IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution

Research Article

ISSN 1751-8687
Multistage time-variant electric vehicle load Received on 27th October 2014
Revised on 26th July 2015
modelling for capturing accurate electric Accepted on 10th August 2015
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2014.1019
vehicle behaviour and electric vehicle impact www.ietdl.org

on electricity distribution grids

Ahmed M.A. Haidar 1 ✉, Kashem M. Muttaqi 1, Mohammed H. Haque 2
1
School of Electrical, Computer and Telecommunications Engineering, University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia
2
School of Engineering, University of South Australia, SA, Australia
✉ E-mail: ahaidar@uow.edu.au

Abstract: Accurate electric vehicle (EV) load modelling is a daunting task because the proportion and characteristics of
these extra electrical loads in the grids are continuously changing. In many recent EV studies, EV load is assumed to
be a constant power load to analyse the effect of EV charging on electric network. However, such an assumption
would not be effective in real-time application and can give misleading results. This study proposes a multistage time-
variant EV load modelling technique based on the characteristics of EV load demand due to EV battery charging. To
capture the transitions between different stages of battery charging, the EV loads are modelled with a multistage
scheme and implemented ZIP model. A comparative study of energy losses and voltage profile is carried out on the
IEEE 69-bus test system for the use of a traditional constant load model, conventional ZIP load model and the
proposed multistage time-variant EV load model. Results show that the load models can significantly affect the energy
losses and terminal voltages, and provide misrepresentation if EV load is not accurately modelled. Therefore, for
proper analysis of EV loads during unidirectional charging, it is essential to have accurate models for predicting true
EV behaviour.

1 Introduction vehicle (PEV) penetration on distribution systems. The authors in

There are potential issues that arise from large-scale deployment of
electric vehicles (EVs) in Australia and in other developed
countries around the world which could bring major changes to
power system operation and power plant investment. Traditional
power grids were designed over half a century ago and are not
suited to match the high penetration of this additional load with
atypical characteristics. The EVs could therefore have a disruptive
impact on distribution systems if not integrated carefully, and the
severity of this impact depends on their penetration into the
networks. Hence, there is a need to know whether the current grid
meets the energy requirements in order to evaluate the grid
capability of handling a massive EV penetration [1]. The stable
and reliable operation of a power grid is dependent on the system
ability to match the electrical output of the generation to the
electrical loads of the system. The load behaviour is, therefore,
very important and plays an important role in the system stability
and control. Furthermore, the realistic system behaviour can only
be obtained using a proper load model that is required to minimise
the operating cost while maintaining the system conditions with
high security and reliability. However, load modelling is still
considered to be a complex problem due to its peculiarity while
integrated into the grids [2].
The issue of EV charging affecting a power network is a
commonly identified topical research issue. As it was shown in
many studies [1, 3–10] that EVs are going to present a very
challenging load problem for electrical grids when their
penetration increases, strong evidence was presented in [11–14] to
confirm that sophisticated centralised control algorithms are the
best management solution. However, this solution can be achieved
by utilising an accurate modelling of the EV load during the
charging cycle to manage the problem. An approach based on the
use of a large-scale distribution planning model was proposed in
[4] for identifying the impacts of different levels of plug-in electric
[4] applied large-scale distribution planning model to build the
optimal base-case network to supply the load demand and then
used the base-case network as a reference to assess the impact of
PEV penetration for other cases using the constant load model. In
[5], the potential impacts of PEV have been tested on the Western
Australian electricity supply system using a constant load model.
The conventional constant power model has been used for
modelling the impact of electric vehicle charging on distribution
system components in [7–9]. Studies on charging control and
coordination of (PEV) charging have been carried out in [11–13]
in the context of uncertainty of the EV load behaviour.
Most of the above-mentioned investigations of EV impacts on
distribution systems have utilised a constant load model to
represent EV in the power flow analysis, for which load power
was considered to be independent of variations in feeder voltage.
The conventional constant power model might not be able to
precisely represent the true behaviour of the PEVs. Such simple
models ignore the transition between different operational stages
during EV charging; as each stage has its unique characteristics.
Only a few studies [14, 15] have considered the changes of
charging rate with battery state of charge (SOC). Although in [15]
the ZIP model of PEV has been utilised, this model is simply
focusing on individual charging control and there is a shortage of
a comprehensive investigation of the model. From the literature, it
is clear that EV load modelling has not received much attention yet.
In this paper, a multistage time-variant model has been developed
based on the ZIP modelling approach for the PEVs, which are
connected to the distribution networks. Additionally, battery
charging stages of the PEVs have been considered in the proposed
modelling. The proposed model has been applied to determine the
accurate impacts of PEV on voltage profile and system losses. The
rest of the paper is structured as follows. In Section 2, some
important facts to be considered during the modelling of EV load
integrated to distribution systems are discussed. The proposed

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2015, Vol. 9, Iss. 16, pp. 2705–2716
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015 2705

