84 the no-load state16:05
first and last. 135 min
Method 2 52 15:53 116 min
Proposed 44 15:03 42comparison.
Table 4. Peak number of queuing vehicles, finish queuing time, and idle time difference min

1st Peak 1st Queue Idle EVCS

Methods
Therefore, the decision-making method of EV owners proposed in this paper can
Queue Value Finish Time Time Difference
guide EV owners to charge at relatively idle charging stations when queuing occurs at
Method 1 84 16:05 135 min
charging stations, thus avoiding long waiting times.
Method 2 52 15:53 116 min
4.4. Proposed 44
Spatial and Temporal Distribution 15:03 Load under Different
Analysis of Charging 42 min
EV
Penetration Rate
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW Therefore, 10 of can
13
As shown the decision-making
in Figure 8 below, when method
the ETPRof EV owners proposed
is 30%–50%, electricityin thisand
price paper
distance
guide
to theEV owners
charging to charge
station have at relatively
a great idle on
influence charging stations when
users’ decisions, so somequeuing occurs
charging at
stations
charging stations,
have queues thus
while avoiding
some do not.long waiting times.

4.4. Spatial and Temporal Distribution Analysis of Charging Load under Different EV
Queue (num)

Penetration Rate
As shown in Figure 8 below, when the ETPR is 30%–50%, electricity price and dis-
EV Taxi Penetration rate = 30%
tance to the charging station have a great influence on users’ decisions, so some charging
Queue (num)

stations have queues while some do not.

EV Taxi Penetration rate = 40%
Queue (num)

EV Taxi Penetration rate = 50%

Queue (num)

EV Taxi Penetration rate = 60%

Figure
Figure 8. Longest
8. Longest queuing
queuing comparison
comparison under
under different
different ETPR.
ETPR.

When ETPR exceeds 50%, queuing occurs at all charging stations, so users need to
When ETPR exceeds 50%, queuing occurs at all charging stations, so users need to
make comprehensive consideration of multiple factors. Meanwhile, it can be seen that
make comprehensive consideration of multiple factors. Meanwhile, it can be seen that
some charging stations that do not have a queue at 40% ETPR also have a short queuing at
some charging stations that do not have a queue at 40% ETPR also have a short queuing
50% ETPR.
at 50% ETPR.
Figure 9 below shows the peak load when the ETPR is 30%~60%. As can be seen from
Figure 9 below shows the peak load when the ETPR is 30%~60%. As can be seen from
Figure 9, when the number of electric taxis rises, the increase of peak load is not a simple
Figure 9, when the number of electric taxis rises, the increase of peak load is not a simple
multiple growth due to the fixed number of chargers.
multiple growth due to the fixed number of chargers.

1500
eak (kW)

1000
 makeWhen ETPR exceeds
comprehensive 50%, queuing
consideration occurs atfactors.
of multiple all charging stations,
Meanwhile, so users
it can need
be seen to
that
make comprehensive consideration of multiple factors. Meanwhile, it can be
some charging stations that do not have a queue at 40% ETPR also have a short queuing seen that
some
at 50%charging
ETPR. stations that do not have a queue at 40% ETPR also have a short queuing
at 50% ETPR.
Figure 9 below shows the peak load when the ETPR is 30%~60%. As can be seen from
Figure 9 below
Figure 9, when shows the
the number peak load
of electric when
taxis the
rises, ETPR
the is 30%~60%.
increase of peak As
loadcan
is be
notseen from
a simple
Energies 2022, 15, 7021 Figure 9, when the number of electric taxis rises, the increase of peak load is not a 10 of 13
simple
multiple growth due to the fixed number of chargers.
multiple growth due to the fixed number of chargers.
1500
1500

(kW)
(kW)
1000

Peak
1000

Peak
500

Load
500

Load
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 2 3 4 5 6 Number
EVCS 7 8 9 10 11 12
Legends: ETPR= EVCS Number
30% 40% 50% 60%
Legends: ETPR= 30% 40% 50% 60%
Figure 9. Comparison of peak load at the first charging peak under different ETPR.
Figure 9.
Figure Comparison of
9. Comparison of peak
peak load
load at
at the
the first
first charging
charging peak
peak under
under different
different ETPR.
ETPR.
Due
Due toto the
the gradual
gradual emergence
emergence of of queuing,
queuing, the the decisions
decisions made
made by by users
users inin the
the face
face of
of
queuingDueat to peak
the gradual
charging emergence
hours of queuing,
make load the decisions
dispersion more made by users
obvious. When in the facein-
ETPR of
queuing at peak charging hours make load dispersion more obvious. When ETPR increases
queuingfrom
creases at peak charging
40% to hours
peak make load dispersion more 6obvious.
lowWhen ETPR in-
from 40% to 50%, the50%,
peakthe
charging charging
loads ofloads
EVCSof4,EVCS5, 6 with4, 5,low with
values atvalues at noon
noon increase
creases from
increase 40%
from29.7% to 50%,
50.6%, 29.7% the peak
and charging loadstoof79.7%,
EVCS71.1%,
4, 5, 6 with low values at noon
from 50.6%, and 38.4% of38.4% of full
full load load
to 79.7%, 71.1%, and and respectively.
77.9%, 77.9%, respectively.
increase
The from 50.6%, 29.7% and 38.4% of full load to 79.7%, 71.1%, and 77.9%, respectively.
The duration
duration of of each
each EVCS
EVCS at at 80%
80% ofof full
full load
load atat the
the first
first charging
charging peak
peak is is shown
shown in in
Figure The duration of each EVCS at 80% of full load at the50first charging peak is shown in
Figure 10.
10. As
Asthetherated
ratedpower
powerofofquick
quickcharging
charging of of taxis
taxis is
is 50kW
kWand andthat
thatofofquick
quickchargers
chargers
Figure
is 10. As scenario
the rated power of in quick charging of taxis is 50 kW and that ofreaches
quick chargers
is 60
60 kW,
kW, the
the scenario analyzed
analyzed in this
this figure
figure is
is that
that the
the load
load of
of each
each EVCS
EVCS reaches 80% 80% ofof
is
the 60 kW,
full the
load.
the full load. scenario analyzed in this figure is that the load of each EVCS reaches 80% of
the full load.
Load

60
Load
(min)

60
Full
(min)

40
Full
Time

40
of of
Time

20
80%

20
80%

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 2 3 4 5 6 Number
EVCS 7 8 9 10 11 12
Legends: ETPR= EVCS Number
30% 40% 50% 60%
Legends: ETPR= 30% 40% 50% 60%
Figure10.
Figure Durationof
10.Duration ofeach
eachEVCS
EVCSat
at80%
80%of
offull
fullload
loadatatthe
thefirst
firstcharging
chargingpeak
peakunder
underdifferent
differentETPR.
ETPR.
Figure 10. Duration of each EVCS at 80% of full load at the first charging peak under different ETPR.
When ETPR increases from 30% to 50%, the “full occupied time” of EVCSs that have
reached 80% of full load (i.e., all chargers have cars charging) previously will increase
significantly. However, when the ETPR increases from 50% to 60%, the “full occupied time”
of these EVCSs change not much, while that of others will increase greatly.
As can be seen from Table 5, when the ETPR rises from 50% to 60%, the queuing
ending time of EVCSs is delayed from 15:03 to 16:14, and the time difference between
the first and last charging stations entering the zero-load state is also greatly extended.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the number of chargers does not match the number of
EV taxis when the penetration is equal to or greater than 60%, which will affect drivers’
charging experience in reality.

Table 5. Peak number of queuing vehicles, finish queuing time, and idle time difference comparison.

EV Taxi 1st Peak 1st Queue Idle EVCS

Penetration Queue Value Finish Time Time Difference
30% 32 14:41 63 min
40% 36 14:45 32 min
50% 44 15:03 33 min
60% 47 16:14 90 min

5. Conclusions
This paper proposes a load forecast method for charging stations based on multi-source
information and prospect theory. The following conclusions can be drawn.
(1) The load forecast of EV charging stations considering multi-source information and
user decision modification, can avoid inaccurate load forecasts caused by long queues
Energies 2022, 15, 7021 11 of 13

at charging stations. It can also avoid the behavior of the car owner going to the
charging station with a higher electricity price when the charging station is relatively
idle, which is more in line with the actual decisions of car owners.
(2) The method proposed in this paper can balance the load of each charging station.
On the premise that private cars are charged in residential areas, the ratio between
the number of chargers and the number of EVs can be further discussed to avoid
excessive vehicle aggregation or a large number of idle chargers.
(3) However, there are still some shortcomings in this paper. For example, the proportion
of each influencing factor and reference point in different actual prospect theory
decision-making situations of EV users needs to be a personalized adjustment, which
will be considered in the following research.

Author Contributions: Supervision, T.J. and Z.L.; Writing—original draft, Z.Z.; Writing—review &
editing, X.Z. and Z.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A
Table A1. OD matrix at 7:00~17:00 on weekdays.