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Tecnologica de Pereira. Downloaded on February 24,2020 at 04:24:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
modelling technique and its implementation for distribution system
analysis are outlined in Section 3. Section 4 describes the test
system and covers the approach of evaluating the proposed
multistage time-variant EV ZIP load model. Section 5 discusses
the results, while Section 6 provides some concluding remarks
based on this study.
2 Problem statement
In the aforementioned studies, loads are modelled as constant powers
(active and reactive) and updated through a load flow for each time
interval to observe a daily load profile. However, the load voltage
dependency has an important impact on the load power
consumption [16]. Therefore, voltage dependency of the actual
loads needs to be properly modelled. In fact, load in a load bus is
a composite model (i.e. mix model) such as constant impedance,
constant current (CC) and constant power loads. In a time-variant
load representation, the coefficients of the mix model remain
constant; the power consumption at the load bus varies with the
actual terminal voltage. In the traditional load composite model,
the model uses the same ZIP values for every load for given load
classes (such as residential, commercial and industrial) throughout
the day in a daily load [14] profile. Since the load composition
and the amount of load for each load class may change from one
time instant to the next, the constant values of the ZIP model
parameters will not be representing the real behaviour of the load
in a bus during the coincidental charging activities of EV that
occur at the distribution system. The energy consumption by an
EV is a function not only of the terminal voltage but also of other
variables defined by different ranges in battery SOC due to the
changes in charging state and rate. Furthermore, voltage
dependency of the charging is a function of SOC and this can
cause different load characteristics for different SOC levels [17–
19]. Rate of battery charging mostly depends on the type of
battery. The real charging characteristic curves of a battery are
depicted in Fig. 1 [17, 20]. As seen from this figure, current drawn
by the battery is constant at the beginning, and after reaching a
certain level of SOC, the voltage becomes constant but the current
drawn gradually reduces and it reduces to a very small value
when the battery reaches close to its maximum charge. Although
the charging profiles in this figure are obtained experimentally, the
battery chemistries and the battery management system of the
various PEVs are different. Thus, the same profiles are not always
valid because different charging strategies can be applied
depending on the battery type [21, 22] and this will affect the
demand profile on the grid side.
Fig. 1 Typical charging characteristic of a lithium battery [17, 20]
2706
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Tecnologica de Pereira. Downloaded on February 24,2020 at 04:24:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
It is important to mention that the voltage dependency of the
charger and the existence of exponential load models having wider
range of ZIP coefficients of battery charger load have been already
verified through laboratory testing by the authors in [23]. This
indicates the importance of using a multistage time-variant ZIP
model as this model reflects the true characteristics of the charging
loads all the time and gives the accurate response for the load
flows, controller design, control settings and protection systems.
As a result, the use of a ZIP model in its current form is not
sufficient to simulate a system containing a large number of EVs.
There is a necessity to develop a technique to capture and
characterise the dynamics of the load demand due to EV battery
charging. With this aim, this work is focusing on developing a
modelling approach for EV load in a multistage time-variant ZIP
model to study the true effect of EV integration. In this approach,
the proposed EV load in a ZIP model utilises three different stages
in progression with time to represent the power consumption by
EV; and each stage is governed by EV ZIP model which is
evaluated under various scenarios.
3 Proposed multistage ZIP model for EV load
Since EV charging parks will be integrated in the existing
distribution systems in future, accurate load model that reliably
reflects underlying phenomena of the physical loads give better
tuning of the control operation. This section will discuss in details
how to model multistage time-variant EV load and will also
present how to implement this in terms of ZIP model for dynamic
power flows that will capture the accurate EV characteristic for
grid-to-vehicle mode of operation. It is to be noted that EV with
slow charging is addressed in this paper. EV as vehicle-to-grid and
EV with fast charging are out of the scope of this paper.
3.1 Polynomial model (PM)
The combination of constant current, constant power and constant
impedance loads is called the polynomial model. Accordingly, the
polynomial model is an expansion of the exponential model [23–
25], which has been widely used to represent the voltage
dependency of loads. It is also known as ZIP model and is
represented in the following form
PZIP = Po (ZpV 2 + IpV + Pp) (1)
QZIP = Qo (ZqV 2 + IqV + Pq) (2)
where Po and Qo are the active and reactive load powers at the
nominal voltage (of 1.0 p.u.); V is the actual voltage; p and q are
the fractions; and Z, I, P are the constants (ZIP coefficients)
associated with impedance, current and power of active loads at
particular bus, respectively. The values of the ZIP coefficients
(ZIP parameters) depend on the load composition and hence the
system under study. The parameters of commonly used types of
loads are calculated through the measurement [23, 26]. To include
the effects of EV loads considering the percentage of each load
category in a bus and the composition of each load model in a
load category of the EV load behaviour in a ZIP model combined
with the base load at each bus, (3) and (4) of aggregate ZIP model
are the modification of (1) and (2)
PAg = Po (ZpAg V 2 + IpAg V + PpAg ) (3)
QAg = Qo (ZqAg V 2 + IqAg V + PqAg ) (4)
where ZpAg, IpAg and PpAg are the constants of the aggregate model
and can be found by (5), and similarly, ZqAg, IqAg and PqAg can be
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2015, Vol. 9, Iss. 16, pp. 2705–2716
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015
obtained Equation (7) indicates that the power on the DC side is load
dependent, as the battery is interfaced with the EV charger.
⎧ ⎫
⎨ ZpAg = Zp + ZpEV ⎬ Looking at the charger interface battery equivalent circuit in
Ip = Ip + IpEV (5) Fig. 2, it is evident that the change in SOC will change both the
⎩ PpAg = Pp + Pp ⎭ magnitude and angle of the equivalent impedance seen at the
Ag EV
charger terminals. Generally, the governing equation of terminal
voltage for the charger interfaced battery model, shown in the
EV active ZIP load can also be written from (3) and (5) as in (6), and circuit of Fig. 2, can be written as
similarly EV reactive ZIP load power can also be obtained
dIA
PEV = PEVo (Z pEV V 2 + I pEV V + P pEV ) (6) VA = RIA + L + VB (10)
dtL

3.2 Charger interfaced battery system where

A simple charger interface battery model behaviour is shown in R = RA + RD + RB

Fig. 2. The network behind the load is represented by an
equivalent Thevenin voltage. The power balancing equation of the
battery model is given by
PD = ID (VB − RB ID )
where VD and ID are the voltage and current on the battery side,
respectively; RB is the battery internal resistance; and VB is the
battery open-circuit voltage. The methodologies used to model
battery and formulate the open-circuit voltage of the battery are
well documented [18, 19, 27], and hence not shown here. Battery
SOC is the gauge that is used to understand the amount of charge.
(11)
L = (LA + LD )
As seen from the above equations, the system voltage dependency of
the charging is a function of VB and hence SOC. This system is not
(7) linear and can cause different load characteristics for different SOC
levels. The dynamic equations characterising the conduction modes
of EV charger in Fig. 2 are presented in detail in [28], and hence, the
modelling is simplified here.
Considering the efficiency of the charger ‘η’, the power on the DC
side of the battery charger at different levels of charging, can be
expressed as
It is the remaining capacity in the battery divided by the rated  
PD (S) = h VA (S)IA (S) cos w (12)
capacity of the battery. The open-circuit voltage and battery
internal resistance are functions of battery SOC. For the ampere
hour (Ah) capacity, the change can be expressed as Once the equivalent load impedance of charger interfaced battery, as
given in (11), and the Thevenin equivalent are known, the operating
t1 point at each point of the network ‘PV curve’ [30] for EV load
1 impedance ‘ZEVload’ is calculated using the following equations
DSOC = ID (t) dt (8)
Ah capacity t0