Departure
Residence Work Business Special
\Destination
Residence 0.2 0.55 0.2 0.05
Work 0.2 0.6 0.15 0.05
Business 0.2 0.4 0.4 0
Special 0.2 0.8 0 0

Table A2. OD matrix at 17:00~22:00 on weekdays.

Departure
Residence Work Business Special
\Destination
Residence 0.5 0.1 0.4 0
Work 0.6 0.1 0.3 0
Business 0.6 0.1 0.3 0
Special 0.2 0.8 0 0

Table A3. OD matrix at 22:00~7:00 (+1) on weekdays.

Departure
Residence Work Business
\Destination
Residence 0.8 0.1 0.1
Work 0.8 0.1 0.1
Business 0.7 0.1 0.2
 Table A3. OD matrix at 22:00~7:00 (+1) on weekdays.

Departure
Residence Work Business
\Destination
Residence 0.8 0.1 0.1
Energies 2022, 15, 7021 12 of 13
Work 0.8 0.1 0.1
Business 0.7 0.1 0.2
Table A4. Stay time of taxis in different areas on weekdays.
Table A4. Stay time of taxis in different areas on weekdays.
Area
Area 7:00~17:00 17:00~22:00 22:00~7:00 (+1)
\Time(min) 7:00~17:00 17:00~22:00 22:00~7:00 (+1)
\Time(min)
Residence 1 1 6
Residence 1 1 6
Work 2 1 5
Work
Business 2 4 12 54
Business
Special 4 3 20 40
Special 3 0 0
Table A5. Each level of electricity price corresponds to the road node where the charging station
Table A5. Each level of electricity price corresponds to the road node where the charging station is
is located.
located.

TOU priceTOU
levelprice level Road node where the EVCS is located
Road node where the EVCS is located
Level 1 Level 1 18, 43
18, 21, 22, 31, 21, 22, 31, 43
Level 2 9, 17, 47
Level 2 9, 17, 47
Level 3 5, 7, 29, 32
Level 3 5, 7, 29, 32
TOU Electricity Price (Yuan)

1.4 Level 1
Level 2 1.35 1.35 1.35
1.2 Level 3 1.25 1.25 1.25
1.17 1.17 1.17 1.17
1 1.07 1.05 1.07 1.05 1.07 1.05 1.07
1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8
0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77
0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4

0.2

00:00 07:00 08:30 11:30 14:30 17:30 19:00 21:00 23:00

Time

Figure A1.
Figure Electricity TOU
A1. Electricity TOU Price
Price of
of different
different EVCSs.
EVCSs.

References
References
1. Bjerkan, K.Y.; Norbech, T.E.; Nordtomme, M.E. Incentives for Promoting Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV) Adoption in Norway.
1. Bjerkan, K.Y.; Norbech, T.E.; Nordtomme, M.E. Incentives for Promoting Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV) Adoption in Norway.
Transp. Res. Part D 2016, 43, 169–180. [CrossRef]
Transp. Res. Part D 2016, 43, 169–180.
2. Ahmadian, A.; Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B.; Elkamel, A. A Review on Plug-in Electric Vehicles: Introduction, Current Status, and
2. Ahmadian, A.; Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B.; Elkamel, A. A Review on Plug-in Electric Vehicles: Introduction, Current Status, and
Load Modeling Techniques. J. Mod. Power Syst. Clean Energy 2020, 8, 412–425. [CrossRef]
Load Modeling Techniques. J. Mod. Power Syst. Clean Energy 2020, 8, 412–425.
3. Huang, Z.; Fang, B.; Deng, J. Multi-objective Optimization Strategy for Distribution Network Considering V2G-enabled Electric
Vehicles in Building Integrated Energy System. Prot. Control. Mod. Power Syst. 2020, 5, 7. [CrossRef]
4. Raoofat, M.; Saad, M.; Lefebvre, S.; Asber, D.; Mehrjedri, H. Wind Power Smoothing Using Demand Response of Electric Vehicles.
Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2018, 99, 164–174. [CrossRef]
5. Yang, T.; Xu, X.; Guo, Q.; Zhang, L.; Sun, H. EV Charging Behaviour Analysis and Modelling Based on Mobile Crowdsensing
Data. IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 2017, 11, 1683–1691. [CrossRef]
6. Chis, A.; Lunden, J.; Koivunen, V. Reinforcement Learning-Based Plug-in Electric Vehicle Charging with Forecasted Price. IEEE
Trans. Veh. Technol. 2017, 66, 3674–3684. [CrossRef]
7. Buzna, L.; de Falco, P.; Ferruzzi, G.; Khormali, S.; Proto, D.; Refa, N.; Straka, M.; van der Poel, G. An Ensemble Methodology
for Hierarchical Probabilistic Electric Vehicle Load Forecasting at Regular Charging Stations. Appl. Energy 2021, 283, 116337.
[CrossRef]
8. Pertl, M.; Carducci, F.; Tabone, M.; Marinelli, M.; Kiliccote, S.; Kara, E.C. An Equivalent Time-Variant Storage Model to Harness
EV Flexibility: Forecast and Aggregation. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2019, 15, 1899–1910. [CrossRef]
9. Gilanifar, M.; Parvania, M. Clustered Multi-node Learning of Electric Vehicle Charging Flexibility. Appl. Energy 2021, 282, 116125.
[CrossRef]
10. Jahangir, H.; Gougheri, S.S.; Vatandoust, B.; Golkar, M.A.; Ahmadian, A.; Hajizadeh, A. Plug-in Electric Vehicle Behavior
Modeling in Energy Market: A Novel Deep Learning-Based Approach with Clustering Technique. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2020,
11, 4738–4748. [CrossRef]
11. Dabbaghjamanesh, M.; Moeini, A.; Kavousi-Fard, A. Reinforcement Learning-based Load Forecasting of Electric Vehicle Charging
Station Using Q-Learning Technique. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2021, 17, 4229–4237. [CrossRef]
12. Dai, Q.; Cai, T.; Duan, S.; Zhao, F. Stochastic Modeling and Forecasting of Load Demand for Electric Bus Battery-Swap Station.
IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2014, 29, 1909–1917. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 7021 13 of 13