I A = V
th /(Z
th + Z
EVload ) (13)

During charging process (t0 − t1), the converter acts as a battery V
A = V
th −
I A Z
th (14)
charger. In this situation, it consumes power from the grid.
Referring to Fig. 1, as the voltage is a function of the SOC at the Finally, the power for the equivalent load containing EV battery
DC side of a battery charger in the CC region, the power on the which is SOC dependent and having non-constant power factor is
grid side (AC) can be calculated as follows analytically obtained as

PA (S) = VA (S)IA (S) cos w (9) ∗

S
A (S) =
I A (S) · V
A (S) = PA (S) + jQA (S) (15)

where VA and IA are the voltage and current on the AC grid side;
cosj is the power factor; and S is the state of charge (SOC). In the
constant voltage (CV) region, the voltage at the DC side is
constantly maintained until 100% SOC level is reached and the
float charge compensates for the loss and is held at CV.
The typical equivalent circuit of single-phase battery charger as
shown in Fig. 2 can operate in different modes [27, 28] which
have been widely studied and modelled in the literature [27–29].
3.3 Multistage EV load model
The characteristics of energy consumption during charging activities
of PEVs can be changed when charging is progressed with time. The
charging level used by EVs at car park is assumed to be level 1
which is a slow charging [27, 29]. It is similar to home charging
as used by EV owners at homes. Generally, PEV battery capacities

Fig. 2 Equivalent circuit of charger interface battery

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2015, Vol. 9, Iss. 16, pp. 2705–2716
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015 2707

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Tecnologica de Pereira. Downloaded on February 24,2020 at 04:24:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Fig. 3 SOC and AC power demand profile of a typical EV battery [21, 22]

range from a few kWh to over 50 kWh. As the battery capacities are
of importance to determine reasonable charging profiles, in this
study, an 18 kWh battery capacity per PEV is selected because it
is expected that the lower end of battery sizes is more affordable
and more likely to initially dominate the Australian market. The
variations of AC power demand for typical lithium and lead-acid
EV batteries are shown in Fig. 3 [21, 22]. In fact, different factors
influence these characteristics, such as the type of EV batteries and
charging level. The behaviour of these characteristics can be
represented in terms of different charging stages and each stage
operation has a different set of characteristics. The variation of AC
power as shown in Fig. 3 indicates that the AC power demand for
charging of the EV has decreased after 60% SOC (i.e. at 2.5 h)
Fig. 4 EV charging demand profile and DC voltage with respect to SOC
least-squares fit, the ZIP parameters can be fitted to the measured
and simulated data with the constraints. The fitting process can be
formulated in terms of a simple convex quadratic optimisation
problem [31]. Here, the fitting objective is to minimise the
difference between the fitted approximation and the measured data
for a finite number of voltage and SOC points within a range of
operating voltages. The problem can be written as
nv   2
and in the second stage it is substantially decreasing until 90% Minimise ZpstEV Vi2 + IpstEV Vi + PpstEV − PEV
st
(Vi ) ,
i=1 (17)
SOC (i.e. from 2.5 to 4.75 h), and then it is dropped to almost
zero after 95% SOC (e.g. after 4.75 h) when the EV battery is st = 1, 2, 3
almost fully charged. Although the SOC peak is reached faster
with a high level of power, the topping charge will still be taking Subject to
a reasonably longer time. It is crucial to evaluate the EV load
demand with respect to the time instant of the relevant charging
ZpstEV + IpstEV + PpstEV = 1 (18)
stage. Due to three levels of load demand for EV charging as
discussed above, three-stage model (st = 1, 2, 3) is considered in
the development of the proposed modelling technique. where nv is the number of points selected within the voltage range
The proposed multistage EV ZIP is an alternative to the EV load for VA(S); Vi and P(Vi) are the ith pair of measured voltage and
model in (6) that enables a formulation of the EV behaviour on each active power; ZpstEV , IpstEV and PpstEV are the unknown variables to
charging stage. This model is a fitted stage ZIP model of a measured be calculated to find the optimum solution. Note that PEVo st
(16) is
[21, 22] and simulated charging profiles as given in (16) the active EV power at the nominal voltage of 1.0 p.u.. The data
for the synthesis in (17) can be obtained directly from load
measurements or previous synthesis by (11)–(15). The multistage
st
PEV = PEVo
st
(ZpstEV V 2 + IpstEV V + PpstEV ), st = 1, . . . , n (16) EV ZIP obtained by fitting a curve to simulated and experimental
measurement for EV charging is depicted in Fig. 4. The range of
st each stage can be fixed as in Table 1 and Fig. 4. Due to the lack
PEV is the power demand at each stage (st is stage) during the battery of specific experimental measurement data used to obtain the ZIP
charging activity. Constants ZpstEV , IpstEV , PpstEV are the parameters of values for different batteries with different capacities and
ZIP for load demand of EV on the first, second and third stages,
respectively, and calculated by curve fitting procedure. In a
real-time application, the values of the constant impedance and Table 1 Decision rules for EV multistage transition
current are recalculated as the load demand changes. The
presented model as given in (16) is an example to demonstrate the Charging time ZIP model ZIP parameter
concept of the proposed multistage EV load model. It is a general representation values
model and can be applied to batteries used in EVs under slow st1
ZpEV = −0.00374
charging. However, for different types of batteries (charging
st1
levels), the parameter values of the ZIP model may be slightly 0 < t < tstage1(e.g. <2.5 h) stage 1 IpEV = 0.3111
different and need to be adjusted accordingly. The proposed st1
PpEV = 0.6926
synthesis of (16) is the same type as (6), but with multistage. The st2
ZpEV = −0.00221
polynomial coefficients are to be determined. The multistage
st2
model approximates the load voltage dependency using impedance tstage1 < t < tstage2 (e.g. above stage 2 IpEV = 0.2322
2.5 h and below 4.75 h)
‘Z’ that represents the quadratic voltage dependency at each stage, st2
PpEV = 0.77
a current source ‘I’ that represents the linear voltage dependency at st3
ZpEV = −0.00165
each stage and power ‘P’ that represents constant power at each
st3
stage. Since the EV power demand is a function of SOC as seen tstage2 < t < tstage3 (e.g. above stage 3 IpEV = 0.1638
4.75 h)
from (9) and Fig. 2, this shows that the SOC will react to any st3
PpEV = 0.8379
sudden change in the input voltage. By conducting constrained

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2015, Vol. 9, Iss. 16, pp. 2705–2716
2708 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Tecnologica de Pereira. Downloaded on February 24,2020 at 04:24:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
technologies, the presented ZIP values in Table 1 can be used for the loads are updated in each iteration of the power flow. Considering
EVs with different batteries as long as they are under slow charging. (19) that each bus load is an aggregation of different types of
Since the power on the grid is a function of the SOC as given in loads, it can be written as
(9), the corresponding charging load at each stage is, therefore, can
be derived for the EV load using multistage EV ZIP model given by PAg − fP (V , d) = 0 (23)
(16). EV load is modelled according to the actual EV power
consumption at any time instant, ‘t’ in a charging stage, ‘st’. The
range of each stage can be fixed as in Fig. 4. The transition of where PAg is the aggregate ZIP model as given in (3). In the case of
each stage can be determined by external signals in the case of the proposed multistage model, the coefficients of the aggregated
physical model [32]. In the multistage time-variant EV load in a model defined in (5) can be written as
ZIP model, the borderlines between stages are defined carefully.
As seen in Fig. 4, charging time for stage 1, tst1 is t0 to t1; ⎧ st ⎫
charging time for stage 2, tst2 is t1 to t2; and charging time for ⎨ ZpAg = Zp + ZpEV ⎪
⎪ ⎬
stage 3, tst3 is t3 to tf. In the case of battery under slow charging IpAg = Ip + IpstEV (24)
⎪
⎩ ⎪
⎭
(as shown in Fig. 4 and Table 1), we have considered the PpAg = Pp + PpstEV
borderlines for the three stages as t0 = 0, t1 = 2.5 h, t2 = 4.75 h and
tf = 8.5 h. These stages reflect the physical analysis presented in [1,
21, 22] considering the change in EV power demand as a function
Referring to Fig. 5, the active power flows through branches i and
of time. Given the percentage of EV load in a network bus, the
i + 1 can be written for constant power load as
proposed model can be used in the aggregate ZIP model expressed
in (5) for a given system voltage and SOC condition and also can
be extended for time-series analysis. F
Pi,i+1 = Pi,l
F
+ Pi+1 + Pi,i+1
Lo
(25)

3.4 System modelling where

The structure of distribution systems is generally radial [11, 33–35].   2

Lo
Pi,i+1 = Ri,i+1 Vi − Vi+1 Yi,i+1  (26)
The schematic of the distribution system with n number of buses is
depicted in Fig. 5. The bus voltages are found by solving the
Lo
mismatch equations (19) and (20). These equations are the general Pi,i+1 , Ri,i+1 and Yi,i+1 are the active power loss, resistance and
form of Newton–Raphson power flow equations. Details of the admittance of the line section between buses i and i + 1. Using
method are given in a number of standard textbooks (26) for time interval Δt, usually, the total active losses of
distribution system can be computed by (27) and similarly for
P − fP (V , d) = 0 (19) reactive power

Q − fQ (V , d) = 0 (20)
n−1
ToLo
PDt = Lo
PDt,(i,i+1) (27)
i=0
where

i+1 
  To simplify the problem, let the power flow at the end sending
    branches i, i + 1 be expressed as
fP (V , d) = Y ji Vj  Vi cos (di − dj − u ji ),
j=i−1 (21)
i = 1, 2, . . . , n
F
Pi,l = Pi,l+1
F
− Pi,i+1
Lo
− Pi+1 (28)

i+1 
 
    So far, many studies in the literature have assumed that the load Pi+1
fQ (V , d) = Y ji Vj  Vi sin (di − dj − u ji ), (base load combined with EV load), which is given in (28), is
j=i−1 (22) independent of the bus voltage. However, (28) can be extended to
i = 1, 2, . . . , n include the voltage dependence as an aggregated model by
substituting (3) into (29) as
P and Q are the total active and reactive power loads at each bus F,Ag F,Ag Lo,Ag Ag
which could be constant or a function of the bus voltage Pi,l = Pi,l+1 − Pi,i+1 − Pi+1 (29)
magnitude as given in (1)–(4); Vj and Vi are the voltages at buses j
and i with the corresponding phase angles δj and δi; Yji and θji are Lo,Ag
where Pi,i+1 is the total active loss of distribution system with the
the magnitude and angle of the branch ‘ji’ entry in the Y-bus aggregate ZIP model for each updated time interval Δt, which is
matrix [11, 34, 35]. The solution to the mismatch equations is obtained by including voltage dependence into (27) to get (30);
obtained by using the Newton–Raphson power flow method which F,Ag
Pi,l+1 is the power flow between buses i and i + 1 with the
is modified in order to take the voltage dependency of active and aggregate ZIP model
reactive power of loads into account. Thus, the active and reactive

ToLo,Ag

n−1
Lo,Ag
PDt = PDt,(i,i+1) (30)
i=0

As indicated earlier that when using the aggregate ZIP model

Fig. 5 Schematic of a radial distribution system with ‘n’ number of buses
without multistage as in (6), the ZIP parameters are found by (5).
However, when using the aggregate ZIP model with multistage,
the ZIP parameters of multistage are found by (24). Thus, the
multistage ZIP model is employed with respect to the time for
different stages as proposed in (16) and implemented in the
iteration process of the dynamic power flows as demonstrated in
the algorithm as shown in Fig. 6. Please note that the obtained

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2015, Vol. 9, Iss. 16, pp. 2705–2716
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015 2709

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Tecnologica de Pereira. Downloaded on February 24,2020 at 04:24:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Fig. 7 Probability distribution function of a daily driving distance

shown in Fig. 7 for initial state of charge

⎧ 
⎨ Erat − (D + Dem ) × Ekm
× 100, 0 , D ≤ Dmax
SOCin (%) = Erat
⎩
0, D . Dmax
(32)

where Erat is the rated energy of the battery (kWh); Dem is any
travelling distance for emergency case, using the information of
EV travelling a day, this value can be in the range of 5–10 km;
Dmax is the maximum travelling distance with a full state of
charge; and Ekm is the energy consumed from the battery per
kWh/km. Normally, the energy consumed from the battery for a
100 km trip is equal to 13 kWh (Erem = 0.13) which means that
∼90% of the EV battery capacity is only used.