13. Moon, H.; Park, S.Y.; Jeong, C.; Lee, J. Forecasting Electricity Demand of Electric Vehicles by Analyzing Consumers’ Charging
Patterns. Transp. Res. Part D 2018, 62, 64–79. [CrossRef]
14. Sadeghianpourhamami, N.; Refa, N.; Strobbe, M.; Develder, C. Quantitive Analysis of Electric Vehicle Flexibility: A Data-driven
Approach. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2018, 95, 451–462. [CrossRef]
15. Savari, G.F.; Krishnasamy, V.; Sathik, J.; Ali, Z.M.; Aleem, S.H.E.A. Internet of Things Based Real-time Electric Vehicle Load
Forecasting and Charging Station Recommendation. ISA Trans. 2020, 97, 431–447. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Shepero, M.; Munkhammar, J. Spatial Markov Chain Model for Electric Vehicle Charging in Cities Using Geographical Information
System (GIS) Data. Appl. Energy 2018, 231, 1089–1099. [CrossRef]
17. Iwafune, Y.; Ogimoto, K.; Kobayashi, Y.; Murai, K. Driving Simulator for Electric Vehicles Using the Markov Chain Monte Carlo
Method and Evaluation of the Demand Response Effect in Ewsidential Houses. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 47654–47663. [CrossRef]
18. Dabbaghjamanesh, M.; Kavousi-Fard, A.; Zhang, J. Stochastic Modeling and Integration of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles in
Reconfigurable Microgrids with Deep Learning-Based Forecasting. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2021, 22, 4394–4403. [CrossRef]
19. Islam, M.S.; Mithulananthan, N.; Hung, D.Q. A Day-Ahead Forecasting Model for Probabilistic EV Charging Loads at Business
Premises. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2018, 9, 741–753. [CrossRef]
20. Liu, Q.; Kamoto, K.M.; Liu, X.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, Z.; Khosravi, M.R.; Xu, Y.; Qi, L. A Sensory Similarities Approach to Load
Disaggregation of Charging Stations in Internet Electric Vehicles. IEEE Sens. J. 2021, 21, 15895–15903. [CrossRef]
21. Zhang, X.; Fan, Z. Method for Risky Hybrid Multiple Attribute Decision Making Based on Prospect Theory. J. Syst. Eng. 2012, 27,
772–780.
22. Gao, K.; Yang, Y.; Qu, X. Diverging Effects of Subjective Prospect Values of Uncertain Time and Money. Commun. Transp. Res.
2021, 1, 100007. [CrossRef]
23. Chen, L.; Zhang, Y.; Antonio, F. Charging Load Forecasting of Electric Vehicles Based on Multi-source Information Fusion and its
Influence on Distribution Network. Electr. Power Autom. Equip. 2018, 38, 1–10.