4 Test system description and simulations

The IEEE 69-bus test system has been selected as a case study to
evaluate the effect of load modelling due to the integration of
EVs. This system is a 12.66 kV radial distribution system with 69
buses and 7 laterals, as shown in Fig. 8. It is a long radial system
Fig. 6 Algorithm of multistage EV ZIP model incorporated in the power with 47 load points with total load of 3.8 MW and 2.69 Mvar
flow iteration [34]. Three sectionalising switches have been added into the
standard system; these switches are operating as normally open.
The test system is employed with the base data assuming the same
results in Fig. 11 are directly related to (30), which is considered as a load variation across 24 h period similar to the real historical data
numerical example to clarify the model described by expressions of a daily load profile in the state of New South Wales (NSW) in
(27)–(30). Australia, as in Fig. 9. For the demonstration of the effectiveness
of the proposed modelling technique, time-series simulations were
carried out for every Δt. It is expected that the high EV
penetration level occurs during the working day as reported in
3.5 Initial state of charge [1, 5]. The EV penetration level refers to the ratio of EV load
demand that needs to be charged from the distribution grid system
To determine the initial state of charge [(SOCin)] of each EV before to the maximum level of EV load demand in the same grid
the next charging, it is important to know how deep EV was system. It is assumed that each bus of the network will have one
discharged during the day before next charging. On the basis of car park with 60 car spaces.
the driving habit statistic report in [1], it was found that the dally Time-variant ZIP models were included in the simulation for each
driving distance follows the lognormal distribution as illustrated in load class. First, the load supplied at the delivery point is categorised
Fig. 7 and is expressed by into load classes such as residential, commercial, industrial and EV
loads. Second, each category of load class is represented in terms of
  load components. Given the percentage of each load category in a
1
√ e −(In D−m) /2s ,
2 2
f ( D) = D.0 (31) bus and the composition of each load in a load category, the
Ds 2p equations given in Section 3 were used to compute the aggregate
ZIP model with relevant ZIP coefficients for the loads in each load
where D is the daily distance travelled in km which is a random bus. The percentage of each load class to the total load vary from
variable; μ is the mean and σ is the standard deviation of the bus to bus in the system and is dependent on weather and time
probability function [36]. After defining the random travelling during the day and season, according to the consumption patterns
distance, the initial state of charge can be calculated by (32) as and the underlying composition of each class. Therefore, the

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2015, Vol. 9, Iss. 16, pp. 2705–2716
2710 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Tecnologica de Pereira. Downloaded on February 24,2020 at 04:24:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Fig. 8 IEEE 69-bus distribution system with EV charging park

relevant percentage of load composition for these models at each bus
excluding the EV load model is hypothetically generated by referring
to a typical daily load in the state of NSW in Australia. This
simplification is made because the main focus in this work is to
determine the accurate impact of EV load model on the
distribution grid system.
In the distribution system, network losses and bus voltages largely
depend on the load model and load profile [33, 37]. To measure the
severity of impacts on the system losses and bus voltages for the ZIP
model due to EV penetration during a period of time Δt, the
following indices will be used.
ToLo
where PDt,Ag is the total added to the branch network losses due to
EV penetration as given in (30) which can be the EV ZIP model
ToLo
with multistage or without multistage; PDt,ZIP is the network loss
without EVs; NL is the number of lines in the system; NP is the
number of periods in the load profile; and ΔtN is the number of
charging periods. The lower the value of the index, the better the
benefits in terms of network loss reduction with respect to the load
of the load model.
4.2 Voltage profile index (VPI)

The voltage profile index (VPI) for the ZIP model is related to the
4.1 Energy loss index (ELI) voltage deviation between each bus ‘Vj’ and the root bus ‘V0’
considering the time-varying voltage magnitude and load demand
The ELI for the ZIP model is defined as at each time interval as given in (34), where NB is the number of
the buses in the system. The lower the value of the VPI, the better
NP the network performance is
Dt=1
ToLo
PDt,Ag − PDt,ZP
ToLo
ELI = 100 × × DtN (33) NP NB  
NL NP 
Dt j V0 − Vj 
VPI = 100 × (34)
NB NP

5 Results and discussion

To evaluate the effects of the ZIP load model compared with the
constant power model on the power flow results, initially load flow
solutions for the distribution system were obtained using the
nominal values of the system components. In solving the power
flow problem, the source voltage (root bus) was assumed to be
1.0 p.u. with a tolerance of 0.0001 p.u.. Fig. 10 depicts the voltage
magnitudes obtained using the constant power model and the ZIP
load model. The lowest voltage was observed on bus 65,
additionally, among the various load models, the constant power
provides the lowest voltage whereas ZIP model gives the higher
voltage due to the fact that the ZIP model represents lower loads
than the constant power load model. It also depends on the
composition of ZIP model (i.e. % of various components).
Compared with the constant power load model, the load demand
of the system for the ZIP model is decreased.
Fig. 9 Actual recorded composite load profiles during a typical day in To examine the impacts of the proposed time-variant ZIP load
summer models with and without multistage, the time-invariant constant

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2015, Vol. 9, Iss. 16, pp. 2705–2716
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015 2711

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Tecnologica de Pereira. Downloaded on February 24,2020 at 04:24:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Fig. 11 Network loss of a ZIP load model with and without multistage

becomes large enough to observe significant impacts of the EV

Fig. 10 Voltage of some monitored buses for various load models
power loads associated with the 69-bus test system were replaced
with the time-variant ZIP model and multistage ZIP model
representing 48 EVs charging in each car park. The proposed
indices were used to assess the performance of the developed ZIP
model implemented in the dynamic power flow program under
different EV penetration levels. In this paper, the voltage deviation
has been used that can be defined as the difference between the
nominal and the actual voltages. Six cases were selected for each
load model depending on the degree of EV penetration. The first
case with no EV is taken as a reference case, while the next cases
have an EV penetration of 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25% with respect to
the maximum number of car spaces available in the car park. The
more centralised the charging time is, the more the total charging
power is required and thus a large impact on the power grid.
Therefore, it is especially required to investigate the impacts to
distribution system when a large number of EVs are plugged in
for charging. Since the charging parks are located in public areas,
it is assumed that the charging in industrial and commercial areas
will occur at the time of EV owners arriving at the work places.
Thus the worst-case scenario is where the EVs are equally placed
in all charging parks and the most EVs are plugged in and start
charging around 9 am when people usually arrived to their work.
The charging time interval is used as 9 am to 3 pm, and the
vehicles become fully charged at the end of the charging interval.
The EV starts charging with an initial SOC as calculated in
Section 3.5 [36, 38]. At every half an hour (similar to the interval
used in [14]), the power flow method embedded with the load
model has been run iteratively to determine the accurate voltage at
each bus until the convergence is achieved.
The impact of charging on the distribution system is demonstrated
by computing the above-mentioned indices related to voltage
deviations and the power loss for each charging period. The
consumed power by EV under 25% EV penetration in the system
load. The results for time-variant EV load in a ZIP model with
and without multistage are illustrated in Table 2 and graphically
shown in Figs. 11–16. As seen from Table 2, in all cases, the
energy loss index is lower in the multistage ZIP model than the
ZIP model because the power demand of EVs has decreased with
time at three stages during the charging interval, whereas in the
ZIP model (without multistage), the power demand of EVs has
decreased with time at only one stage. Thus, increasing the
number of EVs loads leads to significant increase in power losses
when ZIP load model is used without considering multistage. It is
worth to mention that energy loss and voltage profile indices are
the highest while charging during the peak time of commercial
and industrial load demands because public charging during the
day is more demanding compared with the charging during
overnight; these results are directly related to Fig. 9. From this
finding, it is revealed that the smaller the energy loss and voltage
profile indices, the better the voltage condition of the system.
As seen from Fig. 11, due to charging with 5%, the comparison
between the two models is showing that by using the multistate
ZIP model, the effects of charging profile can be captured clearly,
which cannot be possible when only ZIP model without multistage
is used. Fig. 12 shows the load demand profile for 15% EV
penetration; from this figure, the multistage ZIP model is very
effective to reflect the behaviour of EV load demand at the
charging interval whereas this behaviour cannot be observed in the
ZIP model. As mentioned above, the worst-case scenario is
considered where all EVs start charging at the same time (9 am)
and continue charging until they become fully charged at 3 pm.

Table 2 Energy loss index and VPI during charging interval (9 am–3
pm)

Penetration Energy loss index, % Voltage profile index, %

level, %
Zip load Zip load Zip load Zip load
model with model model with model
multistage multistage

5 0.157661 0.247291 2.667722 2.707974

10 0.347538 0.554597 2.743644 2.826945
15 0.568526 0.921306 2.822206 2.950945
20 0.822815 1.351476 2.903424 3.079835
25 1.112228 1.846129 2.987312 3.212530
Fig. 12 Load demand profile for 15% penetration

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2015, Vol. 9, Iss. 16, pp. 2705–2716
2712 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Tecnologica de Pereira. Downloaded on February 24,2020 at 04:24:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

Fig. 13 Load demand variation between ZIP load model with and without
multistage
Note that the end of charging process as seen in Fig. 12 coincides
with the end of peak demand, where the maximum hill in the
demand profile of the system is reduced which is directly related
to Figs. 9 and 11.
Network loss variation can be defined as the ratio of the difference
between total power losses of the load with EV represented with ZIP
model and the total power losses of the base-case load without
additional EV represented with ZIP model to the total power
losses of the base-case load without additional EV represented
with ZIP model. Load demand variation is also defined in a
similar manner. Figs. 13 and 14 depict the variation in total load
demand and system losses. The variation is higher when PEV
charging activities are high, especially during morning peak. It is
also shown in Fig. 14 that for a penetration of 5%, the network
loss variation is close to 0.33 MW as seen from Fig. 11 which is
about 0.157661% as measured by ELI for the multistage ZIP
model and 0.247291% for the ZIP model. Although the power
loss is high, the VPI for the EV penetration of 5% is acceptable.
Fig. 15 shows the voltage deviation for ZIP models with 25% of
EV penetration during the charging interval 9 am–3 pm. From this
figure, it is found that the smaller the deviation of bus voltage
from the nominal voltage, the better the voltage condition of the
system. It is seen that ZIP load model has a very smooth profile,
while multistage model has a much more irregular profile and
Fig. 14 Network loss variation between ZIP load model with and without
multistage
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2015, Vol. 9, Iss. 16, pp. 2705–2716
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Tecnologica de Pereira. Downloaded on February 24,2020 at 04:24:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Fig. 15 Voltage deviation in a multistage ZIP model with 25% PEVs
compared with the ZIP model
coincident peak that are affected by charging process of EV
battery at different stages.
Fig. 16 shows the voltage profile for penetration level of 10% in
two selected buses (which are bus 27 and bus 65). Clearly, there is
a large voltage drop in the presence of EV for the ZIP load model
without multistage. On the contrary, the better voltage profile of
multistage ZIP model during EV charging is caused by different
charging stages which are employed in this model. Moreover, the
portion of voltage that is independent of constant power gradually
decreases in the second and third stages of this model.
For better representation of the multistage ZIP model, the
correlation between the difference in voltage deviation and the
difference in the power losses using ZIP load models with and
without multistage are quantified. From Fig. 17, it is seen that this
relation is linear, the difference in energy losses between the ZIP
model with and without multistage is increasing with an increase
in voltage deviation. ‘1%’ variation in voltage results in about
‘1.7%’ variation in system loss.
For further evaluation of ZIP load model, the impacts of EV
charging loads on the power congestion level have been measured
by implementing the ZIP model with and without multistage.
Power congestion level is the ratio of power flow to the total flow
of power demand during a day. Table 3 has presented the power
congestion level of some selected lines based on their location in
the test system. Normally, the loaded branches are expected to
Fig. 16 Voltage profile in multistage ZIP model with 10% PEVs compared
with the ZIP model
2713
 Table 4 Total network losses with different value of ZIP parameters for
25% EV penetration

Cases Stages Constant Constant Constant Total network

impedance current current loss (MW)
during PEV
charging

1 1 −0.00374 0.3111 0.6926 6.634041

2 0.002211 0.2322 0.7700
3 −0.00165 0.1638 0.8379
2 1 −0.1824 0.9949 −0.1773 6.50373
2 0.3240 0.8482 −0.1722
3 −0.00565 0.6638 0.3419
3 1 −0.00174 0.4111 0.5906 6.589255
2 −0.02211 0.3521 0.6700
3 0.2824 0.8949 −0.1773

Fig. 17 Correlation of voltage and loss variations between ZIP models with
and without multistage

Table 3 Total power congestion level of selected lines with 15% PEVs
Line number Multistage ZIP model ZIP model

L12 (12–13) 26.554631 35.953817

L27 (3–28) 38.886466 49.578219
L35 (3–36) 33.383367 43.645546
L52 (9–53) 5.2293392 7.8683221

reach high-power congestion level. As seen from Table 3, the most

stress is observed in the power congestion level of the ZIP load
model. The same can be observed from Fig. 18, it is seen that the
flow of power in the ZIP model during a day is higher than the
flow of power in the multistage ZIP model.
Since the EV charging load is incredibly growing in the whole
system, it is necessary to demonstrate in the simulation process the
effect of different parameters of the multistage ZIP model on the
network losses. For this investigation, the standard system was
tested with different ZIP values as shown in Table 4. There are
three cases that have been considered with different ZIP values for
each stage. The obtained results are graphically shown in Fig. 19
and demonstrated in the last column of Table 4. Please note that
Fig. 19 Network losses for 25% EV penetration with different value of ZIP
parameters as in Table 4
the ZIP values of Table 1 are used in the first case, while the ZIP
values used in cases 2 and 3 were hypothetically generated, which
are within the limits to meet the constrained as in (18). It is
observed from these results that the system behaviour can be
slightly changed when the ZIP values at different stages are
different due to the difference in the battery capacities and
technologies and their charging systems.
To assess the sensitivity of each ZIP load model, the topological
structure of the distribution system was reconfigured by adding tie
lines (the tie switches are connected between 46–65, 27–67 and
35–57) as seen in Fig. 8. It can be evidently observed from
Fig. 20 that in the reconfigured system the multistage ZIP model is
more accurate in representing the load demands and network
losses compared with the ZIP model. The obtained results here are
directly related to Figs. 11 and 12 that show the effectiveness of
the multistage ZIP model. Despite the new configuration of the
system, the realistic behaviour of the system during charging
activities can be seen clearly with the multistage ZIP model. This
is an indication that the proposed model can be effectively applied
to all kinds of topologies of the distribution systems.

6 Conclusion

In this paper, a multistage, time-variant load modelling technique has

Fig. 18 Power congestion level with 15% PEVs ‘L12 (12–13)’
been developed for EV charging load model and imbedded in ZIP
model. The EV battery charging load in a distribution grid has
been analysed by considering constant load model, and ZIP load
model without multistage and ZIP model with multistage
voltage-dependent load models. The impacts of EV charging parks

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2015, Vol. 9, Iss. 16, pp. 2705–2716
2714 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Tecnologica de Pereira. Downloaded on February 24,2020 at 04:24:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Fig. 20 Load demand and network loss profiles for 25% EV penetration when tie switches are closed
on the distribution system were quantified using the proposed
multistage time-variant load modelling technique and compared
with the results obtained from the use of ZIP model without
considering multistage. The results have revealed that the proposed
modelling technique can provide the accurate results compared
with the existing models. It has been observed that the voltage
profile, system losses and system load demand depend
significantly on the load and hence the use of accurate load model
is necessary to determine the true impacts of EV load on the
networks. It is established that EV integration into the power grid
should not be simply planned based on the results obtained from
the constant power load model which has been traditionally used,
as it does not provide the accurate EV load behaviour. It is also
established that the traditional ZIP model in its current form is not
suitable for planning of EV penetration in the electricity systems.
It is necessary to use a time-variant, multistage load modelling
technique to properly represent the EV load behaviour in a
time-series simulation. The proposed load modelling approach will
enable power utilities to quantify, in a realistic manner, the true
effects of EV charging load on the networks as well as on the
overall system demand while planning for high EV penetration in
the future.
7 References
1 Speidel, S., Jabeen, F., Olaru, D., et al.: ‘Analysis of Western Australian electric
vehicle and charging station trials’. Proc. Int. Conf. on Australian Transport
Research Forum, Perth, Australia, September 2012, pp. 1–12
2 Mota, L., Mota, A.: ‘Load modeling at electric power distribution substation using
dynamic load parameters estimation’, Electr. Power Energy Syst., 2004, 26, (10),
pp. 805–811
3 Clement-Nyns, K., Haesen, E., Driesen, J.: ‘The impact of charging plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles on a residential distribution grid’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2010,
25, (1), pp. 371–380
4 Fernandez, L., Roman, T., Cossent, R., et al.: ‘Assessment of the impact of plug-in
electric vehicles on distribution networks’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2011, 26, (1),
pp. 206–213
5 Mullan, J., Harries, D., Braunl, T., et al.: ‘Modelling the impacts of electric vehicle
recharging on the Western Australian electricity supply system’, Energy Policy,
2011, 39, pp. 4349–4359
6 Hugo, M., Tiago, S., Zita, V., et al.: ‘Evaluation of the electric vehicle impact in the
power demand curve in a smart grid environment’, Energy Convers. Manage.,
2014, 82, pp. 268–282
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2015, Vol. 9, Iss. 16, pp. 2705–2716
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Tecnologica de Pereira. Downloaded on February 24,2020 at 04:24:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
7 Jeffrey, S., Paul, D., Jiarui, D., et al.: ‘Modeling the impact of electric vehicle
charging on heat transfer around underground cables’, Electr. Power Syst. Res.,
2013, 97, pp. 76–83
8 Yunfei, M., Jianzhong, W., Nick, J., et al.: ‘A spatial–temporal model for grid
impact analysis of plug-in electric vehicles’, Appl. Energy, 2014, 114, pp. 456–465
9 Claus, K.: ‘On the synergy between large electric vehicle fleet and high wind
penetration – an analysis of the Danish case’, Renew. Energy, 2011, 36,
pp. 546–553
10 Robert, C., Lingfeng, W., Mansoor, A.: ‘The impact of plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles on distribution networks: a review and outlook’, Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev., 2011, 15, pp. 544–553
11 Deilami, S., Masoum, A., Moses, P., et al.: ‘Real-time coordination of plug-in
electric vehicle charging in smart grids to minimize power losses and improve
voltage profile’, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, 2011, 2, (3), pp. 456–467
12 Rotering, N., Ilic, M.: ‘Optimal charge control of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in
deregulated electricity markets’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2011, 26, (3),
pp. 1021–1029
13 Kristien, C., Edwin, H., Johan, D.: ‘The impact of vehicle-to-grid on the
distribution grid’, Electr. Power Syst. Res., 2011, 81, pp. 185–192
14 Qian, K., Zhou, C., Allan, M., et al.: ‘Modeling of load demand due to EV battery
charging in distribution systems’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2011, 26, pp. 802–810
15 Sortomme, E., Negash, A., Venkata, S., et al.: ‘Multistate voltage dependent load
model of a charging electric vehicle’. Proc. Int. Conf. on Transportation
Electrification Conf., Dearborn, MI, June 2012, pp. 1–5
16 Price, W., Wirgau, K., Murdoch, A., et al.: ‘Load modeling for power flow and
transient stability computer studies’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 1988, 3, (1),
pp. 180–187
17 Buchmann: ‘Battery University: charging lithium-ion’. Available at http://www.
batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/charging_lithium_ion_batteries, accessed on
March 2013,
18 Tremblay, O., Dessaint, L.: ‘Experimental validation of a battery dynamic model
for EV applications’, World Electr. Veh. J., 2009, 3, pp. 1–10
19 Johnson, V.: ‘Battery performance models in ADVISOR’, J. Power Sources, 2002,
110, pp. 321–329
20 Mi, C., Masrur, M., Gao, D.: ‘Hybrid electric vehicles: principles and applications
with practical perspectives’ (John Wiley and Sons Press, USA, 2011, 1st edn.)
21 Mendoza, A., Argueta, J.: ‘Performance characterization-GM EV1 Panasonic lead
acid battery’ (Southern California Edison, 2000), pp. 1–57
22 Madrid, C., Argueta, J., Smith, J.: ‘Performance characterization – 1999 Nissan
Altra-EV with lithium-ion battery’ (Southern California Edison, 1999), pp. 13–42
23 Les, M., Behnam, D.: ‘Laboratory measurements and models of modem loads and
their effect on voltage stability studies’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 1998, 13, (2),
pp. 584–592
24 José, R., Hamed, A., Lincol, B.: ‘Linear power-flow formulation based on a
voltage-dependent load model’, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 2013, 28, (3),
pp. 1682–1690
25 IEEE Task Force on Load Representation for Dynamic Performance: ‘Standard
load models for power flow and dynamic performance simulation’, IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., 1995, 10, (3), pp. 1302–1313
2715
26 Lindén, K., Segerqvist, I.: ‘Modelling of load devices and studying load/system
characteristics’. Technical Report No. 131L, Chalmers University of Technology,
Göteborg, Sweden, 1992
27 Marra, F., Traholt, C., Larsen, E., et al.: ‘Average behavior of battery-electric
vehicles for distributed energy studies’. Proc. Int. Conf. on Innovative Smart
Grid Technologies, Gothenburg, October 2006, pp. 1–7
28 Sainz, L., Mesas, J., Balcells, J.: ‘On electric vehicle battery charger modeling’.
Proc. Int. IEEE Power Quality Conf., 2011, pp. 1–5. Available at http://www.
icrepq.com/icrepq’11/350-sainz
29 Haidar, A.M.A., Kashem, M., Danny, S.: ‘Technical challenges for electric power
industries due to grid-integrated electric vehicles in low voltage distributions: a
review’, Energy Convers. Manage., 2014, 86, pp. 689–700
30 Leon, M., Vargas, R.: ‘Local voltage stability assessment for variable load
characteristics’. Master thesis, The University of British Columbia, 2009
31 Stephen, B., Lieven, V.: ‘Convex optimization’ (Cambridge University Press,
New York, USA, 2004)
2716
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Tecnologica de Pereira. Downloaded on February 24,2020 at 04:24:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
32 Ashtari, A., Bibeau, E., Shahidinejad, S., et al.: ‘PEV charging profile prediction
and analysis based on vehicle usage data’, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, 2012, 3, (1),
pp. 341–350
33 Kersting, W.: ‘Distribution system modeling and analysis’ (CRC Press, Taylor and
Francis Group, USA, 2007, 2nd edn.)
34 Baran, M., Wu, F.: ‘Optimal capacitor placement on radial distribution systems’,
IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 1989, 4, (1), pp. 725–734
35 Chin, H.: ‘Optimal shunt capacitor allocation by fuzzy dynamic programming’,
Electr. Power Syst. Res., 1995, 35, pp. 133–139
36 Chen, J., Ricardo, T., Diogo, S., et al.: ‘Method to assess the power quality impact of
plug-in electric vehicle’, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 2014, 29, (2), pp. 958–965
37 Dharmakeerthi, C., Mithulananthan, N., Saha, T.: ‘Impact of electric vehicle fast
charging on power system voltage stability’, Electr. Power Energy Syst., 2014,
57, pp. 241–249
38 Olivier, T., Louis-A., D., Abdel-Illah, D.: ‘A generic battery model for the dynamic
simulation of hybrid electric vehicles’. Proc. Int. Conf. on Vehicle Power and
Propulsion, Arlington, TX, September 2007, pp. 284–289
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2015, Vol. 9, Iss. 16, pp. 2705–2716
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015